RE: SOTW: Saab 9-5 Aero HOT
Discussion
Owned a 52 plate 9-5 Aero for 2 years, from 60k to 100k. Absolutely loved it.
The talk of Autos being poor in comparison to the manual is no different to any other similar car IMO. A 540i manual vs. a 540i Auto will provoke similar opinions. Mine was the post '01 5-speed auto, which is apparently better than the previous 4-speed box. The ONLY thing that puts me off another is the auto gearbox on mine was on its way out, so punted it on via eBay.
When I sold it a Russian bought it to break it and send the parts to Russia.
In the time I had it, issues I had were:
- DI cassettes needed replacing. Engine light came on (on holiday on the Amalfi coast), but it managed another 2000 miles without a problem. Cost about £200 for recon replacement from local Saab indie.
- Front tyres. It ate them.
- Alarm went doo-lally. The siren back-up battery dies, and the result is random siren related issue, where the alarm goes off in the middle of the night. I removed the wheel arch cover and just removed the siren.
- rear heater was stuck on hot - common issue. There's a fix, I never bothered with it.
- gearbox "clunked" when engaging drive. Got worse until I was waiting for it to die completely - it would put you 10 feet down the road if you didn't keep your foot on the brake. Couple of Saab indies shrugged their shoulders and said it was when, not if.
On the plus side:
- very, very comfortable. Seats are amazing, and if you get the right year, they are very well appointed - even the rears are heated.
- mid-range is fantastic. Ok, 0-60 figures may not be impressive, but on the motorway, it never lacked.
- build quality was great overall. Never had an issue with rattles or squeaks.
- maybe the dispute over mpg depends on individual examples, or driving styles. Around town, it was mid-20's, but a 130 mile commute I averaged 32-34mpg. Fill it up, reset the computer, get on the motorway and the comp. would show 38-40mpg. The computer was usually 1-2mpg out.
In comparison, I currently drive an E39 535i. The BMW feels more like a "premium" product, but the 9-5 was quicker, more comfortable, better MPG (30mpg average vs 24mpg),
In fact, the mot on the E39 is due in a few weeks. Think this thread has persuaded me to get a new mot on it and move it on, go back to a 9-5 Aero. The Mrs will be happy, she puts up with the E39 but adored the Saab.
The talk of Autos being poor in comparison to the manual is no different to any other similar car IMO. A 540i manual vs. a 540i Auto will provoke similar opinions. Mine was the post '01 5-speed auto, which is apparently better than the previous 4-speed box. The ONLY thing that puts me off another is the auto gearbox on mine was on its way out, so punted it on via eBay.
When I sold it a Russian bought it to break it and send the parts to Russia.
In the time I had it, issues I had were:
- DI cassettes needed replacing. Engine light came on (on holiday on the Amalfi coast), but it managed another 2000 miles without a problem. Cost about £200 for recon replacement from local Saab indie.
- Front tyres. It ate them.
- Alarm went doo-lally. The siren back-up battery dies, and the result is random siren related issue, where the alarm goes off in the middle of the night. I removed the wheel arch cover and just removed the siren.
- rear heater was stuck on hot - common issue. There's a fix, I never bothered with it.
- gearbox "clunked" when engaging drive. Got worse until I was waiting for it to die completely - it would put you 10 feet down the road if you didn't keep your foot on the brake. Couple of Saab indies shrugged their shoulders and said it was when, not if.
On the plus side:
- very, very comfortable. Seats are amazing, and if you get the right year, they are very well appointed - even the rears are heated.
- mid-range is fantastic. Ok, 0-60 figures may not be impressive, but on the motorway, it never lacked.
- build quality was great overall. Never had an issue with rattles or squeaks.
- maybe the dispute over mpg depends on individual examples, or driving styles. Around town, it was mid-20's, but a 130 mile commute I averaged 32-34mpg. Fill it up, reset the computer, get on the motorway and the comp. would show 38-40mpg. The computer was usually 1-2mpg out.
In comparison, I currently drive an E39 535i. The BMW feels more like a "premium" product, but the 9-5 was quicker, more comfortable, better MPG (30mpg average vs 24mpg),
In fact, the mot on the E39 is due in a few weeks. Think this thread has persuaded me to get a new mot on it and move it on, go back to a 9-5 Aero. The Mrs will be happy, she puts up with the E39 but adored the Saab.
I'm a very long term sotw fan but never posted on anything. Felt the need to sign up today just to comment on this car. Was surprised to see this car as sotw, bit like seeing family on tv, as went to see this car before buying my d5 s60. Anyway the seller seems really honest and car is in great nick (rear dent is t as bad as appears in pic!) And its fast! Really fast! Only reason I didn't buy was really didn't like look of ugly auto stick. Rub ish reason but its true. If interested then def worthwhile.......
rockafella8587 said:
I remember that episode, im sure he said it accelerated faster than a Ferrari 360 from 40-70 or whatever it was.
Back in the days of the Lotus Carlton - I remember reading What Car and noticing that the Saab 9000 Carlsson had some faster in-gear acceleration times than the Lotus...Obviously being turbo cars you have to choose your stat to suit the boost but it's not actually that surprised, Saabs have been been cars short of power (just not always power than could use as much as you'd like!)
p.s. taken from another thread in this very forum (top gear being a bit of a cheat perhaps)
Edited by 405dogvan on Saturday 5th January 01:17
(even a boggo model!)
GavGav said:
The talk of Autos being poor in comparison to the manual is no different to any other similar car IMO. A 540i manual vs. a 540i Auto will provoke similar opinions.
Yup - completely agree. I drove a 2003 9-5 Aero Estate Auto recently with 300+ bhp (stage 3), then got back into my own Aero Saloon Manual with 275/280bhp (stage 1) afterwards & it was much quicker. I know the estates are heavier etc, but the auto box was the definite achilles heel of the stage 3 car.Anyone reading this thread who thinks 'that's it, I'm buying me a Saab' - please do your research beforehand; plenty of buyers guides on UKSaabs & SaabScene, and plenty of people there to give you 2nd opinions. Buy the spec you want, as adding bits afterwards (like leather, alloys, cruise, parking sensors) all costs money - better to start with a well specced car. There were many changes in standard & optional equipment over the years, the 2003 Aero's being the best - electric seats, heated leather seats front & back, auto wipers, dimming rear view mirrors, folding mirrors, xenons, harman kardon 9 speaker sounds. The 2004 model Aero (like mine) got xenons, electric drivers seat only, heated front seats, mid-range 7 speaker stereo, dimming mirror, leather & xenons only - you had to pay for everythng else. But the 2004 was facelifted (pics above) which I also think was the best looking 9-5.
There are lots of aftermarket tuning suppliers out there too - Abbott Racing, Maptun/NeoBros, Noobtune to name but a few.
mikeyr said:
Interesting, never had any desire to own a Saab before but that seems a bargain way to cruise around. Fuel consumption poor I guess?
BTW, most amusing SOTW article for some time, normally flick through and then read advert but genuinely had my attention the whole way through. Good article that man!
I owned a manual 9-5 HOT on 02 plate. Used to average 33mpg on my daily commute (about 5 miles each way). On a motorway run I used to challenge myself to get exactly 40mpg.BTW, most amusing SOTW article for some time, normally flick through and then read advert but genuinely had my attention the whole way through. Good article that man!
Of all the cars I've said goodbye to the Saab is the one I miss the most. Of course there was the superbly comfortable seats and the night button for the dash and the way that other drivers were nice to you. Pretty soon you just take these for granted - I mean why would you actually choose to commute in a car that is uncomfortable to sit in? Then there was all the little things that showed Saab had really thought about how people actually use a car; like the car-park-ticket holder clip on the A-pillar so you could just grab the ticket and slip it in there (instead of putting a clip behind a sun visor that is awkward to fold down and back up again). But compared to my current car (a wafty Audi V8) the thing I miss the most is that in order to get the best from it you actually had to drive it. Work that slightly heavy gearbox and keep the turbo in its sweet spot. It was a man's car and I miss it badly.
aeropilot said:
9-5 engine bay is no more cramped than a Vectra 
The 3.0Tid is only worth a punt, if the car comes with documentation that proves it had a dealer fitted engine factory engine replacement dated after 2004, which would mean it has one of the 'fixed' engines.
These engine replacements cost Saab over £8k at the time, and they did a few and generally these post 2004 replacement engines appear to have held up well
If no documentation, then run a mile, as has been said.
I was only repeating hearsay, hence the 'apparently' The 3.0Tid is only worth a punt, if the car comes with documentation that proves it had a dealer fitted engine factory engine replacement dated after 2004, which would mean it has one of the 'fixed' engines.
These engine replacements cost Saab over £8k at the time, and they did a few and generally these post 2004 replacement engines appear to have held up well
If no documentation, then run a mile, as has been said.
But yeah. Whatever the reason make sure that it is a replacement engine.
I had a 9-5 several years back. It cost to more to run overall than the 944 S2 I was using beforehand and the P38 Range Rover diesel I bought afterwards. Make no mistake about it back then if you even blinked at the main dealer network these where blooming expensive cars, much less so via independents and run in shed mode i.e. don't bother fixing things.
Stuff like rear bushes did my head in, replaced my set twice in 3 years.
Stuff like rear bushes did my head in, replaced my set twice in 3 years.
A very well-timed SOTW for me, I fly out to Warsaw at the end of the month to collect a blue estate my father-in-law drove over there and then parked up for what seems like forever. The 1300 mile drive back appeals to me much more than when I last did it in a Puma with a boot full of Polish sausage.
I'm currently running a 2000 9-5 LPT which I picked up last Feb for £500.
Great car, excellent seats, well finished and plenty of room. Sure I could spend a few quid on it to tighten things up a little, won't be making that decision until MOT time in September.
Easily one of the best sheds I've owned.
Great car, excellent seats, well finished and plenty of room. Sure I could spend a few quid on it to tighten things up a little, won't be making that decision until MOT time in September.
Easily one of the best sheds I've owned.
Walter Sobchak said:
I had a W reg one about 6 years ago it was a manual but never felt that quick, (the boost never went into the red section of the gauge)
Then it was broken. A HOT on overboost in 3rd cog is a genuinely rapid thing. If I was in a previous banzai turbo nutter wagon at 50mph I suspect I may have been enabarrised.
On a fast lane motorway roll, I suspect it would give the Elise something to think about.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff