Discussion
goneape said:
It looks like a 2004 on Aero with as few miles on it and preferably with the sump drop job done, if possible.
A 2004 will have the GM engine, and won't need a sump drop.SAAB Engine:
GM engine >2003 onwards:
You should get around 33mpg from the GM engine.
As already said - electrics can get iffy, and things can go haywire if the battery starts getting weak.
That said - [touch wood] ours has been very reliable.
J4CKO said:
goneape said:
Cheers again. The objective of this purchase isn't giant slaying performance, it's supposed to be a cost effective family bus and commuter with some PH appeal. I asked about the remap out of interest because my experience with the TT was much improved power/torque at better mpg, for my driving style and use, so I'd be interested again. But at the end of the day it's not the be all and end all, an upcoming house move and a couple of years refilling the kitty will see the Cerbera. Unless values launch ...
It looks like a 2004 on Aero with as few miles on it and preferably with the sump drop job done, if possible.
Isnt the sump thing for the first gen 9-3 with the Saab engines rather than GM units ?It looks like a 2004 on Aero with as few miles on it and preferably with the sump drop job done, if possible.
Edited by aeropilot on Monday 30th March 13:42
Ive got 56 1.8t cab,
quite pleased with it, don't rule out a cabriolet,
its every bit the same as a normal car, until the sun comes out, then its transformed
and the later ones have a better stereo as well, get on Autotrader and have alook
J4cko on here said he preferred my 1.8t to his Aero because it was a smoother ride,
quite pleased with it, don't rule out a cabriolet,
its every bit the same as a normal car, until the sun comes out, then its transformed
and the later ones have a better stereo as well, get on Autotrader and have alook
J4cko on here said he preferred my 1.8t to his Aero because it was a smoother ride,
03 plate 9-3 Aero here.
110k, stage 1 map (250bhp / 370nm torque)
03 onwards won't need a sump drop, turbos are good for mega miles.
Oil changes every 6k is beneficial.
I average 27mpg but I don't do long journeys.
Trip computer said 39.6mpg on a 100 mile motorway journey (no traffic).
Touch wood - everything still works on mine, heated seats, electric memory seats, climate, cruise, all the bells and whistles etc.
There's loads on the market so you can afford to be fussy.
Mine;
110k, stage 1 map (250bhp / 370nm torque)
03 onwards won't need a sump drop, turbos are good for mega miles.
Oil changes every 6k is beneficial.
I average 27mpg but I don't do long journeys.
Trip computer said 39.6mpg on a 100 mile motorway journey (no traffic).
Touch wood - everything still works on mine, heated seats, electric memory seats, climate, cruise, all the bells and whistles etc.
There's loads on the market so you can afford to be fussy.
Mine;
Edited by Jonjo91 on Monday 30th March 16:12
Sorry for the thread hijack...
Saabists, I was thinkig about buying a 9/5 Aero estate for the next family car. I seem to dimly remember some issue with the autoboxes on these cars but wonder if I'm confusing them with Volvos? I suppose a just pre-2006 Aero with an automatic box (I could go manual but prefer auto on day-to-day cars) would be the one to go for.
Are the auto gearboxes ok on these cars. And the engine sludge thing. Is that just earlier cars?
I'd really appreciate some help. My W124 days are over I think - they've just got a bit too silly price wise. I might buy a clean W210 but I've never had a Saab and I'd like one.
Many thanks,
Saabists, I was thinkig about buying a 9/5 Aero estate for the next family car. I seem to dimly remember some issue with the autoboxes on these cars but wonder if I'm confusing them with Volvos? I suppose a just pre-2006 Aero with an automatic box (I could go manual but prefer auto on day-to-day cars) would be the one to go for.
Are the auto gearboxes ok on these cars. And the engine sludge thing. Is that just earlier cars?
I'd really appreciate some help. My W124 days are over I think - they've just got a bit too silly price wise. I might buy a clean W210 but I've never had a Saab and I'd like one.
Many thanks,
W124 said:
Are the auto gearboxes ok on these cars.
The 5-speed Asin-Warner auto's on the 2002+ cars are excellent auto's, and have don't have any real big issues, although, like most other auto's, older and very leggy cars might well be showing general wear and tear by now.MY old 2004 9-5 Aero was an auto, and IMHO, it was better suited to the engine than the somewhat agricultural manual box.
W124 said:
And the engine sludge thing. Is that just earlier cars?
Yup, post 2004 (specifically Sept 2003 onwards build) should be OK (again, as long as serviced and maintained to the book)aeropilot said:
W124 said:
Are the auto gearboxes ok on these cars.
The 5-speed Asin-Warner auto's on the 2002+ cars are excellent auto's, and have don't have any real big issues, although, like most other auto's, older and very leggy cars might well be showing general wear and tear by now.MY old 2004 9-5 Aero was an auto, and IMHO, it was better suited to the engine than the somewhat agricultural manual box.
W124 said:
And the engine sludge thing. Is that just earlier cars?
Yup, post 2004 (specifically Sept 2003 onwards build) should be OK (again, as long as serviced and maintained to the book)Many people sump drop 2004 9-5s too, just out of paranoia, but they are typically OK.
My 2002 most definitely wasn't
So what's the difference(s) between the Saab 2.0T and GM 2.0T engines? Is there a preference for either? I don't have much love for Astras, Vectras etc although my objection arises from a part time job with a rental firm in 2002 which used almost exclusively Vauxhall models, which at the time were hateful plasticky tombs of despair inside. Petrol engines seemed OK, dag dags, less so.
j4ckos mate said:
Ive got 56 1.8t cab,
quite pleased with it, don't rule out a cabriolet,
its every bit the same as a normal car, until the sun comes out, then its transformed
and the later ones have a better stereo as well, get on Autotrader and have alook
J4cko on here said he preferred my 1.8t to his Aero because it was a smoother ride,
Yeah, the ride on the Aero is pretty hard, they tend to bang into potholes and rattle your teeth out in a most un-Saablike way.quite pleased with it, don't rule out a cabriolet,
its every bit the same as a normal car, until the sun comes out, then its transformed
and the later ones have a better stereo as well, get on Autotrader and have alook
J4cko on here said he preferred my 1.8t to his Aero because it was a smoother ride,
blade7 said:
Rude-boy said:
People who buy Saabs are not doing it to fit in with the heard.
Pardon ?mikey k said:
What are the 93X's like
I'm contemplating a 2.0T petrol one as our "bus" in place of a Forester 2.5XT
Can't answer your question on the 9-3x but I really do enjoy the Turbo X. Potential money pit if not cared for mind with the haldex gubbins and I imagine this may also be the case for the 9-3x.I'm contemplating a 2.0T petrol one as our "bus" in place of a Forester 2.5XT
As others have mentioned it seems almost everything is electric on this car. The battery died a week (not used much by the previous owner) after purchasing mine and absolutely nothing worked. It turned out to be little more than a minor inconvenience and a trickle charger purchased from Halfords sorted it out over a few days.
aeropilot said:
W124 said:
Are the auto gearboxes ok on these cars.
The 5-speed Asin-Warner auto's on the 2002+ cars are excellent auto's, and have don't have any real big issues, although, like most other auto's, older and very leggy cars might well be showing general wear and tear by now.MY old 2004 9-5 Aero was an auto, and IMHO, it was better suited to the engine than the somewhat agricultural manual box.
W124 said:
And the engine sludge thing. Is that just earlier cars?
Yup, post 2004 (specifically Sept 2003 onwards build) should be OK (again, as long as serviced and maintained to the book)Bonefish Blues said:
aeropilot said:
W124 said:
Are the auto gearboxes ok on these cars.
The 5-speed Asin-Warner auto's on the 2002+ cars are excellent auto's, and have don't have any real big issues, although, like most other auto's, older and very leggy cars might well be showing general wear and tear by now.MY old 2004 9-5 Aero was an auto, and IMHO, it was better suited to the engine than the somewhat agricultural manual box.
W124 said:
And the engine sludge thing. Is that just earlier cars?
Yup, post 2004 (specifically Sept 2003 onwards build) should be OK (again, as long as serviced and maintained to the book)Many people sump drop 2004 9-5s too, just out of paranoia, but they are typically OK.
My 2002 most definitely wasn't
W124 said:
Cheers! How much would it be for a sump drop roughly? As you may have ascertained, I am to mechanical understanding as Richard Hammond is to improvised comedy.
Circa £250 at a specialist. You'll be in the higher VED for an 06 of auto, only a couple of tanks of fuel over the year, but worth pointing out. For me, the 9-3 drives better, but the 9-5 has a far better interior build quality.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff