Discussion
goneape said:
... What can possibly go wrong?
The early Aero model (2003) came fitted with a Secondary Air Injection system (SAI) It’s a small vacuum cleaner motor that pumps fresh air into the exhaust on cold start to warm the cat. However, there is a non-return value that eventually becomes blocked and sticks open, allowing hot exhaust gases to reach the pump, which condense to become water and ruin it. Once the pump is knackered the O2 sensor in the exhaust will detect a lack of oxygen and as a result on every 2nd cold start the EML is illuminated until you resolve the situation, I.E. new pump and valve (Not cheap nor easy to find, nor easy to reach when replacing) SAAB quickly realised this system caused more problems than it addressed and removed it from around 2004 onwards with an ECU update that cannot be retro-fitted.
Also, I've seen weak 2nd gear syncros that produce a crunchy change when the gearbox oil is cold but almost unnoticeable when warm. So have a good go through the gears from cold start.
goneape said:
Thanks. The TT has a SAI system as well I think but no issues here at 145k. Back to engines, if they're so different can I expect significant differences in drivability, mpg etc? Will I notice?
I think you're going off track slightly here.The Saab engine is only fitted in the 9-5 and previous generation (up to 2003) 9-3, NOT in the post 2003 9-3 (or 9-3SS as it used to be referred to when it first came out) which you were initially asking about and which only have the later GM sourced (Saab modified) engine.
The 9-5 is a much bigger car, and older generation of design, so the engine differences would be the least of your concerns when comparing the two)
DrDoofenshmirtz said:
blade7 said:
Rude-boy said:
People who buy Saabs are not doing it to fit in with the heard.
Pardon ?zmike said:
DrDoofenshmirtz said:
blade7 said:
Rude-boy said:
People who buy Saabs are not doing it to fit in with the heard.
Pardon ?
very good!!
.W124 said:
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
Uksaabs is definitely your friend - loads of threads refer...
aeropilot said:
I think you're going off track slightly here.
The Saab engine is only fitted in the 9-5 and previous generation (up to 2003) 9-3, NOT in the post 2003 9-3 (or 9-3SS as it used to be referred to when it first came out) which you were initially asking about and which only have the later GM sourced (Saab modified) engine.
The 9-5 is a much bigger car, and older generation of design, so the engine differences would be the least of your concerns when comparing the two)
OK thanks. I'm going to make some new mates on uksaabs!The Saab engine is only fitted in the 9-5 and previous generation (up to 2003) 9-3, NOT in the post 2003 9-3 (or 9-3SS as it used to be referred to when it first came out) which you were initially asking about and which only have the later GM sourced (Saab modified) engine.
The 9-5 is a much bigger car, and older generation of design, so the engine differences would be the least of your concerns when comparing the two)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff