RE: Saab 900 S | Shed of the Week
Discussion
silva bika said:
Draxindustries1 said:
Not a 'classic', not a 'collectors item'.
'Increasing in value'....' reduced to sell'
Very mundane uneconomical , expensive to run car renowned for engine sludge problems..
Saab's "sludge problem" was a result of the oil pick-up having an exceptionally fine mesh, designed to prevent dirt being circulated. Unfortunately, in doing this it reduced oil flow, particularly to the balance shaft chain on the B23 engines, thereby creating the myth that they produced excessive sludge.'Increasing in value'....' reduced to sell'
Very mundane uneconomical , expensive to run car renowned for engine sludge problems..
Bispal said:
That was a truly great function. One of of the reasons I sold an S5 Audi was because I could not turn the central screen off or even down, it was exceedingly annoying on long night time motorway trips. Whenever I buy a car now I purposely seek out something without a screen, its getting very, very difficult to do now. Even cars from 20 years ago had optional screens popping out of the top of the dash like a hideous wart in the interior. I have a 17 year old Subaru Forester now as a DD and it doesn't have the sat nav screen, instead it has a very handy storage cubby in the top of the dash. Why do cars have these anyway, everyone uses their phones for sat nav. £4.5k Porsche option that no-one uses and is out of date in 3-5 years.
CarPlay on a cars screen dies away with the car manufacturers systems. Personally I’d ratter have my maps etc displayed on something larger than my phone. The screens I’ve had in BMW’s have all been easy to turn off at night especially with the programmable short cut buttons.Had a 2.0 non turbo in 3 door guise of a similar vintage. It was imo a good looking car and gave me no trouble, it did however have terrible handling and overly light steering feel, they were well renowned for the bulk heads cracking.
I replaced it with a 9000 2.3 turbo from the same year and that was a much better car in every conceivable way.
I replaced it with a 9000 2.3 turbo from the same year and that was a much better car in every conceivable way.
Garett said:
Had a 2.0 non turbo in 3 door guise of a similar vintage. It was imo a good looking car and gave me no trouble, it did however have terrible handling and overly light steering feel, they were well renowned for the bulk heads cracking.
I replaced it with a 9000 2.3 turbo from the same year and that was a much better car in every conceivable way.
Really could not get 'on board' with the 9000..just another big, band executive barge. Totally devoid of 'saabness' in my opinion.I replaced it with a 9000 2.3 turbo from the same year and that was a much better car in every conceivable way.
Garett said:
Had a 2.0 non turbo in 3 door guise of a similar vintage. It was imo a good looking car and gave me no trouble, it did however have terrible handling and overly light steering feel, they were well renowned for the bulk heads cracking.
I replaced it with a 9000 2.3 turbo from the same year and that was a much better car in every conceivable way.
I think was a Running Report or Update feature towards the back of CAR Magazine that I want to say James May wrote but may've been Paul Horrell that stated it handled awfully and like it had tyres filled with cement. I replaced it with a 9000 2.3 turbo from the same year and that was a much better car in every conceivable way.
GM really know how to screw up chassis, and the ageing Cavalier/Vectra platform ruined the Saab 900.
With the Turbo and especially its Aero version the car feels more and more unstable at the front axle the faster you go. Before long you reach V1 takeoff speed, just like the Saab jet fighters shown in their TV advertisement!
With the Turbo and especially its Aero version the car feels more and more unstable at the front axle the faster you go. Before long you reach V1 takeoff speed, just like the Saab jet fighters shown in their TV advertisement!
carinaman said:
Garett said:
Had a 2.0 non turbo in 3 door guise of a similar vintage. It was imo a good looking car and gave me no trouble, it did however have terrible handling and overly light steering feel, they were well renowned for the bulk heads cracking.
I replaced it with a 9000 2.3 turbo from the same year and that was a much better car in every conceivable way.
I think was a Running Report or Update feature towards the back of CAR Magazine that I want to say James May wrote but may've been Paul Horrell that stated it handled awfully and like it had tyres filled with cement. I replaced it with a 9000 2.3 turbo from the same year and that was a much better car in every conceivable way.
BFleming said:
My Saab ownership consisted of 9-5s (2.0 LPT Auto, 2.2TiD Linear Sport and Aero). The Aero was my favourite by a country mile, but it was also the most mechanically fettled - LSD, Polybushed, Mapped, JamSaab shifter etc. My recommendation to anyone buying a Saab is to buy a manual petrol with a turbo. The bigger the turbo, the better.
A colleague had a Y-reg 9-3 3-door (not a coupe as pointed out above) in Aero guise. That had 400bhp when he'd finished with it; an amazing drive. He ended up stripping it out and using it once as a track car, then it sat there for various reasons on his drive doing nothing. Not sure where it ended up.
Worst Saab drive for me was a N-reg 9000 LPT, being sold at a local Saab specialist when I lived in Beckenham. Although it was only 5 years old at the time, it was very disappointing - and I really wanted to like it as a big fan of the other Type 4 cars. Just felt too... wallowy / creaky. Ended up with an E36 Touring instead (320i) which was a great car.
This week's shed... too low end for a Saab. And too automatic.
You seem surprised A colleague had a Y-reg 9-3 3-door (not a coupe as pointed out above) in Aero guise. That had 400bhp when he'd finished with it; an amazing drive. He ended up stripping it out and using it once as a track car, then it sat there for various reasons on his drive doing nothing. Not sure where it ended up.
Worst Saab drive for me was a N-reg 9000 LPT, being sold at a local Saab specialist when I lived in Beckenham. Although it was only 5 years old at the time, it was very disappointing - and I really wanted to like it as a big fan of the other Type 4 cars. Just felt too... wallowy / creaky. Ended up with an E36 Touring instead (320i) which was a great car.
This week's shed... too low end for a Saab. And too automatic.
that the Saab was ‘very disappointing’ and the BMW ‘was a great car’. BMW’s are great cars and with the odd exception for the last 30 years over 20 of them have been in BMW’s.
Saab no longer exists
It’s not hard to see why. The mostly well informed public thought the same and bought Audi’s, BMW’s, Mercedes and Jaguars in their thousands. It’s the same on the used market. At this price level and of a similar size, it has to be the Alfa 159 or Ford Mondeo.
carinaman said:
Garett said:
Had a 2.0 non turbo in 3 door guise of a similar vintage. It was imo a good looking car and gave me no trouble, it did however have terrible handling and overly light steering feel, they were well renowned for the bulk heads cracking.
I replaced it with a 9000 2.3 turbo from the same year and that was a much better car in every conceivable way.
I think was a Running Report or Update feature towards the back of CAR Magazine that I want to say James May wrote but may've been Paul Horrell that stated it handled awfully and like it had tyres filled with cement. I replaced it with a 9000 2.3 turbo from the same year and that was a much better car in every conceivable way.
I know this car. I had one. I suggest getting the 9-3 facelift. This 900 one drove like a dog. The later 9-3 which looked the same (before it became the 9-3 saloon) was based on the much better Vectra platform, they are about the same price second-hand, I would strongly recommend getting the later.
They are tanks, really reliable (my lasted 20 years), the heating will pack up on you, and the auto is nice and laidback, much suited to the lazy petrol engine - the low pressure turbo model I had was rather quick and would fool the boy racer!
They are tanks, really reliable (my lasted 20 years), the heating will pack up on you, and the auto is nice and laidback, much suited to the lazy petrol engine - the low pressure turbo model I had was rather quick and would fool the boy racer!
Stigwallah said:
I know this car. I had one. I suggest getting the 9-3 facelift. This 900 one drove like a dog. The later 9-3 which looked the same (before it became the 9-3 saloon) was based on the much better Vectra platform, they are about the same price second-hand, I would strongly recommend getting the later.
They are tanks, really reliable (my lasted 20 years), the heating will pack up on you, and the auto is nice and laidback, much suited to the lazy petrol engine - the low pressure turbo model I had was rather quick and would fool the boy racer!
No standard Saab fools any boy racers nowadays, they don’t have 1.2 Corsas any more.They are tanks, really reliable (my lasted 20 years), the heating will pack up on you, and the auto is nice and laidback, much suited to the lazy petrol engine - the low pressure turbo model I had was rather quick and would fool the boy racer!
They have Golf R’s, M140i’s etc, which will murder every Saab out there, the old stuff about in gear acceleration doesnt apply any more as everything is 300 bhp plus and also has a turbo.
A Fiesta ST is quick enough to match anything they ever built.
I do however remember wondering why my LPT felt so quick for what it was.
pSyCoSiS said:
I have always admired the quirkiness of these cars.
Strong build quality, especially the 80s and early 90s models.
Had a couple of 9-5 version, including the 2.3 HOT. Would love a 9000 Carlsson.
C900 was a quality car for sure, owned a load of them. 95 Aero hot and 9000 were big dissapointments to me I'm afraid. Strong build quality, especially the 80s and early 90s models.
Had a couple of 9-5 version, including the 2.3 HOT. Would love a 9000 Carlsson.
Stigwallah said:
I know this car. I had one. I suggest getting the 9-3 facelift. This 900 one drove like a dog. The later 9-3 which looked the same (before it became the 9-3 saloon) was based on the much better Vectra platform, they are about the same price second-hand, I would strongly recommend getting the later.
They are tanks, really reliable (my lasted 20 years), the heating will pack up on you, and the auto is nice and laidback, much suited to the lazy petrol engine - the low pressure turbo model I had was rather quick and would fool the boy racer!
From what I've heard the concept of a shared platform didn't translate too well from German into Swedish.They are tanks, really reliable (my lasted 20 years), the heating will pack up on you, and the auto is nice and laidback, much suited to the lazy petrol engine - the low pressure turbo model I had was rather quick and would fool the boy racer!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff