Saab 9-3 2.0t (02 onwards). Talk to me.
Discussion
Baryonyx said:
I remember seeing in some other thread there was mention of a bulkhead or engine mounting issue that will eventually cause all these cars to fail their MOT's but I can't remember specifics. That worried me as I had always liked these cars.
Can't find the thread you mention. Any chance you could help me out?Baryonyx said:
I remember seeing in some other thread there was mention of a bulkhead or engine mounting issue that will eventually cause all these cars to fail their MOT's but I can't remember specifics. That worried me as I had always liked these cars.
Thats the earlier model, and mine never did it.I have the Aero model and its ok, goes well as its remapped, the 2.0t isnt as powerful but still a nice engine, solid build apart from the trim which looks ok but is a million miles of the Germans, not the most reliable but mines been ok by and large, handle well but isnt the last word in fun, think they are a good looking car, especially the Aero with its side skirts and stuff, mine is a bit lower on Eibach springs (originals can and do crack) and the Eibachs dont and lower it 20 mm or so and improve the ride as are dual rate rather than rock hard originals.
Gear change is not great on the manual, cabrios a bit slower and dont handle as well, auto dulls Aero performance, Aero auto cab is a million miles away from what you would expect performance wise.
Parts prices for disks, pads and suspension arent to bad from Ebay and German/Swedish, Euro etc,
Waits for someone to call it a Vectra, yes it is based on the GM Epsillon platform but is quite different in that its shorter and Saab use cast alloy parts where the Vauxhall gets pressed steel, different springs, dampers and roll bars.
They are ok, not as good to drive as a three series, kind of a bit more upmarket and different to a Mondeo or a Vectra but not real competition for the Audi's and BMW's, but I dont think the comparable A4 is that great to drive anyway but bother are a lot more expensive.
On this age they didn't suffer from the bulkhead that was the previous model. On this they never did a HOT model, either.
There was a 2.0t which wasn't available in aero spec (this is similar to say m sport)
Then they did the 2.0T with Aero (maybe without) which is 210hp, good engine on a timing chain.
Also did a 2.8T V6 which is what I've got. Which is the same engine from the Vectra VXR. It's also pretty quick.
Handles quite well, surprised me. Not much feel though.
There was a 2.0t which wasn't available in aero spec (this is similar to say m sport)
Then they did the 2.0T with Aero (maybe without) which is 210hp, good engine on a timing chain.
Also did a 2.8T V6 which is what I've got. Which is the same engine from the Vectra VXR. It's also pretty quick.
Handles quite well, surprised me. Not much feel though.
If it's past 2002 and is the 9-3 SS then it does not suffer from any of the earlier issues with engine sludge or cracking bulkheads. Pre-2002 it had the weakened Saab engine. It went from being able to cover a million miles down to not even being able to manage 50k in some cases. The Saab 9-5 continued with this compromised engine for quite a few years longer than the 9-3 but I think that was eventually replaced with Vauxhall engines.
The engine is a Vauxhall Ecotech in disguise.
The 9-3ss is a reliable modern european car.
My father bought one of these a few years ago and its not skipped a beat. I serviced it last year and everything seemed to be in order. Likes to eat a few tyres though.
Personally I find it slow compared with my ancient Saab convertible. My dad finds it boring. But if you want a car which is medium everything then there's nothing better. Does not offend in any way. Just does not charm in any way either.
The engine is a Vauxhall Ecotech in disguise.
The 9-3ss is a reliable modern european car.
My father bought one of these a few years ago and its not skipped a beat. I serviced it last year and everything seemed to be in order. Likes to eat a few tyres though.
Personally I find it slow compared with my ancient Saab convertible. My dad finds it boring. But if you want a car which is medium everything then there's nothing better. Does not offend in any way. Just does not charm in any way either.
The older ones did feel faster, I had a 9-3 150 lpt (lovely engine that) and when I got the Aero with 210 bhp it didnt feel much quicker, may have been refinement or having a chassis capable of handling the power, perhaps being heavier but it needed the remap to give it a decent hike over the previous one which was pretty much as quick as a Cooper S and a CTR, in a straight line anyway, I think it was more like 170 odd bhp and mine was the "Club Sport" model, i.e. no aircon or anything, or poverty spec as most none Porsche models with no kit are called.
Aero was the top end model, it got lower and stiffer suspension, a bigger turbo, 210 bhp, six speed box, bigger brakes, vented rear brakes and a kit that really sets it off. I think Saab did half a job as at 210 bhp it is ok and quite pokey but doesnt deliver what it promises, remap gives it a bit of drama but cost £600, it is very torquey with 288 lb ft now, not exactly a characterful engine that chases the redline, tend to run out of puff much above 5000 rpm and doesnt make an interesting noise, can run with some quite quick stuff, E46 M3 cab didnt seem any quicker considering it has almost 100 bhp more.
Trim is a bit crap, surface coatings wear off, too many squeaks and rattles, strange as they built a very well engineered solid car easily a match for Audi mechanically and then ruined it, the tactile bits by using cheapo trim ruining the perceived quality, strangely the Vectra seemed to use better interior materials, that said it looks nice and the seats are good, stereos are a bit poxy, check the cd changer doesnt jump, replacing it expensive and like a lot of it has to be "married" to the car.
Aero was the top end model, it got lower and stiffer suspension, a bigger turbo, 210 bhp, six speed box, bigger brakes, vented rear brakes and a kit that really sets it off. I think Saab did half a job as at 210 bhp it is ok and quite pokey but doesnt deliver what it promises, remap gives it a bit of drama but cost £600, it is very torquey with 288 lb ft now, not exactly a characterful engine that chases the redline, tend to run out of puff much above 5000 rpm and doesnt make an interesting noise, can run with some quite quick stuff, E46 M3 cab didnt seem any quicker considering it has almost 100 bhp more.
Trim is a bit crap, surface coatings wear off, too many squeaks and rattles, strange as they built a very well engineered solid car easily a match for Audi mechanically and then ruined it, the tactile bits by using cheapo trim ruining the perceived quality, strangely the Vectra seemed to use better interior materials, that said it looks nice and the seats are good, stereos are a bit poxy, check the cd changer doesnt jump, replacing it expensive and like a lot of it has to be "married" to the car.
I had an aero 2.0 t and it looked great and was a decent size for the family, the downside was it depreciated faster than any car i have ever owned, it fuel economy was sub 20 mpg, the front spring broke, brakes went (i kept it serviced regularly) the timing chain went and that is just the stuff i remember. i bought it for 14k at around 2 years old in 2005 sold it 18 months later for £5675. I am still sore
yeah, basically all the printing wears off the buttons so you end up with loads of white buttons everywhere. That used to happen on the really old saabs as well on the window switches.
The 9000 Aero was a proper savage. The manual was 225hp from the factory but a free remap (using internet software) gets it up to 300hp on the standard hardware. Obviously you are pushing things to the max by then but it will still hit it once or twice which is all you need on a road car. That was the old Saab engine at its best.
The problem with a lot of modern turbos is that the manufacture will fit it with a pretty standard gearbox and then map all the boost out of it.
Even in the 1980s Saab were doing this. For the 1994 Saab 9000 they introduced boost limiting in 1st and 2nd to protect the transmission. By the time you get to the 2000s with things like the 9-5 and 9-3 the boost curve ramps up really slowly and then ramps down again as you get to the red line. No more neck-snapping boost. It really pisses on the fireworks. It's for exactally this reason that a standard Saab 9000 Aero will crap all over a standard Saab 9-5 Aero. I've had that race.
It's also the same reason my 635csi was all over the back of a mates Lexus IS300 (that's the 3-litre straight 6 version) The is300 was always fast once you got going but getting off the line the Lexus was so slow as the ECU was torque limiting to prevent wheelspin and transmission damage. Overall the 635 was very slightly faster than the Lexus but it would take 1/2 a mile to get up to his rear bumper.
The 9000 Aero was a proper savage. The manual was 225hp from the factory but a free remap (using internet software) gets it up to 300hp on the standard hardware. Obviously you are pushing things to the max by then but it will still hit it once or twice which is all you need on a road car. That was the old Saab engine at its best.
The problem with a lot of modern turbos is that the manufacture will fit it with a pretty standard gearbox and then map all the boost out of it.
Even in the 1980s Saab were doing this. For the 1994 Saab 9000 they introduced boost limiting in 1st and 2nd to protect the transmission. By the time you get to the 2000s with things like the 9-5 and 9-3 the boost curve ramps up really slowly and then ramps down again as you get to the red line. No more neck-snapping boost. It really pisses on the fireworks. It's for exactally this reason that a standard Saab 9000 Aero will crap all over a standard Saab 9-5 Aero. I've had that race.
It's also the same reason my 635csi was all over the back of a mates Lexus IS300 (that's the 3-litre straight 6 version) The is300 was always fast once you got going but getting off the line the Lexus was so slow as the ECU was torque limiting to prevent wheelspin and transmission damage. Overall the 635 was very slightly faster than the Lexus but it would take 1/2 a mile to get up to his rear bumper.
Yes, forgot to mention, it is epically crap on fuel, hence why buying a 540i or pretty much anything isn't a stretch fuel wise, reckon for mine on my commute its 20 mpg, can do 34 if driven like a nun, on a run with the wind behind it, they are not an economical car in petrol form, fairly heavy, a turbo that makes you want to feel the performance, my old one used to get 27 mpg.
J4CKO said:
Trim is a bit crap, surface coatings wear off, too many squeaks and rattles, strange as they built a very well engineered solid car easily a match for Audi mechanically and then ruined it, the tactile bits by using cheapo trim ruining the perceived quality
Blame GM. They designed a 'killer' interior that would have cost US $600 more than what the car ended up with, the general said no and ended up lobbing $10,000 worth of 'incentives' from the sticker price to shift them. 900T-R said:
Blame GM. They designed a 'killer' interior that would have cost US $600 more than what the car ended up with, the general said no and ended up lobbing $10,000 worth of 'incentives' from the sticker price to shift them.
Does not surprise me one iota, seems a shame people base most quality perceptions on the stuff they actually touch despite never touching anything that actually matters in terms of safety or performance, still they should now that (GM) seeing as they were trying to compete with those who totally knew it.My wife has owned 2.0t convertible for 3 years. Never missed a beat.. Pretty thirsty & rubbish stereov(Es2-7, fibre optic muppetry makes it uneconomic to upgrade). Soft suspension which you could say is a good thing on third world road surfaces (Berkshire). Not a bad car for the money..
Sorry for the late replay but thanks for all the help. Managed to get a drive of one on Friday and really enjoyed it. Looks great externally and the interior is a bit different to the norm, which I like. The 175 brake version I drove had ample power - I planted my foot in 2nd at 30 and before I knew it, and without any drama, I was at nearly twice that speed. I know to some that sound odd but my present motor has almost half the power, and none of the mid-range grunt of a turbo block. All in I'm now seriously considering one of these, but I'll soon have my own what car thread cluttering up GG, with some of the alternatives that are also on the back burner.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff