Saab Question - Petrol/Diesel.......Auto/Manual
Discussion
Depends how many miles you do, what fuel consumption you're happy with etc.
Generally though, avoid the diesels. Same 1.9 engine as the Vectras, Alfas etc and full of issues.
I had a manual 2.8T V6 (Vectra VXR engine) running 300hp and 390lbft. It was a rocket ship! ...but crap on fuel.
Generally though, avoid the diesels. Same 1.9 engine as the Vectras, Alfas etc and full of issues.
I had a manual 2.8T V6 (Vectra VXR engine) running 300hp and 390lbft. It was a rocket ship! ...but crap on fuel.
FWIW, a mate of mine has a facelift '08 manual cabrio 1.8t - not had any reliability issues on it in about 2-3 years of ownership. Fuel economy seems reasonable for a 2.0 petrol. Lovely leather interior. Pretty decent refinement for a ragtop IMO. Not much more I can add from a passenger's perspective though 
Autocar did a buyers guide a few weeks ago, basically said the petrol engines are bomb proof and good for 300k miles...the diesel engines have the usual caveats you get with the 1.9 litre GM diesel engine!
I think the usual rule applies-if you do loads of miles buy diesel, if you dont buy petrol. Mate of mine has a manual 1.8t petrol cab and it goes very nicely. He commutes to London from B'mth and is averaging 37 MPG....
Probably the best all round petrol engine is the 2.0t 175 BHP...not that much slower than the aero but lower VED bracket and a bit gutsier than the 150 BHP. BTW, the 1.8 is not actually a 1.8 but a de-tuned 2.0 GM/saab petrol turbo!!
I think the usual rule applies-if you do loads of miles buy diesel, if you dont buy petrol. Mate of mine has a manual 1.8t petrol cab and it goes very nicely. He commutes to London from B'mth and is averaging 37 MPG....
Probably the best all round petrol engine is the 2.0t 175 BHP...not that much slower than the aero but lower VED bracket and a bit gutsier than the 150 BHP. BTW, the 1.8 is not actually a 1.8 but a de-tuned 2.0 GM/saab petrol turbo!!
I had a six speed 1.9tid 93 Diesel. No trouble at all, great for motorway cruising etc
Wife has 2.0t petrol 5 speed convertible. Kind of feels a gear short on the motorway but is a smoother engine.
Diesel averaged 45mpg, petrol 30mpg in real life driving..
I'd steer clear of auto as not the best & likely to need more attention, which could be a problem now Saab have gone under. I was tempted to but a new 93 auto (one of the last) but steered clear due to lack of new car warranty & complicated auto/paddle shift...
Wife has 2.0t petrol 5 speed convertible. Kind of feels a gear short on the motorway but is a smoother engine.
Diesel averaged 45mpg, petrol 30mpg in real life driving..
I'd steer clear of auto as not the best & likely to need more attention, which could be a problem now Saab have gone under. I was tempted to but a new 93 auto (one of the last) but steered clear due to lack of new car warranty & complicated auto/paddle shift...
We've got a 9-5 Aero estate. 2.3 turbo four, 250ps, manual. Does 27-ish miles per gallon day to day and will knock on the door of 40mpg on a long motorway run.
According to the official figures, the Aero models of the generation that we've got were the joint most economical petrol engines with the base 150bhp 2.0, with the intermediate engines slightly worse. Not a big difference, but I think the bottom line is that the more powerful four cylinder ones aren't any more thirsty. The V6 cars are thirstier, and the automatics.
According to the official figures, the Aero models of the generation that we've got were the joint most economical petrol engines with the base 150bhp 2.0, with the intermediate engines slightly worse. Not a big difference, but I think the bottom line is that the more powerful four cylinder ones aren't any more thirsty. The V6 cars are thirstier, and the automatics.
Had a 1.9 diesel for 3 years, the 150 bhp model. Nice car, and really nice to drive, but very unreliable, and I had a lot of problems with the particulate filter and the engine management failing because of this.
Shame really as it was a nice car, and luckily it was a company car, so I didn't have to cover any of the bills, but I wouldn't risk buying one.
Shame really as it was a nice car, and luckily it was a company car, so I didn't have to cover any of the bills, but I wouldn't risk buying one.
I had a 180bhp diesel and would stay clear unless you do mega miles. Had EGR failure, problems with the particulate filter and it kept going into limp home mode. Otherwise a very nice cruiser, great for motorway work. Regretted nit getting the auto as it would have made it a better wafter.
I also drove a 150bhp diesel with the auto box and really liked it, matched the car well.
I also drove a 150bhp diesel with the auto box and really liked it, matched the car well.
I have had a 1.9TID 150bhp 9-3 2005 car, I put 20k on it in 10months and only issue was the alternator at 60k which is common. Averaged high 50's low 60's to the gallon on a motorway run at 80mph. I did get it into the 70's average one day when I decided to cruise at 65.
Take into consideration that the 1.9TID is a belt driven engine.
I know have a 9-5 2004 Aero 2.3Turbo petrol.
Day to day its is a steady 28 / 30mpg, mine is an auto and that's been gentle with it. hoof it and it will drop alot.
Motorway commute which is what I do around 2k per month, I am as previously said getting 40mpg and thats not been a slouch.
Take into consideration that the 1.9TID is a belt driven engine.
I know have a 9-5 2004 Aero 2.3Turbo petrol.
Day to day its is a steady 28 / 30mpg, mine is an auto and that's been gentle with it. hoof it and it will drop alot.
Motorway commute which is what I do around 2k per month, I am as previously said getting 40mpg and thats not been a slouch.
jay140285 said:
I have had a 1.9TID 150bhp 9-3 2005 car, I put 20k on it in 10months and only issue was the alternator at 60k which is common. Averaged high 50's low 60's to the gallon on a motorway run at 80mph. I did get it into the 70's average one day when I decided to cruise at 65.
Take into consideration that the 1.9TID is a belt driven engine.
I know have a 9-5 2004 Aero 2.3Turbo petrol.
Day to day its is a steady 28 / 30mpg, mine is an auto and that's been gentle with it. hoof it and it will drop alot.
Motorway commute which is what I do around 2k per month, I am as previously said getting 40mpg and thats not been a slouch.
The fuel consumption figures you quote doesn't tie in with the manufacturer's consumption figures or any other 93 owners that I have met on the net so to speak. In fact, I just don't believe you Take into consideration that the 1.9TID is a belt driven engine.
I know have a 9-5 2004 Aero 2.3Turbo petrol.
Day to day its is a steady 28 / 30mpg, mine is an auto and that's been gentle with it. hoof it and it will drop alot.
Motorway commute which is what I do around 2k per month, I am as previously said getting 40mpg and thats not been a slouch.
I get 45-47 out of mine and its nearly all motorway on a daily 60 mile round trip commute.
I bought a leggy 122k 05 93 1.9TID 150 last june. Its had its issues.
New alternator
New intercooler
new track control arms
new wiper motor.
new vacume pipe
Other than that, its had servicing by me including water pump and cam belt as well as an oil change and new pads.
They are incredibly comfy over long distance and very practical. Boot is very big and the seats fold flat.
First gear is annoyingly short.
The tax on these has crept up to £170pa
Steering is a little lifeless IMO and the ride is a bit crashy too.
However, I quite like my Saab. I think the interior is a lovely place to sit
I'd replace with TTID Aero if I could justify it 
Driving style and traffic conditions can make a massive difference to fuel consumption. If you have a very laid back and considered driving style and you drive on relatively uncongested motorways, you will get much better fuel consumption than someone who spends his life in lane 4 of the M25 alternating between braking and clogging it. We're all in different places between those extremes.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff