Saab 900...

Author
Discussion

Kiltox

Original Poster:

14,621 posts

159 months

Friday 13th May 2011
quotequote all
These any good? Specifically a 2.0 automatic.

Not needing it to set the world on fire, just drive around it biglaugh

deveng

3,917 posts

181 months

Friday 13th May 2011
quotequote all
Showing their age nowadays.

Suspension was a bit of a weak link when I've encountered them in the past, lots of worn bushes especially

Kiltox

Original Poster:

14,621 posts

159 months

Friday 13th May 2011
quotequote all
Are they generally reliable? Don't know much about Saabs.

Need it to do ~3000 miles in 8 weeks and not leave me at the side of the M6 biglaugh

One I've seen is £250 with MOT until November eek

LuS1fer

41,141 posts

246 months

Friday 13th May 2011
quotequote all
I had a 1981 900 in the 80s and while it was a worthy enough car, I lost interest after being loaned a Cavalier Mk II 1.6 which seemed like a GTI in comparison. It rusted in the hatch and the engine mounts came loose which was odd. I did like it but these days I think it would really feel its age.

NiceCupOfTea

25,294 posts

252 months

Friday 13th May 2011
quotequote all
Kiltox said:
These any good? Specifically a 2.0 automatic.

Not needing it to set the world on fire, just drive around it biglaugh
Which shape? Classic (79-93) or GM (94-98)?

The classics are lovely old buses but condition is everything.

GM cars are not the last word in handling and the 2.0 is slow and very thirsty (especially attached to an auto box). The later the better. A comfy place to soak up the miles though.

Kiltox

Original Poster:

14,621 posts

159 months

Friday 13th May 2011
quotequote all
Ah sorry, it's a GM one, 1996.

NiceCupOfTea

25,294 posts

252 months

Friday 13th May 2011
quotequote all
As said, suspension will by sloppy but drive train is strong. It will be ruinously thirsty though - low 20s mpg? turbo is a more economical car!

Kiltox

Original Poster:

14,621 posts

159 months

Friday 13th May 2011
quotequote all
Woaaaaah seriously?

Damn. That's that out if it is frown

farrendahl

1,248 posts

175 months

Friday 13th May 2011
quotequote all
NiceCupOfTea said:
As said, suspension will by sloppy but drive train is strong. It will be ruinously thirsty though - low 20s mpg? turbo is a more economical car!
Tell me about it, currently run a first gen 9-3 and the fue economy leaves masses to be desired

Kiltox

Original Poster:

14,621 posts

159 months

Friday 13th May 2011
quotequote all
No way I can afford to do 3k miles at 20-25 MPG. Especially in something that isn't a V8 barge.

NiceCupOfTea

25,294 posts

252 months

Friday 13th May 2011
quotequote all
Sorry, they're heavy!

Have a look at 9000s, find a decent mid-90s turbo car (lpt/hpt, 2.0/2.3, just not the 2.0 n/a), manual, and you will see low 30s mpg easily. Much better car IMHO.

Kiltox

Original Poster:

14,621 posts

159 months

Friday 13th May 2011
quotequote all
TBH I'm on a hunt for anything legal for as close to £0.00 as possible, and a 900 came up in my search.

NiceCupOfTea

25,294 posts

252 months

Kiltox

Original Poster:

14,621 posts

159 months

Friday 13th May 2011
quotequote all
It's too far away, not close enough to £0.00 and insurance is a concern, else I would hehe

Toyota Carina for £295 it is, then rolleyes

Harji

2,200 posts

162 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
I had a GM one once, 1994 model, bought it 110,000, sold at 150,000. Worked like a dream. fantastic in a straight line (very comfortable), takes corners like a whale on a skateboard though. Huge boot as well, swallowed a washing machine once.

A very good workhorse, I had 2.0i manual and was getting 34mpg in everyday driving and alot of motorway miles.

Kiltox

Original Poster:

14,621 posts

159 months

Saturday 14th May 2011
quotequote all
The figures for the 2.0 auto suggest 25MPG combined hehe