RE: Shed Of The Week: Saab 900
Discussion
Turbobanana said:
There never was a "Coupe", just as there never was an E30 Coupe. It's a 3-door hatch, rather than a 5-door (the Saab, obviously, not the E30 - that was just a 2-door saloon). This was probably the biggest 3-door hatch available at the time, I would think
Did they drop the term "combi coupe" once the GM cars arrived?I had a classic 900i "sedan", and whilst I got close to subsequently buying a couple of GM Turbos there was something lost with the transition that ultimately meant I never had another Saab
Agreed on the E30, and IMO they should have stuck with "2-dr saloon" instead of introducing the "coupe" term in the E36
I love these cars
I have the 1996 2.3 SE auto convertible .
It is slow ,corners like a ferry but will never let yo down
With the roof down and Bobby Valentino on the sounds you cant beat it
Thats the reason why I like them all of them over 20 years old now and if you look after them they will look after you I am actually looking for another good se (hardtop) to run around in during the week
If however you own an RS Ferrari, lambo Aston or something like that you wont be impressed with this shed !
I have the 1996 2.3 SE auto convertible .
It is slow ,corners like a ferry but will never let yo down
With the roof down and Bobby Valentino on the sounds you cant beat it
Thats the reason why I like them all of them over 20 years old now and if you look after them they will look after you I am actually looking for another good se (hardtop) to run around in during the week
If however you own an RS Ferrari, lambo Aston or something like that you wont be impressed with this shed !
Edited by jeremyh1 on Friday 9th June 16:32
stewjohnst said:
I concur but then I do have a 2.0 turbo manual 2002 Aero Coupe that I parted with £800 for a month or so ago just sat waiting to take over commuting duties when the wife's lease car goes back next week 
Great cars overall, but start driving it before you have to rely on it. Find the annoying faults early on!That's from experience with little oil leaks it's a pain to trace and erratic electrical bits and pieces. Nothing that stopped me or caused a break down, but worth finding early nonetheless. Those oil leaks only happened with a bit of high rev, high oil pressure driving.
richinlondon said:
just bought a 2000 93 LPT convertible yesterday! These are definitely at the very start of being collectable (as the 900 has already become). It's lovely to drive and great condition, just need to figure out if I need a timing belt change now as it's unclear from the service history.
That is because it has a chain. 
Jimmy Recard said:
Great cars overall, but start driving it before you have to rely on it. Find the annoying faults early on!
That's from experience with little oil leaks it's a pain to trace and erratic electrical bits and pieces. Nothing that stopped me or caused a break down, but worth finding early nonetheless. Those oil leaks only happened with a bit of high rev, high oil pressure driving.
You mean minor faults like the slow leak of coolant on to the drive from a weeping washer somewhere and the slow drip of oil from somewhere impossible to find in the back of the engine bay? That's from experience with little oil leaks it's a pain to trace and erratic electrical bits and pieces. Nothing that stopped me or caused a break down, but worth finding early nonetheless. Those oil leaks only happened with a bit of high rev, high oil pressure driving.
stewjohnst said:
You mean minor faults like the slow leak of coolant on to the drive from a weeping washer somewhere and the slow drip of oil from somewhere impossible to find in the back of the engine bay?
That's the description!Not enough to stop the car, just enough to leave the odd mark on the driveway and really get to you
I had a NG900 2.0 16v for a while. It was a very handsome looking car, especially in black 3 door coupe form, and well built just a bit dull.
I sold it and bought a 9000 2.3 turbo from the same year and it really put the NG900 to shame. It felt miles ahead in terms of build quality, it was a 'proper' Saab.
I sold it and bought a 9000 2.3 turbo from the same year and it really put the NG900 to shame. It felt miles ahead in terms of build quality, it was a 'proper' Saab.
"....... is an extremely elegant and very usable classic from the glory days of Saab."
No. No it's not. It's a horrid thing that's missing the one thing that is synonymous with Saab. A turbocharged engine.
This was GM at its worst. Dropping in a crate motor off the shelf in an attempt to compete with the refinement offered by the Germans at the time. The NG900 was a hurried, underdeveloped car that should have least have been up to the standard of the later OG 9-3 before it came to market. A manual turbo is one thing, but an auto with a heavier V6 doesn't cut it for me.
Oh, I'm currently running my 10th Saab as a daily and had a 1996 manual turbo sensonic 'coupe' back in 1999. I had to spend quite a lot at Abbott Racing to get that anything like.
I like Saabs.
I loathe GM for their total and utter ignorance of Saab values and their blatant indifference to its slow, painful death.
No. No it's not. It's a horrid thing that's missing the one thing that is synonymous with Saab. A turbocharged engine.
This was GM at its worst. Dropping in a crate motor off the shelf in an attempt to compete with the refinement offered by the Germans at the time. The NG900 was a hurried, underdeveloped car that should have least have been up to the standard of the later OG 9-3 before it came to market. A manual turbo is one thing, but an auto with a heavier V6 doesn't cut it for me.
Oh, I'm currently running my 10th Saab as a daily and had a 1996 manual turbo sensonic 'coupe' back in 1999. I had to spend quite a lot at Abbott Racing to get that anything like.
I like Saabs.
I loathe GM for their total and utter ignorance of Saab values and their blatant indifference to its slow, painful death.
JMF894 said:
...the one thing that is synonymous with Saab. A turbocharged engine.
This was GM at its worst. Dropping in a crate motor off the shelf...
Because Saab never, ever did that before GM, did they?This was GM at its worst. Dropping in a crate motor off the shelf...
Saab never once designed an engine from a clean sheet of paper.
The two-smoke was based on a DKW design. The V4 was a buy-in. The slant-four started as a buy-in and got developed. The v6 was a buy-in. The later fours were a buy-in. All three diesels were buy-ins.
TooMany2cvs said:
Because Saab never, ever did that before GM, did they?
Saab never once designed an engine from a clean sheet of paper.
The two-smoke was based on a DKW design. The V4 was a buy-in. The slant-four started as a buy-in and got developed. The v6 was a buy-in. The later fours were a buy-in. All three diesels were buy-ins.
Well at least they were able to develop them back then, but to be fair if you need to emphasise the engine point you're kinda missing the point with where and how Saab were allowed to fail.Saab never once designed an engine from a clean sheet of paper.
The two-smoke was based on a DKW design. The V4 was a buy-in. The slant-four started as a buy-in and got developed. The v6 was a buy-in. The later fours were a buy-in. All three diesels were buy-ins.
JMF894 said:
Well at least they were able to develop them back then, but to be fair if you need to emphasise the engine point you're kinda missing the point with where and how Saab were allowed to fail.
No, I'm really not.Saab were thoroughly killed by GM, after years of neglect, compounded by the BLT dev costs shenanigans. This is not in doubt. Koenigsegg, Spyker and especially Antonov are accessories to murder, perhaps, but the whole GM tech rights/Youngman/Pang Da debacle was the coup de grace.
Volvo survived rebadged s
te like the original S/V40/Carisma-bypass - the NG900/9-3 wasn't quite as cynical as that.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff