RE: Saab 9-5 HOT Aero Estate | Shed of the Week
Discussion
Gez79 said:
If it had only been registered 3 days earlier then it would have qualified for the lower VED rate rather than £555 a year!
I like 9-5 Aero's but for me this has the wrong wheels, wrong gearbox, wrong VED rate and it's the awful facelift model. That GM interior is terrible. Plus it's a cat d.
Plenty of others available at shed prices without those issues.
It was registered 26/05/16. It would have to be 2 months earlier, not 3 days. I think you confused May with March there! I like 9-5 Aero's but for me this has the wrong wheels, wrong gearbox, wrong VED rate and it's the awful facelift model. That GM interior is terrible. Plus it's a cat d.
Plenty of others available at shed prices without those issues.
Mind you, the 'lower' rate is still £325 p.a.
It's seems all I do is post in Saab threads on this site, but I just love sharing my love of these old sheds. For the money you really can't go wrong, however I'd look elsewhere before buying this example.
I just picked up a '53 plate 9-5 Aero with 91000 miles for only £1100 with FSH, so better bargains are out there! Also, don't believe the talk that the B235R can hold 350bhp, any more than 320 will result in the rods and pistons saying goodbye to this cruel world. Ask me how I know this...
I just picked up a '53 plate 9-5 Aero with 91000 miles for only £1100 with FSH, so better bargains are out there! Also, don't believe the talk that the B235R can hold 350bhp, any more than 320 will result in the rods and pistons saying goodbye to this cruel world. Ask me how I know this...
Back in my yoof I had a job for a year working as a driver for the local Vauxhall franchise. A 9-5 saloon came back in against an Omega and the car was then allocated to the drivers to be used to ferry us all around doing the collections and deliveries. We all thought it was brilliant. Plush leather, comfortable ride and amusingly fast. It lasted all of about 6 weeks (and one pair of front tyres) until the sales manager realised that it was costing him an absolute fortune for us to continue hooning around in "our" Sweedish opu-barge and we were all stuck back in a truly hateful 1.0 Corsa B.
chazza114 said:
I just picked up a '53 plate 9-5 Aero with 91000 miles for only £1100 with FSH, so better bargains are out there! Also, don't believe the talk that the B235R can hold 350bhp, any more than 320 will result in the rods and pistons saying goodbye to this cruel world. Ask me how I know this...
YMMV.. Mine was ~350 for 25k miles without issue. I then jumped up 100hp more and went for forged pistons but rods are still standard... V8fan said:
Gez79 said:
If it had only been registered 3 days earlier then it would have qualified for the lower VED rate rather than £555 a year!
I like 9-5 Aero's but for me this has the wrong wheels, wrong gearbox, wrong VED rate and it's the awful facelift model. That GM interior is terrible. Plus it's a cat d.
Plenty of others available at shed prices without those issues.
It was registered 26/05/16. It would have to be 2 months earlier, not 3 days. I think you confused May with March there! I like 9-5 Aero's but for me this has the wrong wheels, wrong gearbox, wrong VED rate and it's the awful facelift model. That GM interior is terrible. Plus it's a cat d.
Plenty of others available at shed prices without those issues.
Mind you, the 'lower' rate is still £325 p.a.
In my defence I'm full of man flu!
Equus said:
grumpy52 said:
For someone who does such low mileage as me they could be spending more on VED than fuel each month .
You've not seen the fuel consumption on one of these, then? 
I replaced mine with a Mercedes S500 (nat. asp 5.5 litre V8), and saw a marginal improvement in fuel efficiency...
The E500 that replaced it is 10mpg worse everywhere.
Mr E said:
Ours averaged low 30’s, and 38ish on a decent run.
The E500 that replaced it is 10mpg worse everywhere.
You must have a very light right foot, then: I never managed much better than 26mpg, mainly rural driving. The S500 was a touch better, at 27-28mpg.The E500 that replaced it is 10mpg worse everywhere.
Even on a long motorway run, 38 would have been a fantasy - when I really tried, I could coax it up to 32-33.
Mine was an auto, like the one in the ad I should stress - I've no doubt that the manuals would be a bit better.
Lazadude said:
YMMV.. Mine was ~350 for 25k miles without issue. I then jumped up 100hp more and went for forged pistons but rods are still standard...
Ah fair enough, just from my experience I had a piston go after going Stage 3+, but then again my car had 5 previous owners with a mixed service history, so I didn't expect it to last long. Just out of interest, what mileage and age is yours?Equus said:
You must have a very light right foot, then: I never managed much better than 26mpg, mainly rural driving. The S500 was a touch better, at 27-28mpg.
Even on a long motorway run, 38 would have been a fantasy - when I really tried, I could coax it up to 32-33.
Mine was an auto, like the one in the ad I should stress - I've no doubt that the manuals would be a bit better.
Manual. And mpg taken from the computer so probably optimistic. It was a better than the 156 that preceded it. Even on a long motorway run, 38 would have been a fantasy - when I really tried, I could coax it up to 32-33.
Mine was an auto, like the one in the ad I should stress - I've no doubt that the manuals would be a bit better.
chazza114 said:
Ah fair enough, just from my experience I had a piston go after going Stage 3+, but then again my car had 5 previous owners with a mixed service history, so I didn't expect it to last long. Just out of interest, what mileage and age is yours?
56 plated, just hit 95k miles. Equus said:
You must have a very light right foot, then: I never managed much better than 26mpg, mainly rural driving. The S500 was a touch better, at 27-28mpg.
Even on a long motorway run, 38 would have been a fantasy - when I really tried, I could coax it up to 32-33.
Mine was an auto, like the one in the ad I should stress - I've no doubt that the manuals would be a bit better.
Pretty much my experience, I've averaged 23 mpg over my ownership (auto), with 36 being the best I've ever got. (55/60mph in one motorway run etc)Even on a long motorway run, 38 would have been a fantasy - when I really tried, I could coax it up to 32-33.
Mine was an auto, like the one in the ad I should stress - I've no doubt that the manuals would be a bit better.
Edited by Lazadude on Friday 29th November 11:31
Equus said:
grumpy52 said:
For someone who does such low mileage as me they could be spending more on VED than fuel each month .
You've not seen the fuel consumption on one of these, then? I replaced mine with a Mercedes S500 (nat. asp 5.5 litre V8), and saw a marginal improvement in fuel efficiency...
Mr E said:
Equus said:
You must have a very light right foot, then: I never managed much better than 26mpg, mainly rural driving. The S500 was a touch better, at 27-28mpg.
Even on a long motorway run, 38 would have been a fantasy - when I really tried, I could coax it up to 32-33.
Mine was an auto, like the one in the ad I should stress - I've no doubt that the manuals would be a bit better.
Manual. And mpg taken from the computer so probably optimistic. It was a better than the 156 that preceded it. Even on a long motorway run, 38 would have been a fantasy - when I really tried, I could coax it up to 32-33.
Mine was an auto, like the one in the ad I should stress - I've no doubt that the manuals would be a bit better.
Having driven one of these for a weekend, when hiring something lower and getting a nice surprise from the hire company with an upgrade, I soon found out regretting their act of kindness.
This "semi automatic" gearbox was the worst gearbox in the world, ever. Semi? It was more like terraced, and I am not talking end of terrace, I'm talking a mid terrace two up, two down that used to exist next to a long gone cotton mill in Hewood, Greater Manchester ( nee Lancashire ), one that has been pebble dashed and has that 3d wall paper that "hides a multitudes of sins"
Multitude of sins would be a good way to describe that gearbox. Not only was it dog slow it had a mind of it's own. The one I drove had little flipper things on the wheel, I seem to recall, which when used would pull on a piece of string connected to a cog and then down something made out of reindeer hide to activate the ecu. It would then come back with
https://youtu.be/AJQ3TM-p2QI?t=47
and by that time the 200+bhp had lost it's appeal.
Apart from one thing.
Going out of a junction whilst stationary just ram your foot straight through the floor, letting hours of pent up frustration loose on the dumbfeck drivetrain, wiping the front tyres instantly into a smokey oblivion whilst Mrs Shed says:-
"Do you have to do that?"
And unlike the computer in the car, you can happily say
"YES"
This "semi automatic" gearbox was the worst gearbox in the world, ever. Semi? It was more like terraced, and I am not talking end of terrace, I'm talking a mid terrace two up, two down that used to exist next to a long gone cotton mill in Hewood, Greater Manchester ( nee Lancashire ), one that has been pebble dashed and has that 3d wall paper that "hides a multitudes of sins"
Multitude of sins would be a good way to describe that gearbox. Not only was it dog slow it had a mind of it's own. The one I drove had little flipper things on the wheel, I seem to recall, which when used would pull on a piece of string connected to a cog and then down something made out of reindeer hide to activate the ecu. It would then come back with
https://youtu.be/AJQ3TM-p2QI?t=47
and by that time the 200+bhp had lost it's appeal.
Apart from one thing.
Going out of a junction whilst stationary just ram your foot straight through the floor, letting hours of pent up frustration loose on the dumbfeck drivetrain, wiping the front tyres instantly into a smokey oblivion whilst Mrs Shed says:-
"Do you have to do that?"
And unlike the computer in the car, you can happily say
"YES"
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff