Budget Saab/Volvo buying advice...

[white_goodman]

I'm looking at "changing up" the current fleet at the moment (3 year old full-size MPV and a MINI Cooper), as the kids are a bit older now and we no longer need the massive cargo space that the MPV offers and I have a new, longer commute with less B-roads and more motorway, so something more comfort-oriented than the MINI and possibly even a diesel auto for the commute might be pragmatic.

I'm thinking that I might regret downsizing to a saloon for the family car, so I'm thinking estate for the family car and having owned BMWs, Mercedes, VWs and driven plenty of Audis, I'm a little bored of the usual suspects and fancy trying something a bit different and have always fancied trying a Saab or Volvo. My wife does mainly local miles, so would be fine with petrol or diesel.

So for the family estate, I am considering:
Saab 9-3 Aero Estate (petrol manual)
Saab 9-5 Aero Estate (petrol manual)
Volvo V50 T5/D5 manual/Geartronic

For myself:
mk1 Volvo S60 D5 (probably auto)
Volvo C30 D5 (probably auto)
Saab 9-3 Aero convertible (petrol manual)

Budget for each car is 2-3k and I'm thinking probably one of each (one Saab and one Volvo). My preference for the estate would probably be the 9-5 because more space, more comfort, they seem like a step up in quality over the 9-3 and great value but my wife would probably prefer the size of the 9-3/V50. The early 2000s V70 isn't there because we're not a fan of how it looks (I always preferred the styling of the S60).

For the commuter, the Volvos would probably be more comfortable and economical and the autos good for driving in traffic. I love the T5 engine but am favouring the D5 because my experience with a mk2 Focus ST was that it was very juicy! I don't know what the petrol Saabs are like on fuel in comparison but I haven't owned a convertible for over 10 years and am approaching mid-life, which is why the 9-3 Cab appeals and maybe it's a bit more "fun" than the Volvos? I wasn't opposed to an auto on the Saabs but someone on another forum suggested that the manual Saab boxes were more reliable and better on fuel.

Any thoughts on any of the options would be much appreciated i.e. how do they compare for reliability, fuel economy, comfort and to drive? What's the best transmission to go for? Manual or auto on the Saabs and manual or Geartronic on the Volvos?

Edited by white_goodman on Tuesday 30th October 17:12

[rat840771]

I have the s60 d5 in manual and it’s a great car. Crap turning circle, boot and rear leg room. Engine is a peach, especially when mapped. With a manual you need to check that DMF and clutch slave cylinder is ok, mine failed and cost over 1k. 60,000 trouble free miles since then. You will be in budget on an S60 but v70 is a different story due to better size so for 2k you would get a knackered V70.

[philipbrown123]

A couple of months ago I bought a 2009 saab 93 diesel manual convertible for £6000. 2 owner car with FSH and 70,000 miles on the clock.

Early days but no problems so far.

[GreatGranny]

TBH I think the V50 will be too small for the main family car if you are use to an MPV so I would go 9-5 if you don't like the V70 styling.

Can't go wrong with the S60 D5 IMO.

Buy the best you can for £3k and you should get plenty of miles from it without issue.

We've always had at least one Volvo over the last 20 odd years and even the 2 XC90s were reliable and didn't throw up any big bills.

Currently commute 120 miles 4 days a week in a 13 reg V60 D3 manual which returns 50+ mpg in absolute comfort.

However I think I will go auto next.

[boyse7en]

I've been running a Saab 9-5 estate (six years) alongside a 9-3 petrol manual convertible (three years) and really like them.

[ninjag]

Mate at work has a 2006 9-3 2.8 V6 and to be honest I was shocked at how cheap the interior was. But I figure that was GM's interference. However, he does have it mapped to 320bhp with 550Nn of torque and it's old school feel and whilst it's pretty useless in 1st gear due to lack of traction (the XWD would really help here) when you pop it into second gear and beyond....it's frightening.

[alfabeat]

I bought a 9-3. 1.9tid automatic estate (2008) last year with 90k on the clock.

Super comfortable, done 15k in the last year, mostly trouble free. (new egr and alternator and wind screen washer pump) all of which I did myself and at fairly low cost. Normal 100k / 10 year old issues.

I love it. The auto is not bad, better in sport mode, as it is a bit more proactive than reactive.

Paid £3k for it with new cambelt/w pump/full mot and fsh. In excellent condition throughout.

[FlatToTheMat]

alfabeat said:

I bought a 9-3. 1.9tid automatic estate (2008) last year with 90k on the clock.

Super comfortable, done 15k in the last year, mostly trouble free. (new egr and alternator and wind screen washer pump) all of which I did myself and at fairly low cost. Normal 100k / 10 year old issues.

I love it. The auto is not bad, better in sport mode, as it is a bit more proactive than reactive.

Paid £3k for it with new cambelt/w pump/full mot and fsh. In excellent condition throughout.

I wouldn't call (new egr and alternator and wind screen washer pump) in just 15k 'mostly trouble free' ! :P

I am biased though, my wife also had a 1.9 150 TiD, it was horrendous. Not only was it devoid of any sort of driving dynamics but it creaked and rattled to buggery, something went wrong what felt like weekly and it even leaked. It was a pre-facelift mind you, maybe yours is better.

Prior to that a had a 9-5 Aero facelift, noobtuned pollybushed etc... quick in a straight line slow everywhere else. Nice interior, felt far better quality than the 9-3 but still not something id hanker for again other than sheer VFM. It was reliable enough until it needed a new cat at 80k miles!

Few notes on the 9-5, high MPG was possible with a feathered foot but long term average was circa 22mpg. Rear seats arent all that spacious, same goes for the 9-3. Seats bases are short and 3 abreast wasnt nearly as accommodating the e39 we had at the time, rear seat heaters only heat seat base.

Edited by FlatToTheMat on Wednesday 31st October 07:20

[grant8064]

I've had a 9-3 Aero 2.0T petrol auto for a while now and it's great. Downsides are the odd creak from the cabin plastics and low MPG figures. Upsides are comfy heated seats, decent enough load space and it's a SAAB!

I'd avoid an Aero if you want comfort...low profile tyres and bigger wheels don't help.

[white_goodman]

Thanks for all the replies. I'm pretty set on a Saab/Volvo estate but might be tempted to throw a CLK270CDI auto coupe and an E92 325d/330d/335d auto coupe into the commuter mix with the C30/S60/9-3 Cab. Are these a ticking time bomb in comparison to the Saabs/Volvos and do you get more car for your money with the Saab/Volvos? I get a little confused with BMW engines. Are the 325d/330d/335d all 6-pot diesels? 335d is a twin-turbo and the 325d/330d single turbo? I'm thinking the single turbo might be more reliable but I want the extra grunt and refinement of a 5/6-pot over a 4-pot diesel.

[boyse7en]

white_goodman said:

Thanks for all the replies. I'm pretty set on a Saab/Volvo estate but might be tempted to throw a CLK270CDI auto coupe and an E92 325d/330d/335d auto coupe into the commuter mix with the C30/S60/9-3 Cab. Are these a ticking time bomb in comparison to the Saabs/Volvos and do you get more car for your money with the Saab/Volvos? I get a little confused with BMW engines. Are the 325d/330d/335d all 6-pot diesels? 335d is a twin-turbo and the 325d/330d single turbo? I'm thinking the single turbo might be more reliable but I want the extra grunt and refinement of a 5/6-pot over a 4-pot diesel.

I don't know about the coupes, but a Saab 9-3 'vert will be a much better bet (in my experience) than a similarly-priced BMW 3 series vert. It will be a younger, lower mileage and (again, IME) better looked after.
When I looked at them, every BMW vert was either ratty or chavved up at my price range.

[white_goodman]

boyse7en said:

I don't know about the coupes, but a Saab 9-3 'vert will be a much better bet (in my experience) than a similarly-priced BMW 3 series vert. It will be a younger, lower mileage and (again, IME) better looked after.
When I looked at them, every BMW vert was either ratty or chavved up at my price range.

I thought as much and the E92 coupes look pretty expensive in comparison (although CLK270s are fairly cheap). I guess Saabs attract a more mature clientele at the lower budget level! A coupe/convertible appeals a bit more than a conventional hatch/saloon but obviously no coupe option in the Saab and a diesel engine in a convertible seems a bit weird!

[Aiminghigh123]

I have had my Saab 9-3 aero for a year. Paid £500 for it 120k now it’s on 143k so nearly 25k in a year. In that time had 2 services, wheel bearing, and part of the exhaust repaired. Outside of services repairs have cost me £500 so pretty cheap motoring. I do motorway driving and get around 40mpg at 65-70. If you get enthusiastic on B roads it drops to 25 quite easily and same around town.
Very comfortable, can be a bit crashy over bumpy roads. Rear leg room is almost non existent, I’m 6ft and all my mates are the same, 4 up is a squeeze.

[boyse7en]

white_goodman said:

I thought as much and the E92 coupes look pretty expensive in comparison (although CLK270s are fairly cheap). I guess Saabs attract a more mature clientele at the lower budget level! A coupe/convertible appeals a bit more than a conventional hatch/saloon but obviously no coupe option in the Saab and a diesel engine in a convertible seems a bit weird!

I've got the 2L petrol turbo version, and had it Noobtuned to 220hp. It gives me 40mpg on a motorway run at 70mph, or just over 30 in day-to-day running around town, so its not very thirsty.