1 2 3
tb
tb GRM+ Memberand Reader
2/5/11 10:18 p.m.

Another SAAB? Without Hesitation. I imagine anyone who spends any amount of time driving one vigorously recognizes them as a real driver's car.

My 9k is not the largest, fanciest or most powerful car I have ever driven, but it absolutely prowls the asphalt like a destroyer on patrol, a true ground superiority fighter. She has as much soul as the half dozen Italian cars it would take to equal her cargo capacity and is as technologically sound as any German at a fraction of the cost.

Post '98 cars do not excite me, but are not exactly boring either.

procainestart
procainestart Dork
2/5/11 10:18 p.m.
WilberM3 wrote: i'm looking at 9000's on CL now too, are there any differences between models and/or years i should be concerned about?

You do not want one with traction control system (TCS) -- it has a VERY expensive throttle that, when dead -- and they do die -- puts the car in limp home mode, and I mean limp home. You'll want to check Saab forums but I think TCS was on some 93, 94 (all??), and 95 (some??). My friend's 94 Aero, which, incidentally has ~310K miles on it, HAULS and looks like it's got 75k, had a TCS throttle die; I think he paid $900 for a new or rebuilt one.

The 2.3L cars (90+, IIRC) are faster, and the Trionic-equipped cars faster still (IIRC, 94 was the first year for Trionic). The Aero was the fastest variant; manual transmission-equipped Aeros got a bigger Turbo than auto-equipped Aeros. In 98 (97, too??) they had a non-Aero that had the same balls as the Aero (225hp) -- I think it was a CSE model?? Aero seats don't fold flat in back, a consideration if you want to carry stuff. They do, however, have sweet Recaro-sourced front seats.

The Trionic system has been hacked: an app called T5Suite lets you do whatever you want to fuel/spark/boost. There's a forum and other enthusiast support; google is yer friend.

Do NOT buy ANY 9000 with a V6; they are E36 M3ty engines that came from GM and had, like, a 30,000-mile timing belt change interval. The deal was, GM thought Americans would buy more 9000s if they put a V6 in them.

I'm told the rear seats on the CD models, which had a trunk, not a hatch, do not fold down, again, a consideration if you're going to haul stuff.

There used to be great buyer's guide at a site called quasimotors.com but I think it fell off the internet. Maybe look at saabcentral.com and saabnet.com for buyer's guides.

While I'm puking out random crap about 9000s, note that they are comfortable, fast cruisers -- but, in my opinion, they are not handlers, and they are not nearly as fun to drive as my classic 900s.

tb
tb GRM+ Memberand Reader
2/5/11 10:28 p.m.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:
WilberM3 wrote: i'm looking at 9000's on CL now too, are there any differences between models and/or years i should be concerned about?
They're all pretty much the same. Later ones are the heaviest, with the best interior, and curvier looks. Later ones are also harder to find in manual. The 2.3 is a better motor than the 2.1, and makes more power anyways. Ideally, you'd want the earliest 2.3T 5spd you can find.

Interesting... I prefer the later years ('96-'98)

No (chronically broken) traction control, Upgraded engine electronics & just plain better looking

iirc, the 2.3 is basically a stroked 2.0 and so is slightly less rev happy but makes much better torque with similar economy. Parts are fairly interchangeable between years and models and ecu re-flashes are simple.

Proper care is the most essential aspect of SAAB ownership, so in this age group it really comes down to the quality of the example that is in front of you...

tb
tb GRM+ Memberand Reader
2/5/11 10:34 p.m.
procainestart wrote: While I'm puking out random crap about 9000s, note that they are comfortable, fast cruisers -- but, in my opinion, they are not handlers, and they are not nearly as fun to drive as my classic 900s.

I agree with everything said in that informative post and I would never classify the 9k as particularly nimble. That being said, my $1k beater managed it's way around the cones faster then a lot of other cars at the challenge...

I will just leave this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwpzhiNurI0

mad_machine
mad_machine GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
2/6/11 11:16 a.m.

my $300 Classic 900 has recently turned into a $1000 Classic 900.. but it still has to be the bargan on the century. If only all FWD cars could handle as well as my almost quarter of a million mile saab

92CelicaHalfTrac
92CelicaHalfTrac SuperDork
2/6/11 12:33 p.m.
tb wrote: Another SAAB? Without Hesitation. I imagine anyone who spends any amount of time driving one vigorously recognizes them as a real driver's car. My 9k is not the largest, fanciest or most powerful car I have ever driven, but it absolutely prowls the asphalt like a destroyer on patrol, a true ground superiority fighter. She has as much soul as the half dozen Italian cars it would take to equal her cargo capacity and is as technologically sound as any German at a fraction of the cost. Post '98 cars do not excite me, but are not exactly boring either.

I still want yours....

I had a 91 2.3T Aero, and it was an animal. Of course, as par for the course for me, it ended up with a large turbo and torque steer enough to cross counties sideways with each application of the loud pedal.

thestig99
thestig99 Reader
2/6/11 2:15 p.m.
WilberM3 wrote: i'm looking at 9000's on CL now too, are there any differences between models and/or years i should be concerned about?

'93 is an off year. Specific transmission, older engine, ALL TCS, specific engine management (Trionic 5.2, rather than 5.5 like the later ones).

TCS was an option in '94-5, and gone for the last few years. It can be costly and complicated.

To the original question, yes I would

Have owned a '92 900S, '95 900S, '99 9-3, '95 900SE, '96 900SE, and currently have a '96 9000 Aero and '91 9000 Turbo. Family has owned them for the last 15-20 years.

All but the '99 9-3 have been awesome.

I'll echo what everyone else has said about 9000 Aeros. Mine has 240k and it still drives better than a lot of much younger cars. With a light ECU reflash it will fairly easily pull away from my brothers' '06 9-3 Aero. I put 15k on it last summer and the only thing I had to do was an O2 sensor, which was bad when I bought it.

The '91 is a modded basket case, but damn that thing is fun.

belteshazzar
belteshazzar SuperDork
2/6/11 3:33 p.m.

In the course of being a car dealer I got stuck with a '00~ish 9-5 with a turbo4 and 5sp tranny. I had kind of high hopes for it being an interesting car. The dashboard was lit up like a christmas tree with all the warning lights. The displays that were supposed to be lit up were partially burned out. And my Maxima would have left it for dead in any contest of speed.

That's my only recent experience.

hotrodlarry
hotrodlarry Reader
2/6/11 10:19 p.m.

I'd buy another one. Preferably a '88 to '93 c900.

My ''96 Tahoe is almost ready to head off the road for good, and I'm looking for a 4 door car that gets better mpg than the bus. I've entertained the idea of a Saab, but rust free models around here are hard to find.

NickF40
NickF40 Reader
2/6/11 11:20 p.m.

Yes I would

mad_machine
mad_machine GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
2/7/11 7:45 a.m.
hotrodlarry wrote: I'd buy another one. Preferably a '88 to '93 c900. My ''96 Tahoe is almost ready to head off the road for good, and I'm looking for a 4 door car that gets better mpg than the bus. I've entertained the idea of a Saab, but rust free models around here are hard to find.

You may have to go looking. my $300 Classic 900 has some small rust issues.. but nothing that cannot be cut out, welded in, and finished in a weekend's worth of work.

Rusted_Busted_Spit
Rusted_Busted_Spit GRM+ Memberand Dork
2/7/11 8:41 a.m.

In reply to belteshazzar:

You need to go for a ride in a 9-5 Aero, vastly different experience.

1 2 3
Our Preferred Partners
kztZC6rZrOtcRj0jk1u8Oog01GNwUzikrsAnnfdVg5XwVg3gAHdlVOGpO0cobTFq