Buying Saab Diesel

[Norfolk Jim]

Ok guys several of you will remember me having 9-5 Aero est and then a 55 Reg 2.2 tid est Vector Sport which was sold back in Dec.

I now have a Volvo V70 D5 SE Geartronic 54 reg with 133k on it. It is amazingly economical and beautiful sounding engine but I've had various issues with one being the alarm - just like Saab!! Litttle headaches like the ACC blowing cold one side then hot etc and now an ABS error message. I also have a slight concern on the gearbox which is same as in 9-5 Aisin Warner 50 - 55......... changed ATF and runs ok with slight flaring but........................is it sign of doom.

Cut the chase - I look like I can get about £3.5k for the Volvo and would like to get back into Saab now parts seem more available.

I'm used to 9-5's having had a 98 SE 2.3 est Abbottised to 265, then had a 2003 Aero auto est Abbottised to 300 and then a 55 Reg 2.2Tid Vector Sport est Hirsched but never tried the Dame Edna version in 1.9tid guise or any later 9-3 est's.

I have a budget of possibly £4k and noticed there are quite few 2007 year 9-5 Vector Sport with 1.9 engine and several 9-3's in facelift guise.

What problems should I anticipate with 9-5 tid or were most resolved 2006 - 07........I'd want a manual but did it ever get 6 speed?? If I looked at a 9-3 Vector Sport will the ride be that much firmer/jittery? compared to 9-5 and what about their reliability. I have heard the 1.9 in 9-5 has less problems than 1.9 in 9-3 but the 9-3 might be a 2007 model as some about.

Thoughts please gents to enable me to make right decisions - I know many of you are very experienced with both. Shame I can't stretch to Ttid version.................

many thanks

NJ

[collywobble]

The mechanics in my local Vauxhall dealer don't speak very highly of the 1.9TiD engine - but an awful lot were made and fitted to Vauxhalls, Saabs and Fiats and you do see a lot advertised with over 100k on the clock.  I have have a feeling that a lot depends (as it really does on all cars) on how well they are looked after, decent oil and fuel, regular servicing including cam belt change etc.

My 9-5 2.2TiD estate now with 146k on the clock averaged 51 mpg on a recent trip to Scotland - Shell Helix Ultra diesel oil, a bottle of Forte Diesel Treatment every service and definitely NO supermarket fuel!  And I don't sit at 50mph in the slow lane either!

[sgould]

I'm assuming that you are doing a high mileage still?  I've not driven a turbo diesel and we sold our old non-turbo diesel in 1977!!

I can only pass on what I have been told.

I think 15,000 miles/year is about the minimum for a diesel to be viable.  Possibly more.

Our local dealer refused to sell my wife a diesel due to her low mileage.

The suggestion is that the 1.9 installation in the 9-5 is less prone to problems than it is in the 9-3.  The 9-5 only comes with the 150hp 16 valve diesel. It never got the TTiD engine.

There's a Hirsch remap to 175hp available with torque up to Aero levels.

Gentle economical driving is not the best way to keep the engine emissions stuff clean.

Engine has a cam belt which drives the water pump.  Both need changing at a service.

The latest cars had some revised parts that reduced the risk of clogging.

So a 1.9TiD 9-5 from the end of the run should be OK.  I think they are all "Dame Ednas" if you want a 1.9, as the 9-5 didn't get the 1.9 diesel until a year (or two?) later than the 9-3.

[Norfolk Jim]

Thanks Colly and Will.

I think SWIMBO would kill me if I went back in Reg date for a 2.2 as my last was  Sept 2005 (55 plate) end of run car so 1.9 it would need to be.

What age do you reckon then Will, there are a few 2006 (06 & 56 plate) and a 2007 out there with FDSH and less than 120k on them - all Vector Sports - I assume you're agreeing the 9-5 is more comfortable as well than 9-3...........

I'm not driving every day but do now have jobs around the UK so often do return journeys from 400 - 700 miles 2 - 3 times a month. We also drive for hols and this year did high up NW Scottish coast with me doing 2035 miles in the 10 days. Since buying Volvo in Jan I have now covered about 14.5k and in a week we have graduation in Bournemouth with then a wedding just North of Derby within 2 days so 600 miles in that hit. I also don't hang around like a grandad...................

I like the idea of Hirsch re-map as my Volvo with 163 does have a remarkable turn of speed mid-range when I need it.

When it comes to spec it seems some Vector Sports have electric seats but some don't - was it an option on that model. Also some have roof bars and some don't - confusing.

[Petemate]

Jim - FWIW we love our 9-3 Sportwagon, now on our second. I have never either driven, or been a passenger in, a 9-5, but from what Will told me at a meet last year they are more comfortable than the 9-3. However, we do like the 9-3 and even on a long journey we arrive just as fresh as when we set off.
The present one has done nearly 60k; I will have the tranny fluid changed soon, and will renew the cambelt and coolant pump in the new year. (since retiring my mileage is half what it was)
Just had the car MOT'd this morning, and the smoke was so lean it would not record on the tester until the second pass, and then it was only .05. I am well chuffed with it; it has used no oil in the 10k or so miles since purchase last December. I will service it at the beginning of December. The 'service' that the dealer carried out was only basically a lubrication one, so I will do it myself and then I can ensure that ALL the important things are replaced, eg diesel fuel filter, pollen filter, air filter etc. As the discs are showing signs of wear (ridges at edges) I will replace all pads and discs next month; even though the pads are only half worn now, and the brakes tested today as excellent, there is a bit of low pitch squealing each time we let the brakes off in traffic queues - I put this down to possible slight glazing on the pads.
Fuel consumption is very reasonable considering this present one is auto; towing is about 5mpg worse that our old manual, but on a run solo about the same as the manual, but round town trips at least 5mpg worse. We can live with that for the comfort and lack of strain on my left ankle.
All round, a nice car, and I think all that would have been better would have been a TTid. The only car I would go on to, firstly for the convenience of a local Audi/VW independent, and secondly for the towing capability and goodies in it, is a Skoda Superb estate with the 170 bhp lump. The Audi/VW establishment is owned by a couple of technicians who were mechanics at a dealership of which I was Service Manager for some years, and they are top blokes. Natch, I could get work done which I cannot carry out at very good "mates' rates"; they have all the correct diagnostic stuff for the Audi/VW, and thus Skoda and Seat. (Seat Exeo estate also a nice motor, but 170bhp with auto practically non-existant!)
Pete

[jmblack]

We've got a 56 plate 2.3t Auto and a 59 plate TiD manual. Both estates. Both approx 100k. I'd go petrol every time. HAd a few issues with dpf on the diesel even though I do 24k a year on mostly motorway. I don't thrash it enough apparently. Had a few niggling problems and you need tech II even more for the diesel....

Both nice cars though and don't think my diesel any more trouble than most.

[sgould]

Both our cars are petrol.  Both Hirsched.  Both autos, so I can't really give any info on diesel experience. Or manuals.

The 9-3 is an early one (2003) with very harsh sport suspension.  The Hirsch springs fixed that.  Later ones are better.

But the latest 9-3 is now actually wider than a 9-5 - by 1mm!!  And not a lot shorter.  But it is smaller inside.  I find the 9-3 seats a bit narrow and the under thigh support a bit lacking.  Otherwise it handles well.

I think you need to look at exactly how many miles you do, and the fuel cost incurred.  Only then can you work out if the capital cost of the diesel is worth it.

if you mostly do long motorway trips, an auto might suit as the gears lock up in 4th & 5th, so there is no real difference between that and the manual.  Around town is a different matter.

The cars after late March 2006 come under the newer road tax regime.  So check that out too.  My Aero is high emission apparently so it comes in at £460 a year.  Other Saab do too.

Another thing to consider is a 9-3 V6.  Quite high fuel consumption, but apparently not too bad on a run, but because of this, the cost of a used one can be quite low.

You just need to do the sums. 

[Norfolk Jim]

Diesels seem to retain their value better than petrol's so I suppose I could consider a petrol Aero and get LPG conversion done for about £1100................with LPG at about 70p/litre it would help.

I do love my auto's but I really do also enjoy driving my wife's Volvo V50 which is manual 6 speed and has 136 hp. It is no slouch and delivers 60 on runs with 48 average around here but little small for me for some loads I shift I also know I can get more mpg out of a manual than an auto - I've proved that before.

Trouble is round here the motorways are about 60 miles away to nearest (M11) and 100 to A1. The rest is fastish single carriageway but often 40 - 60 mph menaing gearbox spend lot of time deciding which gear 4th or 5th to chose. With wife's I can trundle along in 5th at 35-40 and get into 6th at just under 50 (scrouge with fuel). Hence I'd like a manual.

My 2.2tid was manual and I got good results in that and could sit at about 45 in 5th. You can see the revs going up a little and down a little at 40 where its deciding what to do (you don't feal or hear this but rev counter annoys me doing that).

I would be happy with 9-3 but it would only be as new as poss late 2007 Petemate but it would be the ride for SWIMBO. She has been cosseted by my last 9-5 and current V70 armchairs! Her V50 is actually very comfortable and reliable in 4.5 years only alternator and condensor - no bushes or parts except normal service items and disks and has done 96k now.

So you can see my predicament..........................if you think 9-5 in 19 Tid guise is prone to worries then I'll need to look at petrol and lpg. Oddly I've found diesels cheaper to run than petrols and have stuck to service regime.

[Norfolk Jim]

You see when there are 9-3's about like this I do then wonder.............................

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201309068666305/sort/locasc/usedcars/fuel-type/diesel/maximum-age/up_to_5_years_old/body-type/estate/price-to/4000/make/saab/onesearchad/used/onesearchad/nearlynew/onesearchad/new/radius/1501/page/1/postcode/nr86qw?logcode=p

[Audax]

I'd not get a manual 1.9 I'd get an auto and get it Hirsched instead, I also don't think you'll find there's much point having a 6 speed (which didn't make it to the 9-5 anyway) as there's only a very small fuel saving with the 6 speed in the 9-3 over the 5 speed and the 6 speed box is less reliable. The manual box will need a DMF at some point which will be around £1k if you get it down properly (DMF+Clutch+labour) with good parts. The 05 model 9-3's were rubbish (although, by now they're probably all OK as they'll all have revised parts).

The 06 onward 9-3 and 9-5 were better as they already had revised parts but 07 onwards were much better. If you're not doing 15k a year then buy a 9-5 Aero instead (but don't get a later auto as the fuel economy and £460 a year tax is painful) as the money you save buying it compared to a diesel and the extra reliability you gain will make it cost neutral but way more fun to drive. If you get a 1.9 diesel you'll still end up buying some parts as they will fail and remember it has a cambelt that needs replacing with the water pump so count servicing costs in too as the petrol cars are cheaper to service.

[Norfolk Jim]

So from that it sounds like the suggestion is get a later 9-5 auto with 1.9tid Hirsched?? Avoid 9-3.

[Audax]

I'd have a 9-3 1.9 auto too (with Hirsch) I guess but it'd have to be an estate and things like the load cover being a flimsy sheet of plastic, worse seats etc. would probably annoy me. The 9-5 is more of an armchair to drive than the 9-3.

[MikeIOW]

Ahhh, I always feel that once a Saabista, always a Saabista ;-)

I don't have much information for you, other than to say I reckon the 9-5 does indeed have more comfortable seats than the 9-3.....or 'more of an armchair' could describe it, I guess !!
   
I had a 9-3 Aero for 112k miles, then a 9-5 saloon for a similar distance, and my current '09 9-5 wagon for over 70k......
....keep thinking maybe it is time to change and look around, but I cannot find anything that I *really* like.    Mazda CX-5 is nice and has a good engine, but to few options.......I agree with Pete that the Skoda Superb 170bhp looks nice, and is also available as a 4x4 (something I would like to have for just a few uses a year, including ski runs which we have done in our SMax, although do not absolutely need!)......

.....but then I wash Saabie, and he looks so shiny, clean and comfortable, I invariably stop looking :-)

Does anyone think there is a natural next car after owning a Saab?!!

Good luck!
Mike

[Geoff1951]

Welcome back, NJ! I knew you couldn't keep away.

First, if not a Saab? - Pete mentioned Skoda. A pal's OH had an '04 Octavia estate 1.9 tid manual, with the higher output 130 bhp. Put nearly 100k on it before replacing a few months back with a Fabia. (Rolls eyes.) Pal's car was a BMW 525, 1995 N reg, 190 horses or so. Went like stink, but he preferred driving his wife's Skoda for the 230 pounds of torque, the BM managing 50 less.

However - it has to be a Saab. James, you'll have read all the old posts about petrol v diesel, running costs v service costs, insurance (with and without Hirsch...) , RFL, etc, etc. FWIW, what about a petrol 2.0? Maybe not the power you're after, but still worth considering. Must be loads of late plate Ednas out there.

9-5 or 9-3? You'll have read all the arguments here too. Me, I ran a 9-3 for 6 months, around 8k miles. The main reason I got rid was the sheer uncomfyness of the seats. Worst I've known in 44 years driving. (second worst - Merc S Class.) I've now had my 9-5 for 8 years, done 104k, and never get out of it with irritable undercarriage, even after driving 200 miles non-stop. Others will say different, it was a discussion on the old forum. Because you know what a 9-5 is like, I'd strongly recommend a good long test drive in a 9-3 before you buy one. When I used a main dealer for servicing, I had the use of different 9-3s as loan cars. The different trim levels and seat options did nothing to change my view. And don't forget the hand-unfriendly handbrake on the 9-3.

I echo sgould's observations on the dimensions of the two cars. I know what the tape measure says, but the 9-5 is bigger. It just is, don't ask me how. It just is. It feels wider inside, passengers have more room.

NJ  - the choice is yours.

[Steve440]

Does anyone think there is a natural next car after owning a Saab?!!

I had this same discussion with a motor trader friend a few weeks back, his opinion would be BMW 3 or 5 series depending on what you want. He had a very nice 330 Petrol Estate ( Touring ) in stock and I can see what he means. The seats were a bit firm but apart from that you get the performance and toys with a good build quality.
 
Apparently they can be difficult to work on but with rear wheel drive would make some jobs easier that our front wheel drive cars.

I have just picked a very tidy 2004 Aero Estate with under 80k and a full service history so we should be OK for decent stock for a while  yet 

Steve