SAAB 9-3 - Diesel or Petrol?

paddyblue

I'm in the market for a used car for a few months now, specifically looking at a SAAB 9-3, year 03/04. I do approx 400 - 450miles per week so i had originally planned to buy a diesel - 1.9Liter to be exact.

However after researching a few of the used car sites i realised that the 9-3 model only comes in 2.2 L Diesel pre 2005. It also comes in 1.8 & 2.0 Petrol. The 2005 models are a bit outside my price range so i then looked at the 1.8 & 2.0 Petrols & 2.2 Diesels and found quite a few cars in each engine size that i would be interested in. My decision would be heavily influenced by the effeciency of the engine but i'm not sure which is the most effecient.

I did some very basic research on MPG for the 1.8P, 2.0P & 2.2D and the figures i came up with are;
1) 1.8 Petrol - 38mpg
2) 2.0 Petrol - 32mpg
3) 2.2 Diesel - 45mpg
Do these seem accurate? Is there any handy websites that give mpg coverages of old cars?

The fact that a 2.2 Diesel will come with higher road tax than the 1.8 Petrol confuses things even more for me, not to mention the current high price of diesel compared to petrol.

Considering the milage i travel each week, and the higher tax for the 2.2 Diesel - anyone have any idea of what engine type/size would be the best one?

PS - i've also started to look at Volvo S40's recently - 1.9 Diesel. Would these be as effecient as a SAAB on the juice? If so i may just go for this car instead as they are very high spec cars at reasonable prices.

Any help / advice will be apreciated.

S.I.R

tbh the best saab is the 9000 or the 9-5.... though its opel engined it doesnt suffer the electrical and sticky brakes the newwer 9-5 and 9-3 suffer


deisil is higher mpg but tbh , unless you actually push yourself economically you adverage 38.5 mpg ( rea life figures, the the phonie ones car makers get when doing tests in PERFECT condtions. )

at a push you could make 40 ,



though the most appealing factor is the fact that your not driving a saab , your driving an armchair

bazz26

Both 9-3 and 9-5 are based on Opel Vectra platforms. The 9-5 being based on the 1989 Vectra platform whereas the 9-3 is based on the current Vectra platform.

1.8 litre petrol unit is slugish in the 9-3 so expect poor real life mpg as the engine has to work harder.

2.2 TiD is an old GM unit and is tractor like in refinement and noise level. Not very powerful considering the higher costs of motor tax and insurance. Newer 1.9 TiD from 2004 is light years ahead, made by Fiat is one of the diesel units around in this class but maybe outside your budget.

2.0t is probably the best of your selection but if your worried about fuel economy then maybe it is not suitable.

Volvo S40 1.9 TD is actually a Renault diesel engine and while not the most refined unit around but it is quite frugal, lively enough with good fuel economy. Make sure you go for a 2001 onwards facelifted model which had alot of improvements and power increased to 115bhp.

Ferris

"Petrol engines all lightweight aluminium turbocharged 2.0 litre chain-cammers, but badged 1.8t, 2.0t and 2.0T to differentiate their SAAB Trionic 8 managed power outputs. Transmissions are also new: 5-speed manual for the 1.8t and 2.0t; 6-speed manual for the 2.0T and 5-speed automatic for all three. Auto available with optional 'Sentronic' steering wheel paddle shift from Jan 2003. 2.2 diesel and 5-speed manual box carried over. "

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/index.htm?md=571&

So the road tax is the same on all the petrols.

E92

The NA 1.8i is a 1.8. All other 9-3 petrols are 2.0(bar the V6 which is a 2.8).

jimmycrackcorm

I had a 9-3 1.8 petrol before and it was both sluggish (due to the car weight) and very sore on fuel. I have a 2.0 petrol now which is much better on both counts.

I find the 9-3 very well built and a nice solid drive.

shrapnel222

i used to have the 93 1.8t and although it was a joy to drive, it guzzled an enormous amount of petrol. The electronics were crap though and after 2 years were a real pain. i now have a 1.8 toyota avensis and although not as fun to drive, it has almost halved my petrol costs. sorry for not having numbers for you but just thought i'd share.

E92

That's pretty bad; we have a 1.8 Avensis at home and at best it does no more than 40 mpg in out of town driving.

It sounds very strained above 4,000 rpm though that's where it does it's best work.

paddyblue

Thanks for all the replies

I've actually found a good site for mpg and CO2 stats for all car models bact to 2000. It's on the Sustainable Energy Ireland Site - click on the 'How clean is your car' section, or try the link below

http://www.sei.ie/index.asp?locID=1207&docID=-1

For anyone who may be interested......................

galwaytt

We bought an 06 1.9 Tid Vector Sport Wagon a few weeks ago - fabulous. Bought it over an E220Cdi, as the Merc's have way too many problems....

38mpg is right, but haven't had a long spin yet, so that's real life driving, including commuting.

My brother is on his 3rd Saab 9-5 , and swears by them - he currently has an 02 3.0t (!), and gets about 25mpg out of it - his 2.0t returned about 26.5 -27mpg. Both Automatic, btw.

His previous manual was slightly better - 29mpg iirc. He went to v.high miles on all his cars (125k), with zero issues.

Considering the good value they are for money, they're kinda hard to beat...

krivak

I went to SEI's site as you suggested, but they have changed the link and its difficult to get to it from the home page. The new one is http://www.sei.ie/Your_Home/How_Clean_is_Your_Car_/
Helpful indeed, but I wish they had some info on cars before the year 2000 as well

Theta

I have an 04 9-3 vector 1.8t and i think its great. Mind you I have had no problems with an electronics (apart from the petrol cover sticking once or twice but that was a minor issuse for me just lock/unlock) or anything else and it came with a shed load of extras so I was lucky. But I will deffo be buying another one when I get the chance. I dont use that much petrol but i wouldnt do nearly as much driving as you would be doing.

godtabh

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I had a 9-3 1.8 petrol before and it was both sluggish (due to the car weight) and very sore on fuel. I have a 2.0 petrol now which is much better on both counts.

I find the 9-3 very well built and a nice solid drive.

shrapnel222 wrote: »

i used to have the 93 1.8t and although it was a joy to drive, it guzzled an enormous amount of petrol. The electronics were crap though and after 2 years were a real pain. i now have a 1.8 toyota avensis and although not as fun to drive, it has almost halved my petrol costs. sorry for not having numbers for you but just thought i'd share.

There are two version of the 1.8: 1.8i and the 1.8T. The 1.8i is a straight 1.8L engine where as the 1.8T is equivalent to 2.0 I believe.

I've a 1.8i 2005 Vector and I get 7.2-7.5l/100km from day to day use

Long Onion

I have a 9-3 2.2 tid with north of 130k miles on the clock and it averages 50mpg. Found it to be great and no bothers apart from changing the intercooler last december.

I'd recommend it, in fact you can buy mine as I'm getting my Brera in a fortnight's time :D:D:D

biko

paddyblue wrote: »

PS - i've also started to look at Volvo S40's recently - 1.9 Diesel. Would these be as effecient as a SAAB on the juice? If so i may just go for this car instead as they are very high spec cars at reasonable prices.

My own experience shows S40 to be a bit better on MPG than SAAB, sadly.
Low 30s versus high 30s.

smcgiff

I'd a 04 1.8t and it was a cracking car.

MPG was about 24 MPG, but I've a heavy foot!

I'd say the 1.8 would be very dull.

As has been mentioned above the 1.8t and the 2.0t are the same engines, with the 2.0t having a higher tuning.

The 2.0T has the same engine, but a better Turbo than the other two.