Saab 9-5 Aero - opinions?

Ferris

Anyone got a Saab 9-5 Aero (2.3HOT)?

If so what are they like for reliability etc?

Vital stats are:
0-60 6.5s
256hp
350Nm
31mpg
Quicker than a 911 turbo from 40-70mph!

Do these have the problem of the cat converter cooking the oil in the sump?

I'm looking for something thats good value (~10k), comfortable, discreet and quick, and these seem to fit the bill.

superjosh9

Ferris wrote: »

Anyone got a Saab 9-5 Aero (2.3HOT)?

If so what are they like for reliability etc?

the engine in that is an old triumph engine that has been around for donkey's years... It's not the most reliable.

what year, mileage are you talking?

peasant

Get yourself on to there: http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/index.php and get your info from the horses mouth.

superjosh9

peasant wrote: »

Get yourself on to there: http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/index.php and get your info from the horses mouth.

+1

Ferris

Thats the 2.0L 16v engine out of the Dolomite Sprint. The Aero has a 2.3, are they based on the same block?

superjosh9

Ferris wrote: »

Thats the 2.0L 16v engine out of the Dolomite Sprint. The Aero has a 2.3, are they based on the same block?

yep it is indeed.

my dad had many dolomites that went boom.

He also bought the 2nd triumph stag in the country when they were new - same engine, converted into a V8. went boom.

knowing all of this, he still bought a new saab 9000 2.0 ecopower in 1993, knowing it to be the same engine, but hoping Saab would have sorted any issues in the 20 years that had passed. Head gasket blew... at 24,000 miles. Indeed, we traded it straight away - but that very same car appeared on carzone only a few weeks ago - with 124,000 miles on it! I never thought it would get to that!

as such, I'm always a little wary of that block! But - there are so many stories of them lasting for 200,000 miles - so maybe we were just really, really, realllly unlucky.

Whenever I'm not looking, my dad still escapes and tries to buy a new Saab 9-5! It's like a bad habit at this stage!! He always says that the 9000 was the best handling, large, fwd car he's driven - great type-4 chassis. I think the 9-5 isn't a million miles from this.

As I wrote in another thread only yesterday, I secretly like Saabs too and am waiting a very low mileage, auto, 9-5 for a few grand to pop up on carzone

Ferris

A lot of those triumph engine failures were doen to poor workmanship and poor castings from the unionised dinosour that was British Leyland. My da also had a Sprint that he bought with a blown head. He got it rebuilt and cleaned out a heap of sand from the waterjacket, put it all back together and ran the car until it dissolved so the engine was fine by design.

I don't think the 2.3 is the same engine though.

superjosh9

Ferris wrote: »

...engine was fine by design.

I don't think the 2.3 is the same engine though.

Yep, you might well be right - there are so many with high-mileages out there - so it's hard to argue with that. My understanding was that the 2.3 was the same engine, only with a larger displacement -Same design though I would have thought..?

But anyway, would be interesting to hear from any 9-5 owners - I too would like to hear how they are getting on. I mean, I *want* to like Saab!

I always liked the 9-5's design - understated - and it's safe. The dash is nice with the walnut - seats as usual I assume to be great also! Like you mentioned, the performance from the 2.3 Turbo is pretty spectacular when the turbos have spooled up - I have yet to drive one though.

As ShiverinEskimo said in this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055300125
it is a guys car! That thread did worry me though - I think it turned out to be a blown turbo.. happens to the best of them

edit: meant to add, was in a brand new 9-3 BioPower a few weeks ago, was a bit of a let-down. So, I'm still pinning all my hopes on the 9-5!

RobAMerc

Hi, I really like Saabs - but to be honest they are dynamically far inferior to the likes of the equivalent BMW, remember its a GM product.

It will not ride like an E class or handle like a 5 series, they do last though.

Torque steer will be the issue - and keeping front tyres on it.

Ferris

Yeah but in fairness they cost a lot less too. I want a decent sized quick quality car for cheap and Saabs (and Volvos) are your only man for this. Also any equivalent Merc or BMW has a 3L engine and does 25mpg.

Cool vid too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoIWox3XU9g

My question regards the oil sludge problems that this model of Saab gets. I looked on http://www.saabcentral.com/ and found a good bit of info. Seems to be caused by sulpher in petrol. As Ireland has low sulpher in its petrol I think I will be looking out for a good Irish car with FSH. Also it seems that the need their oil changed every 6k but I don't do big miles so this is fine too.

superjosh9

Ferris wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoIWox3XU9g

My question regards the oil sludge problems that this model of Saab gets..

lol, I've watched that video a few times before. Nice.

Yeh, heard of the oil-sludge probs before too - I think at the time I just rolled my eyes re before. Maybe I should change.

I drive an S40 and 940 Volvo. Mpg isn't great - mid 20s for 1.8 S40, won't even comment on the 940! S40 is a very reliable car - and for a fwd thing, is pretty good through the corners - and you can get them for nothing. Also drove an 01 S80 recently, was surprised at how comfortable it was - went very well on the M50 also, wasn't too bad on fuel either. Another one for me to look out for in the future.