What to buy?? Saab BMW or Mercedes??

shaym

Hi all,

Looking to buy a new car with a budget of 4-5k and currently theres a few sorts of cars on the horizon. Either a Saab 9-3 (99-02 ) , 3 or 5 series BMW (97-00) or else a C or E class Merc ( 97-00 ) . All of the cars I've looked at have in region of 85k -110k on the clock , with a max 2l engine. Looking for advice on which would make the best buy in terms of overall reliability and any potential problems for cars of that vintage , cost to run (excluding insurance and tax..) , driveability anything relevant really that will make the decision easier.

Thanks...

Shay

DonJose

shaym wrote: »

Looking to buy a new second hand car with a budget of 4-5k and currently theres a few sorts of cars on the horizon.

Fixed that for you I'd go with the BMW, quality engine and probably the best built of the 3.

peasant

If I were you, I'd go for the Saab 95.
Sizewise and equipment wise you'd get the best bang for your buck.

Plus the 2 liter Eco-turbo is very nice to drive, no slouch and not too heavy a drinker either.

Service history with regular oil changes is a must !

http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?adv_form_submit=1&fuseaction=search&MakeID=26&xMakeID=26&ColourID=&xColourID=&ModelID=238&xModelID=238&Doors=&BodyID=&Mileage_Max=&Mileage_Max_integer=Max+mileage+entered+was+not+an+integer.&Engine_Min=&Year_Min=&Engine_Max=&Year_Max=&Price_Min=&Price_Min_integer=Minimum+price+entered+was+not+an+integer.&CountyID=&xCountyID=&Price_Max=5500&Price_Max_integer=Maximum+price+entered+was+not+an+integer.&BusinessID=&xBusinessID=&IsPrivateSale=&AutomaticOnly=&FuelID=&searchtext=&SortBy=priceAsc&MaxRows=100&InsertPeriod=&ResultFormat=extended&submit=Find+Cars

superjosh9

Saab (99-03): Oil sludge issues on that engine. Would only buy with a good warranty. Current class-action been taken against Saab in USA/Canada. But, if you can find a good one, a lot of car for the money with generally good specs. Dire safety in Euro-NCAP, although safe according to Folksam.

BMW 3/5-Series: Head gaskets on 4 cylinders, certainly on the 91-98 cars. Not sure of the next model, but I assume same engines(?). Similar probs with 6 cylinder cars. Have had bad experiences with both. Safety of 91-98 3 series is absolutely awful. 1 star on NCAP. Post 99, seems to be pretty good.

Merc C-Class: Comfortable car but I've only driven it once. I have no idea about reliability, but it might be ok. Safety, again typical of the age, is poor.

Merc E-Class: Rust problems affect these W126 cars, suspension posts have been known to collapse. Whatever about that, I've personally witnessed the rust attacking wings and boot - and in this day and age - that really is poor show. Very comfortable apart from that. Again, with C, I've driven but I have nothing to go by on reliability.

As I usually say, I'd take a Volvo S40 2001/2 for that kind of money instead. Very safe (when launched received highest NCAP score), good reliability (I have one), easy to drive if pretty boring. Interior isn't exactly the nicest. It's nicer than the BMW 3 (91-98), but not as nice as the C/E/9-3 or other newer bmws. They're tough though.

superjosh9

peasant wrote: »

If I were you, I'd go for the Saab 95.

Service history with regular oil changes is a must !

+1. Very safe car too, so you get everything the 9-3 has, but in a safer car. Beware of the sludge cars though.

shaym

Cheers for the feedback guys , much appreciated!! I reckon I'm gonna run with a a 9-3.

Was seriously tempted by this bargain though, especially since he lowered his price from 3k.Really gotta wonder about people sometimes...
Maybe with all the talk with the recession he thinks its 1988 and not 2008..

http://www.carzone.ie/es-ie/search/Mazda/323/**-LX-**/200841190389870/advert

samsemtex

Would you not consider a volvo s40? The late models of the last series look quite well as they all came with the sportier body kit and trim levels are likely to be a lot better than any of the others you listed. Excellent ride quality, my dad has a 2006 C-class and the ride is much harder and less forgiving. They handle pretty well but are a bit boring to drive. The also came with the 1.8GDi engine which is in my car. Its nippy and i get serious mpg despite the fact i drive pretty fast. That generation S/V40 was also the most relieble non japanese car in autocars reader survey.

http://www.carzone.ie/es-ie/search/Volvo/S40/2.0-SE/200840190228745/advert

W202 C-class is a very relieble car and post 1998 cars got 4star Ncap ratings. I wouldnt touch an old 3series with a barge poll.

Ive heard a lot of bad things about Saabs since GM took them over which is disappointing because i want a 2001 9-3 coupe Viggen and im very wary of them. A nicely specified 93 is a lovely car though.

colm_mcm

I wouldn't go with the 9-5 if I could get a 5 series for similar money.

shaym

samsemtex wrote: »

Would you not consider a volvo s40? The late models of the last series look quite well as they all came with the sportier body kit and trim levels are likely to be a lot better than any of the others you listed. Excellent ride quality, my dad has a 2006 C-class and the ride is much harder and less forgiving. They handle pretty well but are a bit boring to drive. The also came with the 1.8GDi engine which is in my car. Its nippy and i get serious mpg despite the fact i drive pretty fast. That generation S/V40 was also the most relieble non japanese car in autocars reader survey.

http://www.carzone.ie/es-ie/search/Volvo/S40/2.0-SE/200840190228745/advert

W202 C-class is a very relieble car and post 1998 cars got 4star Ncap ratings. I wouldnt touch an old 3series with a barge poll.

Ive heard a lot of bad things about Saabs since GM took them over which is disappointing because i want a 2001 9-3 coupe Viggen and im very wary of them. A nicely specified 93 is a lovely car though.

Would consider a Volvo alright but unfortunately I'm having trouble finding one thats ticking all my boxes. Also would consider an Accord but having trouble finding one that suits.

colm_mcm

pretty much all the Volvos sold in Ireland were under 2.0, should be easy to find one with goodies on it too.

Biro

If you remove your limit on the 2 litre thing, then a nice 523i should be a good buy. Or even a E220 CDI.

bazz26

Here you go:
http://www.carzone.ie/es-ie/search/BMW/5-Series/520i/200841190390633/advert

Outsider:
http://www.carzone.ie/es-ie/search/Volvo/S60/2.0T-SPO/200842190479015/advert

galwaytt

superjosh9 wrote: »

Saab (99-03): Oil sludge issues on that engine. Would only buy with a good warranty. Current class-action been taken against Saab in USA/Canada. But, if you can find a good one, a lot of car for the money with generally good specs. Dire safety in Euro-NCAP, although safe according to Folksam.

I'll defer to my brother on this, as he's on his 3rd, and going for a 4th -I'm only a Saab newbie (mar 08) - oil changes a good idea, esp on turbo's, but he's had zero probs on his, getting up to 125k miles before changing cars.

BMW 3/5-Series: Head gaskets on 4 cylinders, certainly on the 91-98 cars. Not sure of the next model, but I assume same engines(?). Similar probs with 6 cylinder cars. Have had bad experiences with both. Safety of 91-98 3 series is absolutely awful. 1 star on NCAP. Post 99, seems to be pretty good.

you're right the 1.9 petrol is plagued with annoying (small) problems - most coolant system related. And it's a slug to drive. One of the best arguments, ever, for NOT building a car to appease tax regimes...

Merc E-Class: Rust problems affect these W126 cars, suspension posts have been known to collapse. Whatever about that, I've personally witnessed the rust attacking wings and boot - and in this day and age - that really is poor show. Very comfortable apart from that. Again, with C, I've driven but I have nothing to go by on reliability.

I have to say, I'm sorry I sold my 01 W210. 2.0 petrol, kompressor. Not a rocket, buy a refined steed, nonetheless. W210's can be bought for embarrassingly little money now, esp if you're happy to buy manuals and cloth seats (unsaleable, tbh..)

As I usually say, I'd take a Volvo S40 2001/2 for that kind of money instead. Very safe (when launched received highest NCAP score), good reliability (I have one), easy to drive if pretty boring. Interior isn't exactly the nicest. It's nicer than the BMW 3 (91-98), but not as nice as the C/E/9-3 or other newer bmws. They're tough though.

They only experience I have of these is a colleagues mother's one...........absolute shockingly poor quality on the electrical front. Car no 1 had to be replaced by Volvo in the end, it was so bad. Car no 2 didn't fare (much) better, but they made a not-to-be-ignored trade in offer on another (I know, I know...) new one, 12mths later, due to the amt of time off the road. Car no 3 so far, behaving itself. I think the bigger ones are better, as they smaller ones seem to be made right down to a price, tbh.........

E92

samsemtex wrote: »

The also came with the 1.8GDi engine which is in my car.

And for the benefit of the OP: avoid this engine like the plague. The GDI engine has a spectacular ability to go catastrophically wrong, and it's all down to the lower quality fuel that is supplied to Ireland and the UK(the UK gets worse problems than we do though). Poorer quality fuel caused some BMW engines in the early to mid 90s to get what's known as the Nikasil problem, and that results in the engine basically going kaputt at around 60,000 miles. The GDI engines suffer from coking; they can get excessive carbon build ups resulting in NCT failure and if you have the coking problem then that results in you having to replace at least the injectors, and you might as well get a new engine at that stage.

People who drive these cars like the stereotypical Volvo driver and/or in town most of the time got the problem eventually. People who rev the engine a lot and drive out of town at decent speeds never had problems, because these engines don't burn off the fuel when driven too gently and at too low speeds. If you drive them like you're driving a stolen car then these engines are actually very reliable, and they never gave any trouble in the continent or in Japan where the fuel is of a much higher standard. But how are you going to know that before you buy one? It's too much of a risk, especially with the way some Volvo drivers drive so slowly. They're also more complicated and therefore expensive to service than your standard engine(the timing belt change every 60,000 miles is a full day in the garage job).

It's quite poor to drive as well; very noisy when cold(sounds like a diesel actually and they all get very tappety like all Mitsubishi engines do over time), very coarse and harsh sounding above 4,000 rpm(it makes very audible protestations about being revved beyond 4,000 rpm to the point it sounds like it's in pain), but it needs lots of revs to deliver performance(it actually does get a shift when you start to hit 5,000 rpm if you're prepared to listen to the racket), and the gearbox hates being rushed, and it baulks between third and fourth gears. Now a lot of 4 cylinder engines aren't very smooth and don't sound very happy above 4,000 rpm, but the GDI is one of the worst 4 cylinder petrol engines I've driven. It is commendably economical, and to be fair the engine is a 12 year old design, and several modern petrol engines have GDI these days, and with advances in the GDI technology the refinement and reliability disadvantages over a conventional petrol engine would appear to have been eliminated. The GDI engine in the S40 was quite simply ahead of its time, it's only become commonplace in petrol engines in the last year or 2, and naturally the then very advanced technology the GDI engine in the Volvo had has improved with the passage of time.

Naturally GDI technology has a use, when the revs are down and not much performance is required the engine goes into an economy mode and serious mpg improvements are achievable, I could get 60 mpg at constant 100 km/h driving. Even at a constant 120 km/h 50 mpg was achievable if you were careful enough. Then when higher performance is required the engine has a high power mode and this allows it to have more power than a conventional petrol engine(for some reason GDI allows a higher compression ratio).

Oh and avoid the diesel too, because it's well.... diesel. Seriously though you can hear it miles away and it isn't very reliable.

The S40 is a very competent car if you're not bothered by how well a car does or doesn't drive. It is a great mile muncher, and is happiest at motorway/dual carriageway cruising. It's solid on the road, and the steering is informative. But it is not the kind of car you could push into a bend with confidence; it runs wide too easily. It is super comfy, has a great radio, is quiet, as safe as a house and with the right engine is very reliable too. It's surprisingly good over bumps too, a lot of people think the S40 doesn't like bumps but I've never had a problem with it.

As you've probably guessed, I had one before I got my BMW 520i, and I loved it, but you have to make sure you get the right engine. The 1.8 Volvo engine is the best choice; but the 1.8 is as low as you'd want to go. Even with the GDI engine, which is more powerful than the standard 1.8(though over time Volvo developed their engine and it caught up with the GDI for power and mpg eventually) it is not at all fast, certainly not as quick as one might expect a 1.8 to be.

I have a 520i now, and I'm in love with it for it's handling through bends, though I miss the edge on luxuries, comfort and safety the Volvo has. The 6 cylinder engine is fabulous, so quiet when you want it to be, as smooth as silk, but loves to be revved and makes a great noise when pushed.

It drinks petrol, but then again it encourages you to push it, and I do that a lot:D!

I've driven 3 and 5 series BMWs and you absolutely *have* to get one with a 6 cylinder engine if you want a BMW. The 5 series fortunately doesn't have the option of only 4 cylinders between 1996 and late 2005, but the 3 does, and the 4 cylinder(316i/318i) models are quite a let down compared to the six cylinder engines(320i/520i). Not only do the fours lack power, but they're hardly any more economical(they're underpowered so need to be worked hard and most of them are tired at this stage) than the sixes, and they're just quite simply inferior in every measurable area other than road tax and mpg. Just remember to avoid 6 cylinder models between 96 and week 10 in 98 though, they *may* have the Nikasil problem(as expensive to put right as a GDI), but on your budget you should be able to avoid those without this potential problem.

If you're after something comfortable with a bit of go then I'd suggest a Volvo, but if you want a bit of fun in the driving experience then a BMW is realistically the only option.

galwaytt

E92 wrote: »

Not only do the fours lack power, but they're hardly any more economical

indeed, my sis-in-law changed her 00 318 1.9 Coupe for a 323 2.5 coupe and........she tells me there is only a 1mpg difference.

Like night/day to drive, too, I'd imagine.

They're not the only car that does this: my brothers 3.0t Saab 9-5 does within 1 mpg of his old 2.0lpt. Both are auto. Again, if you can live with the tax, the fuel consumption seems to be the least of the issues.

P.C.

shaym wrote: »

Was seriously tempted by this bargain though, especially since he lowered his price from 3k.Really gotta wonder about people sometimes...
Maybe with all the talk with the recession he thinks its 1988 and not 2008..

http://www.carzone.ie/es-ie/search/Mazda/323/**-LX-**/200841190389870/advert

:eek: Don't think it would have cost that new.