Saabs - 9-3 diesels in particular

Horror stories?

I'm looking at blowing 3ish grand on a runaround and while I really
like the 9-3 that Bear has I don't want a petrol. Are the diesels worth
buying and what one has all the toys? I don't want one of the uglier
early model hatches, has to be a saloon, am I going in a bit cheap at
3ishK

 

Pah. You want a nice Alfa 156 2.4 JTD, you do. In red.

And no, I'm not selling mine.

 

What's the benefit of the oil burner, are they much more economical. I
expect they will be GM engines as found in Vectra/Astra. not the best and
feckin expensive if your trash the fuel pump with petrol.

My American assistant got a decent 2001 9-5 2.0T recently. Similar sort of
price/condition/miles to this:
http://tinyurl.com/2vyuxyj
The price difference is a lot of fuel

If you want a 9-3 similar bargains close to home are there:
http://tinyurl.com/22smuyv

Hard to go wrong with that second one if it's a kosher vehicle.
2001 car you want to get your head under it and check for corrosion. Rare
but it happens.

 

I'm not in the habit of filling up my diesels with petrol, I learned
from the one mistake I did make when I got my Golf in 2004. The GM
diesels are all that bad, they've been around long enough to be sorted
and I've had them in the past with no problems. Mind you, the Combo van
I owned for three years had a 1.7 non-turbo Isuzu lump and that was
100% reliable over 125K miles.

Are the 2.0T 9-5s that bad on fuel? The diesels are also a sight
cheaper to tax from what I hear which is one reason I want one. It'll
be doing about 50 miles a day, so I want to keep the fuel costs down.

I really really don't like that hatchback shape, it's pig fucking ugly.
I much prefer the saloon shape like the one Bear's got

 

If it's a 1.9, then it's a Fiat / Alfa JTD lump. Which is utterly
bomb-proof until Saab and Vauxhall get their hands on it, when it
appears to give issues.

If it's the 2.2, then it's an Isuzu truck engine.

 

Go for a 00ish 9-5 petrol around the 2 mark then. TD will be a grand more.
A nice 9-3 TD saloon (2003 on they are) with sensible mileage will be 4
large.
I did a lot of background before buying this Aero Cab.

Excellent cars though. For FWD.

 

So what do Saab or Vauxhall do to this supposedly bomb-proof 1.9 engine
to make unrelaible? I've read up on some horror stores about the 2.2,
enough of them to put me off. I'm very dubious about buying anything
with a Fiat/Alfa engine tbh.

 

I understand that the DMF is just as shite in FIAT[1] as it is in a GM.
The benefit of GM is that it doesn't say FIAT on the front.

[1]By any name

 

So in other words, avoid the diesel Saabs because both the engines they
use are shite?

Right, what petrol one to go for then?

 

As I understand it, they run with a GM ECU, which appears to be the
source of the issues.

The installation is also different - in the 156 that engine is known for
being smooth, powerful and refined - in GM products it is criticised for
being harsh and, at times, gutless.

 

Show me a manufacturer who hasn't had issues with DMFs.

Ford have had issues - and they're a complete PITA to replace on the
Mondeo, allegedly requiring a body jig to ensure the front subframe is
put back on properly, and I had to have the DMF replaced on my Passat
TDI.

Much as I like the Saab 9-5, the Saab badge comes with a worse
reputation than anything that has come out of Italy in recent years.

 

9-5 with the 2.3 HOT.

The 2.3t (LPT) has issues with oil sludging.

The 2.0 is just a turbocharged Vauxhall lump.

9-3s are nowhere near as well built as 9-5s either.

 

You might not be, but of course you never know about the previous owner.
My expensive experiences with common rail diesel has made me think very
seriously about ever buying another second hand one. In our case the
pump lasted a year before giving up expensive stylee.

 

Bollocks. I have just changed my BMW 330D (did well for 5 years but started
to develop niggling problems) for a SAAB 9-5 1.9TiD (with Hirsch ECU remap
to 175 bhp). I am very pleased with it. The SAAB 1.9TiD engine is very
nice even in standard 150bhp format. It is easily remapped to 175+ bhp.
The 2.2 diesel is a festering pile of weasel crap - avoid.

 

The 2.0T that Saab have perfected over a long period of time. That's half
the point of buying a Saab. Non Aero spec is fine for general legwork and
will give your lead foot 30mpg. My Aero does 27.5

 

Correct me if I'm wrong - but, as I said in my other post - the 2.0T is
a Vauxhall engine with a Turbo strapped to it - not a proper Saab lump.

 

Don't know don't care. They just work.

GM didn't buy out Saab until 2000 so whatever Saab were doing before will
have carried into 2001

 

Harsh but maybe fair.

I'd *still* like another Saab - we've had two - but it would have to be
an updated version of a pre-GM Saab, not anything they've produced
since.

Interestingly, I received a questionnaire from Subaru last week, which
suggests they're desperately trying to figure out how to re-position the
brand.

I thought this was a particularly telling uestion:

STARTS/

Which statement most closely reflects your view of Subaru?

Subaru make top quality well specified cars that are better than German
competitors but priced below because they are not as well known or
understood.

Subaru make superbly engineered cars, better than most, if not all
competitors, but priced below because they are not as well known or
understood.

Subaru is only for people who need off-road and 4WD vehicles and suit
those people well.

Subaru make cars that are not quite as good as their rivals but are
priced accordingly.

Subaru cars are not as good as their rivals but are unfortunately priced
higher

/ENDS

I went for the second choice.

I really admire the engineering, individuality and quality[1] of my
Legacy (as does The Doctor) , but it's been replaced by what seems to be
an inferior model.

It feels like Saab all over again.

[1] Seriously. A pokey flat four diesel engine allied to permanent
four-wheel drive, nice touches like frameless doors, an utterly
distinctive engine note and 'feel', and absolutely fabulous build
quaity. What's not to like?

 

They've done that with the Impreza, too.

Used to be a distinctive saloon / 'sportwagon', now looks like a
Hyundai.

My dad had the original Impreza wagon - the interior was a bit generic
Japanese, but other aspects had some really nice touches, like the
frameless windows.

I really wanted to keep it when he passed away, but had only just got a
job with a company car, so had no use for it. The bloke who bought it
got a bargain, as it only had 13k miles on it with full Subaru history,
despite being around 14 years old.

 

Agreed, but not if fuel consumption's an issue

Yep, you need to be absolutely sure it's been run on fully-synth but
only those in the know will have done so. Saying that, it's only a
couple of hundred quid to get the sump dropped to clean the strainer and
it can be a good bargaining point if the previous owner hasn't done it.

Post-2002, yes, but they seem to do the job well enough.