2001 9-5 V6 3.0L - a good buy with GM engine?

It uses rubber timing belt whereas the 4-cyl uses timing chain. Power is

200bhp, whereas the 2.3 4-cyl has up to 230bhp and 250 bhp in later versions. The 6-cyl is more expensive to service and is heavier, all this results in extra fuel consumption. Saab discontinued the 9-5 6-cyl GM engine and put a 220bhp 2.3 4-cyl in its place. But it all depends on what you want. Maybe the 6-cyl is good enough for a bargain price, but the 4-cyl is preferable.

It is interesting that 4-cyl does so well. I can remember when I was a boy, a 4-cyl car engine was something of an embarrassment. However, I recently read a test in Auto Express 1) Vauxhall Vectra VXR 2.8-6/252bhp, essentially the new 9-3 aero engine 2) Mazda 6 MPS 2.3-4/256bhp and 3) Ford Mondeo ST 3.0-6/

223bhp. The clear winner both in performance and driveability was the Mazda!

There is no denial that the four-cylinder 9-5's are suffering from many engine failures as a result of oil sludging, from overly infrequent oil changes, low quality oil and a crap PCV system, as well as a faulty batch of turbochargers on the initial LPT 4-cyl cars. From a strict reliability point of vue, the V6 "GM" engine is light years better. And that engine is a Saab specific item anyway with an assymetrical turbocharger, only one on the road with that kind of setup. Sure you have to change the timing belt every 100 000 km like any other timing belt car...

Thanks for the help. I spoke to a Saab guy where I live and he told me to stick to a 2.3L and that's what I'm going to do.

You're a troll, yes?

He might be, but I don't see anything glaringly factually wrong in the above. ???

Many engine failures? Is it really that big a problem if you change oil at sensible intervals e.g. never more than 5000 miles. And why would anybody with a turbo use low quality oil? These are just standard turbo issues, so the V6 turbo isn't better in that respect. And 100 000 km between timing belts is stretching it a bit.

There's one in my driveway, which is one more than _I_ wanted, that's for sure.

And yet, the manual that Saab included with the car gave an interval of

10K miles.

The manual also describes the grades of oil to use. Even with that grade oil, and more frequent than spec'd oil changes, I had the failure. Others have also, hence the recall.

Oh, I thought we were talking the 2.3. I don't know anything about belts except that I don't want them.

Well then, I can't argue with that. I presume that Saab has fixed the issue, is there a cut off MY for which this 9-5 issue has been fixed?

Anyway I change oil and filter 3000-4000 miles on my 9000, now 120,000 miles. It seems noticeable smoother after the oil change.

My Mom's 2000 9-5 V6 SE Wagon has had no problems. It is a low mileage car.

But what made her pick the 9-5 V6 when it's not faster than the 4-cyl, yet uses more fuel?

"Johannes" skrev i en meddelelse news: snipped-for-privacy@stop-spam-sizefitter.com...

Well, try out a 2006 Saab 9-3 Aero 2.8 V6, and you'll never look back on that ancient 2,3-litre Saab-engine. ;o)

P.S. I drive a 9000 2.3T.

I saw a 9-3 Aero 2.8 V6 demo car on the road just leaving the Saab showroom. It made wonderful noises, but maybe didn't go any faster...

This dealer also has a smart Mazda 6 5-door. Much the same body concept as the

9000, but I haven't tried it. They also have high performance versions of this car.

I believe all USA SE Wagons of that time had the V6.

That MazdaSpeed6 looks sweet. Has anyone driven one?

The V6t is most assuredly faster than the original 170hp version of the 2.3t, and not a whole lot slower than the 2.3T 230hp Aero motor if the Aero is an automatic. Particularly at around town speeds the lack of turbo-lag and stronger low rpm torque of the V6 make it feel MUCH faster than either of the

2.3s. It is also quieter and smoother running, particularly at idle in gear. I have 61K on my 2000 V6t wagon, zero issues with the motor. Zero issues with the whole car, for that matter!

I personally know 3 people with sludge victim early 2.3t cars, I would not touch one of those unless it had gold-plated service records. Sadly, that is almost never the case in the US, land of Jiffy lube servicing. I do feel that maintained properly there is nothing wrong with the 2.3t, but people just don't treat care, especially as something like 85% of them were leased.

BTW, the official differance in EPA highway mileage for the V6 vs. 4 is *1* mpg! I get 28-29mpg with my wagon on trips, can't complain.

Kevin Rhodes Westbrook, Maine

00 9-5 SE V6t Wagon 91 BMW 318is 74 Triumph Spitfire

I ended up getting a 2002 2.3L Wagon last night. I appreciate the help on the subject, I got more info that I expected.

And to Johannes, I came here for information, I resent your accusation that I am a troll. Give me a break.

I wrote what I thought. Since I realise that I was wrong, I must apologise.