I'm contemplating buying a used 2003 9-3 with about 78,000kms (48,700miles). Saab isn't a very common name in my city and my mechanic has admitted that he hasn't worked on too many and thus doesn't know how well they hold up. The Saab dealer of course has nothing but glowing remarks to say about it. :)
I understand that any repairs that will need to be made will naturally cost more than a domestic or more common import, however i'm wondering what should i be expecting? is this milage a lot for this car?
when i started looking for a new vehicle i started looking at lesser cars with a lot lower milage (civic, corolla, etc) but then found this
9-3 which was in my price range and have fallen in love :)
It is nice to have a Saab mechanic around to avoid dealer labor rates. But, there's not a big difference.
Absolutely not. It's just broken in. Saabs typically go 200-300K on the motor without major engine work. There are a few things that wear out at 50K but they don't cost much, a few more at 70, but they are not too bad either.
Saabs are nice cars to drive. There's a big difference between Euro cars and Japanese cars.
Hi, but whats reality ? German Car magazines publish the same weird things, but driving with my
1993 9000CS, (293000kms, so far), to work, I always see 1 or 2 year old Mercedes ML, with brokedown engines, or Audi A4 1.9TDI burning on the Autobahn :-)
That said, I will not suggest that an average Saab is as reliable as the average Toyota. However, all manufacturers have their issues. Toyota had some serious sludge problems, which they vigorously denied for years and refused to repair under warranty. Saab had a similar problem but fixed, and is fixing, a lot of engines. I've had Toyota refuse to do a warranty repair because of the liability they'd be assuming if they admitted it was their fault due to design (they retreated to the lawyers very quickly when I pushed the issue, a meager $230 repair). And, FWIW, Saabs don't have that design issue.
A few years ago Honda decided that Technical Service Bulletins, which every other manufacturer on the planet makes publicly available, were proprietary property and would not be publicly distributed. That was a direct assault on non-Honda and DIY mechanics as well as on the Honda owner who they did not want informed about known issues in the cars (it costs them more if people ask for warranty repairs).
Nissan had a problem with every V6 motor from 1996 to the early 2000's wherein the exhaust manifold studs broke or broke out, causing most owners to spend $300 to $1200 per motor for repairs. Nissan did come out with an improved stud but since the cars in question were always out of warranty (36K) when the studs wore out (50-70K), they denied all claims.
FWIW, my Saab dealer SUGGESTED warranty repairs on several occasions to me unsolicited... they noticed something they thought they could fix or prevent future maint issues and brought it to my attention - despite the fact that they mae only half as much money on warranty repairs and they could have just waited until I was out of warranty in a few months.
A couple of other things to keep in mind - Consumers' Reports is basing its statements on comments and observations made and reported by owners, not on specific statistical data. Some owners of new and newer vehicles are simply more likely to think something is an issue, to expect a certain type of product performance and to complain about something being an issue when owners of another type of vehicle might not even notice anything amiss.
The one thing you may want to keep in mind is whether or not this 2003 is the last year of the older series or the first year of the newer series - there may actually be some issues of reliability if it is the first year of the newer series cars - I'm thinking that the 2003 model year may have been the first year of the newer series 9-3's for the sedan models and the convertibles held over into 2003 and didn't change until 2004.
To put things in some sort of perspective, we have a 2003 9-3 SE convertible (they were the last year of the earlier series 9-3 models) with about 35k miles on it (say about 56k kilometers) - to date it hasn't required anything but oil changes. We also have a 2003 GM/Chevy full size pick-up truck and, except for a warranty recall for a steering shaft replacement (no noted issue with it other than an audible 'clunk' when the wheel was turned hard-over) it also hasn't required anything but oil changes (oh, and gas, yes, lots and lots of gas . . . ) which is why, since a few years ago, we also have acquired a used 1995 Saab 9000 Aero which I use to commute 75 miles round trip every day and which still, at going on 13 years old and just over 136k miles (219k kilometers) is still getting about 30 miles to the (US) gallon. Granted, I've replaced a couple of solenoid valves in the electronic traction controls system, some hoses, the fuel pump, the serpentine belt and pulleys and the D.I. cassette, and a couple of the exhaust system mounting rubber doughnuts, but other than those items and some reparative work on a couple of the electrical relays (by which I mean re-soldering, not replacement), which to me seem reasonable things to replace for its age and over the 36k miles I've had it, all it has needed are regular filter, oil and fluid changes and a new set of spark plugs every
10k miles - it still goes like a scalded cat when the pedal gets stepped on and is extremely comfortable, everything works as it should and it looks teriffic.
If the car looks to be in good shape, doesn't smoke or make wierd noises, checks out when a mechanic looks at it, wasn't abused, I wouldn't think you'd be disappointed in it, pending whether it is a new model change-over version or the last year of the older series.
Yes, in a statistical survey. I'm guessing you didn't take statistics in college. That's not an insult, just that if you never studied statistics, you might not realize how corrupt their methodology is.
The first rule in statistics it that to get a truly accurate sampling, your sample has to be truly random. Their's is no where near that. What they do is solicit opinions from their subscribers. There is no attempt to draw an accurate random sample from the population of vehicle owners. In addition, they take opinions, not repair records and call them facts. It just gets worse from there, as they draw averages and ratings from totally invalid samples. From a statistics point of view, what they do is pure bunk. It leads to things like the famous headline "Dewey Wins". Except CR is worse.
To add to that, even with good samples, their data is very misleading. As an example, they have a category for major engine problems. Unfortunately, some of the things in that category are very minor fix, and some are major repairs. For example, the Nissan stud problem I mentioned earlier is definitely an issue, but it is fixable with no permanent damage. OTOH, Mitsubishi had a problem with "crank walk" in their engine design for a few years wherein the clutch pushed the crankshaft back and forth until the crankshaft eventually got so loose it walked it's way right through the front of the engine. Big difference in seriousness of the problem. But CR doesn't tell you what kind of problem it is, they just give you a less than full red circle.
I agree that Consumer Reports' ratings are generally useless. I have participated in these surveys. The faults are readily apparent and exactly as you describe, possibly worse, because they don't provide good measurement guidelines that can be applied in the same way by each reviewer/subscriber. As you state, it ends up a compilation of opinions and gives no indication of the severity of the problem(s). The instructions from CR ask if any work was done on a particular system. This penalizes companies that take preventative action through service advisories. I have a Taurus SHO that I purchased new and has operated flawlessly for 17 years. I still own and drive it. As a courtesy to me, Ford replaced my clutch, flywheel, front brake rotors and starter motor even though I didn't have a problem with any of these items. Based on the instructions CR provided, I was obliged to indicate that work was done on these components. This gave an unfair and inaccurately negative report on the car. Work related to these service advisories wasn't only provided to me, but to all owners for the first 2 1/2 years of this model's production. By CR's standards, everyone had failures in the brake, electrical and transmission systems. By their report, there were issues with major systems in the car. The ratings were bad -- and unfounded.
If consumer surveys are authoritative proof of product quality, I guess there would not be any need for argument in prduct liability lawsuits: just flash the survey report before the judge and that's it.
But, don't forget that there is a difference in quality between the two models. The 9000 had for instance the B202/B234 engine, which is one of the best engines ever made. The quality and reliability of the newer Saab engines doesn't seem to be at all in the same class.
Yes quite true. I'm amazed of the amount of abuse my B202 2.0 LPT can take, and still runs sweet after 14 years. Sometimes I feel like saying "sorry" to the engine, but it never complains. The new 9-3 engines are derived from a different heritage, yet they are modern engines and hence you would expect a long life in excess of 200k miles.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.