I've read a lot about this in the past few years here, seems that there is a good bit of apprehension abut the 3.0l V6 in a 9-5. I have to say that I never really paid a whole lot of attention. Turns out that the back posts aren't archived on my news server so I can't go look them up.
I am looking to replace my '99 SE 4-cyl and came across a very nice looking
2003 with a 6-cyl.What's the downside?
They're always available at google.com - click on the "usenet" tab.
What do you need for the '99 4-cyl? What's wrong with it? Auto, or stick?
Poor fuel economy, difficult maintenance, less power than the 4 cyl turbo, lower resale value, etc.
Well the V6 was 200 hp and the 2,3 turbo was 185...
Maintenance isn't that difficult having looked under the hood...
*Lower* resale value?And the V6 has none of the turbocharger and oil sludge problems that plague the four-banger models.
Personally, I like the 4-banger better - usually better economy and it comes with a stickshift, and it feels more "Saaby". But honestly, the V6 does not deserve to be dragged in the mud continuously when in
*reality* the V6 is a much cheaper and safer option in a used 9-5 of questionable history. If you know the 9-5 you want to buy has always had the oil changed with Mobil 1 or somesuch at 3000 miles on the dot, then you aren't really in a bad spot. But if you don't know, a lot of bad things can be lurking under the hood of a 4-cylinder 9-5.
For what its worth I have just sold my 1995 2.3 non turbo 900S. It had 57k miles, perfect condition both mechanically and electronically. Never used synthetic oil as not vital in non turbos, use best non syn changed often enough. Every type / make of engine will get sludge under certain conditions. Personally I am not keen on V6's in confined bonnet/hood spaces and they are almost twice the work if you have head gasket problems. A straight 4 with balancer shafts is a sensible simple solution.
Everyone always says to avoid them, the turbo 4 cars sell for substantially more, at least around here.
Are you following the 9-5 4-cyl drama (at least here in North America)? All the 9-5 models are turbocharged, 4 or 6. Saab recommended a 10 000 mile (16 000 km?) oil change interval. As well, they installed smaller low-friction piston rings, a lower-friction oil pump, an OBD-II compliant PCV system and several other enhancements that really give a much better fuel efficiency on these new motors, designated B205 (2,0 litre not in North America) and the B235 (standard 9-5 USA market motor). However, this puts a lot more stress on the engine oil than you had with the older B204 and B234 engines. Of course, since Saab said change oil at 10k miles, people are putting in the 69 cent at Wal Mart a quart oil and changing it at 12k or more miles and putting a crappy Fram or something oil filter that clogs and goes into bypass at 6 k miles.
Result - engine starts to sludge up. The timing chains start to make a little rattling and in no time the engine is junk. This is a far cry from the old B202 engines that basically could use molybdenum grease for oil and run a billion miles and still look like new on the inside.
If the engine is properly maintained the B2x5 engines can run a very long time as well and serve the owner with excellent economy and performance, especially in R tune. However unless you have a proper maintenance log for it (and then Saab's 8-year warranty will apply too) it might be better to not touch it. Mind you, 9-5 Aero cars (particularly manual transaxle) probably had "more enthusiast" owners who took much better care of them...
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.