- posted
16 years ago
Matt Faulk's old Saab is up for offer.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Hey look, some muppet is asking about MPG ;)
Chet
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Lol.
That's a great car, I'd have it as a track toy if I had the space.
However, I don't think it's really commuter hack material.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
"Not as good as a diesel" and "don't kid yourself" spring to mind! :)
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Theoretically, at normal driving it shouldn't be that heavier. Matt built it using bigger injectors, a higher pressure regulator and a re-epromed ECU, with a boost mapped fuel computer compensating for the
1980s fuel system.- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Large boot (like big enough to fit a wardrobe in), five leather seats, with heating, full carpets, heater, power windows and sunroof, why not commuter hack material. Probably weighs less than a Passat, with better power to weight than a W8 passat, and I reckon with Matts mods, should handle quite nice too.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Yes.
But you're still neglecting the main reason why you're looking to move on the Celsior.
Fuel economy and maintenance costs.
That is *not* a car that will be particularly economical or happy doing commuter work - it'll be at least as thirsty as a W8 Passat and the leather will get nice and sticky in the summer when you're sat in yet another jam on Manchester's motorways. I recall it's quite highly strung, too, so you're likely to have to replace bits quite regularly - not to mention the work that needs doing to get it properly sorted as it is.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
It ate gearboxes if you hammered it in 3rd I believe. But driven normally it wasn't any different to a factory car as I recall.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
See Steve's comments above...
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
mpg is always crap, turbo or injection all i ever got was 26mpg but at least it was consistent... expect sub 20 mpg if you cane that! ;-)
9000 had better economy.- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
26 mpg? I can get more than that from the Scorpio, ffs.
Talking of which, I finally fixed the fuel computer on it today, the 'reset' button has been inop since I bought it and the average has stuck at a steady 20-22 mpg. One trip to the scrapyard, set of buttons - £2, bargain - and a reset later and the average is up to 27 mpg. Will drop as soon as I use it round town though :-(
I keep meaning to sell the Scorp, but it keeps getting better. Besides, it's useful when two of my closest mates are both 6'6" tall and they can sit one behind the other and both have plenty of space. Not many cars they can do that in. Definately not the Rangie, that's for certain.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Boggle - so the rangie is tiny inside too?
cheers, clive
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
It's not tiny, but the Scorp has an extreme amount of space in the back. Really ridiculously huge in the back. With the front seats back as far as they go I can still lounge in the back with room to spare.
The Rangie is pretty big, but it's not the LWB one. LWB ones have about the same legroom in the back as the Scorp.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
All 3 of my T16s would do low-mid 30s driven reasonably sensibly. Best I got was 36mpg on a drive up North, motorway crusing at around 70-75.
However, when wifey ended up in hospital down south, I was in Manchester. I brimmed the tank in one of them, and had to put more fuel in at Warwick services 150 miles down the road..
Mike P
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Reading some early 80s reviews, the 900 Turbo is praised for its economy, being day to day the same as any other 900 _but_ it's stacks quicker. It posted quicker in-gear times than most other cars.
It had at least taller gearing and was probably more aerodynamic too.
The early 9-5 2.0t I occasionally have use of makes a good enough case for itself. Sure, it's a four cylinder in a 5-series rival, which is a minus. It isn't quick, which is another minus. Like Pete M's Scorpio, the 9-5 (and
9000) is so huge inside that it echoes. It's quiet and smooth, a great motorway cruising machine. The donk is beautifully tractable, none of this changing down at a motorway gradient or to squirt past a HGV. On paper it isn't very economical, but on the motorway, kept between the speed limit and the speed at which you'll get nicked (so 75), it returns higher 30s to the gallon. That's door to door figures for a 30 mile trip, including about 4 miles faffing about either end of the motorway or dual carriageway.- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
You were doing something wrong then, worst I ever got out of the bosch car was 28, and 30 out of the Lucas. And I didn't piss about with dawdling in those. I enjoyed baiting bigger BMs
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
You need a 2.3T not a t. They are quick. And at least as economical. The 9000 is much bigger inside than the 9-5, 3years after they they were introduced, a lot owners were chopping in their 9-5s and buying latest of the late 9000 Aniversaries and Aeros, because while the 9-5 had miles better motorway consumption, the 9000 was marginally better arround town and combined, and was much bigger inside.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
The 9000 doesn't drive anywhere near as well as the 9-5 though.
If I was going to have a 9000, I'd have it with an Alfa badge and a 3.0.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Nope. The 2.0t would do just fine. Anything over and above would be wasted.