Saab 9-5 Turbo Aero

How is it wasting money, when it's being paid for by work?

Assuming you're reasonably confident in keeping your job, there is little difference between taking a lease car and buying one using the cash alternative. But, if you take the cash alternative, you end up with a finance-free asset after 2/3 years.

Doesn't matter how much it costs - the market is still populated by people who will happily wash their hands of your car if it goes bang.

Which isn't the case if you use the officially sanctioned service installed by a main dealer and warrantied by the manufacturer.

Using a 3rd party map on a car that's within warranty is madness.

Is it? Why? If there's a fault with it then they'll have to prove the fault was caused by the remap.

Hmmmm, I think it will be up to you to prove that it *wasn't*.

(Not entirely sure how the law would be interpreted on this one - but for most consumer items, once the item is 6 months old, it's up to the consumer to prove the fault was there at purchase or due to design fault)

Certainly wouldn't want to take a chance on it, not when a few hundred quid more, on some cars, will get you an approved remap.

With consumer items it's up to the customer to prove the item was either not durable, unfit for purpose or not of merchantable quality for as long as is deemed reasonable. A car is just as much a consumer item.

That's where your argument would come unstuck, though.

Like taking something that has a 6v DC adaptor and sticking 9v through it to 'make it faster'.

Fair enough, they couldn't refuse to pay out on buggered air-con on the basis you'd had a car chipped, but they'd more than likely have the law on their side if the engine spat a rod after a re-map.

Having broken a crank clean in 2 on an engine, I tend to be a little cautious these days.

Chrysler 300c is nice, Chrysler 300c Estate was created by the same guy who created the Ssangyong Rodius, but with the anti-psychotics wearing off.

Don't they just have a GM engine?

:rolls eyes:

It's the slant-block Ricardo / Triumph lump with twin-cam head and FOAD turbo.

The same GM engine in your 9000?

No mine is pre-gm

Is it just the 9-3 that uses the gm cambelt engine then? I thought all the latest petrols Saabs did?

If they have kept up a newer version of the older engine, then fair play to them.

Yes and no; the 2.0 in the 9-3 Sports Saloon uses a chain, not a belt.

Nope. The 9-5 soldiers on with the H-series (or whatever it's now called).

It's going to be replaced.

Whilst many believe that the 2.0 Ecotec in the 9-3 SS isn't a proper Saab engine, most of these don't know what a real Saab engine is anyway! :) And I have to report that the 2.0 Ecotec has much of the same character as the older 2.0 donk; it has a similar power curve, makes a similar noise, but is marginally smoother.

I assume this is related to the 1.9 / 2.2 co-developed with Fiat Powertrain, then.

The last true Saab engine would have been a 2-stroke.... since then, they've relied on other manufacturer's cast-offs. Not that that's a bad thing, as they've made a pretty ordinary and not particularly reliable engine work very well for them....

Interesting that Saab are the first to market with the Fiat twin-turbo diesel, closely followed by Lancia, whilst Fiat and Alfa are still using single-turbo engines.

That was my point. I just chose to make it rather obtusely.

(c:

I didn't know Ecotecs were known for being unreliable.

Nope that was shared with DKW

So they've never really had their own car engine, then?

All noted for the next Saab owners meet! :)

Mine has more in common with a late 70's 99 than with a 1997 9000. Completly different engine/gearbox that changed in 1994. Known as long and short block engines.