900 Se Auto..Timing chain...still a factor?

Hi, help wanted. I had Saabs years back, when the timing chain was a bit of a cost thing to replace at around 90k miles.

Now, I'm back in the buying Saab market again, and looking at 900SE Automatic, convertible.. 1996. (93 shape) Is the timing chain still a consideration, or does it now go on forever? Is the life expectancy of the timing chain dependant on the type of driving, ie city or long runs? While I'm here.. can anyone recommend any other places I can research this car? I want one!

Anyone got any good advice on what to look for?

My man, he say.."him costly horse to maintain... we buy a mule instead, and I fix him every time he breaks. Then we buy new mule, or maybe a nice donkey" And he's not even a Red Indian. He's Scottish, and tight as an Oyster. Would I be better p/exing him for a more generous model? :-) Only joking about the last part. I'm serious about the car. All advice/help appreciated.

Thanks in anticipation

Nichollette

Reply to
derek
Loading thread data ...

Very unusual for chain to need replacing at such a low mileage.

Ouch! Picking a prime example of a butchered GM monstosity then...

It's still the same chain (apart from the v6, which is belted), and lasts about as long. Expect to replace maybe at 200-300k miles.

Not really - what's important is that oil is changed regularly, and the chain tensioner is replaced when necessary.

The chain is really the least of your worries on this car. The least likely thing to leave you stranded by the road. By a mile. And relatively cheap to replace compared to some of the other items you might be looking to replace on a 1996 900.

I'm the wrong guy to ask.

Good luck.

Reply to
Grunff

Hm, OK, never had one go, let alone that young, maybe you had a tensioner fail leading to a chain going? Those usually give you much (months) of warning. If you're talking early 80's or before, that tensioner has been redesigned.

If you buy the 4cyl engine, it's a chain and will go probably hundreds of thousands of miles. If, for some reason, you buy the V6, it has a timing belt, isn't a true Saab-designed engine, isn't as tune-able, and needs more attention. The belts need to be replaced every (what,

45,000 miles is it?) or ugly, bad things _WILL_ happen. The 4 is the same rock-solid engine (ok, more or less, yes I know, etc) that you've come to expect of Saab.

You'll love it; the chain isn't a cause for concern, at all. Failures are unusual enough that I can't think of more than two mentions in the last year here.

If the SE in your part of the world gives you the 9-speaker sound system, you'll love it. Dark Side of the Moon is a fantastic "show off the sound system" CD for it. If you care about rear seat legroom, the 9-5 has more of it, but there's no 'vert in the 9-5 line that I'm aware of.

Not sure why you'd have to "fix" a mule, aren't they sterile? but yeah, I see the point. Repair costs on my '99 9-5SE have been the usual (tires/oil/brakes/scheduled service) with the addition of a serpentine belt and it's tensioner at, oh, 70K miles or so. I didn't find brake parts to be too out of line, and tires don't care if they're on a racehorse or a mule.

Some questions are better left unanswered in a forum such as this...

We're pretty friendly here, questions are most welcome. Can you get a copy of the service records, especially if it's a V6 engine?

Dave Hinz

Reply to
Dave Hinz

"derek" skrev i en meddelelse news:cbvm3t$n5h$ snipped-for-privacy@kermit.esat.net...

Jep, been there, done that. But this was only the case with the 2,3-litre engines between '89 and '92.

I't will go on forever. :o)

Your driving isn't of any consideration. Your oil-changes are on the other hand.

Jep, 9-3 Conv. a much better car.

Cheers!

Reply to
Henrik B.

Not so. The 2,3-liter engines of 1989 - 1992 has a weak gearwheel (the bottom one) on the balanceshafts. It's a 9000 problem.

Cheers!

Reply to
Henrik B.

You are correct. I had a '92 and did the deed myself at less than 90k miles. That unfortante trait only applied to the 2.3L engines of those years. By 1993 it was fixed. The '96 9-3 will not have that engine, nor the chain problems.

-Fred W

Reply to
Fred W.

Ooooh. I disagree there. I much prefer the hatchback and in fact sold a

2000 9-3SE CV and bought a '98 900SE 5-door. There is too much body flexing in the rag-tops for my taste. The '98 was the first year of the hydraulic clutch (a big plus) but the power is down a bit on the SEs until 2000.

I'd say look for a 2000 SE 5 door.

-Fred W

Reply to
Fred W.

"Fred W." skrev i en meddelelse news: snipped-for-privacy@adelphia.com...

I'm sure you're right, but Derek is in fact looking for at Convertible. And I'm sure you agree that between the NG900 Conv. and the 9-3 Conv. That the

9-3 is the better Conv. - right?

Cheers!

Reply to
Henrik B.

Fair enough - but that was a very specific range of vehicles with a known problem, not timing chains on Saabs in general.

Reply to
Grunff

I'd disagree a bit. The 9~3 convertible came out in 1999, with an acknowledged 1000 new parts. It takes a little time to sort out new parts, so 2000 would be the year to buy. That will be quite a bit more money than a '98 or earlier. There are not really any major changes in the 9~3 vs. the NG900 so for most people it's the same vehicle.

I'd suggest a '97 900SE 'vert or a '98. You get the hydraulic clutch in '98. That's not a major difference but is a "nice to have". As to the power, you can easily do what Saab did and pull some more HP out of the 900SE but if you are not a hobbyist and want it "out of the box" then an ECU upgrade might be the way to go and that may be $500 to $1000. The '98 already has 185HP and Saab torque so it's no slacker but a little tuning is loads of fun. Of course, some suspension tuning is in order to add to the fun factor. There were some minor issues with various NG900 components when it first came out so I don't recommend the '95 or '96. The fixes were all incorporated by '97.

Reply to
Bob

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.