9000 CS vs. Aero...what's the difference?

That's understandable :)

The Saab 9000 was available in 5 basic flavours -

2.0 litre low pressure turbo (LPT) 2.3 litre LPT 2.0 litre Full pressure trubo (FPT) 2.3 litre FPT 2.3 litre FPT Aero (Hot)

If you like fast cars, hold out for a 2.3 FPT or Aero. If you like to cover a lot of miles in comfort go for the LPT's. The LPT's or "eco-power" models have turbos, but use them mainly to help efficiency so they get slightly better mpg.

I used to have the 2.0 CS LPT. Recently got an Aero & the difference is incredible. The LPT covered 0-60 in around 10 secs, my Aero does it in just over 6.0 so I find it a lot more fun to drive :) IMHO

I don't think there is a 2.0 FPT. The choice really depends on his requirements. The 2.0 LPT is plenty fast, cheaper to insure and maintain. The 2.0 LPT is an excellent daily car and cost very little to run, provided oil change intervals less than 6000 miles are fastidiously adhered to. My 1993 2.0 LPT is still sweet. It's of course not as racy as an aero, but how often do you need this performance?

I don't think there is a 2.0 FPT. The choice really depends on his requirements. The 2.0 LPT is plenty fast, cheaper to insure and maintain. The 2.0 LPT is an excellent daily car and cost very little to run, provided oil change intervals less than 6000 miles are fastidiously adhered to. My 1993 2.0 LPT is still sweet. It's of course not as racy as an aero, but how often do you need this performance?

in article snipped-for-privacy@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, Nasty Bob at snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote on 04/08/2006 19:27:

Erm, yes ... Unless you've a spacious, comfortable and luxurious Ferrari to swap, he'd be pretty grumpy about letting it go.

SAAB took, like another 5 years to get the same driver feeling into the current range. The 9000 Aero is a stunning car.

The LPT range provides a very good balance of power, performance and consumption making an excellent car overall when one considers the interior comforts of the higher trim specification cars. It's a car that whatever specification you buy you won't be disappointed ...

But the Aero really is a top notch car and well worth seeking out a good one. The engine and gearbox (of the 2.3) seem quite happy with further performance to around 400 BHP which is well into "supercar" territory. That said, given production finished in 1997 they're nearly 10 years old and older examples start to have electrical, aircon and engine failures. Either way, a late CSE or Aero will make a stonking car.

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S

Anywhere from 75 to 25 bhp... :)

Heh.

The book shows a difference of under two miles per gallon comparing the 2.0 turbocharged 9000s... but the naturally aspirated model felt gutless and the turbo felt much better, despite there only being 20 bhp between the two (2.0na: 130 bhp, 132 lbsft and the 2.0tc, 150 bhp and 157 foot pounds).

9.5 seconds for the LPT and 6.7 seconds for the Aero, but both scrabble for grip at the front end... In gear difference is huge, at least in the dry: I always found the Aero would wheelspin under even moderately aggressive driving. That's down to technique, of course...

I'd take the opposite view. Sure, the Aero is huge fun, don't get me wrong... but it's driven at the wrong end. Both offer the traditional 9000 benefits (huge inside, comfortable, so on and so forth). I'd take the mild turbo model...

I can't remember seeing a 2.0 FPT and can't see where it'd fit in the range, either. The 2.3 turbo was available with 170, 200 and 223 bhp... wasn't the

900 / 9-3's 2.0 turbo available with 150, 185 and 200 bhp (more or less in each case)?

Hmm. One part reckons that you can never have too much power! :)

On the other hand if I were wanting a 9000 it'd be the 2.0 LPT.

"..and 6.7 seconds for the Aero"

un-modified of course :)

"but both scrabble for grip at the front end... "

Agreed. It's hard to get the power down from a standing start. And torque-steer in 2nd is a blast. But once on the go, anything from 40mph up is fair game :)

The OP didn't say where he is, but in the States all 2.0l turbo 9000s have

160hp, BUT, there is no such animal here as a 2.0l CS/CSE turbo or not. They are all 2.3s with 170hp, 200hp or 225hp for the turbos. I thik the non-turbos had 130 then maybe upped to 150 for the late ones. No torque though!

But there is more than just the engine that is different between an Aero and an lpt car. The Aero has big-bolstered sport seats front and rear and a much stiffer suspension with larger wheels and tires. Also has a different body kit with a bigger front air dam, side skirts and a trunk lid spoiler. More interior luxury toys as well, though I think you could get all that stuff as an option on the base cars too.

Kevin Rhodes Westbrook, Maine, USA '00 9-5 SE V6t Wagon (200hp) '92 C900CVT (160hp)

Yes the standard 15" wheels for the LPT look a bit small these days; it's the sort of wheels they now fit on many superminis. I was lucky to swap these for a set of genuine Aero 16" wheels on special end-of-line offer from dealers. Both handling and ride (and looks) improved somewhat. These 4-bolt wheels doesn't fit newer saab models. However, the 'modification' cost me £50 annually in increased insurance premium :-(

On the other hand, a large car with modern-sized alloys and standard specification, diddy brakes looks silly.

So too do Clios and suchlike with 240mm brakes and 16" (standard Renault) alloys.

In some respects my 9-3's 15" rims do look a little small... but it's a lovely colour! :)

But 16" isn't exactly large wheels; standard fit on a Mondeo. That gives plenty of tyre choice for 205/55/16. I agree that the sort of wheels you can buy in Halfords always looks silly, but mine are the Saab genuine article.

And sometimes drum brakes on the rear, easily seen through narrow spokes :-)

Yes, I appreciate that... but current generation Mondeos have brakes that just about fit the wheels (at the front at least).

The back, well, heh *coughs at Mondeos*.

Yes. The Ka's Ford fit 14s had that issue, which is partially why I picked an especially ugly wheel design... less ugly than the drums heh.

Drum brakes on the rear do have some merit; works better for hand brakes, (Parking brake to some of you). But of course no respectful car these days should have drum brakes...

Back when I had the Fiat Croma, it was the beginning of 'all disk brakes'. The hand brake was always iffy, no matter how many times the dealer adjusted it. Ever since that time, parking on a steep slope always fills me with horror.

Many all-disc braked cars have a combination rear disc / drum unit, certainly Dad's 190E had this feature.

The 9-3 might have this combination, might not, heh *cough*. The handbrake is weak that's for sure...

ignore Dery, he is a Diesel nut. ;)

My GT4 used the inner surface of the rear disc bell as the handbrake drum.

Well...things didn't go as planned.

First of all, the "unmotivated" seller is a car lot. It's mainly the finance people, not the lot itself. They're not returning calls. I have less than stellar credit at the moment so I'm not in a position to get financing just anywhere, and I don't just have a few thousand dollars on hand to throw down on a car.

I found the CS online, and was initially very excited. The Aero was a blue automatic, while the CS was a black 5-speed. I'm partial to black, and really prefer the 5-speed for maintenance reasons.

After flying to my previous home state to secure my birth certificate this weekend, returning home (to Atlanta), and acquiring my GA state driver's license, I headed to the dealer that had the CS.

It was beautiful. Then I discovered that the "check engine" light was on, the A/C didn't work, the power locks were non-functional, the drivers-side rear window won't budge, the radio makes no sound despite appearing to have power, and finally, the gear shifter moves under acceleration or decceleration... It was priced at $4,995. The guy offered to knock $1000 off the price if I'd take it as-is.

Given that I have no idea why the "check engine" light is on, and the A/C doesn't work, I obviously said no. $5k for a good working 9000CS doesn't seem like a bad deal. $4k for a half-functional car seems like a rip-off to me. I am going to call and ask that he have it looked at by a compentent mechanic. It could be something as simple as a sensor needing to be replaced for the "check engine" light, and a recharge for the A/C. Not too sure about the shifter, but the other stuff is minor, and I could probably fix, or at the very least properly diagnose them in a few hours, if that. I'm good at tracking down electrical troubles.

Should I shoot for the automatic Aero? I just spent $1500 rebuilding the automatic transmission in my Chevy truck, and I don't relish the idea of having to do the same for a foreign car anytime soon.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

~jp

Nasty Bob wrote:

"Then I discovered that the "check engine" light was on"

Not necessarily a big / expensive problem. The CEL on my old 9000

2=2E0LPT came on soon after I bought it, and stayed on for the next 2 years without any problems until I got the AMM replaced and then it went off.

"the A/C didn't work, the power locks were non-functional, the drivers-side rear window won't budge, the radio makes no sound despite appearing to have power"

All well-documented possible DIY fixes if you have the time / inclination / patience...

"and finally, the gear shifter moves under acceleration or decceleration... "

You need some engine mounts replaced. Mine also did this but I never bothered getting it fixed..

"It was priced at $4,995. The guy offered to knock $1000 off the price if I'd take it as-is."

Sounds pricey for something that needs so much done to it. I just sold our old 9000 for =A3150, and it sounds as if it was in better condition than your one (& it had leather seats;)

Can you get a local Saab expert / dealer to give it the once over? Unless they're prepared to knock a lot more off the price and you can do a lot of the work yourself, I'd give it a miss and wait for a newer / better one with a full service history. LPT / FPT or Aero, the 9000 is a great car and with proper care, will last well into the 200,000 mile mark and beyond. =20

NO!