Help needed! 900s or 900 se?

Good choice, I have a 1997. I love it. I drive it just to drive it. I look for places to go. I take the long way home.

I won't hold it against you. In fact, I actually find it makes you somewhat more appealing to converse with that the other 99% of the posters out here who are crusty old male Saab cult members with grease under their fingernails. (as Bob ducks to avoid incoming flames :-)

I'm in the USA and it may be a little different in the UK. (Someone there will speak up in a minute or two.) In general, the

900SE has "all" the options. Electronics, leather, wheels & tires, upgraded stereo, CD, power everything. Considering the minor difference in price now, the SE is a much better choice, with much more enjoyment per mile.

I suggest the 1997. There are a couple of minor, but not necessarily cheap things, that they had fixed by 1997. You get all of those fixes in a 1997. A 1998 is an even better choice, but prices will be higher.

Again, I may hit a country difference, but AFAIK, the 2.0 is always a turbo. The 2.3 is a non-turbo. However, we all (me and the crusty guys here) suggest a turbo. It's not some overpowered, racers toy. It just a refined car with a little more power. Maintenance is the same as the 2.3. Mileage is probably about the same too.

You mentioned an automatic: first, I would *highly* recommend a standard and a turbo. It's a winning combination. If you don't know how to drive a standard, you can learn. Really, it's lots of fun. I don't like the 2.0 or 2.3 with an automatic because the motor does not have a lot of power at low RPM's when pulling away. WIth the standard, you can just rev it a little to get the turbo and engine moving. With an automatic. it will pull out very slowly. Try to cut across traffic and see what you think before buying.

You might consider the V6. It's not a real favorite around here as it's a non-Saab motor (Opel/GM source) but it's not a bad motor. It does need the timing belts changed religiously every

30K miles ($400USd) and a couple of maintenance items (like spark lug and thermostat changing) are more work than they should be. Aside from that, it's probably a better choice for an automatic.

My pleasure, mademoiselle, Bob

Hey!

Get a turbo. Saab is known for their turbos. Saab turbos are relatively trouble free. Non-turbo Saab engines don't have good reputations, overall. With the turbo, you won't be lagging behind anybody, but will still have the fuel efficiency of a 4-cylinder. You can probably get a better deal on a manual transmission.

snipped-for-privacy@madmousergraphics.com

design, print design, photography

Unlikely :), I'd say 99% of people learn to drive manual transmissions over here. That's a guess mind you, I don't have actual stats but I only know of one person that I know over the past 20 years that ever did an automatic only test and she then had to do a manual test a couple of years later when she changed car.

David.

I don't know about the post '93 (GM) 900's, but the earlier ones supposedly had lousy automatics that were very prone to failure. The manuals are quite good though.

Over where? I know plenty of people who don't know how to drive a manual, I don't get it personally, I think automatics are boring and sluggish, can't imagine actually preferring one but to each their own I suppose. Went to the Volvo dealer today to pick up some trim clips and browsed the new models, every last one they had on the floor was auto.

The non-turbo Saab engines are every bit as good as the turbo engines other than being less powerful. While the turbos are good, they do require more meticulous maintenance, gotta change the oil on time every time and it's highly recommended to run synthetic.

Running synthetic (at least if you buy the car fairly young) and religiously changing the oil is advice I'd give everyone for every car.

In article , snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com spouted forth into alt.autos.saab...

Over in here in gods own green country, the UK (or the green and sceptic isle as we like to call it).

This can become a bit of a religious argument, but I've just seen no compelling reason to run synthetic in a naturally aspirated engine, but then I've mostly dealt with the massively over-engineered Volvo and Saab powerplants that seem to run forever, even the ones that have recieved mediocre maintenance will often go well over 200k miles.

The Volvo dealer and US headquarters (I sent them an e-mail) will tell you no one buys an automatic, so why stock them. Perhaps, no one buys a Volvo manual transmission because they never see one or can't test drive one. Would you buy a car you did not test drive? Also, you might have noticed almost all of the Volvos in stock were loaded up with "options", including the "optional Geartronic automatic". You have to be rich to buy a new Volvo these days. There was a survey where the average income of a new Volvo owner was over $150,000 per year.

Anyone who says non-turbo Saab engines don't have a good reputation must not have owned a Classic. My 1986 8 valve was still running strong at over 200,000 miles and not burning or leaking a drop of oil. Too bad a teenage driver hit it.

Go for a 2,3 non turbo with the automatic, or even better, a 2,0 turbo, here in Sweden the 2,0 non turbo wasn´t even sold with an automatic, and that was no great loss.

Stay away from the V6, it´s costly to maintain compared to the 4 cyl.

The manual gearbox isn´t very funny in a non turbo, but could be bearable in a turbo, but I recommend the automatic, much more relaxing to drive.

/Mats

I've heard the V6 has problems but I never had one to say for sure. My first Saab was a 1995 900S convertible auto-transmission and it was just too sluggish for me. Really had to stomp on it to move out of the way. It had the 4 cyl 2.3 liter engine. Sold it 6 months later...just wasn't fun to drive. Now I have a 1997 Saab 900SE convertible with the

2.0 liter turbo charged engine and manual shift. The engine has amazing power for a 4 cyl that's for sure. I would think it would be OK with an auto-transmission but I haven't tried one. Go turbo, you won't be sorry.

Check the leather driver's seat for wear. If it's really cracked and nasty, the car probably wasn't appreciated or well cared for by it's owner. Also check the "serpentine" belt (main drive belt) for wear or noise. If the car is near 100k miles, it's time for a new one before you get stranded somewhere since it literally drives Everything on the car. Good luck they are great cars! Paul in Atlanta

I'm not sure where David Taylor is, but the poster who started this thread is on Blueyonder which is the Internet arm of one of the British cable TV companies. I've come across quite a few people in Britain who only drive automatics, though it's certainly a minority.

In London at least, automatics do seem to account for quite a lot of the Saabs on the road. I'm fairly certain the GM-based 900 has the same automatic transmission as my 9-3 - it's made in Japan by Aisin and, with the light-pressure-turbo engine at least, runs very well indeed.

Martin

Paul:

Good tip but the idler pulleys start disintegrating spontaneously at 50K miles. Replace every 45K to be safe. You can do just the pulley in about 15 minutes. The belt seems to go longer but while you are in there, you can replace it for another $35. Better safe than sorry.

They were never cheap cars though, most of the models were high end yes, however they did have a couple in the $25k-$30k range which isn't too bad. My parents bought a 240 wagon new in 1986, it was a floor model with few options and it was over $17k, roughly double what a typical base model domestic. My '87 740 Turbo was around $25k when new, probably more like $40k in today's dollars. Thankfully they can be had quite cheaply now.

I hadn't heard this before, guess I should consider changing the idler on the gf's 900. Doesn't anyone make a replacement that lasts longer? Sounds like a real weak spot on an otherwise excellent car.

No replacements that I know of. It only takes a few minutes and $35 to replace, so it's not too big a deal. The belt takes a little longer to do if you want to do that too.