saab 9000 best model year / best configuration ?

in article snipped-for-privacy@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com at snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote on 30/04/2006 20:10:

Indeed! The C900 is the king, of course :)

As a second-hand car, probably as late as possible. 1998?

Full pressure turbo is the most fun and the 2.3 did that the best. Avoid the V6!

While there's nothing at all wrong with the 2.0 and/or LPT configurations, I think a late 2.3 Aero or Anniversary is the one to go for.

Personally, I like the older shape with the larger headlamps and the CDE really does it for me. Putting my money where my mouth is, I'd go for a late Aero/Anniversary.

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S

1993 CSE of course :) 2.0 LPT of course :)

Seriously though, you will get any answer as it all depends... I like the 1993 2.0 LPT for it's relative simplicity, no balancer shafts to worry about, no TCS. I'm really impressed that all the complicated engine management still works so well. But as the car is getting older, it would also be nice to have a newer model.

That brings up an interesting point. I don't recall the OP stating his location, but there is no such thing as a 2.0L in a 9000 after 1991 in the US. 1990 was the last year for 2.0L Turbo, and 1991 was the last year for

2.0 NA. By 1992 all US bound 9000's were equipped with a 2.3L engine.

Some people believe that 9000's in the 1991 - 1993 range with manual transmission are the best model years because of the final drive gearing. Those models also have a true glove compartment while later models were fitted with a passenger airbag in that space. Downside for the 1992 model year is the Traction Control System that was prone to failure.

I like my 1991, but I haven't driven other model years. That said, I would probably recommend one of the latest models - 1997 or 1998. Anything else on the market is likely to have high mileage and need repairs that you might not be able to handle (either mechanically or financially) as a new owner who is unfamiliar with that model.

Walt Kienzle

1991 9000T

I think this applies to most imported cars for the US. Fuel taxes are much less and you prefer automatics, so the manufacturers don't bother about importing lesser engined models. But ironically, you also drive slower as you have lower speed limits.

However, a 150bhp LPT is nothing to be ashamed of, and it can take a lot of abuse as the engine contain 10% more metal than the modern 9-5 equivalent. At 122,000 miles my 9000 2.0 LPT is still sweet.

Actually, this applies to anything shipped long distances. It has less to do with buyer preferences and more to do with economics. Are shipping fees from Sweden to the US substantially different for a 2.0L equipped model than a 2.3L? No. Can a seller ask a higher price for a 2.3L model than a 2.0L? Yes. Does it cost more to maintain inventory for multiple SKU's/Model configurations? Yes, even more so if everything is shipped from far away. So importers ship the configuration that will let them realize the highest profit. As you state, taxes also play a role. Some countries charge higher taxes for cars with bigger engines, and the insurance costs are often higher, so configurations with smaller engines can be cost justified in certain markets. The US typically doesn't have those taxes, costs and restrictions to make low end configurations cost-effective for importing. Mercedes doesn't ship anything lesser than the "C" class and Toyota produces their most popular models in the US as their way to address these economic factors.

Walt Kienzle

I agree on all counts, but again, getting back to the OP's location. If he is in the US, I don't think LPT was available until 1996 or so.

My apologies, I was unclear. My statement was to the fact that when cars are shipped long distances, they don't ship many variations of the same model. Is the Matiz you mentioned available with 4 or 5 different engine types, or is it available with just one or two? I meant to say that the

9000 has typically been available in the US with no more than 2 engine options at a time (maybe 3 if you consider the LPT to be a different engine than the FPT; I consider it basically the same engine, minus APC, etc.). We never had the option to select a 2.0 turbo and a 2.3 turbo in the same model year. When the V6 showed up, the 2.3L NA engine was gone. Additionally, the engine choice was determined by the trim level; one engine type per trim level. I understand that diesel was also available in Europe. We never had that option even though Volkswagen does a noticeable diesel business here with their one diesel engine offering.

My example with Mercedes was likely a bad one. Their decision not to sell "A" class here was likely to maintain their luxury aura. "E" class owners are complaining that the lower forms of life ("C" class owners) are clogging up the service areas and distracting service personnel with their (comparatively) cheap and less important cars. Just think of what those snobs would say about "A" class owners.

Clearly car manufacturers want to place a model in a market if they think they can sell it. I'm just saying that when the shipping costs are great due to the distance, they limit the selection to the more profitable configurations.

Your comment about US drivers wanting large cars with big lazy engines is a stereotype that started to go obsolete about 30 years ago at the peak of the big car era. Today, your typical young US family is likely to drive something like a Chevrolet Cobalt, Dodge Neon or Ford Focus with a 4 cyl engine, . My retired parents downsized from a 5.0L 8 cyl car they bought in

1976 to a 3.1L 6 cyl model (Chevy Lumina) that is typical of a car that older people drive. The 3.0L Ford Taurus was the most popular car for many years until Honda and/or Toyota overtook it a few years ago with their 4 & 6 cyl Accord and Camry models. I, of course, drive a 4 cyl Saab. I also own a Taurus (with a stick shift, so not all of us in the US will tolerate automatic transmissions). I know it is different in other regions, but none of my friends or relatives own an SUV or any other kind of truck. While your stereotype may apply to some areas and demographics of the US, it doesn't apply very well to people in this newsgroup. You don't have to preach to the choir here; we already understand the benefits of operating economically.

Back to OP's topic...

I owned a 2.3 FPT on automatic for a while, but it was poorly serviced and the bills kept coming in to correct previous owners/garages laziness so I sold her and bought my C900 Aero. I miss the bulllet like acceleration, and ludicrous speeds acheivable, but I don't miss the bills and nothing handles quite like a C900.

Her indoors has a '97 2.0LPT Anniversary, not the rocketship the 2.3 FPT was and a manual box. She's quick enough, stops so quick you can give yourself a headache* and doesn't cost a fortune on fuel. You can get upgrade kits from Abbot, Speedparts, Hirsch et al to give the 2.0LPT another 75bhp. However, this is the family car, it belongs to the missus and she's not up for the extra power.

My choice, if I had the money, would be a late (96-98) low mileage(

We can have this car from South Korea in many trim and engine variations, the Matiz comes in at least 4 variations, and 2 other Korean Chevy models come in 5 variations. Together with a people carrier, that makes 16 different models from this manufacturer alone. But what typical happens is that the customer selects the car and options before it leaves South Korea. Then a batch of cars are shipped over, but it can take maybe up to 12 weeks for delivery.

[...]

Last time I was in US was oh.. 6 years ago. I did notice a predominance of large cars on the street. There are also distinct advantages; a lazy 5.0L V8 probably lasts a lifetime and you can endure driving very long trips without getting flummoxed in the head. But the fuel consumption is really the killer in this country.

While you're getting smaller cars, our cars are getting fatter year by year. New models always grow, and former middle range cars are now really on the lardy side. Cars like BMW X5 and Volvo XC90 are getting popular. However, fuel consumption is kept in check by using efficient engines and a growing proportion of diesel cars.