SAAB 9-3

[Stroller133]

I am looking to buy a SAAB 9-3 - Does any have any opinions on whether this is a good idea or not. It might not matter as I think I've decided already! I have the chance to give my Astra Estate back to the company and buy my own car.

 

I have a budget of £0, but can get some money together somehow and looking to spend upto about £2.5K - but less ideally. I am hoping to get something about 03-05 with about 100k mileage.

 

Are these GM era SAAB still good cars, and do the engine cope with miles like the 80s Saabs used to?

 

I am not decided on Engine, should really go for a diesel, probably the the 1.9 which I assume is vauxhall as they appear more economical and quicker than the 2.2. But I'm afraid I really am tempted by an Aero 2.0T, which still claim to do about 33mpg. I know there are not in true autoshite terrority yet, but they seem fairly good value for money for reasonalby new-ish, fast, well equiped and in my opinion quite good looking car. There are few for about a grand, but they all look a bit ropey and have about 170k+ on the clock.

 

Any advice on common problem, warning to avoid etc will be appreciated.

[Stroller133]

I am looking to buy a SAAB 9-3 - Does any have any opinions on whether this is a good idea or not. It might not matter as I think I've decided already! I have the chance to give my Astra Estate back to the company and buy my own car.

 

I have a budget of £0, but can get some money together somehow and looking to spend upto about £2.5K - but less ideally. I am hoping to get something about 03-05 with about 100k mileage.

 

Are these GM era SAAB still good cars, and do the engine cope with miles like the 80s Saabs used to?

 

I am not decided on Engine, should really go for a diesel, probably the the 1.9 which I assume is vauxhall as they appear more economical and quicker than the 2.2. But I'm afraid I really am tempted by an Aero 2.0T, which still claim to do about 33mpg. I know there are not in true autoshite terrority yet, but they seem fairly good value for money for reasonalby new-ish, fast, well equiped and in my opinion quite good looking car. There are few for about a grand, but they all look a bit ropey and have about 170k+ on the clock.

 

Any advice on common problem, warning to avoid etc will be appreciated.

[burraston2006]

I had a 2.0 turbo but it had a lazy drive gear box so I struggled to get into the high 20 mpg. The car went like a rocket and never broke down on me. She'd do a ton up ( where legal! ) with the roof down no probs and the heater pumped out as hot as a nuclear power station! For some bizarre reason it also had air con?!

[burraston2006]

I had a 2.0 turbo but it had a lazy drive gear box so I struggled to get into the high 20 mpg. The car went like a rocket and never broke down on me. She'd do a ton up ( where legal! ) with the roof down no probs and the heater pumped out as hot as a nuclear power station! For some bizarre reason it also had air con?!

[tonedepear]

The 1.9 is the fiat JTD engine that shits itself with alarming regularity. Cambelts made of paper, etc. 2.2 is an Izuzu unit, noisier but better from my experience (and I've owned both).

 

I assume you're looking at the saloon/sportwagon later shape 9-3 rather than the cavalier shape hatch 9-3. Of the ones I owned, I preferred the hatch by a mile.

 

The auto box in the newer ones is (imho) unbelievably shit and slow-witted as well. I'd recommend a manual petrol one, or the 2.2, although I have no experience of those engines in the later shape version, the 1.9 was hateful and I am still floating high on a cloud of joy at being rid of the thing. (Mine had done 25k when I bought it, to put it in perspective).

[tonedepear]

The 1.9 is the fiat JTD engine that shits itself with alarming regularity. Cambelts made of paper, etc. 2.2 is an Izuzu unit, noisier but better from my experience (and I've owned both).

 

I assume you're looking at the saloon/sportwagon later shape 9-3 rather than the cavalier shape hatch 9-3. Of the ones I owned, I preferred the hatch by a mile.

 

The auto box in the newer ones is (imho) unbelievably shit and slow-witted as well. I'd recommend a manual petrol one, or the 2.2, although I have no experience of those engines in the later shape version, the 1.9 was hateful and I am still floating high on a cloud of joy at being rid of the thing. (Mine had done 25k when I bought it, to put it in perspective).

[Stroller133]

Thanks for the comments

 

I am leaning more towards a petrol, almost definately a manual.

They do a non turbo 1.8 - sounds miserable and fuel figures are about the same as the turbos.

[Stroller133]

Thanks for the comments

 

I am leaning more towards a petrol, almost definately a manual.

They do a non turbo 1.8 - sounds miserable and fuel figures are about the same as the turbos.

[tonedepear]

I didn't realise until I've just checked now, but all the 9-3ss petrol engines are Vauxhall units (fettled/developed by Saab) rather than the same basic engine as the old 900/99/Triumph one that lived on in the 9-3 (ng900 shape) and 9-5.

 

That non-turbo must be earth-shatteringly bleak.

 

Sorry for being a completely miserable bastard! I've owned 11 SAABs, and then newest 9-3 was the worst in nearly every department, and I was really disappointed, cos I loved the idea of it. I did 35k in a year in it, so I gave it a fair chance. See here for a list if you're interested! > http://mingebagcitroens.blogspot.co.uk/

 

I really liked the hatchback-shape 9-3, even though it handles hilariously poorly. And they are rock-bottom cheap now.

[tonedepear]

I didn't realise until I've just checked now, but all the 9-3ss petrol engines are Vauxhall units (fettled/developed by Saab) rather than the same basic engine as the old 900/99/Triumph one that lived on in the 9-3 (ng900 shape) and 9-5.

 

That non-turbo must be earth-shatteringly bleak.

 

Sorry for being a completely miserable bastard! I've owned 11 SAABs, and then newest 9-3 was the worst in nearly every department, and I was really disappointed, cos I loved the idea of it. I did 35k in a year in it, so I gave it a fair chance. See here for a list if you're interested! > http://mingebagcitroens.blogspot.co.uk/

 

I really liked the hatchback-shape 9-3, even though it handles hilariously poorly. And they are rock-bottom cheap now.

[Spiny Norman]

I'd forget the Diseasel unless you REALLY need one, and go for one of the petrol turbos. Mate of mine has an 07 plate TiD wagon and it's a nice enough car but it would be so much better with a proper engine.

To be honest I'd save a grand on that budget and get one of the earlier hatchback 2.0T models, could also benefit from pre 2001 tax rates on one of those.

The SAAB FORUM is pretty useful too.

[Spiny Norman]

I'd forget the Diseasel unless you REALLY need one, and go for one of the petrol turbos. Mate of mine has an 07 plate TiD wagon and it's a nice enough car but it would be so much better with a proper engine.

To be honest I'd save a grand on that budget and get one of the earlier hatchback 2.0T models, could also benefit from pre 2001 tax rates on one of those.

The SAAB FORUM is pretty useful too.

[Justin Case]

They do a non turbo 1.8 - sounds miserable and fuel figures are about the same as the turbos.

 

The 1.8 (actually 1.8T, I think) is actually a less powerful 2.0 litre, so probably not too dire, but labelled as such so that people who paid more for more powerful 2 litres didn't feel upset. They thus sowed the seedcorn of an idea that Mercedes and BMW have taken to such heights that none of their current model numbers bears the slightest resemblance to the engine capacity

[pompei]

Don't get the 1.9td. Decent enough power/economy then it lets you down big time. The local Saab indie garage reckons that engine is a major factor in the demise of Saab.

 

I've never had a 2.2 but i read they were less efficient.

 

Other than that teh 9-3 was a good car. Check the heater fan though - it's set in a well behind the screen which can collect water. The motor and resistor pack gave up in mine which would have been a fortune to repair if I'd had it done.

 

I've got a 9-5 2.3t which has a GR9 engine, albeit thirsty. It's much bigger and the 9-3 handled better. If the 2 litre t in the 9-3 is anything similar you won't be disappointed.

[Stroller133]

For the last 8/9 years I have had diesels and sort of prefer them due to the torque and economy. I am now concerned about DPF/DMF issues that many modern diesels encounter but still struggle to see a petrol as being the best choice financially. I am not sure exactly what sort of driving I will be doing from September as I'm planning to train to become a teacher, so could be commuting 10 miles each way or could be up to 40, depending on what course I can get on. At 20 miles a day, a petrol will be no problem, but at 80+ miles a day, I think the fuel saving over a year would almost pay for the new clutch and flywheel that I hopefully would not need!

 

I went to look at 2 today, first one was a 55 reg Vector Sport 2.0T (175bhp) - I immediately felt comfortable sitting in it and definately want a Saab. The second was a 03 Aero at £1800 - would have probably bought it from photos alone, but it was gone already so didn't see it