Cage match! 9000 v 9-5 [Archive] - SaabCentral Forums

: Cage match! 9000 v 9-5


SpecialTool
28-09-07, 04:04 AM
We’re thinking of selling the reliable ’98 Accord and taking a punt on a family-sized SAAB of similar vintage. On the one hand, ’97-’98 9000 CS Anniversarys are well-equipped, roomy, powerful, supremely practical, stylish, and cheap – around AUD$7000 for a nice one (although I hope to do better). On the other hand, ’98-’99 9-5s are all of the above, sort of – they are not as practical (being a sedan) and a few grand more expensive. But being a newer model, it’s an improvement – isn’t it?



So, more “modern” styling aside (and as I already mentioned, I like the 9000’s looks just as much as the 9-5’s anyway), why would I want to pay more for a 9-5?

Grega
28-09-07, 05:54 AM
Depends also on the condition of each car.

But in case they're currently both OK consider also this: this was the last production year of the 9000 and therefore most of it's childhood illnesses were then already taken care of.

While the 9-5 - model years of 98' and 99' have poor reliability for the same reason - "childhood illnesses".

Maybe one 9-5 expert can tell more, but I've read & heard a lot of complaints from the people who own a 98' 9-5.

Xedus129
28-09-07, 07:20 AM
first 2 years have that turbo issue, when I had a 9-5 the turbo died 2x

mike saunders
28-09-07, 08:52 AM
99 9-5 has serious engine sludge issues, partially caused by the inefficient crankcase ventilation system. There have been several modifications for this, and most cars on the road now likely have the latest update.

The turbos are likely failing because they're getting choked with sludge, as was the case with several 9-5s I've seen, including the one that I bought with nasty piston blowby and rod knock. The turbo had failed on this engine the year before....

But all in all....

The 9-5 is a great car...

Tweek's Turbos
28-09-07, 01:17 PM
9000 Is bigger on the inside. I also like the engine management software. But I personally would get the 9-5 wagon.

woywitka
28-09-07, 01:27 PM
Style and "newer car feel aside" the Saab 9000 is a more well made car.

In stock form the 9000 Aero is a very good performer, no stupid sludge issues (which IMO is ridiculous to be dealing with)

I'm not a 9000 fan; howver, that does not mean they are bad cars at all, I like 900s.

Raven18940
28-09-07, 01:27 PM
99 9-5 has serious engine sludge issues, partially caused by the inefficient crankcase ventilation system. There have been several modifications for this, and most cars on the road now likely have the latest update.
I wouldn't call it "serious" as it is a manageable problem. As for the turbo failures, that's a problem unique to the LPT and it's GT17. I believe the problem lies in the complexity of the trubo as the aero and its TD04 turbo have no such failure issues (and don't say the aero was specced with synthetic oil cause it got semi-synthetic in the early models just like everything else). If you've ever looked at rebuild kit for a GT17 there's like 50 pieces versus a TD04 that has like 5.

9000 Is bigger on the inside. I also like the engine management software.
Actually the 9000 and 9-5 are about the same size. The 9000 is bigger in the back and the 9-5 is bigger in the front. And the T7 is great.......as lok as you don't fiddle with it too much.

Bottom line is the 9-5 is a better 9000. All the little problems with the 9000 were fixed with the 9-5 and it would have been perfect if they haven't fiddled with the engine so much and turned it into a sludge monster.

soul05
28-09-07, 02:01 PM
i've been in the same boat of wanting either a 9000 or 9-5. ive been searching locally for a 9000 aero or a 9-5 aero...but ultimately i think i will get the 9-5 aero because of the shape of the car. i love how both cars look, but the 9-5 will look better parked next to my 9-3.

mike saunders
28-09-07, 02:27 PM
I wouldn't call it "serious" as it is a manageable problem.

A very fair point. It's managaeable now, after what -- five or six crank vent updates? :cheesy: -- but it was pretty vexxing a couple of years back.

As for the turbo failures, that's a problem unique to the LPT and it's GT17.

You're right, and we're totally on the same page about this...but in 1999, the main year the poster is considering, ALL the turbos were light-pressure turbos, both 4 and 6 cyl.

woywitka
28-09-07, 03:14 PM
Just because things are ok now does not mean an old 9-5 doesn't have loads of sludge in it. Even with the current pcv fix and synth oil, you can still get major troubles.

The 9000 was back in the day a remarkable car that became dated towards the end of its run.

The 9000 would take a beating FAR better than ANY 9-5, the 9000 Aero is a remarkable machine consider the age. The 5-speeds are said to be stronger (I have heard), the turbos are better, and many say they can be faster with easy tuning.

I think a 9000 Aero would be a better choice for me; however, with age comes all thoes little things that break...but are not a big deal. Like A/C, heated seats, power windows on and on.

I hope to scrape enough this year to get a 9-5 before winter; however, I'm so nervous about the stupid sludge issue...I can't afford a 2004. They are awsome second hand buy...they are worthless. New they are steep; 1 year later they are pocket change.

I'm looking at a Garry Fisher now, 2000. Wagon would be sweet!!!!!

Raven18940
28-09-07, 03:30 PM
You're right, and we're totally on the same page about this...but in 1999, the main year the poster is considering, ALL the turbos were light-pressure turbos, both 4 and 6 cyl.
But one can upgrade to the TD04 once and never worry about it again. ;) You can get a SAAB TD04 on ebay for $400.

Just because things are ok now does not mean an old 9-5 doesn't have loads of sludge in it. Even with the current pcv fix and synth oil, you can still get major troubles.
You can......but you can also never have a problem. You can also get a 9000 that's been run on normal oil and has a choked turbo.

The 9000 would take a beating FAR better than ANY 9-5, the 9000 Aero is a remarkable machine consider the age. The 5-speeds are said to be stronger (I have heard), the turbos are better, and many say they can be faster with easy tuning.
You need to define "beating" cause the G-forces my 9-5 generates with it's slick tires and stiff suspension would rip the front control arms right off a 9000. And sludge issues aside, there's not a whole lot that will break a B235. Mine has 102K on it and I beat it daily. Runs smooth as silk up to 6500 rpms, gets good gas mileage, burns no oil. As for gear boxes, the 9-5 gearbox is just better, especially with the updated synchros. Aside from burnouts(the diff just explodes after a while) and 500 whp, there's really nothing that will break a 9-5 5 spd.

ylee coyote
28-09-07, 07:08 PM
But one can upgrade to the TD04 once and never worry about it again. ;) You can get a SAAB TD04 on ebay for $400.


You can......but you can also never have a problem. You can also get a 9000 that's been run on normal oil and has a choked turbo.


You need to define "beating" cause the G-forces my 9-5 generates with it's slick tires and stiff suspension would rip the front control arms right off a 9000. And sludge issues aside, there's not a whole lot that will break a B235. Mine has 102K on it and I beat it daily. Runs smooth as silk up to 6500 rpms, gets good gas mileage, burns no oil. As for gear boxes, the 9-5 gearbox is just better, especially with the updated synchros. Aside from burnouts(the diff just explodes after a while) and 500 whp, there's really nothing that will break a 9-5 5 spd.

sorry but ...

It is well known that the std pistons will not take much more than 300 hp without breaking up...
The 9-5 gearbox better ?
not really its the same inside as the 9000 and the synchro upgrade was on the later 9000,s as well

Rip the front control arms off a 9000 ...I do not think so

The 9-5 chassis is notoriously wooly.. note the hub upgrades throughout its life
the subframe needs substantial strengthening to stop it flexing

however the 9-5 is quieter and certainly more refined but the 9000 is more planted (btw I am currently running both and altho the 9000 has 70 k more miles ,it is the more sporty ...and preferable IMHO

TurboBlix
28-09-07, 07:24 PM
i know you people drive cars older than i am, but i personally feel better in a car with a newer design. i like having the comforts of more modern autos incorporated with safety improvements.

yfs87
28-09-07, 08:04 PM
comfort = weight...weight = the enemy...its a trade off im willing to make.

SpecialTool
28-09-07, 08:47 PM
i know you people drive cars older than i am, but i personally feel better in a car with a newer design. i like having the comforts of more modern autos incorporated with safety improvements.

Fair comment, but I'm not sure what makes the 9-5 safer. The 9000 is built like a tank, has airbags, ABS...

TurboBlix
28-09-07, 09:30 PM
Fair comment, but I'm not sure what makes the 9-5 safer. The 9000 is built like a tank, has airbags, ABS...

i can probably give a clearer answer later. right now, i couldn't imagine a car manufacturer to come out with a whole new model and not improve on the safety characteristics of earlier models.

yfs87
28-09-07, 10:56 PM
i could, its to keep competitive with other companies that release a new platform every 4-7 years. when the 9-5 first came out, was about when they started drastically changing their marketing strategy. the 9000 had been around for 10 years while bmw had redesigned the 5 series twice...old platform...outdated to the general public. The safety of the 9000 is every bit as good as the 9-5, at least the older ones. I suppose side skirt airbags help but ehhh.. standards have changed in the last 25 years.

TurboBlix
28-09-07, 11:38 PM
other than side airbags and traction control, off the top of my head i would imagine there would be structural safety differences b/w a 9-5 and a 9000. just thinking of auto trends in safety, i know having recessed controls to protect front passengers is a small touch auto designers have incorporated over the years. and i would be surprised if saab left such aspects b/w the models alone as frame stiffness, crumple zone, safety cage, active restraint system, seat design - i can't think of anything else right now but whatever changes necessary to compete with other brands of that model year in safety esp with the NHTSA and IIHS ratings becoming such a factor in the car buyer's decision. i have some doubts about the quality of those ratings but i think the overall trend is to make a car that holds up tougher in a crash, especially as it seems people drive a lot faster than before. and yes such cars will definitely be heavier.

i'm just saying i don't think saab would release a new model in such a hurry to compete with other makes without incorporating any safety improvements, esp as each year passes, safety is more and more an object of bragging rights and a major factor for drivers in choosing a car.

maybe i'll look up differences tomorrow b/c i don't feel like it right now. my curiosity has been piqued.

p.s. i have nothing against the 9000. i'm sure it's an extremely safe car. and i think if someone hits you that hard, no matter what you're driving unless it's literally a tank, you're roadkill.

blinktude
29-09-07, 01:36 AM
I would have to say 9-5 is better because I own one and I have never driven a 9000.

mike saunders
29-09-07, 02:21 AM
I would have to say 9-5 is better because I own one and I have never driven a 9000.


LOL:lol:

I've owned both...and the 9-5 wins easily in both safety and performance.


re: safety: from Saab literature: "The Saab Active Head Restraint (SAHR), introduced as a world-first innovation in the Saab 9-5, effectively reduces movements of the occupant's head following a rear end impact and reduces the risk of whiplash injuries. The SAHR system is standard on all 1999 Saab 9-5 and Saab 9-3 models."


there's a bunch of other stuff, including chassis and subframe improvements over the 9000. Independent rear suspension is a HUGE plus.


Each model has been an evolutionary improvement over what came before it in many respects....but not all. I'd still prefer a B234R to a B235R any day pf the week! :)

woywitka
29-09-07, 03:18 AM
i can probably give a clearer answer later. right now, i couldn't imagine a car manufacturer to come out with a whole new model and not improve on the safety characteristics of earlier models.

You call a car with a known engine to Seize safe?

Airbags, Abs, Tcs, Esp, TSP, PCP, DNA they all might make cars safer on paper; however, it is mostly the chassis, seatbelt, and the ocupant driving who will determine the real safety!

The 9000 is a damm safe car! Both score high in Safety.

TO me the 9-5 and 9000 are harder to see out of than a c900, something I find a safety factor.

My 900 also has a more direct road feel, for me this is important. But a c900 is most certainly not a "safer car", lol. Still safe, but not as safe as a 900 or 9-5.

woywitka
29-09-07, 03:26 AM
But one can upgrade to the TD04 once and never worry about it again. ;) You can get a SAAB TD04 on ebay for $400.


You can......but you can also never have a problem. You can also get a 9000 that's been run on normal oil and has a choked turbo.


You need to define "beating" cause the G-forces my 9-5 generates with it's slick tires and stiff suspension would rip the front control arms right off a 9000. And sludge issues aside, there's not a whole lot that will break a B235. Mine has 102K on it and I beat it daily. Runs smooth as silk up to 6500 rpms, gets good gas mileage, burns no oil. As for gear boxes, the 9-5 gearbox is just better, especially with the updated synchros. Aside from burnouts(the diff just explodes after a while) and 500 whp, there's really nothing that will break a 9-5 5 spd.

WHAT?

The 9-5 is nt more "stiff"!!!

COntrol arms breaking off, what?

The B35 "low friction pistons" are brutal, you can pump more power through the pre-historic b202. lol.

I don't care what anybody says, the best Saab gearbox I have shifted was a 1994 9000 CSE I drove around Europe, the 9-5 box still sucks...it shifts worse than my 20 year old Saab 900.

500whp? A 9-5 will break long before that!

The 9-5 box is not "better", the 9000 got upgraded many many times.

Look, I do not really enjoy 9000, I drove one for 10,000kms this sumer and never liked it. I found it to be a really generic, boaty sedan.

I much prefer the 9-5, I'm looking to buy one. This does not mean the 9-5 is better. I'm sure a good 9000 turbo kicks some butt! The 9000 Aero is fantastic, and the engine is MUCH stronger.

The 9000 has a build quality to it the 9-5 does not. The 9000 will take a beating far better, I do not see 9-5's getting up into 500,000km territory.

yfs87
29-09-07, 08:36 AM
old saabs were just built better, its that simple. but then again they cost a lot more to build as well.

mike saunders
29-09-07, 08:47 AM
The old vs. new Saab argument is getting old and irrational, especially when promoted by folks with little or no knowledge of the new ones.

Raven18940
29-09-07, 10:05 AM
WHAT?
What? :confused:

The 9-5 is nt more "stiff"!!!

COntrol arms breaking off, what?

Well I was talking about my aftermarket suspension. And that was compared to my friend with a 9000 who has to tighten his control arm bolts every couple days with his aftermarket suspension.

The B35 "low friction pistons" are brutal, you can pump more power through the pre-historic b202. lol.

If all you care about is "how much power can I make before it pops" but that's far from all there is too an engine. If you know anything about engines you know that the greatest stress in an engine is the negative acceleration when the pistons reach the top of the exhaust stroke. On a B235 this is -2750 G!!! at 6500 rpms. As this is an acceleration rather than a force, the actual force on the bearings, pistons, and connecting rods are based on how much mass is in the pistons and connecting rods. So the SAAB engineers designed the B235 with light weight pistons to reduce those forces, which results in smoother operation, less power lost to changing momentum, better fuel economy, and a higher stock redline (I think 6500 is the most saab has ever put on a stock engine.)

Unfornately, budgetting came into the picture and probably told the engineers they couldn't have their light weight pistons forged cause it would be too pricey, so a cast piston was used. That's my theory anyway, but the reason the B235 can't do more than a B234 is cause it got cast pistons. And lets be honest now, how much power can you actually push on a B202 or B234, 400hp? 500hp? Big freakin deal.

I don't care what anybody says, the best Saab gearbox I have shifted was a 1994 9000 CSE I drove around Europe, the 9-5 box still sucks...it shifts worse than my 20 year old Saab 900.

500whp? A 9-5 will break long before that!
You were going so well with your old saab pipe but now you've proven you know crap about the 9-5.

The 9-5 box is not "better", the 9000 got upgraded many many times.
It got upgraded many times BECAUSE IT WAS CRAP! The only change to the 9-5 gearbox has been a redesign of the synchros. The only person person who's broken one due to massive power is Fatship and his monster 9-5 that's around 500+whp

The 9000 Aero is fantastic, and the engine is MUCH stronger.
Define stronger, cause my 9-5 aero has a lot more top end than a 9000 aero and more rpms to boot. I dynoed mine stock at 235whp and 240 wtq, and the ecu was still adapting up at that point.


The 9000 has a build quality to it the 9-5 does not. The 9000 will take a beating far better, I do not see 9-5's getting up into 500,000km territory.
When I hit 500,000 km I'll let you know, cause I'm going there. Just passed 100,000 miles and it's still going strong.

valbowski1980
29-09-07, 11:20 AM
I have owned two 9000 (1993 N/A 5-speed & 1995 FPT 5-speed) and one 9-5 (LPT 5-speed) over the past five years. All have been pretty much stock with no real engine or suspention mods and here is what I found out:



The 9-5 rides, corners, and puts power down better than the 9000. It also has better steering feel. The 9000 are still very compitent cars even when compared to many of todays models.
The best gearbox was on the 1995 FPT. By best I mean shortest through and best action.
The 1995 9000 FPT had my favorite engine and the LPT 9-5 will require some mods to be as powerful and flexible.

The 9000 has more room inside and is far more practical due to the hatchback
The seats are equally good on the 9-5 and 9000
The interior quality of the 9000 is marginally better than the 9-5... i.e. quality of the plastics and such.
The 9-5 has far less body flex... you really notice it when you jack the car.
The 1993 5-speed 9000 had the notchiest gearbox ever..... night and day between the 1995's gearbox.
Both the 9000 and 9-5 have been a pleasure to own. I would have loved to own a classic 900 but finding one with low miles is damn near impossible. I hate the NG900 since I have never driven a good one, and I've never tried a 9-3SE so I can't comment on whether there was any improvement.

My 5 cents....

ShadowWorks
29-09-07, 01:12 PM
Which Accord do you have? if its the 2.2 vtec its better than either of the Grandpa wagons:lol:

Nothing says I'm an old fart better than a 9-5.

All you have to watch out for is rust on the rear wheel arch, apart from that the Honda Accord is a mechanical bull and will run forever if taken care of.

My old next door neighbour has 95 Accord as a taxi and its on 650,000+ miles, plus the cars on the road 24 hours a day as his brother does the night shift:lol:

ylee coyote
29-09-07, 03:03 PM
the 9-5 was an adapted chassis from the gm stable
when I say chassis I mean an agglomeation of wet noodles
cant polish a turd...

the 9000 was a clean sheet design

got 270,000 miles on my 9000 and still going strong

cant say the same about the 9-5
on its second engine and quite a few other things have failed
the a/c system is notoriously unreliable and this car is on its third fan
..heard of missing pixels ?

unfortunately GM was squeezing saab pretty hard when they were making the 9-5 and a whole bunch of stuff came out of this ..
the sludging ,the build quality ,the hubs,the failing rear suspension (shocks last 50k if you are lucky
I could go on
but it is quieter and more refined
but handles better ? sorry but I have the luxury of being able to do a back to back test 9-5 v 9000 and the 9-5 is a soggy ,wafty barge goes over speed bumps as if they are not there but ....
the 9000 on the other hand is intrinsically more planted ,probably because of the "purer " rear axle which does not deflect with roll unlike the 9-5.
9-5 has better seats ????????
Are you mad ....the 9-5 has by far and away the worst seats of any Saab I have ever driven
they are best described as "adequate "but are severly compromised in the ergonomics department
Over the years they have come back from the abyss and have steadily upgraded them
But the early ones were shockingly bad

Like for like a 98 9000 is streets ahead of a 98 9-5

woywitka
29-09-07, 04:07 PM
What? :confused:



Well I was talking about my aftermarket suspension. And that was compared to my friend with a 9000 who has to tighten his control arm bolts every couple days with his aftermarket suspension.



If all you care about is "how much power can I make before it pops" but that's far from all there is too an engine. If you know anything about engines you know that the greatest stress in an engine is the negative acceleration when the pistons reach the top of the exhaust stroke. On a B235 this is -2750 G!!! at 6500 rpms. As this is an acceleration rather than a force, the actual force on the bearings, pistons, and connecting rods are based on how much mass is in the pistons and connecting rods. So the SAAB engineers designed the B235 with light weight pistons to reduce those forces, which results in smoother operation, less power lost to changing momentum, better fuel economy, and a higher stock redline (I think 6500 is the most saab has ever put on a stock engine.)

Unfornately, budgetting came into the picture and probably told the engineers they couldn't have their light weight pistons forged cause it would be too pricey, so a cast piston was used. That's my theory anyway, but the reason the B235 can't do more than a B234 is cause it got cast pistons. And lets be honest now, how much power can you actually push on a B202 or B234, 400hp? 500hp? Big freakin deal.


You were going so well with your old saab pipe but now you've proven you know crap about the 9-5.


It got upgraded many times BECAUSE IT WAS CRAP! The only change to the 9-5 gearbox has been a redesign of the synchros. The only person person who's broken one due to massive power is Fatship and his monster 9-5 that's around 500+whp


Define stronger, cause my 9-5 aero has a lot more top end than a 9000 aero and more rpms to boot. I dynoed mine stock at 235whp and 240 wtq, and the ecu was still adapting up at that point.



When I hit 500,000 km I'll let you know, cause I'm going there. Just passed 100,000 miles and it's still going strong.

Why doesn't he just tighten the control arms correctly in the first place;) , I have NEVER heard of this, EVER.

Proven I know "crap" about the 9-5. Look buddy, stuff the insults....you are really starting to cross into being offensive. I have been following 9-5 recalls, reviews, and post in the 9-5 workshop for about a year and a half. The 9-5 is plaugued with troubles that I would considerly widely unacceptable for a car. Ford produces better quality vehicles for pete sake, and this was looking at statistics of over 200,000 units.

The 9-5 gearbox design is very robust in the Automatic form compared to the 9-3 SS, c900, and 9000. Even better than the the GM900 autobox. The 9-5 manual has KNOWN syncro issues in the first 3-4 years with 1st and reverse. There has been a few blown up trannies in the 9-5 workshop too eh, just do a search on "broken" and "gearbox".;)

The 9-5 Aero in stock form does not pull as hard on top end vs. that old 9000 Aero. Have you acutally driven both? I don't know why, but man the 9000 Aero is one killing quick machine.

The 9-5 lpt has a joke of a turbo, the quality is terrible.

100,000miles is not 350,000 miles. That is another 250,000 to go. The quality of the engine internals is not a strong as previous Saabs, this is well documented.

One thing I do know about newer Saabs: The quality has declined. The 9000 has proven beyond a 20 year usable life with the correct care. Many 9-5s have had multiple engines, a number of turbos, and sometimes more repairs to the ACC system than the comparable 9000.

The 9-5 i still the newer Saab which has a good amount of appeal in both the drive and style.

You know it is funny. GO to carsurvey.org and read what people write about cars. 1000s and 1000s of entries. With the latest Saabs the number of littl ehappy faces really goes down. "blown engine" is a very common headiing in later entries of 9-3/9-5 cars.

Then look at the c900 and 9000. Look at the w123s MB's, Honda Preludes, Toyota Corollas. Cars that had some build quality and long life.

TurboBlix
29-09-07, 04:12 PM
Why doesn't he just tighten the control arms correctly in the first place;) , I have NEVER heard of this, EVER.

Proven I know "crap" about the 9-5. Look buddy, stuff the insults....you are really starting to cross into being offensive. I have been following 9-5 recalls, reviews, and post in the 9-5 workshop for about a year and a half. The 9-5 is plaugued with troubles that I would considerly widely unacceptable for a car. Ford produces better quality vehicles for pete sake, and this was looking at statistics of over 200,000 units.

The 9-5 gearbox design is very robust in the Automatic form compared to the 9-3 SS, c900, and 9000. Even better than the the GM900 autobox. The 9-5 manual has KNOWN syncro issues in the first 3-4 years with 1st and reverse. There has been a few blown up trannies in the 9-5 workshop too eh, just do a search on "broken" and "gearbox".;)

The 9-5 Aero in stock form does not pull as hard on top end vs. that old 9000 Aero. Have you acutally driven both? I don't know why, but man the 9000 Aero is one killing quick machine.

The 9-5 lpt has a joke of a turbo, the quality is terrible.

100,000miles is not 350,000 miles. That is another 250,000 to go. The quality of the engine internals is not a strong as previous Saabs, this is well documented.

One thing I do know about newer Saabs: The quality has declined. The 9000 has proven beyond a 20 year usable life with the correct care. Many 9-5s have had multiple engines, a number of turbos, and sometimes more repairs to the ACC system than the comparable 9000.

lol so why did you say you wanted to buy a 9-5?

i'm not going to post my subjective opinion on either car. i think special should test drive both and see what he thinks.

woywitka
29-09-07, 04:13 PM
http://z.about.com/d/cars/1/7/n/h/05_saab95_dash.jpglol so why did you say you wanted to buy a 9-5?

i'm not going to post my subjective opinion on either car. i think special should test drive both and see what he thinks.

Because for under $10,000 look at what you get:D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://images.automotive.com/reviews/images/01saab95.jpg

The 9000 is old and so is my c900.

Rust, worn out plastic bits, and hard ot find parts are far and few on newer cars.. Age is something that gets annoying at times.

My current daily driver I ask for 200kms a day is 20 years old, has never skipped a beat in the 20,000 I have driven it; however, with winted around the corner, a real pristine body, and lots of love put into it I would like to keep it in the shade.

Sure my c900 will always run, is super durable, but man...try finding a windscreen seal, or where on earth that little puddle of something is comming from.

What does $10k get me, Golf, a Taurus, perhaps an old A4. What most people in my demographic would buy. with a really well taken care of 9-5 I'm very confident that it could be a fairly nice newer car to drive on a daily basis to take up door dings, salt, and all thoes damm rock chips.

Plus, people scuff my bumpers and stuff, on a 9-5 WHO CARES! Nobody will restore these things one day, they are more or less a dime a dozen and have a much weaker following.

230hp-250hp, Vented seats, a nice ACC system, half decent stock Audio (something a c900 has never had), real speaker locations, a nice clean attractive rust free shell. You even get a cup holder! It is just nice and fresh.

Plus a reliable Automagic transmission (if wanted), something Saab has long had troubels with.

A real A/C system, not that little thing in my 900.

The newer Saabs have thier advantages, but I would never go so far to saying they are better well build vehicles;)

SpecialTool
29-09-07, 08:41 PM
Which Accord do you have? if its the 2.2 vtec its better than either of the Grandpa wagons:lol:


It's a 2.3 vtec -- only the sohc. It's still a good looking car, especially with my ricer wheels -- tasteful, of course:cool:. It's been a dream to own, cost almost nothing and still as tight as the day we bought it, but I read recently here on SC that it was bound to start falling apart soon -- all Hondas do!

Still, my heart says SAAB...


Nothing says I'm an old fart better than a 9-5.

And a 9000 doesn't?:lol:

Raven18940
29-09-07, 10:26 PM
Why doesn't he just tighten the control arms correctly in the first place;) , I have NEVER heard of this, EVER.
They come loose, I don't know if it happens often to drivers who don't push their suspensions, but it's fairly well known.

Proven I know "crap" about the 9-5. Look buddy, stuff the insults....you are really starting to cross into being offensive. I have been following 9-5 recalls, reviews, and post in the 9-5 workshop for about a year and a half. The 9-5 is plaugued with troubles that I would considerly widely unacceptable for a car. Ford produces better quality vehicles for pete sake, and this was looking at statistics of over 200,000 units.
I just don't take kindly to anyone dissing my car and saying it's crap. It's a SAAB and a damn good one and it deserves some respect.

The 9-5 gearbox design is very robust in the Automatic form compared to the 9-3 SS, c900, and 9000. Even better than the the GM900 autobox. The 9-5 manual has KNOWN syncro issues in the first 3-4 years with 1st and reverse. There has been a few blown up trannies in the 9-5 workshop too eh, just do a search on "broken" and "gearbox".
I've been on the 9-5 for two and a half years, broken gearboxes are a very rare thing. It's usually someone exaggerating a synchro problem. And as for synchro problems, most are fixed with a switch to the new synthetic oil. And synchros are like brake pads, they wear out, it happens.

The 9-5 Aero in stock form does not pull as hard on top end vs. that old 9000 Aero. Have you acutally driven both? I don't know why, but man the 9000 Aero is one killing quick machine.

I have driven a 9000 aero, it's geared too tall. Have you driven a 9-5 aero, it's pretty freakin quick, I embarrass stock STi's.

The 9-5 lpt has a joke of a turbo, the quality is terrible.

You'll get no arguement here, it's a piece of crap. I recommend swapping it for an aero turbo when it goes.

100,000miles is not 350,000 miles. That is another 250,000 to go. The quality of the engine internals is not a strong as previous Saabs, this is well documented.

I know my car can do another 250,000, my engine is mechanically sound. As for the "quality of the engine internals" that's well documented and exaggerated to no end. Oh no, it can only hold 300hp, how ever will we get on with our lives??? Cry me a river, it was built to hold aero power, and it does so pretty damn well. Sludge issues aside, rod or piston failures on a stock engine are not a common thing.

One thing I do know about newer Saabs: The quality has declined. The 9000 has proven beyond a 20 year usable life with the correct care. Many 9-5s have had multiple engines, a number of turbos, and sometimes more repairs to the ACC system than the comparable 9000.

I disagree about the quality, I think my 9-5 is built very solidly. Sure the ACC throws codes like it's its job, but most of the time it still works so most people just leave it alone. As for turbos and engines, the 9-5 needs one thing that most owners simply can't be bothered with, 3000 mile oil changes. I've done 3K-4K oil changes since my car was new and I don't know what all this sludge hoopla is about. My car really has been trouble free, it just works.

Raven18940
29-09-07, 10:34 PM
take up door dings, salt, and all thoes damm rock chips.

Plus, people scuff my bumpers and stuff, on a 9-5 WHO CARES! Nobody will restore these things one day, they are more or less a dime a dozen and have a much weaker following.
I hate you so much right now. :cry:

Plus a reliable Automagic transmission (if wanted), something Saab has long had troubels with.
FYI, those "reliable" boxes can barely hold Aero torque.


A real A/C system, not that little thing in my 900.
HAHAHA, no, SAAB A/C just like everyone else. :p

Cuba
29-09-07, 11:26 PM
Well it's a cage match. But I don't get it, which one is better, the 9000 or the 9-5?:)

yfs87
30-09-07, 01:34 AM
NEITHER!!! :lol: just get a c900 :cheesy:

mike saunders
30-09-07, 02:41 AM
Had a C900 for seven years. Driven four others frequently over the years. Never again.

Had three 9000s. Driven five or six others, only two that I liked: my dad's 91 9000 FPT and a 95 FPT with springs, struts and an 18T conversion

Have a 9-5, LPT. Like it a lot, and feel it handles considerably better than a stock 9000. I've driven two or three others, including a 400+ whp beastie.

Xedus129
30-09-07, 03:55 AM
alright 9-5 can take a driver side t-bone at 55mph and no scratches to driver... how about 9000

Cuba
30-09-07, 05:52 AM
alright 9-5 can take a driver side t-bone at 55mph and no scratches to driver... how about 9000

At 55mph, a t-bone will just knock the pipe out of your mouth in a 9000.

Shoaib Akhtar could chuck a t-bone with a bit more pace, but I keep my window up when I go past his place.;)

Raven18940
30-09-07, 09:43 AM
This really is a tit for tat thing, one really isn't clearly better than the other. If I didn't have my 9-5, I'd be very happy with a 9000.

CleveSaab
30-09-07, 12:11 PM
Mike beat me to SAHR. A major improvement that kept Saab at the fore front of automotive safety after the 9000 was discontinued. The 9000 was always one of the safest cars, but the 9-5 is one major contribution that helped keep Saab a major player in safety. The other factor is/was the 03+ 9-3's.

ShadowWorks
30-09-07, 03:37 PM
It's a 2.3 vtec but I read recently here on SC that it was bound to start falling apart soon -- all Hondas do!

Clackston said in 15 million Vtec units that only had one back, I believe its more like 1 in 6 million VTEC but what ever, not one has returned with a defect or fault even after the warranty period, if you call that falling apart then no car is any good because nobody has a better record of engineering stability, thats why Honda powers most of the eastern world when it comes to engines

a stock B16 engine rated at 110Hp can do 280Hp with 5Psi from a T25 turbo at the crank, that's not bad for a granny car.

If you lube that Honda well and keep on top of timing belt changes it will not break down mechanically, there just so well made, Honda mechanics don't actually do any work in their bright red overalls, they are ******s.

mike saunders
30-09-07, 04:02 PM
Clackston said in 15 million Vtec units that only had one back, I believe its more like 1 in 6 million VTEC but what ever, not one has returned with a defect or fault even after the warranty period, if you call that falling apart then no car is any good because nobody has a better record of engineering stability, thats why Honda powers most of the eastern world when it comes to engines

....

If you lube that Honda well and keep on top of timing belt changes it will not break down mechanically, there just so well made, Honda mechanics don't actually do any work in their bright red overalls, they are ******s.


riiiiiiight.

Over the past three years, Honda has recalled nearly a million cars in North America because of transmission defects.

They might want to hang onto those coveralls for a while longer, eh?

blinktude
30-09-07, 04:07 PM
can we just agree that benz make the most reliable car and end this forum brawl?

84Saab900TURBO
30-09-07, 04:32 PM
You're all wrong. Of course the most reliable run-about would be a TVR. Duh.:roll:

mike saunders
30-09-07, 04:36 PM
You're all wrong. Of course the most reliable run-about would be a TVR. Duh.:roll:


Don't the new ones come with their own individual mechanics?

SpecialTool
30-09-07, 07:44 PM
can we just agree that benz make the most reliable car and end this forum brawl?

hey, I've seen a few forum brawls and this thread is merely a spirited discussion -- and entertaining too!

I guess if I stick to the $7k budget it will have to be one of the last 9000s -- it's hard to justify paying a few grand more for a 9-5 that's also ten years old.

Or maybe we'll keep saving for a 9-5 wagon -- they are sooooo much sexier than the sedan...

ShadowWorks
30-09-07, 08:21 PM
You're all wrong. Of course the most reliable run-about would be a TVR. Duh.:roll:#



We have a winner:lol:

Raven18940
30-09-07, 09:55 PM
hey, I've seen a few forum brawls and this thread is merely a spirited discussion -- and entertaining too!

I guess if I stick to the $7k budget it will have to be one of the last 9000s -- it's hard to justify paying a few grand more for a 9-5 that's also ten years old.

Or maybe we'll keep saving for a 9-5 wagon -- they are sooooo much sexier than the sedan...
Money is the real issue. I like the 9-5, but not enough to have PB&J for a year, get me. ;) The 9000 is really good car. Just get a newer one without rust, the rust on my friend's 91 drives us insane. :(

CleveSaab
30-09-07, 11:58 PM
can we just agree that benz make the most reliable car and end this forum brawl?

That's a joke, right? I know a man that paid $80K for a Benz and that thing was in the shop 3 TIMES in the first 12 months. For major stuff!
:o

Naranto
02-10-07, 06:52 AM
Benz, reliable?

My sister bought one about three years ago - went back in to the dealership (too many times to count now) over eight weeks ago and they still cannot fix it. One of the most unrelaible cars known to man... and women!

Having tried both the 9000 and a 9.5, the 9000 ticked more of 'what I want from a car' boxes. It is all down to personal expectations. :nono;

boon94
02-10-07, 09:27 AM
the thing about the 9000 tho is that if it breaks down, its expected. You dont really care. If a 9-5 breaks down your like, GAHH!

SaabMon
02-10-07, 11:08 PM
NEITHER!!! :lol: just get a c900 :cheesy:I agree! My 92 C900 has gone over 190,000 miles.The auto trans is original,It has a cold AC,most everything works great.I just can't get that da@#&d heated seat to work.:)

Thirsty9000
02-10-07, 11:47 PM
I agree! My 92 C900 has gone over 190,miles.The auto trans is original,It has a cold AC,most everything works great.I just can't get that da@#&d heated seat to work.:)

Leave the seat alone. Saabs require something to not work properly. If you fix the seat, something more annoying will just break. Better to leave it at something that doesn't affect performance! :lol:

blinktude
02-10-07, 11:51 PM
That's a joke, right? I know a man that paid $80K for a Benz and that thing was in the shop 3 TIMES in the first 12 months. For major stuff!
:o



HAHAHA my mom had same problem.
i just assumed we all would agreed that benz is least reliable car...

SaabMon
02-10-07, 11:56 PM
Leave the seat alone. Saabs require something to not work properly. If you fix the seat, something more annoying will just break. Better to leave it at something that doesn't affect performance! :lol:I was just being facetious.It hardly ever drops below 70 degrees here in south Florida.:cheesy: . But you gave some very sound advice,Thanks:D

woywitka
03-10-07, 02:55 AM
and the 9000 wins!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeaaaaaaaa!

It was close, but the winner is an obvious one.

Future Cage Match ideas:

9-3 or 9-5?

99T or 900T16?

90 or 99? oooooo!!!!

Cat or Dog?

SpecialTool
03-10-07, 06:38 AM
and the 9000 wins!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeaaaaaaaa!



Hey, who made you the judge:cheesy:

But you're right, the '97-98 9000 beats the '97-'98 9-5 because:
-It's three or four grand cheaper.
-There are quite a few low km, well looked after examples around, whereas 10-year-old 9-5s all seem to be tired, 3 owner, ex-lease...
-No chance of sludge!
-No drive-by-wire trickery (what the hell is wrong with a throttle cable?)
-Easier to work on for a home mechanic

Of course, we still haven't ruled out doubling the budget and getting a 2000-2001 9-5 wagon ...

TheRedBaron
03-10-07, 09:29 AM
A certain long-time saab mechanic I know used to refer to the 9000 as the "scandanavian jaguar" in terms of reliablity :lol: Of course, when I asked him what saabs would be good to look at, he said to avoid the 9-5 like the plague :lol:

mike saunders
03-10-07, 10:32 AM
A certain long-time saab mechanic I know used to refer to the 9000 as the "scandanavian jaguar" in terms of reliablity :lol: Of course, when I asked him what saabs would be good to look at, he said to avoid the 9-5 like the plague :lol:


LOL....After three 9000s, I'd agree with that. One had funky electrical issues that were hilarious -- if they didn;t always happen with the temperature dropped below 40.

...and I'd have to agree that the 99 9-5 has had a spate of issues, but in all fairness, you're comparing the last year of an established model with first year of a new one.

By 1998, the 9000 had all of its kinks worked out but remember what dogs the early 9000s were?

A post 2002+ 9-5 is going to be pretty solid and still relatively affordable.

CleveSaab
03-10-07, 11:16 PM
Leave the seat alone. Saabs require something to not work properly. If you fix the seat, something more annoying will just break. Better to leave it at something that doesn't affect performance! :lol:

O man!!! Now you did it!

The first rule of Saab Club:

Never mention the "leave the least annoying thing that is broke to remain broken" rule in print or out loud.

:cheesy:

woywitka
04-10-07, 12:09 AM
Hey, who made you the judge:cheesy:

But you're right, the '97-98 9000 beats the '97-'98 9-5 because:
-It's three or four grand cheaper.
-There are quite a few low km, well looked after examples around, whereas 10-year-old 9-5s all seem to be tired, 3 owner, ex-lease...
-No chance of sludge!
-No drive-by-wire trickery (what the hell is wrong with a throttle cable?)
-Easier to work on for a home mechanic

Of course, we still haven't ruled out doubling the budget and getting a 2000-2001 9-5 wagon ...

Hey,

I drove a nice 9-5 today and a 2002 9-3. The OG 9-3 is MUCH nicer than the GM900s I have driven in the past. The 9-5 is "bigger" and a little more comfy; but, the 9-3 has the hatch! Have you thought about a 9-3?

I was kidding, I don't know what wins. I'm not much of a 9000 fan; however, the 9-5 has a growing appeal to a c900 nut like me. Saab did not re-create that Saab feeling for me; however, the 9-5 is a quick, smooth, and fun machine!

I'm not a 9000 fan; but they are well built!

SpecialTool
04-10-07, 01:05 AM
Have you thought about a 9-3?



Not much room for the three kids, but I'm not one of those kooky "straight-arm" drivers so we could get by. How about this one I saw at the very same Honda dealership I bought the Accord from:

http://img.drive.com.au/drive_images/dealer/honnor/21846_1_m.jpg

2002 "Anniversary" -- well equipped, very cute, but only 110kw, what's up with that?:evil:

They want $17,000 -- pretty cheap by local standards. I could get it for about a $9000 changeover, maybe.

Basically, we're all over the place and have no idea what we want or how much we want to pay. My wife keeps mentioning how useful a Volvo 850 7-seater would be...

woywitka
04-10-07, 01:22 AM
Not much room for the three kids, but I'm not one of those kooky "straight-arm" drivers so we could get by. How about this one I saw at the very same Honda dealership I bought the Accord from:

http://img.drive.com.au/drive_images/dealer/honnor/21846_1_m.jpg

2002 "Anniversary" -- well equipped, very cute, but only 110kw, what's up with that?:evil:

They want $17,000 -- pretty cheap by local standards. I could get it for about a $9000 changeover, maybe.

Basically, we're all over the place and have no idea what we want or how much we want to pay. My wife keeps mentioning how useful a Volvo 850 7-seater would be...

Yeah. Sharp looking car.

The one I test drove today was $13,995 and was a 5 door. Seats said "turbo":cool:

I was far impressed. The GM900s I've driven have been not so nice. But the 9-3 feels much more improved some how. They did claim 1000+ updates.

I'm still thining 9-5, but we will see.

$17k tho....eeek!

The Volvo 850 does not have oil sludge troubles tho. they are good cars, that is for sure.

BTW. Being a c900 guy. The OG 9-3 has no top end turbo grunt, but they are MUCH faster off the line. When I got back into my 900 It was much more solid feeling. My c900 has lots of turbo lag, but when it kicks in....MY GOD!

TCS, ABS, SID, DI, ACC, CD, HIV this car has all the little things.