: What to buy?

11th May 2004, 05:48 PM
OK due to our GM being written off (not our fault) we are in the market for a replacement. We have a couple that are jumping out at us!

No1: 1997 900 2.0 SE Turbo Talladega 98500 miles leather
Questions: Is a Talladega a full blown turbo?

No2: 1999 9-3 2.0 SE Eco (LPT) 90000 miles cream velour
Questions: Can a Intercooler be fitted?
What else is different to full turbo spec?

What car would you go for given the parameters of both being available for the same price and travelling distance??

Is the 9-3 much different to the 900? Despite the hydraulic clutch?

I have posted this in the GM900 & 9-3 Technical forum but want an opion from all drivers as well

11th May 2004, 07:39 PM
I owned a 97 Talladega

From a looks point of view only the Viggen can out pimp it.

It will have the NG900 rear hatch but look more groovy than the newer 9-3 due to its special exterior trim.

In 97 EBS (electronic brake distribution) appeared additional to the ABS... So anchors are ok.

Talladega's came in several engine formats... Mine was a N/A Automatic for instance. Wimbledon SAAB's demonstrator when new.

One main difference between the GM900 (aka Talladega) and the 9-3 are the crash test results. The 9-3 scores much higher although practically the same car...

But, as they are both SAAB's they are both very safe..

Why not get a minty sub 50K T16S vert with FSSH
8) 8)

Tempting ? :D

11th May 2004, 07:44 PM
Why not get a minty sub 50K T16S vert with FSSH
8) 8)

Tempting ? :DNo, because they're only really a 4 seater, the very reason they'r useless to me, I have 3 kids and expect 3 x 3point seatbelts in the rear, I suspect a roomy hatch with 4 doors and 5 proper belts is a high priority for Mrs Kevitree and Kevitree, sadly Saab don't do them anymore, you have to go to Vauxhall for one [Signum]

11th May 2004, 07:47 PM
but the boot is massive :! :-?? :lol: :wink:

I remember seeing Kev driving a brand new c900 vert over ten years ago.. Never seen somebody smile so much in my life before. I was offered a ride but I turned it down at the time as I remember :o

Think of the Cooool factor. the kids would love it... You only live once and a c900 vert is anything but wreckless.

Between the Talladega and the 9-3 though.......

I would go for the Talladega (providing it was a FPT) even though I know it is slightly unsafer..... but im just wreckless that way I guess.
I jacknived my Talladega on a motorway. It never flipped but the bodywork folded exactly on the roll cage shown in the 97 brochure saving our kid (probably from death)..... Then I drove the car and trailer 90 miles home (towing a 99) .... car was then wrote off.
So, from a very personal perspective I found the Talladega a life saver... However , If it has Viking alloys remove them pronto.... This is what failed causing my accident in the first place.... Too soft. Inner rim buckled on a object or pothole.

I can't help thinking that a C900 would have avoided the accident all together as the design is so perfect :cheesy:

11th May 2004, 09:26 PM
I think you just need to (or the Mrs. does) drive them both, seriously. Many of the 9-3 changes were interior. PRND... is illuminated in the dash, the shifter is different (auto), the ashtray is different, the alarm is different (much louder on 9-3), cup holder in dash. I think the seats may be a tiny bit different. The 9-3 feels like a 'finished' 900.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the 900 feels at all unfinished, However, there is a more, for lack of a better word, refined feel to it.
Having said that let me just tell you what I am looking for in a new car. A 97-98 900 to 99-00 9-3. I don't care which it is, I love them both. My only requirement is an SE (or better),and a bonus would be a Coupe. ;)

12th May 2004, 10:12 AM
If it's a choice between the two, the Talladega.

Cream velour? You have kids......if they're anything like mine, leather is a good idea :o :lol:

12th May 2004, 04:47 PM
I havnt heard a reply from Munki yet as to his preference for sleeping requirements