SaabCentral Forums banner

9-3 vs 9-5

25K views 55 replies 20 participants last post by  falcon21 
#1 ·
What are the main differences between the 9-3 and the 9-5? Things like maintence, handling, ect... I'm thinking about buying a model from around 2000.
 
#4 ·
I Googled "Saab ....." and received the usual sales pitch....
bucket seats
not a word on suspension
Try the 9-5 forum
Its an interesting car, better than the 9-3, IMO.
My 900S is looking shopworn and is a relic now.
 
#5 ·
9.5 is a better car than the 9.3 but no hatch unfortunately. You'll notice shoulder room in the front seat first off. Two guys in a 9.3 will have shoulders almost touching but I found the 9.5 too big for my liking and the lack of hatch had me looking at wagons. Consider the Aero models.
 
#9 ·
We have one of each:

2000 9-3 Hatchback base model 2.0t (our youngest's)
2002 9-5 Linear wagon 2.3t (wife's daily driver)

A 2.0T or 2.3T is the high output I believe (correct me if I'm wrong).

I call the 9-5 the older brother to the 9-3. Bigger, stronger and a little more refined on the interior. Noticably, the same bloodline.

The hatchback, with plenty of cargo space, likes to zip here and zip there.
Found myself yesterday going faster than the speed limit a few times, had to tell myself to slow down.
The 9-5 wagon has loads of cargo/family space, goes down the road like a dream while wrapped in comfort. One bad, or good thing is it wants to go really, really fast on the highway, not fun or good for the car to keep the lid on that! :nono;:nono;


My recommendation - Get one of each! :cheesy:
 
#10 ·
We have one of each:

2000 9-3 Hatchback base model 2.0t (our youngest's)
2002 9-5 Linear wagon 2.3t (wife's daily driver)

A 2.0T or 2.3T is the high output I believe (correct me if I'm wrong).
Sorry, man, but you asked me to :)

The "t", at least on the 9-3, is just a turbo designation. HOT can be checked by looking at the VIN. If the 8th character is a P or K then it's HOT. For the 9-5 it's a G.
 
#11 ·
We have one of each:

2000 9-3 Hatchback base model 2.0t (our youngest's)
2002 9-5 Linear wagon 2.3t (wife's daily driver)

A 2.0T or 2.3T is the high output I believe (correct me if I'm wrong).

I call the 9-5 the older brother to the 9-3. Bigger, stronger and a little more refined on the interior. Noticably, the same bloodline.

The hatchback, with plenty of cargo space, likes to zip here and zip there.
Found myself yesterday going faster than the speed limit a few times, had to tell myself to slow down.
The 9-5 wagon has loads of cargo/family space, goes down the road like a dream while wrapped in comfort. One bad, or good thing is it wants to go really, really fast on the highway, not fun or good for the car to keep the lid on that! :nono;:nono;


My recommendation - Get one of each! :cheesy:
I wish I could! I have a NG900 so if I got a 9-5 it would be like having one of each. From the NG900 to the 9-3 there were some 1500 changes, any of which would make me say "woah!" when driving a 9-3? I know a 9-5 feels more responsive then my NG900 but I never drove a 9-3.
 
#21 ·
There are scant few worthwhile differences between the NG900 and the 9-3, despite the marketing stuff about the "1,500 changes." Many of those were incremental changes from the 94 model year up that fixed some of the horrible handling (re-worked control arm geometry) or improved braking (different hubs, rotors and calipers from mid-96+)

The MY 2000+ 9-3 heads flow better...but that benefit is offset by weaker pistons and a less robust oil pump.

The 9-5 is more comfortable than the 9-3, handles better stock to stock, has a large enough trunk (and a fold down rear seat) and if the oil is changed regularly, can last just as long.
 
#15 ·
Two questions. First how big of a decrease in mpg vs the increase of HP do you typically see (personal experience, I know there is no actual model for this). Second how much HP can the automatic transmission handle in the 9-3 and 9-5?
 
#16 ·
Second how much HP can the automatic transmission handle in the 9-3 and 9-5?
Dumb answer here, but it all depends how you drive it.

Best advice is if you have it tuned then don't use the kickdown, use manual changes.
 
#17 ·
I test drove some 9-3's the other day. ;ol; There were a few that I am interested in. One of them is a 2001 9-3 with 159,000 in fairly good shape, what do you guys think is a fair price for a car with those miles?
 
#20 ·
Paid $2,000.00 for a 2000 base hatch with 121,000 miles on it.
Had some deferred maintenance but the motor (no sludge) was strong, body and suspension solid.
Needed to be brought up to snuff and has been a headache at times but when it goes it goes soo nicely.

Hope it helps.
 
#18 ·
I got about the same 32 mpg mileage in my 2001 9-5 and my 900 & 9-3 turbos. It all depends on how you drive. My current 2006 9-5 doesn't get quite the same mileage mileage but it has 260hp so that might account for the difference.
If you look at 9-5 wagons, check the rear suspension for sag. Check out the 9-5 forum for lots of discussion on this topic.
 
#22 ·
I drive a 2002 9-3, and a good friend has a 2004 9-5. Here's how I think they compare.

The 9-5 has room for three adults in the back (or two car seats and one adult), and it's a little more luxurious with the dual-zone HVAC.
The 9-3 is lighter and better on gas.
Stock 9-5s are more comfortable than stock 9-3s (more space, slightly softer springs, more sound insulation), although both are great long distance cars. The 9-3 handles a little better because of lower mass.

One big advantage to the 9-5 is that you can get one that's less than 10 years old. Post-2003 9-5s have a bunch of structural improvements (stronger front subframe) and post-2006 9-5s have better breathing (more horsepower). I think that the final PCV mod (to prevent oil sludging) came out around 2004. This has been retrofitted to many earlier cars, but it's good to know that your car was delivered with the fix.

Good luck.
 
#27 ·
I saw a 1999 9-5 (non SE, 2.3t, 123,000 miles) on Craigslist today. When I looked up the KBB value the suggested retail value is only $2,009 and the private party value in excelent condition is $1,209. Is this right? If I can talk the dealer down to the KBB value I would buy it instantly, given that there are no problems with it of course.
 
#28 ·
A '97 900 S convertible popped up for sale in my area. Is the non turbo version as fun to drive as the turbo ones? It looks pretty clean and has the complete maintenance history. The miles are higher then what I'm looking for at 170,000 miles but for the right price I would consider it.
 
#29 ·
We have both, my wife has the 9-3SE Vert which is a more comfortable cruiser (softer springs and higher sidewall width) my Aero is a lot faster and definitely more luxurious feeling (quieter, spaciousness) there is a stiffer ride but still very comfortable.

For a single guy you'd probably prefer the 9-3 (especially a viggen if you can find one). I can't imagine driving one without the turbo as it greatly enhances the driving experience, even the Aero feels lackadaisical when not in sport mode.
 
#30 ·
IMO a SAAB's not a SAAB without a turbo......"cause mama, that's where the fun is"!!! Go turbo.... better yet, don't rely on us, drive an NA and a turbo (don't need to be CVs) and judge for yourself! I think you'll agree, especially on the highway, the turbo is way more fun and safer. Keep in mind that the CV is heavier so the NA will be more of a dog...yup, a dog!
 
#31 ·
IMO a SAAB's not a SAAB without a turbo......"cause mama, that's where the fun is"!!! Go turbo.... better yet, don't rely on us, drive an NA and a turbo (don't need to be CVs) and judge for yourself! I think you'll agree, especially on the highway, the turbo is way more fun and safer. Keep in mind that the CV is heavier so the NA will be more of a dog...yup, a dog!
The 2.3 in my 900S coupe is happy to run me down the 401 or QEW at speeds that would definitely make the OPP talk to me, if not quite suspend my licence at the side of the road (just like all those signs say).

The turbo would be safer....only if it slowed me down!
 
#34 ·
My '02 9-5 Aero got 26ish MPG, was much more comfortable than my "new" 03 9-3t. Needless to say the Harmon Kardon stereo was wonderful compared to the Pioneer crap in the 9-3. 9-5 was @ 400 lb.s heavier and felt it. That said, the 9-3 drives like a true sports sedan, it handles almost as well as an '84 porsche 944 I used to own. Despite my minor complaints with the 9-3, I really do enjoy it and am glad I bought it when the 02 was totaled on super night (legally parked and hit by a drugged driver).
 
#35 ·
I'm not sure if I would want a 9-3 SS, the early models seem to have cheap interior parts. I do like the 9-5's audio system, the base models even have better sound then the 9-3's. Right now I'm thinking of either a 9-3 hatchback or a 9-5 wagon, or a convertible.
 
#36 ·
93 (base) dash speakers are cheap, but they are a 5 minute job to swap them out, so I wouldn't base a decision on that.

The leg room in the 95 is much better both for driver + pass. (wider), and rear seats (wider and longer). Can't really compare quiteness, though my 93 is great, the difference is noticeable when I get into other (cheaper) cars.

Definitely get turbo, I've driven a few na models since buying mine and they feel like you're driving with a trailer...
 
#40 ·
Don't operate the 9-3 top below 23 degrees according to the manual. As long as temps are high enough, run at least two complete cycles and make sure it operates smoothly. Top problems seem to mostly be leaks from the cyls... look for hydraulic fluid dripping from in front of the rear wheels after a couple opens and closes and sitting for a bit.

The 9-3 is about the same as the NG900 on what to look for. Check the SID and the ACC for pixel loss.

The big item is a sludge check. It's best to drop the pan and take a peek. Second best is detailed synthetic oil change records. Next in line is nice stories about maintenance.


I can't think of anything other than that besides the usual stuff on an NG900. But, it's late for me tonight and I am no doubt missing some points :)
 
#42 ·
NO, if I missed the '99 note, then ignore the sludge comment. The T5 didn't have those issues with reasonable oil changes (the T7 sometimes did even with the changes because of the PCV issues).

If you can find a '99 'vert that has reasonable miles that you like, that's almost an ideal purchase. You get a 9-3 and the solid T5 motor.
 
#43 ·
As I understand the issue, it became an issue with the change from the 234 engine to the 235 engine, so I assume also from the 204 to the 205 engine.
 
#44 ·
I looked at the car today. The body has seen better days, the engine bay was really dirty and the interior wasn't that great. The top needed new hydraulic lines, it sounded like a pulley was starting to go, there was a little water in the car and it looked like it came from the top. The SID was missing pixels and the speaker didn't work. Coolant sensor was off and the windshield washers didn't work. Also the engine was warm when I showed up. I ran away from that car!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top