Calling X 9000 owners

[rawill]

I have been talking to two guys who have bought 95s. They told me that they thought the 9000 had a better ride!

I was thinking about getting a 95, but thought I would ask on here about this.

One of the 95s was a Aero, the other a base model 95.

I also see two guys who have put 234 engines in their 95s.

Maybe I should just stay with my 97 9000CD.

[gghh]

9-5 is a different feeling if you come from the 9000. I got used to it and i like the 9-5, i think its better than the 9000 in many things. Try a testdrive with 9-5 yourself.

[SwissMatt]

I agree. My 9000 Aero was a manual, my 9-5 Aero is an automatic, so that accounts for some of the difference. Overall, I'd say the ride of the 9-5 is a little softer than that of the 9000, but the car feels much more solid. The 9000 had lots of little noises when it became unsettled, whereas the 9-5 is much quieter.

Both suffer from (in my opinion) overly-light steering and poor road feel, plus significant tyre noise.

They're different cars. The 9000 felt more sporting to me, whereas the 9-5 feels more like a long-distance cruiser.

[justin.graeff]

My 9000 had/has a dying suspension, worn out engine mounts, and is 20 years old. My 2000 9-5 Aero had all the suspension parts replaced with Bilstein HD's. The 9-5 is quieter, faster, and handles MUCH better, but still not as smooth over bumps as the 9000. I loved my 9000, but the 9-5 was a much better choice. My 9000 is now my winter car so I get the best of both worlds.

[swedishmercedes]

I had 2 9000's and I now have 3 9-5's in my opinion they are vastly different but comfortably the same. The fit, finish and ride of the 9-5 is so much more modern and comfortable definitely a cruiser where as the 9k is a sportier quicker responding ride. My 92 9k had traction control and was just simply amazing in the snow. While the 9k had a lot of quirky little problem such as wiring, suspension and interior problems those seem to be worked out in the 9-5. However my biggest complaint of the 9-5 is the tight rope we are all walking with our 2.3L turbo engines and the dreaded sludge problem! This was never a problem with the old 2.3 and 2.0 engines in the 9k they just ran and ran. I think GM really screwed up the engine on the 9-5. I heard that they narrowed the body of the engine causing the engine to retain more heat and thus the cooking of the oil causing the sludge. From that perspective the engines on the 9k's are much better although when the 9-5 engine is running well and you are sure there is no sludge in your sump it is a very nice running engine. I have never experienced the the traction control on the new 9-5 but if it is anything like the old 9k with TCS it has to be very enjoyable. If you buy a used 9-5 or 9-3 I would strongly advise that you have it di-sludged and modify the sump screen with the holes that people are recommending as a more permanent fix then you just need to use synthetic oil and change it often. It is scary when you buy a used 9-5 because you are never quite sure how the previous owner treated the car but if you make sure there is no sludge then it should last for ever.

[ski]

I too was a 9000 owner x 3 before getting my current 02 9-5 aero. I owned two 88 9000's between 00 and 04, then a 91 9000 from 04-07 when I got my 9-5.

My biggest complaint is that its a sedan. I really miss the versitility of the hatch and I *think* i might get a wagon for my next 9-5 (if i can find an aero wagon in manual).

The steering feels more vague than it did on the 9000 but I feel as though it handles better (coming from 12-15 year old cars). Is definately much more quiet and refined in the interior.

Go with the 9-5, keep up with oil changes and I think you will be happy

[Chris 9-5]

Originally Posted by gghh

Try a testdrive with 9-5 yourself.

+1

Its only you who needs to like it and we are all biased here

[planosaab]

I owned 3 9000's
I love my 9-5 but I miss my 9000
if its at all practical hold on to it as well lol.

Thats my opinion.

[rawill]

Originally Posted by Chris 9-5

+1

Its only you who needs to like it and we are all biased here

Of course! I would expect nothing less. I can not keep them all, but when I get a 95 I will still have my 93 9000griffin. But I have to say it does not drive as nicely as my 93 9000CD did, and definitely not as nice as my 97 9000CD.

By comparison the griffin seems harsh on the road, and noisier from the engine.

Anyway, I was surprised when 2 95 owners said they thought the 9000 had a nicer ride, which is why I started this thread.
To me that comment didn't make sense.

I would be looking to get a 98/99 95 SE with a 2.3 engine.