SaabCentral Forums banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi, im looking to buy my first car and i am really fixated on getting a saab. To me they seem safe, fast, nice looking and just a little unique.

came here to see if anyone can give me advice on what years are known to have what issues, what years / trimes i should avoid if any. As well what to looking for when i see these cars in person?

I have been manly looking between 2003-06 as those car seem to be more in my price range

I have to say i prefer the look of the 9-3s, but if the 9-5s are more reliable I could see my self getting one of those instead

just a little info like diy stuff but have no experience with cars so is that changes anything
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,503 Posts
The best one, IMHO, is the 2004-2005 9-5 Aero.

Or if you find a low mileage Viggen (which isn't that difficult)...
+1. I think they're the best looking, and built a tad better than the 9-3 inside. The 9-5 has more of a luxury car feel whereas the 9-3 has more of a sport sedan feel. Both are great cars, but I'd go with a 9-5. (Well, I guess I did. :cheesy:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,030 Posts
More room in the 9-5, better built than the 9-3 but not as nimble. 2.3 Aero 250bhp engine is the one to go for, why have chicken when you can have fillet steak? 9-5 is more Saab than the 9-3 where GM's influence is a lot more evident.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,228 Posts
Hi, im looking to buy my first car and i am really fixated on getting a saab. To me they seem safe, fast, nice looking and just a little unique.

came here to see if anyone can give me advice on what years are known to have what issues, what years / trimes i should avoid if any. As well what to looking for when i see these cars in person?

I have been manly looking between 2003-06 as those car seem to be more in my price range

I have to say i prefer the look of the 9-3s, but if the 9-5s are more reliable I could see my self getting one of those instead

just a little info like diy stuff but have no experience with cars so is that changes anything
More room in the 9-5, better built than the 9-3 but not as nimble. 2.3 Aero 250bhp engine is the one to go for, why have chicken when you can have fillet steak? 9-5 is more Saab than the 9-3 where GM's influence is a lot more evident.
I'd say the 9-3 (2003->) are more reliable, somewhat more "General Motors" (or "Genetically Modified") and interior material quality is inferior to the 9-5. The 9-5 is definitely more Swedish.

If you go for the 2003-onwards 9-3 (known as "NG" or new-gen to distinguish from the old-gen "OG" 9-3 of 1999-2002), try looking for 2005 or 2006 than the first two years'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,218 Posts
I have both and can echo what J-Rod and Kermit have said. It depends on what your priorities are and how you plan to use the car. For highway trips, I'd take the 9-5 any day, the interior is simply more comfortable and luxurious and suspension even in the aero trim fairly comfortable. I've had passengers remark that sitting in my 9-5 aero seats was like sitting on their La-Z Boy recliner at home. The 9-3 SS, however, feels more nimble and tossable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,140 Posts
The best one, IMHO, is the 2004-2005 9-5 Aero.

Or if you find a low mileage Viggen (which isn't that difficult)...
This. Absolutely the best looking 9-5 (next to the 2010) and incredibly comfortable. The Viggen might get a leg up on being more fun to drive, and is no slouch in the looks department.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,704 Posts
The best one, IMHO, is the 2004-2005 9-5 Aero.

Or if you find a low mileage Viggen (which isn't that difficult)...
Couldn't have said it better. I had a 2004 9-3 Aero and in hindsight, I should have stepped up and bought a 9-5. As others have noted, the 9-3 is much more sporty (although the 9-5 is no slouch) where the 9-5 is a better cruiser. In terms of size, safety, comfort, value and reliability, the 9-5 is a no-brainer.

Also, keep in mind that when your comparing 2003-2005 9-3 and 9-5,the 9-5 had been out for many years whereas the 9-3 was all-new. There were initial teething pains in the 9-3 (but those should all be resolved by the previous owner by now) and they are more "technologically advanced" and used proprietary equipment while the 9-5 used more generic, GM-sourced bits. Take that to mean the 9-3 will likely be more glitchy and probably more costly to repair than a 9-5. I perceive the 9-5 to be an easier car to service and repair because of it's more simplistic features and design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,737 Posts
How much do you have to spend to purchase the vehicle? How much can you put aside per month to cover repairs and running costs? From there we can figure out what works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,509 Posts
The best one, IMHO, is the 2004-2005 9-5 Aero.
How'd I know you say that ross? lol

Depends what your looking for and what your budget is OP. I'm partial to the 9-3ss for its modern looks, nimbleness, handling, and how damn easy to service the car is (4cyl 2.0T). The V6's that came out in 2006 are by far the easiest and have the most potential when it comes to all out power.
My next car might be a 9-5 though as I kinda want to lay back and cruise lately. A nice 05 9-5 Aero sportcombi (Saab speak for wagon) will do well to be comfy, still fast, and haul around my DJ equip

SO what are you looking for in your next saab?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,737 Posts
The V6 is the easiest to service? I hear otherwise. And handling? The 9-3 is better than the 9-5 but so is a school bus.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,228 Posts
Couldn't have said it better. I had a 2004 9-3 Aero and in hindsight, I should have stepped up and bought a 9-5. As others have noted, the 9-3 is much more sporty (although the 9-5 is no slouch) where the 9-5 is a better cruiser. In terms of size, safety, comfort, value and reliability, the 9-5 is a no-brainer.

Also, keep in mind that when your comparing 2003-2005 9-3 and 9-5,the 9-5 had been out for many years whereas the 9-3 was all-new. There were initial teething pains in the 9-3 (but those should all be resolved by the previous owner by now) and they are more "technologically advanced" and used proprietary equipment while the 9-5 used more generic, GM-sourced bits. Take that to mean the 9-3 will likely be more glitchy and probably more costly to repair than a 9-5. I perceive the 9-5 to be an easier car to service and repair because of it's more simplistic features and design.
Pfffttttt. Dangur, just go buy a Toyota La*dCr**ser ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,072 Posts
Your first car? Do you have $1000 to keep aside for possible repairs or can you handle a wrench? If not, look elsewhere.

I love my Saabs, but I'd never recommend them to anyone who didn't qualify per the above.

A Viggen? It's his first car. Find a nice 9-3 with miles as low as you can afford.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,381 Posts
Avoid 2003 9-3 it was the first year and had more issues, especially the auto tranny. Also avoid pre-94 9-5 due to engine sludge.
A 9-3 2.0T will give you the best gas mileage.
You should drive both a 9-3 and a 9-5. They are different and it is difficult to say which you will like better. Their reliability is on par once you avoid the problem years.
You can get pretty good value from either. My pick would be a 2005 9-3 Aero with std transmission. Gets all the lux with the 2.0l economy.
If you like the 9-5 interior styling (fresh from 1998) they can be nice fast cruisers. They sell dirt cheap too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,140 Posts
The V6 is the easiest to service? I hear otherwise. And handling? The 9-3 is better than the 9-5 but so is a school bus.
I'll agree with part of that. The 9-3 is marginally better handling than the 9-5 due to the lighter weight and tighter wheelbase.

I'll still give it points on exterior styling, though. The 9-3 looks great from the front but purely pedestrian from every other angle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
Avoid 2003 9-3 it was the first year and had more issues, especially the auto tranny. Also avoid pre-94 9-5 due to engine sludge.
A 9-3 2.0T will give you the best gas mileage.
You should drive both a 9-3 and a 9-5. They are different and it is difficult to say which you will like better. Their reliability is on par once you avoid the problem years.
You can get pretty good value from either. My pick would be a 2005 9-3 Aero with std transmission. Gets all the lux with the 2.0l economy.
If you like the 9-5 interior styling (fresh from 1998) they can be nice fast cruisers. They sell dirt cheap too.
Great post. Sums it up well. They're both good cars. Don't rush into it and drive enough to get a real feel for exactly what you want. Then, when you find the right car, you will probably know it.

If you're brand new to DIY, I'd suggest you spend a good chunk of time looking through DIY/how-to threads and videos on YouTube. The biggest complaint anyone buying a Saab now is going to have will more than likely be the support network being non-existent in places. I'm not a grease-monkey by any means and for just about everything that was done on my '03 Linear, I could do it myself or with the aid of a physically stronger individual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,509 Posts
The V6 is the easiest to service? I hear otherwise. And handling? The 9-3 is better than the 9-5 but so is a school bus.
The 4cyl 2.0T is, the V6 isn't very hard... its just very time consuming removing all the stuff from the back bank. And to remember to put everything back together, especially the bracket
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,615 Posts
I'll agree with part of that. The 9-3 is marginally better handling than the 9-5 due to the lighter weight and tighter wheelbase.

I'll still give it points on exterior styling, though. The 9-3 looks great from the front but purely pedestrian from every other angle.
For some reason, I've found my 2004 9-5 to handle much better than my 2007 9-3 did (even when the 9-5 was all stock suspension). The 9-3 floats into corners, where the 9-5 is more crisp.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top