SaabCentral Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I hope it is ok to post general questions but I am looking for some answers for things that you probably all know in your sleep. Please redirect me to another area if this is the wrong area but I searched and I think I am ok to post here; so here is goes...

1) What is the difference between a 900s and a 900se (1995 if you need the year)
2) How do I know if an engine is Turbo or not; I am confussed about 2.0 vs 2.3 liter engines
3) The myth behind Turbo's being troublesome - any truth to this
4) The myth behind GM 900NG (94-98) being troublesome overall - any truth to this
5) Coolant issues - my 1994 has been leaking oil into the coolant thus the coolant turning to slime - I know this is bad....sigh. Head gasket problems perhaps?

I have read the GM 900NG second hand buyers guide and I understand to carefully look over all paperwork but the car I am going to see this weekend to hopefully buy, but it sounds a little too good to be true. It is a 1995 900s with 90k, loaded, leather, and manual for 2k. Now I understand this is an eleven year old car and there are a ton of used cars out there so maybe the price is accurate. Any tips and/or advice is totally appreciated as the owner does not know much about this car as she has only owned it 5 months (2nd owner)! She says the car is too small???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,583 Posts
The "truth" is, IMO, that the Saab 900se is generally not as durable as a GM push rod cast iron engine rear drive car (aka "dino")..

But the Saab has advantages over the dino and the appliance(Honda, Toyota).
The Saab is fun to drive, interesting and efficient. One reason why mine is Saab number 25 give or take....

Being "troublesome" is caused by those not know this and not taking care of the car.
The slime in the engine oil being a case in point. Also, considering the age and condition, too much $$$$ is being asked...

Read the sticky FAQs for interesting, thorough answers..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thank you for the speedy response Earthworm. I just need to ask for some clarification; what year is the 900se that you are referring to in reference to your line "GM push rod cast iron engine rear drive car"?

Also are you saying then 2k is too much for this 1995 900s? Thank you again :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,583 Posts
chefsmom said:
Thank you for the speedy response Earthworm. I just need to ask for some clarification; what year is the 900se that you are referring to in reference to your line "GM push rod cast iron engine rear drive car"?

Also are you saying then 2k is too much for this 1995 900s? Thank you again :D
I have always felt that the Ford V4 engine as used in the '67 to the 70s Saab was a very durable engine, far more long-lasting than the transmission or the car itself (rust)...

I was referring to all Saabs with the OHC and aluminum construction as being good for 200K miles while the cast iron "dino" is good to 300K miles.
Many will say that if the oil is kept clean in either engine, the durability will be about the same....

I have no scientific/statistical evidence to back this up, and there may not be any to be had...

Re - the value of the '95 900SE (2.0 turbo) - really hard to determine - the service history is very important, as it would be for any piece of good equipment..
Last year I paid $2.5K for the '96 900S(no turbo), thus far it has bee 100%.
Did you not mention that the engine oil was "slimy" in the '95 ??
This could well be a "deduct" $$$$....
A good service facility is extremely important..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I understand....:D Thank you.

So is a 900 SE vs 900 S considered a turbo then? The SE stands for Turbo then?

No, the slimy engine oil is one of the Saabs I own currently; thus the reason I am looking for another Saab to replace this one (200k plus miles)....:D The add is very vague and the owner is very nice but does not know alot about this car in general.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
328 Posts
i sold my '95 900s with 175k in decent condition for $1500. cosmetically it was a little beat (it was my first car!) but mechanically it was perfect. so it still had plenty of life left in it, but i might have gotten more than it was really worth!

i'd suggest looking around on ebay or classifieds etc to compare the prices others are asking for similar cars. also check the kelly bluebook and whatever the other listing is (NADA i think?? forgot the name) for reference $$$'s.

as far as i know, in the NG900 (94-98) the 2.0 engine was the turbo and the non-turbo was 2.3 liters. mine was a 2.3.

as earthworm pointed out, the turbo (or anything) being troublesome is directly related to how well it's taken care of. as i said mine had zero problems after 176k, and really nothing beyond normal wear items over the course of its life. the GM saabs are certainly different than the old-school ones, but in my experience they are no more or less troublesome. my family has had 6 or 7 saabs (probably more that i don't know about before i was born!), from classic 900's to the viggen i now drive, and they've all been great.

as for being too small... i had to laugh out loud. saabs can fit SO much stuff it's unbelieveable. i helped a friend move and she laughed when i showed up in my '95, but then i put half the living room in the back of it ;) :cool: . mine was a 5 door, fyi.

that's enough out of me for now! good luck :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,596 Posts
4) The myth behind GM 900NG (94-98) being troublesome overall - any truth to this
5) Coolant issues - my 1994 has been leaking oil into the coolant thus the coolant turning to slime - I know this is bad....sigh. Head gasket problems perhaps?


I can help with these two. I think there is some truth to the myth, especially if you rely on a dealer or mechanic for most service. They get pretty pricey, and the transmissions from the early years are "junk". I put junk in quotes b/c I had to replace mine at 125,000 miles, a time when most normal cars would be entirely junk. So, on the one hand they are troublesome and expensive. On the other they are very durable, and hold up nicely. I have a 94 and most people think it is much newer.

Yes, oil in coolant (or coolant in oil) is very bad, and definitely the sign of head gasket trouble. However those radiator sealing additives can also make the coolant look like slime too. You might search on "retorque" and "headbolts" to find one solution, but your guess is probably right that you'll need a new gasket/car soonish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks again for the responses; this is a very informative forum.

Yup we put a radiator sealing additive in but the slime was there before. Either way the car is amazing b/c it had reached and gone over 200,000. I guess I was just leary of the GM 900NG as I thought I had the older 900 but only to find that I do not(from this forum)....duh! I will be looking through her reciepts carefully (not that I know what to look for) but at least it will give me some clue to the background of this car. I think this maybe a 'large' person thus the 'small' comment.;)
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top