SaabCentral Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm looking to purchase a 9-3 this summer and have a budget that has constrained me to a 1999 or a 2000 year model. From what I've read, the 99's seem to be more problematic than the 2000's but I'm not sure if this is going to be worth the extra $2000 - $3000 for the upgrade. Any thoughts? What would you do?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,348 Posts
The only reason a 99 might have more trouble then a 2000 is because it's a year older. :cheesy:

Just like most used cars it really comes down to how well it was taken care of.
Saabs are very reliable in general, the 9-3's (all years) in particular.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,568 Posts
When did the HOT start?

Although it seems a T5 can be tuned a lot easier to make a lot more HP than the T7.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,009 Posts
They had a HOT model in all of the years. But in 2000 it began with a different turbo in the package. The 99 used the same turbo as the regular model. The turbo in the 00+ HOT is a beaut.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,348 Posts
rotate said:
I think 1999 was the first year for the 9-3 model, and you know what they say about first year model.
Technically, no. It was anything but a "first year model". It was a refinement of the 96-98 900.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
CleveSaab said:
Technically, no. It was anything but a "first year model". It was a refinement of the 96-98 900.
What kind of a nonsensical statement is that? Yes, technically it WAS the "first year model". That's like saying that Ford GT is an 80 year refinement of Model-T, and not really a new model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,009 Posts
In my opinion, I would say that the 2000 is more of a first year model than the 1999 9-3. In 99 Saab still used the t5 ecu with the t25 turbo as they had in the 900. In 2000 they switched to t7 with two newer turbos. Well that should mix things up for you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,348 Posts
rotate said:
What kind of a nonsensical statement is that? Yes, technically it WAS the "first year model". That's like saying that Ford GT is an 80 year refinement of Model-T, and not really a new model.
First off we are talking about 1st year cars that you should avoid.
Can you swap: fenders, doors, headlights, wheels, trunks, hoods, dash boards, antennas, back seats, windows, or ANYTHING between your 2 example cars?
Ok. I am so sorry, Rotate.
TECHNICALLY it's a first year model. REALISTICALLY it is NOT.

I certainly do NOT consider the 99 or the 2000 a first year model.
It was a simple name change with a few improvements.
A first year model is, or I should say a 1st year model car that you should have reservations about buying:
A) a car that never existed prior
B) a car that was so drastically redesigned as to not resemble it's predecessor at all.

There are 100's of parts that fit both 9-3's and 900's.
Not one 9-3 S/SE part will fit a 9-3SS. THAT was the car that had teething issues. NOT the 99/00 9-3.

What's different between the 98 900 and the 99 9-3?
1,100 changes, right?
40 of which are noticeable to the driver(?) according to Saab.
This is hardly a model to avoid.
They had 5 years to get the 900 perfect. They finally did in 1999 when they released the 9-3. :cool:

Bottom line Slickspin, I would take a well maintained 99 9-3 over a 2000 9-3 with no service history any day. Do not fear the 99 simply because it's a 99.

If anything Stromer is correct, though I don't agree. A new engine management system...hell a new engine, is not enough to qualify as a FIRST YEAR MODEL in my book. Not if the body panels and suspension pieces would fit on it's predecessor. The SS is getting a V6. Is that a 1st year?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,009 Posts
I'm not trying to push thing cleve. You know, just though I'd mix things up. :cheesy: :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
CleveSaab said:
Technically, no. It was anything but a "first year model". It was a refinement of the 96-98 900.
CleveSaab said:
TECHNICALLY it's a first year model. REALISTICALLY it is NOT.
Make up your mind.

Perhaps in the first instance, you meant technically in a mechanical sense, and later you meant technically in the "strictly speaking" sense.

However you meant it, you have to speak in terms of what the industry uses to denote a new model. Nobody would ever try to sell 1999 9-3 as a late model 900 and then try to explain that 1999 9-3 is really 900.

CleveSaab said:
I would take a well maintained 99 9-3 over a 2000 9-3 with no service history any day
You would equally take a well maintained 2000 9-3 over a 1999 9-3 with no service history, so why state the obvious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,009 Posts
I don't think it has to be that complicated. Look at a 900 and a 9-3. Then look at the 9-3 and the 9-3 SS. Now which one is the "new model." It just really isn't that big of a change, so it comes down to personal definaition.

To go back to your original question, I would take a well maintained 1999 over a well maintained 2000. I do not agree that the 1999 model is any more problematic than the 2000, and I like the simplistic advantage of the t5 in the 1999 model. Saving the money is a plus. And, if you don't get an SE, I like the 99 wheels better than the 00 ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,348 Posts
rotate said:
Make up your mind.
The second time I CAP'ED it all to show that OK, TECHNICALLY it is a new model. It has a different badge on it. At the same time, however, it technically is NOT a new model.
There's no indecision here.

Perhaps in the first instance, you meant technically in a mechanical sense, and later you meant technically in the "strictly speaking" sense.
Seems you understood me.

However you meant it, you have to speak in terms of what the industry uses to denote a new model. Nobody would ever try to sell 1999 9-3 as a late model 900 and then try to explain that 1999 9-3 is really 900.
Here's where you're wrong. I chose to speak in context of the question that was posed by the original poster.
How's this?
"Is a 99 9-3 a car to avoid since it was a first year model?"

"No, because it is not drastically different then the car it replaced, and most would say it's an improvement".
Better? :cheesy:




You would equally take a well maintained 2000 9-3 over a 1999 9-3 with no service history, so why state the obvious.
OK I could have used a better example. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
this is getting plain silly. rotate, if you cant see the similarities between the ng900 and og 9-3, then you are blinding yourself.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top