[notdrinkingmerlot]

Hey, back again for another NG900 Craigslist find. Seems like it’s not frowned upon to post listings here so this is it. It’s pretty high mileage but cheap enough that I’d have a fair surplus to work with. All I know about the car is that it has a “slight oil leak.” Hmm. Anyway — I’ll update this thread after I drive it tomorrow with findings and questions, just want to post something before I forget for info later. I’m really hooked on this particular body style for some reason and I’m sort of interested to see how the soft top drives. Plus — turbo 6!

 

[Jeremy R.]

It's not a turbo 6. The NG900's 6-cylinder wasn't turbocharged, so the seller doesn't know exactly what he or she has. The people on here and on Saabnet who have actually owned a 6-cylinder NG900 usually seemed to think it was a pretty good engine. It was mostly everyone else who said to stay far away. I'm assuming that it's related to the 6-cylinder in the 9-5, which people don't seem to have much of a problem with, other than the ridiculously short timing belt change intervals.

 

[notdrinkingmerlot]

It's not a turbo 6. The NG900's 6-cylinder wasn't turbocharged, so the seller doesn't know exactly what he or she has. The people on here and on Saabnet who have actually owned a 6-cylinder NG900 usually seemed to think it was a pretty good engine. It was mostly everyone else who said to stay far away. I'm assuming that it's related to the 6-cylinder in the 9-5, which people don't seem to have much of a problem with, other than the ridiculously short timing belt change intervals.

Ah crap I’m a moron. I’m not very experienced with the 6 cyl engines in the 900 and sort of just assumed that the “SE” designation implied turbos in these as well. I’ve never driven one before and am much more familiar with the I4s and have some trepidation about them since they are kind of infamously in bad in GM cars, or so I’ve heard. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Jeremy R.]

It's funny that Saab for so long was known for turbocharging everything, but in the NG900, only one of the three engines offered had a turbo. It seems like if you have access to the timing belt tools for the V6, it's not so bad. The only other GM cars sold in the US that used a version of that engine were the Cadillac Catera and the Saturn L-series, and of course the 9-5, which did get a turbocharged version.

 

[jvanabra]

Ha - I even took the time to email that person to tell them their car did not have a turbo and they insisted it did. Yeah, ok.

The 3.0 version of the 54* V6 used in the 9000, 9-5, L300 and Catera was pretty decent overall. The 9-5 had the issue with the LPT turbos self-destructing, but the engine itself was solid. The 2.5l in the NG900 was Not Good. Like, when running it's a smooth, responsive, nice engine, but its tendency to throw timing gear and grenade itself resulted in Saab specifying a service every 45,000 miles. That's a timing belt every 3-4 years. WHAT. A short timing belt interval is usually 90k, ever 7-8 years. 45,000 miles!!!

The V6 was a weird middle space between the NA 2.3l four and the turbo 2.0l four so I guess I'd forgive you if you bought one new. But going into a V6 in 2020? Nah. Four cylinder all day every day.

 

[BobSaabit]

Yeah, the V6 gets little respect. Actually the timing belt service interval was 30K after motors starting self-destructing. Saab paid for the first three because the problems were so bad. Yeah, that bad.

It's not an inexpensive job to have done if you have to pay someone. If you DIY, I think you need the special tools to get it all aligned, but I'm no expert. I would seriously encourage you to get a turbo-4 instead. Reliable, fun, easily modifiable, and wide support for all three in the community.

There should be a fair number of OG9-3's and NG900's where you are... have you checked facebook marketplace? I run into quite a few. You might have to drive a little to find one, but there are some nice examples out there.

 

[jvanabra]

Lots of 9-3s, fewer 900s. I'm not sure why a NG900 over a 9-3, but clearly OP has a preference.

 

[BobSaabit]

Lots of 9-3s, fewer 900s. I'm not sure why a NG900 over a 9-3, but clearly OP has a preference.

Yeah... I wasn't differentiating. You're right about that, mostly 9-3's.

 

[notdrinkingmerlot]

Alrighty I'm beginning to see your logic. It was bad. Like, my mechanic was disappointed in me for even considering it bad. As soon as it went on the lift it puked oil everywhere. I really love the fastback era of styling for these cars, but I'll consider 9-3s of that styling as well, since the 900s I've looked at don't seem to be panning out. Next one I look at is going to be a turbo 4... and probably a soft top, too.

I'm new at this and perhaps a bit overenthusiastic. I'll stop spamming up the forums until I find something that merits serious consideration, lol. Thanks for your help once again.

 

[BobSaabit]

Naw, feel free to SPAM us. If you are looking at something, we can throw tips your way for whatever it says or what it is.

 

[jvanabra]

Yep, totally. And seriously do a 9-3 over a NG900. With the exception of the potential sludge issue on the 9-3, it's a better car in all regards. Better brakes, better suspension, better transmission, and unless you're trying to make mad power a better engine. If it has to be a 900, make it a '98 as that has most of those improvements. If you're just trying to make mad power, get a '99 9-3 or hold out for a Viggen.