Question from SAAB owners.

[greenjp]

The new 2.8 turbo in the 9-3 Aero is made in Australia by GM's Holden division. A 9-3 Aero with the automatic is built in Sweden with an Australian engine and a Japanese transmission. Weird eh?

The 9-3 and 9-5 both come from the factory with Mobil 1 0W-40 I believe. Not sure about the 9-2X or 9-7X, as you said they're really a Subaru and a Chevy, respectively.

Reliability on the 9-5 is quite good, it's got a couple of "issues" as they say but nothing major. Solid car. The 9-3 doesn't seem to have any real problems either, though early models look to have had some electrical things.

jeff

 

[Korean_redneck]

Hmm.. maybe SAAB is not my favorite anymore. What ever happen to cars like the Saab 900.. Fully swedish with bullet proof engines.

 

[wapacz]

Um I am prety sure that the saab 900 was know for blowing its transmition after like 60,000 miles. Then becuase the way the car was designed you had to pull the engine or something like that to put in a new transmision. This would cost a few thousand dollar. Also there where problems with torque stear.

Form what I have read the quality of the saab has actaul increase since gm took over.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Consumer Reports repair history confirms Saabs as rather reliable.

 

[bulwnkl]

wapacz: not sure what you're talking about with the "blowing its transmition" thing. Some of the highest-mileage cars on the planet are SAAB 900s. The automatic transmissions in the 9000s were less-than-great for longevity, but the 'classic' 900 is bulletproof.

 

[Korean_redneck]

I was bored on the Internet and decided to look at the SAAB USA homepage. I must say that SAAB is my favorite European car company ever since I drove a 1988 900. I know that the 9-2X is a Subaru platform, the SAAB SUV is a GMV Envoy platform, the Saab 9-3 4 cylinder is a GM Ecotech Turbo engine. Who makes the 2.8Litre Turbocharged V-6? What kind of oil does these cars take? hows the reliability on these car?

 

[wapacz]

I'm just going off what I read some on another forum and well it was a while ago so it very well could be the 9000 transmision that I was thinking of.

 

[Dick in Falls Church]

The 900 automatic tranny is a 3 speed, so at highway speeds the engine is revving up pretty well.
The automatic got a pretty bad rep, but primarily from folks who never, ever, changed the ATF.

Sure, you had to pull the engine and transmission to change or service the transmission--it is a front wheel drive car. Sound familiar? Same thing now with most front wheel drive cars.

For a lot of Saabophiles, the influence of GM caused a lot of heartburn. On the other hand, Saab was very small, and sales were slipping to the point it probably would have folded.

My 900 turbo had just under 200,000 on it when I sold it--there was a seal leak at the torque convertor, but tranmission was running strong.
My 88 9000 only has 140,000 on it, so can't say how bad the automatic might be.

 

[bkrell]

I had a post GM 1997 900 and have to say it was a great car. The 9-5 has a problem w/ sludge and oil starvation but it's not really a problem if you do regular oil changes.

The 2.8l turbo is GM's global "high feature" dohc V-6 which is also found in the Caddy CTS. Saab just tweeked it a bit for forced induction. The 2003 9-3's had teething pains but I believe they've been very reliable since then.

Saab ditched the variety of direct ignition that had caused headaches and a few stalled cars in the 90's and up till a few years ago and has a more traditional system now.

I have to agree with the thoughts on GM. Sure, they've made some bonehead moves but w/o them, Saab would be no more. The hot item right now is the 9-3 sportcombi (wagon). It is I believe the hottest selling saab ever and I know in the UK demand is overwhelming. Myself, after wrecking the 97 900, I prefer the big car feel of the 9-5. It handles better than my 900 but also has tons of room and a really high level of fit and finish. Plus, the small turbo mated to an auto makes for some really quick stoplight gettaways.

If you are woried about things being bulletproof, you are being sentimental. Every saab engine/car has had it's flaws. We just tend to romanticize them b/c they are gone and reflect another era. But my 97 900 was still going strong when she met a delivery truck at 191,000 miles w/ no oil leaks or consumption.

If you want a cheap used saab, try a 96-98 900 or 99 9-3. Really good cars! If you want a bigger one, try a late model 9-5 and long as it looks to be in good shape. If you want to go new, you can't go wrong w/ a new V-6 aero.

 

[wapacz]

Yeah I looked at those 9-3 sporcombi. Thought it was a really nice looking car. To bad I don't have the money, even with the gm discount that I get becuase my dad is an engineer at gm. I could use something that get better milage then my truck

As for the front wheel drive thing well yeah not to strong in that area. Ever vehicle that I have owned has been a real wheel drive truck. So when I think of transmission I automatical think of how it is laid out on a rwd vehicle.

 

[bfg9k]

quote:

---

I had a post GM 1997 900 and have to say it was a great car. The 9-5 has a problem w/ sludge and oil starvation but it's not really a problem if you do regular oil changes.

---

And even that problem is limited to the 4-cyl 1999-2001 models, and then to just a few % of those. My '01 9-5 gets an oil change to GC (from m1 0w-40) tomorrow

. The Saab turbo 2.3L is a pretty great engine.