You are here: Forums Sedans Saab 9-5 Saab 9-5 Sedan

Saab 9-5 Sedan

2231 messages,  Last post on Oct 06, 2009 at 5:47 PM

You are in the Saab 9-5 Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Saab 9-5, Sedan

Messages Page 2 of 223 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 223 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#11 of 2231 David kovacs by saabber Oct 03, 2000 (3:08 pm)
Thanks for the comments on the octane (using 89 versus 93) for the V6 which should be helpful for everyone. I will try it to see if it gives me a more likable tone. In addition, it will save money.
#12 of 2231 Put A Troll Or A Tiger In The Tank by davekovacs1 Oct 03, 2000 (4:04 pm)
Saaber - - depending on your fuel level when you re-fill you might need to got through a tank or two before you note the difference. Best to wait till you tank is near empty before re-filling with the 89 to observe the greatest affect in the least amount of time. Dave Kovacs
#13 of 2231 re: Octane experiment by rtd1 Oct 03, 2000 (5:38 pm)
I'll be interested to see what the results of dropping the octane rating will be--do report back. I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be a drop in either performance or mileage. While I don't have the numbers in front of me, I recall that the manual has different minimum octane recommendations for the LPT 4 and 6, with the V6's being higher. (My book doesn't cover the Aero.) I had assumed the difference was because of the V6's slightly higher compression ratio, but maybe it's something else (emission specs?). The T7 system will protect the engine from any harm due to detonation, so we could probably get away with running Coleman fuel IIRC the LPT turbo doesn't even have a bypass or wastegate, so detonation protection is left to retarding spark timing, which T7 can perform instantaneously in individual cylinders. In the HPT APC cars, the octane rating was effectively a "dial-a-boost" system. Higher octane gas yielded higher boost. I'll bet it's still that way with the 9-5 Aero.
#14 of 2231 dave/ seats by dski Oct 03, 2000 (8:33 pm)
>If Aero seats were available I hope they don't do two tone or leather and suede mixed. The new Audi seats that are available like that look a bit tacky and flashy.< I agree with that - Saab did have a Suede/ Leather combination on and early 90's 9000 Griffin Edition. I discovered them when I was shopping for my first Saab (used). They did not wear well at all, at least not on the car I looked at. The Suede wore very poorly. So I'd think Saab will avoid that concept after the experiment. Good point on the Side Air bags and the Old Aero seats. I didn't think about it but those seats - great as they were- would likely not match well with a side bag feature. I'm probably complaining more than needed about the current seats. Most people who have written reviews of the 9-5 seem to like them. Maybe I'm just built more awkwardly than others. Hmm, Volvo front seats are very comfortable for me - Maybe I'm built like a Volvo owner. How depressing. Drew
#15 of 2231 Consumer Reports by saabber Oct 03, 2000 (10:47 pm)
The new CU reports on many of the Luxury models. It rates the Audi A6 tops on the list. It does not give the S80 very good marks for reliability, although the S80 is placed in the middle. The 9-5 is not listed on the list (probably due to sales volume). From the ealier chatter here by many, it sounds like the A6 with a upgraded engine is a good way to go in the future. The A6 model that CU tested was $38,000 but I do not think that it had the upgrated engine. How does the "regular" A6 engine compare to the 9-5 V6 in horsepower and torque?
#16 of 2231 It seems like... by L8_Apex Oct 03, 2000 (11:46 pm)
this topic is off to a decent start with the exception of one post consisting of nothing related to the car but a sarcastic commentary about another guests posts. The outspoken critic(s) here do provide informative feedback. In some topics, the dissatisfied owners offer nothing more than Brand-X sucks or name-calling towards those who don't go dump their sure-to-be-lemon right away. Believe, I've seen it all... This topic is fortunate enough to have, for the most part, reasonable guests. Some, at times, have taken it a little too far... As I've said in the past, critical feedback is welcome with discretion. Why do I need to say this about critical feedback and not positive advice? Well... These make-exclusive forums tend to attract a majority of satisfied owners or potential owners. Many of the owners are aware of problems areas and will address them with new guests in a more or less objective fashion. It's not necessary to bombard each new guest with a checklist of problem areas. Just the same, critical feedback offered with *discretion* is welcome. As long as that is the case, personal attacks toward these individuals will not be tolerated. Thanks, L8_Apex Sedans Host
#17 of 2231 Pilots vs. MXV4's by bretfraz Oct 04, 2000 (5:06 am)
There is actually quite a difference between the Michelin's Pilot and their Energy MXV4 Plus tires. The MXV4's are an excellent "luxury" touring tire. It's perfect for cars like Lexus, M-B, Lincoln, Cadillac, Volvo, etc. Its tread design provides a very quiet highway ride with good traction in typical "4-season" driving conditions. If you have a luxury foreign sedan and want a tire that can be used year 'round for most all conditions, the MXV4 is ideal. I can't think of a better tire; comparable but not better. The Pilot series are all-season performance tires. Much stronger construction especially in the sidewalls. Not as quiet, smooth, or long-lasting as the MXV4 but better performance. Ideal for Saab, BMW, Infiniti, or other cars that are considered performance-oriented. You can run them in winter but they won't work as good as a typical touring tire. Also expensive to replace. A Pilot XGTV4 or Z4 is perfect for the owner that wants better handling from his 9-5 regardless of engine. Some Infiniti Q45 lovers I know exclusively use the XGTV4 as its the only tire that will stay round and maintain steering quality on the Q45; a notorious tire killer. These guys have ditched other brands by 10K because those tires are out of alignment, flat spotted, or showing considerable wear. On another car those other brands would be fine but not on a Q45. This is probably not the case on a 9-5 but something to consider when buying new tires.
#18 of 2231 bretfraz by rollie Oct 04, 2000 (6:26 am)
Regarding post #17: Let me echo bretfraz's sentiment here. 3 of my last 4 cars came with Z-rated Michelin Pilots and they are great tires. However, they do wear out quickly on quick cars (mine were all high-pressure turbo Volvos which shred tires in no time at all if you have a heavy foot) and they can be very expensive to replace. I also used Pirelli P-Zeros as a replacement tire and by comparison they weren't as sure footed in wet conditions (was living in Boston at the time) but did seem to last a bit longer. My Pilots did so well that I managed to get by without Winter tires for years in Boston with absolutely no problems at all (of course FWD and traction control helped a lot). I also tried Dunlop SP 8000s if I recall correctly, but dumped them after a few days as they were loud and didn't handle crisply in the corners. There are lots of great choices out there and some really are in the same ball park for less money (e.g., Nittos). Also, if money is no object, you might want to look at the new Michelin Pilot Sport tires. These are Michelin's new flagship max performance tires designed for wet and dry conditions. You can find out more information and buy the tire of your choice through sites like www.tirerack.com (very informative and well designed site for a firm with a great reputation for mail order tires or www.discounttire.com (probably the best free replacement tire guarantee around). Good luck. -rdo rdolliehome.com
#19 of 2231 Audi A6 2.8 by davekovacs1 Oct 04, 2000 (2:58 pm)
The Audi 2.8 is rated at 200 hp and 207 ft lbs torque. The Audi A6 2.8 is by no means a thriller to drive. I think my Swedish coffee system brews a cup of coffee faster than the 0-60 on the 2.8. It is somewhere around 8.8 to 9 secs. The Audi 2.7T is a much better option. Quattro is a great option on the 2.8 and it is standard on the 2.7T. To me, the Audi A6 is not an attractive car from the back end. I always think of the Impala cop car when I see the Audi from the back. Also having owned Audi's in the past I do believe that the A6 has lost some of its uniqueness. I think it started with my A4. This movement to the more traditional benchmark has resulted in larger sales. However that is probably why I continue to wish that SAAB not become a mass appeal car. Also - that whole Audi atmosphere concept is a bit of an overkill. It has resulted in a silver exterior car only being available with the blackest of graphite leather interiors (even the carpets are almost black). Please - keep the wood choices and door panel mixes simple and make the darn silver car available with a platinum gray interior. There is an Audi board available on Edmunds specific to the Audi A6 2.8 and Saab 9-5. http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/engaged/edmund.cgi?c=Sedans&f=0&t=3975&q=0- Unfortunately there is a poor chap in that forum who went from a Saab to an Audi but feels the Audi doesn't have the soul of Saab. Probably because Audi doesn't have those sneaky trolls in the car!!! It is interesting that Audi does not offer comparisons to the Saab 9-5 on its site. The Saab USA site does provide comparisons to the Audi for those who are interested. However, I do think the Audi is probably more suited to the average person looking for a luxury European car. Regards Dave Kovacs
#20 of 2231 Re: Sulfur Smell by saabee Oct 04, 2000 (4:06 pm)
My 2000 Aero had the same problem. I always use 93 octane, additionally, I tried switching brands, that didn't help. When my ECU was replaced the sulfur smell disappeared.

Messages Page 2 of 223 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 223 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Sedans Saab 9-5 Saab 9-5 Sedan