Ask the Car People.SM


Saab 9-5 Sedan

2237 messages,  Last post on Jul 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM

You are in the Saab 9-5 Forum.

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

Messages Page 146 of 225

#1445 of 2237 by fredmcmurray

May 16, 2003 (10:28 pm)

blockislandguy - I suspect a lot of the poor resale value reputation does come from people comparing MSRP to used prices rather than actual selling prices. I have seen many people use lease residual values as evidence of weak resale also. Again, residuals are based on MSRP rather thatn actual sales price. When I was shopping for an SUV for the wife, everyone talked about how bad resale was on Ford Expeditions. In fact, Expeditions were selling for $7-8000 under sticker. Taking that into account, the rsle values on Expeditions are actually excellent. I suspect it is the same situation on 9-5s. Aking prices for used 2002 9-5 Aeros seem to be in the $30-35K range. If I can get a new one for around $33-34K, buying used make no sense.
 
So, the $4000 cash back is real but they're not really publicizing it. Can someone tell me what the point of a sales incentive is if no one knows about it. Is this just another brilliant marketing move by GM? I for one would not be able to be considering a 9-5 at $40K. If I hadn't stumbled in here and heard people were getting them for low $30s, I wouldn't even have looked at the Saab. How many more potential buyers is GM missing?

#1446 of 2237 fredmacmurray by robr2

May 17, 2003 (5:57 am)

I was under the impression the current cash incentives are for the dealer to do with as they wish, hence no consumer driven advertising.
 
The idea behind dealer cash is to offer a way to sell cars without reducing brand equity. But since we all know that SAAB's are heavily subsidized, will it work at this point? Why not at this point reduce MSRP and call it even?

#1447 of 2237 9.5 aero tires by ffb13

May 18, 2003 (3:03 pm)

my 2000 aero with 55,000 miles has 4/32 nd left on the tires from 11/32 nd when new.
this is about 60 % wear. but in about another 5m miles i will need to get tires,the thread wear is only 3/32 away.
currently i have the oea michelin mmx.
 
thinking of going to the goodyear f1 tire.
 
has anyone tried this tire as yet ????
and if so --results ????
 
the tire rack customer poll states that it is 100 % better than the michelins on my car.
quieter ,
longer lasting ?????????
better in the wet.
 
but,most of the 9.5 and aero owners tell that the mmx only gave them 15 to 22,000 miles were i am in the 60,000 range by the time i re-tire.
 
i think it has to do with ny inflation pressures of 41 front and 39 rear.
 
anyhow,i would appreciate any feedback on the goodyear from saab owners as there is none on tire rack.
thank you.
ff

#1448 of 2237 GM Incentives by trapper7147

May 19, 2003 (5:52 am)

robr2 is correct in saying that the $4k cash back is a dealer incentive to use if they wish. I called the SAAB Customer Assistance Center and they openly speak about 0% financing but say that any cash back incentive is up to each individual dealer. Also note that the two incentives cannot be combined ($4k cash back + 0% financing = NO), it is one or the other. The best deal I have gotten to date is invoice minus the $4k incentive.

#1449 of 2237 Ventilated seats by gver2

May 19, 2003 (7:12 am)

Still looking for an answer to this: Those of you who have ventilated seats. Do you use them heavily? Does the racket deter their use? Is this just more a marketing gimmick than a desirable option? Thanks.

#1450 of 2237 Ventilated Seats by grumb

May 19, 2003 (8:56 pm)

Thought they were a gimmick, but they really do work. You need less A/C and on long trips you feel more refreshed IMHO. They are noisy,especially on higher setttings, but you won't accidentally leave it on

#1451 of 2237 Ventilated Seats by fauxpaws

May 20, 2003 (12:01 pm)

This is another of those "gotcha" options that once experienced, becomes a must-have. Think instant hot water in the kitchen--I thought my wife was going decadent on me, but you know, it's really nice.
 
Oh yeah...seats. Just set it on "1" and forget about it. You won't even notice it's on. You'll just be very, very comfortable. If you forget to turn it on and get sweaty, then you'll have to crank it up, experience rapid evaporation, and notice the cold and noise of the fan. Of course, if it's that hot out, other fans in the car will be louder.
 
Intelligently used, it's like a good non-steroidal agent. All of a sudden, you just notice that your knees don't hurt anymore. You just feel normal...not in pain, not sick to your stomach with side effects. Just normal. Quiet relief.
 
Gotta hand it to those Swedes. Who'd think that folks in a cool climate would put this into a car.
 
Best,
Greg '03 Arc Wagon newbie

#1452 of 2237 RE: Seats by dski

May 24, 2003 (8:56 am)

>>Gotta hand it to those Swedes. Who'd think that folks in a cool climate would put this into a car<<
 
The idea came from back when they were part of the Aircraft Division. It was a feature commonly used in Fighter Jets. Not sure what company or who invented it though.
 
Saab was the first to put cool things like this in cars but companies like BMW eventually copy them and make everyone believe they were the clever ones to think of the idea. Heated Seats is another good example of this. Self Leveling Head Lights? I think that might be a Saab original too but admit I'm not positive about that.
 
Drew

#1453 of 2237 HELP: a 9-3 or 9-5 ? a 99' or 2000 ? by maybesaab

Jun 04, 2003 (6:45 pm)

decisions, decisions...after looking forever, I am closing in on purchasing used and need help....any opinions on getting a used 9-3 versus used 9-5...and whether 2000 year is superior to 1999 model year for either...I like look and smaller feel of 9-3 but have heard some people comment on how 9-5 is THE Saab to get....all opinions would be helpful, thanks...

#1454 of 2237 maybesaab - my two pennies by bretfraz

Jun 05, 2003 (5:29 pm)

The 9-3 is a fine car in its own right. A bit dated in design but still nice. If a used one fits your needs and budget, its a great choice.
 
Obviously the larger 9-5 has clear advantages in comfort. There's no hatchback like on a 9-3 but there are wagon versions available and the sedans are very flexible haulers.
 
Having driven both I think the 9-5 is a "more together" car - better chassis, steering, brakes, etc. Also the 9-5 is a better long distance tourer. If you plan to drive long distances, carry lots of people, or have a long commute, the 9-5 is a winner.
 
Both cars are very safe and have performed well in crash tests. In 1999 (IIRC) Euro NCAP said the 9-5 was the safest car they'd ever tested. So I think the 9-5 has an edge in safety.
 
As for years, the newer the better. Saab has worked on its bugs aggressively and the '00 models are better than the '99's. In '01 the 9-5 won the JD Power award for highest consumer satisfaction for a new car.
 
Good luck with your decision.

Messages Page 146 of 225

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement