Last post on Jul 17, 2012 at 5:08 PM
You are in the Saab 9-5
What is this discussion about?
Saab 9-5, Sedan
#1554 of 2237 Agreed on both counts
Oct 10, 2003 (7:26 am)
I dont mean to overstate to V6 I4 issue, and the 2004 Aero engine was impressive at speed. However, my 9-5 SE with a V6 was a fabulous value proposition when I got it compared to the competition, IMO, and notwithstanding Edmunds somewhat "crabby" reviews of the car. I got it at invoice, less advertising, and it included free scheduled maintenance, loaners, etc. My lease rate was within $30/ month of what I was being quoted for a V6 Accord. I guess a lot of that is still there, by Saab really hasn't moved the ball along as far as improvements to the 9-5 and, again IMO, took a major step back by deleting the V6 from the lineup and mucking up the interior appearance of the Aero. Sigh ...
Oct 13, 2003 (5:29 pm)
Sorry guys, the I4 Vs. V6 controversy can't be dismissed as easily as a beer commercial. The Saab product planners simply fell asleep with the North American market (e.g., Saab was THE Swedish winter car until Volvo converted to FWD and then cleaned house with their AWD, which now does so well that they sell more XC wagons than the less expensive FWD!)
And their bad (lazy?) product planning can't be dismissed as simply a lack of money. Saab could have taken the existing V6, hung a turbo on each bank (like the Audi 2.7 engine), beefed up some of the internals, and voila you'd be reading about Saab not the new Volvo R series in all the current buff books and buying at the full Moroney. Hello?
While I'm no fan of GM, one would have to think that the General is getting a bit impatient with the Swedes. Saab doesn't compete well in its segment against Volvo, Audi, Acura, BMW, etc. and doesn't seem to be getting positioned to do any better. An AWD (quick, just call Haldex and outsource it--just like Volvo) 9-5 with a twin turbo V6 would be a start.
Oct 14, 2003 (8:11 am)
I'd buy that car right now if they made it
Oct 14, 2003 (9:42 am)
I agree. A lot of people (particularly current Saab 9-5 drivers) would. Plus it would get more interest back in the brand. Two other observations:
It may have been a fluke, but on my recent service visit to the dealer they had a bunch of unsold current year cars -- many, many more (2-3 times) than I had ever seen before. Possibly they are not moving as fast as they used to.
I noticed at our auto show (Minneapolis, MN) last spring that GM has Saab mixed in with the other GM brands now instead of with the imports. I dont think that's such a good idea.
#1558 of 2237 tires and i4 vs 6
Oct 15, 2003 (11:28 am)
sorry drew ,your question was back on sept.10 regarding tires .i have been traveling and are currently in connecticut in the middle of a wind storm that just knocked a branch into my house as i type this.a big one.
anyhow the blow outs occur because the tire gets a nail and develops a slow leak..........and with these tires you just cannot tell..........so,it blows.
i checked the tires when getting into the car but given that i drive from fla. to conn. and vt. 4 times per year -- by the time i stop to get out of the car it is too late and the tire has already blown.
so far 3 in front and one in the rear.
-i hate the new air--buses---rather drive....
and yes i do have not only 4 but 5 of the 16 inch wheels ......4 with snow tires and one is my full size spare.,
and yes,i may go for 16 inchers all around and get rid of the 17 inchers....thinking about it.
re----i4 vs 6.......
saab is a rather unique car /4 cyl.engine.all the sixes that have been shoehorned into this engine bay have never been able to improve on the 4. and most have been very unreliable.
i selected the aero because of the 4 ......and its power.and it is smooth.and lets face it it is what saab knew how to make well.........this now changes with g.m.......we will see.
but give me a 4 anytime.
its power is amazing for the size and 32 mpg at 85 mph all day (true 72 mph average speed )is just incredible.--it gives me a range of 600 plus miles.....before having to stop for gas when i drive from fla. to vermont.
last trip with the a/c on the average was 29 mpg.
i prefer lite weight cars with small engines and high horsepower.......so,saab.
i recently test drove the mb500 and the 300amg.
nice but the feel is artificial ......and all that power is required to move that overweight mass.----i do beter with the saab.
my other favorite car is my 1955 porsche spyder by beck.......it weights 1200 lbs. and has a racing engine putting out 175 hp.---on skinny tires and direct steering-----you guys do not know what fun is until you live with one of these-----forget viper and vette......those are heavy ....high mass cars with thick tires.i own one and prfer the 550.........
this is why,the i4 saab engine is such a delight.......
remember that the need for the v6 and v8 and v10,etc....is only due to the weight of the cars that they have to propel ......and they are getting heavier as we add more stuff to the cars.....and the tires wider to keep suspension costs down .........
a well tuned suspension on good sized tires will ,for driving in the usa,be better than those 17 and 18 inchers.....
now ,if you drive in europe and are near southern and mid germany where you can go flat out in most ,not all areas ,then it is a different story.
#1559 of 2237 Saab 9-5 engine: V6 versus 4 cylinder?
Oct 15, 2003 (5:31 pm)
I am researching a 2001 Saab 9-5 wagon and noticed that they offer a V6 engine. Saab historically has offered 4 cylinder turbos and has eliminated the V6 for the 2004 model year.
Should I avoid the V6 engine, or has it been reliable?
#1560 of 2237 "...and the tires wider to keep suspension costs down"
Oct 15, 2003 (6:29 pm)
ffb13, you make some nice arguments for a nimble, high output car, but what did you mean by the statement relating tire width to saving on suspension costs?? Colin Chapman, RIP, might have disagreed with you.
Oct 18, 2003 (5:59 pm)
Its a discussion that's been had many times before. I suggest using the search function to look at previous comments and opinions. Here's a clip of something I wrote a few months ago when someone asked a similar question:
This is one of those eternal debates within the Saab 9-5 community. The fact is that both engines are very reliable. Your friend's mileage figures are 100% arbitrary and seem to have little or no basis in reality. I wonder how your friend became such an expert in Saab engine durability.
The current 2.3L 4 cyl is based on an old design which has been upgraded many times over the years. Its almost over-engineered and is very robust. With proper maintenance 200K+++ is easily attained.
The current 3.0L V6 is sourced from Vauxhall (GM England) and is heavily modified by Saab. While its only been in the line since 1999 its proving to be very reliable. About the only beef people have with the V6 is that it uses a timing belt instead of a chain, and the belt needs to be changed every 60K (Saab pays for the first replacement). Comments from dealers show the V6 to be less troublesome than the already reliable 4 cyl but that's prolly due to there being fewer V6 Saab's on the road.
#1562 of 2237 RE: Drive54
Oct 19, 2003 (4:00 pm)
IMHO.. yes avoid the V6! Talk to any long time Saab Tech. It is extremely difficult to service. Over time, this is going to be a very expensive engine to service and repair.
Saab made a critical mistake with this one which is why they are dropping it. The Timing Chain issues, Assymetrical Turbo (silly idea)etc... are not in anyones benefit. Particularly for Saab who is paying for services in the first whatever miles. That's costing them more than they anticipated it seems. The time needed for serivce has to be killing their dealer reimbursements.
True, the I4 is not as smooth at idle as the typical Honda. That's mostly due to the fact that they have been able to Pack a relatively small engine with a nice level of Horse Power. That comes with a cost.
When Saab has a 6 as nicely designed as BMW's, I'll buy one. Until then, there is NOTHING wrong with Saabs I4's.
#1563 of 2237 total nonsense
Oct 20, 2003 (2:58 pm)
The Saab techs I've spoken to (both dealer and independent) have very few negative comments about the V6. In my experience the only people that say bad things about it are those who have entrenched prejudices against it.
No one I've met has mentioned anything about the difficulty in working on the engine. There is no "timing chain issue" with the V6 - it uses a timing belt, like many engines do, and needs replacement every 60K, like many engines do. I have not heard or read a thing about abnormal warranty service costs with the V6. At least, not any worse than the 4 cyl.
I own a 9-5 V6. My ear is CONSTANTLY on the tracks, listening for any known or potential problems with this engine that could cost me big $$$ down the road. Probably the most common thing I've heard over the past 3 years is the animosity towards the V6 which comes mainly from the "I hate GM" crowd and the vocal Saab Philistines who almost constantly bemoan the rape of the Saab culture.
Look, every engine has its issues. What you need is a local shop or mechanic that knows and understands the car, not just the engine. The V6 may not be as robust as the 2.3L 4 cyl, but the 2.3L 4 cyl days are numbered as new designs and technologies come from GM and Saab. I say drive cars with both engines and buy the one YOU like best, not what some voice on the internet tells you to buy. It's your money after all.