Last post on Sep 10, 2013 at 2:23 AM
You are in the Saab 9-3
What is this discussion about?
Saab 9-3, Sedan
#2992 of 3350 Re: To Saab or Not to Saab [gormerod]
Oct 28, 2006 (6:45 am)
Compared to my 2002 9-3 hatchback, the current 9-3 is slightly quieter, more nimble and has less turbo lag (based on my experience with a service loaner). The driving experience is probably more middle-of-the-road, and appeals to a wider range of drivers than did the 2002.
Interior finish is another matter. My 5-year old "wood" dash and leather seats look new. The interior door panels could be from a luxury model. When I sit in a showroom-new 2006 Saab I am inevitably disappointed with the interior, though I am not really impressed with the interior quality of any current brand in my price range -- VW meets my standards (but you pay more).
Saturn's new Aura similarly has the potential to be a great seller, but interior quality failings remind us it is a GM product.
#2993 of 3350 Re: To Saab or Not to Saab [sock1]
Nov 10, 2006 (2:45 pm)
These cars have good engines and transmissions I have the 5 speed manual. The chasis dynamics are good so the car is fun to drive. They are built to run hard a 6.5 quart crankcase is big for a 2.0 litre motor I have not been happy with the interior build quality; too many plastic noises and buzzy vibrations. It's all a trade off. I guess the interior was where they had to cut costs to give you the engineering of the other components for the price they sell the car. If you want a 9-3 would buy a 2.0 lightly optioned because of the interior build quality.
#2994 of 3350 Re: To Saab or Not to Saab [sock1]
Nov 11, 2006 (10:46 pm)
Three years ago I bought an '04 9-3 aero because it was exactly the car I wanted and there was no other. I actually really liked its styling, found it to be fun to drive and even felt there was still some uniqueness to the brand regardless of any GMizing (after all, I don't care what platform a car is sprung from as long as I like the whole package). I was exactly the customer GM was looking for, a first time Saab buyer who really wanted one of their cars. I was so enthused about the car, I ignored it's many malfunctions, tolerated the countless dealer visits, and defended the car on forums.
In the end after being stranded twice, having the transmission replaced after less than 2 years, and never being able to get dealers to resolve the constant rattles (mechanical sounding rattles- not just interior annoyances)I finally gave up. I realized one day my wife's 6 year old Jeep for all its flaws felt more reliable and solid than my less-than-three year old 30k+ "luxury" car and that I had actually been losing a lot of time and energy on an inanimate object. I finally cut my losses (read huge depreciation) and moved on. I hope others who currently own 9-3s have a better experience, but based on mine (and others I know who have 9-3s) I just had to warn you.
ps. Be sure to check the quality rankings- I've lived with plenty of cars that'd be considered middle of the pack but next to last means real trouble to me.
#2995 of 3350 Re: To Saab or Not to Saab [gholst]
Nov 12, 2006 (9:21 am)
I empathize with you. I was also a first time Saab buyer (04 Arc) who liked the styling and was enthused about the car, at least for the money vs. the competition.
It sounds like you had a similar experience to me, except yours was much worse. I was stranded once as well and had to deal with numerous electrical glitches and minor problems over the years. When the 04s were new, I recall Saab being middle of the pack-it's our cars that have driven that rating to near the bottom. Just goes to show past results are not a predictor of future performance.
#2996 of 3350 Re: To Saab or Not to Saab [sidv]
Nov 12, 2006 (9:33 am)
what's up everyone...we bought a 2006 93 and so far so good, i didn't care for the svc staff, but went to another in Hunt Valley, MD, where they were outstanding. The only problem we had with our 93 was a software glitch related to the sunroof. Once that was fixed, we have had no issues, 12k in 11 months...one thing I would suggest - change the oil at 7500 not 10k..you'll have to pay for the in between oil changes b/c saab only covers 3 i think
#2997 of 3350 Re: To Saab or Not to Saab [skmces]
Nov 12, 2006 (9:44 am)
Saab dealer would not change our oil the first time until I think 13-14K. That is the point where the oil life indicator indicated 95% (I think) used. It's a lease so I went with it, had I bought it no way. Buyers of used Saabs.
#2998 of 3350 I love my 9-3...if it would only stop breaking down.
Nov 27, 2006 (7:56 am)
I have a 2002 9-3 SE. Love the car! It's the perfect size; love the zoom that the sport mode gives me; I love all the features I have. The problem? My engine light literally comes on every month. My warranty was up about a year ago and I have paid at least $5000 in diagnostics and repairs since then - the throttle body, valves, direct injection, wheel problems, it seems to never end. The worst part is that sometimes the engine light is serious and sometimes it's just a sensor. But I never know until I pay the $100 a pop for the diagnostic. My husband absolutely hates my car and thinks it's a POS. I really love it except that it's unreliable. Now we're expecting our first baby in March and it broke down on our 300 mile trip home for the Thanksgiving holiday. He's making me get rid of it. If only it would stop breaking down!!!! Now I'm going to have to get a minivan or something just as bad.
#2999 of 3350 Re: I love my 9-3...if it would only stop breaking down. [eroberts]
Nov 27, 2006 (8:06 am)
I had the same problem with my 9-3 2003. However, after looking around and almost buying a Passat, I ended up with a 2006 9-3 Sportcombi. So far its been the most reliable Saab I've bought. Plus the extra room in the back is extremely useful. If you're looking at something as large as a minivan, then why not look at a 9-5? Its got a huge trunk?
Warren Brown seemed to like the Saturn Outlook as an minivan alternative, and I wouldn't be surprised if a Saab version turns up sooner or later.
#3000 of 3350 2007 9-3 AERO vs. 2007 2.0t
Nov 30, 2006 (1:07 am)
I have the opportunity to buy (lease) an AERO for $1500 more in drive off than a regular 2.0T. I am intereested in opinions of those of you who have sweated over that choice and how you arrived at your decision. I am thinking of handling performance as well as speed differences, perceived or real.
I only mention the cost differnce to give you an idea of what sort of financial sacrifice I would be making.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
#3001 of 3350 Re: 2007 9-3 AERO vs. 2007 2.0t [danb5]
Dec 01, 2006 (4:57 am)
The $1500 difference sounds good, but the V6 is built in Australia (the last time I checked.) The 2.0 is built in Germany (probably an Opel engine) and it has been in production for a while. I would trust a german built engine over one from Australia.
My 2005 9-3 Arc has the 2.0 which delivers plenty of power. My vote would be for the 2.0, unless you are interested in Aero options that are otherwise not available.