9-3 SS - Pro's and con's of 2.0T / 2.8T?
Discussion
Family circumstances mean that two 4 door cars are required as of next year.
I'm pretty set on a 9-3 SS Aero after a very enjoyable 3 years with a 9-5 Aero.
Does anyone have any experiences with either the 2.0T or 2.8T V6 to speak of?
The car will be 07+ which means tax on the 2.8 will be £460 and fuel consumption will obviously be greater.
Is the expense still worth it over the 4 pot?
I'm pretty set on a 9-3 SS Aero after a very enjoyable 3 years with a 9-5 Aero.
Does anyone have any experiences with either the 2.0T or 2.8T V6 to speak of?
The car will be 07+ which means tax on the 2.8 will be £460 and fuel consumption will obviously be greater.
Is the expense still worth it over the 4 pot?
I've got a 2010 2.8 XWD Aero (manual).
Very subtle. Very sensible. Very quick. Shocking fuel economy - 23mpg on a good week.
There's not much more I can add that the previous poster hasn't covered re 4 pot.
I've previously owned a 900T (GM) and 9-3 Aero 2.0HOT 5dr. The 2.8 feels like its in a different league in terms of performance. The others were quick, but the V6 is ballistic. For a year I travelled weekly between Fife and Newcastle, and can honestly say that the Saab helped to shave a significant amount of time off my journey by being able to take advantage of the slightest overtaking opportunity. The XWD provided a spadeful of reassurance during the winter journeys.
Awesomely under-rated motor, in my opinion. And to think you can buy a decent one for not much over £10k....
Neil.
Edited to add: if you need two sensible cars why not have one of each......?
Very subtle. Very sensible. Very quick. Shocking fuel economy - 23mpg on a good week.
There's not much more I can add that the previous poster hasn't covered re 4 pot.
I've previously owned a 900T (GM) and 9-3 Aero 2.0HOT 5dr. The 2.8 feels like its in a different league in terms of performance. The others were quick, but the V6 is ballistic. For a year I travelled weekly between Fife and Newcastle, and can honestly say that the Saab helped to shave a significant amount of time off my journey by being able to take advantage of the slightest overtaking opportunity. The XWD provided a spadeful of reassurance during the winter journeys.
Awesomely under-rated motor, in my opinion. And to think you can buy a decent one for not much over £10k....
Neil.
Edited to add: if you need two sensible cars why not have one of each......?
Edited by BeillyNoy on Thursday 20th December 22:54
Depends how you drive it.
In everyday driving it was acceptable, but when you used the power it liked a drink. Again though, acceptable for the performance.
Compared to the 250hp 9-5 Aero it was quicker too, not so much out and out speed but it was lots more grunty low down. Compared to the 2.0 Aero it's literally in a different league. If remapping is your thing then it's stupidly fast and keeps E46 M3's honest.
In everyday driving it was acceptable, but when you used the power it liked a drink. Again though, acceptable for the performance.
Compared to the 250hp 9-5 Aero it was quicker too, not so much out and out speed but it was lots more grunty low down. Compared to the 2.0 Aero it's literally in a different league. If remapping is your thing then it's stupidly fast and keeps E46 M3's honest.
From the short test drive I had the V6 is no quicker in real world driving. As for low down, not much in it at all. The 9-5 aeros are known for their killer 2nd gear pull as well. The V6 is just too thirsty as well and even when driven eco, they still burn petrol like hell. I should know, a friend owns one and has been considering selling for a diesel 9-3 1.9 and then remapping since he has a 100 mile commute per day. Sure the 2.0T Aero is slower stock but remapped it will match the V6 and is better at the pumps.
In fairness if I had a 100 mile daily commute I wouldn't have the V6, but I wouldn't have the 2.0T either! I'd run an old VAG TDI..
Average MPG was about 26/27 which is ok for the performance imo.
Yes the 2.0T maps close to the V6 but the V6 mapped is all together a different animal. It's very very fast. The torque went from around 260 lb ft to 390!
Average MPG was about 26/27 which is ok for the performance imo.
Yes the 2.0T maps close to the V6 but the V6 mapped is all together a different animal. It's very very fast. The torque went from around 260 lb ft to 390!
philmots said:
In fairness if I had a 100 mile daily commute I wouldn't have the V6, but I wouldn't have the 2.0T either! I'd run an old VAG TDI..
Average MPG was about 26/27 which is ok for the performance imo.
Yes the 2.0T maps close to the V6 but the V6 mapped is all together a different animal. It's very very fast. The torque went from around 260 lb ft to 390!
He is considering a 9-3 1.9 TID for the commute. The V6 is just not worth it for the miles he does but he wants something with torque, so remapped a 1.9tid should prove quick and good on fuel.Average MPG was about 26/27 which is ok for the performance imo.
Yes the 2.0T maps close to the V6 but the V6 mapped is all together a different animal. It's very very fast. The torque went from around 260 lb ft to 390!
26.0/27.0. I'm assuming mostly longer runs then? That's not terrible I guess but it's still a thirsty beast. Then again they do sound nice and end of the day something with 250bhp isn't going to be eco anyway.
I get low to mid 20's (mpg) from my 2.8 v6 (280 bhp 9-3 Turbo X) but most of my driving is a short 4 mile commute (if you can call it that) to work and back mostly in town traffic.
I'm biased but I'd go for the v6 if you're not too worried about mileage/economy just because of the low-end torque and the sound (although the Turbo X has a particularly nice exhaust note as standard).
I'm biased but I'd go for the v6 if you're not too worried about mileage/economy just because of the low-end torque and the sound (although the Turbo X has a particularly nice exhaust note as standard).
Gassing Station | Saab | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff