Saab 9-5 - 1.9 TiD or 2.0T - Help !

[addsvrs]

So looks like i've sold my 55 plate Aero. Due to an increase in mileage I need a cheaper to run Saab
So have been looking at the 1.9TiD and 2.0T and cant really decide which one, both have similar power /spec and similar prices

2006 1.9TiD Vector Sport 88k. (Would like a Turbo Edition but cant find a decent mileage example)
Found this decent mileage one and with Hirsch factory upgrades but has never had the cambelt / water pump changed and is way overdue. My specialist gave me a price today of £450 for the whole fitting kit. Not sure if i do enough miles to justify one, failures and bills on these 1.9 engines do worry me

2008 2.0T Vector 91k
Found a good mileage / spec one near by, i prefer petrol but concerned the power difference from the Aero to this will bug the hell out of me. I get 30mpg on a run in the Aero, how much better will the smaller engine be ?

Anybody with any real world experience of these 2 types ? Any help / guidance or advice more than welcome

[macp]

The simplest answer chap is if you dont do the miles and that is at least 20k per year leave well alone and stick with petrol. Try to get a 2.3 HOT engine with the TD04 turbo which is much tougher than the Garret in the 2.0.

[otolith]

If you believe the official figures, the two most economical petrol 9-5s are the base 150bhp 2.0 and the 2.3 aero, with identical fuel consumption.

[macp]

otolith said:

If you believe the official figures, the two most economical petrol 9-5s are the base 150bhp 2.0 and the 2.3 aero, with identical fuel consumption.

I think I can believe that you know so may as well go for the 2.3 unless insurance costs will be an issue.Just to add the 2.3 HOT engine can also be found in Vector models.

[battered]

I used to have a 1999 9-5 with the 175bhp version of the 2.3 petrol. On a long run and driven like a nun it would get 38mpg. Across town it was awful - 19mpg average, even driven very gently. I suspect the diesel scores in town, but out and about you can expect mid 30s without trying too hard from the petrol, in which case it's close enough and you can do without the diesel maintenance bills that are lurking.

[addsvrs]

Well binned the idea of diesel. Looking for either a 2.0T or an Aero but back to manual this time. Didnt like the auto in the last one. Trying desperately to avoid the £490 a year tax but ticking all the boxes is proving somewhat difficult. Missed a 08 2.0T last week (but it had white leather which i wasnt that keen on) and just yesterday an Aero appeared on my Auto Trader search, manual / £290 tax / two tone leather / in budget........but in newcastle which is soooo far way from me. Still a possibility but cant see it being around for long.

[addsvrs]

Just on the mpg, my 03 manual Aero mid to high 30's was easy, on my 06 Auto Aero i struggled to get above 30.

[bakerstreet]

The 1.9TID 150 is a nice engine, but I had a fair few issues with mine including EGR, injectors, alternator and a few other bits. Also the 06 interior still has the god awful fibre connected stereo. I'd say the 2.0T petrol will probably be more reliable overall. You just have to calculate the mpg.

If you can get a late 06 2.0T with the revised interior, then you could be onto a winner.

Been thinking about getting rid of my 9-5 Aero for something that does better than 27mpg. However, it cost me £1k and has proved to be incredibly reliable. In fact wifey is currently using it whilst I try to get the bottom of battery/charging problems with her C-Max.