900 as a cheap runaround?

[Chris71]

Hi,

I'm looking to get a cheap car to tide me over whilst I save for something more interesting and thought about a 900. Wondered if anyone could comment? My requirments (strictly in this order) are:

* must have peerless reliability - don't mind if a few bits of trim part company, but cannot leave me stranded as I aim to get something exotic and impractical to do that
* must have a reasonable load space - folding seats etc
* reasonable economy
* ABS and toys would be nice but not essential
* finally, as an after thought something which isn't too bad to drive would be good (did think about a 900 turbo, but I've heard the handling is a bit commical?)

Basically intended as a stop gap and then as a 2nd car for whenever the fun car breaks down, can't fit everything in or when a lot of motorway miles are required.

[900T-R]

If it's intended to be a bit of fun, don't get the Cavalier-based 'new gen' 900 and don't get anything without a turbo. At this point in a car's life, reliability will be purely a function of how well the car's been maintained, and of course a bit of luck. You won't have to worry about bits falling off, though.

<edited to add: for maximum bangertastic fun, try to score an 1986-89 2-door 900T (8 valve) notchback. If you still can find one, £500ish would sort you and there's not much to break on these as they were intended as an 'entry level' (well sort of) Saab turbo. They're the stiffest shells and light (although strangely a wee bit heavier than the corresponding 3-door version) and with a set of decent dampers they're quite fun to chuck around with a rather delightful old school turbo shove in the back, too.

Edited by 900T-R on Thursday 11th January 15:12

[Boosted LS1]

Chris71 said:

Hi,

* finally, as an after thought something which isn't too bad to drive would be good (did think about a 900 turbo, but I've heard the handling is a bit commical?)
.

Who told you that? Classic 900's have a very good suspension layout, double wishbones etc and equal length driveshafts iirc. Interior is cavernous on a 3 door, spares are cheap and readily available. Just make sure you buy a good one

Boosted.

[Prof Beard]

Mrs B's 1994 900S (which shares a floor-pan with a Cavalier - I do wish people would stop this Cav-based nonsense - they may be GM but they are very much Saab and very well built) has given us 210,000 miles - it's non-turbo and nice rather than fun to drive. There is nowt wrong with the turbo models IMHO - they are not the same as the "Classic 900" but Mrs B's has had far fewer minor niggles than my mates 900 Classic had - a 1993 - which suffered from quite a few electrical iffys like the windows not winding down etc) Engine wise the 2.0 models (16V) are much the same. The Classics are lovely but old - you can get a much newer NG900 cheap.

Both the classic and the NG are basically very reliable...b

[900T-R]

Prof Beard said:

The Classics are lovely but old - you can get a much newer NG900 cheap.

For which there's a good reason...

For starters, especially 1994 and 1995 NG 900 models were not well built. The model was severely underdeveloped because it was rushed to the market. This is well documented up to and including Der Spiegel writing about Saab's quality woes at the time. Some of the quality shortfalls have been corrected with retrofit campaign - that is, if the cars involved were still within the dealer network at the time and if the dealer didn't just gloss over the campaigns because they couldn't be bothered.
Secondly, although the GM900 surely looked like a Saab inside and out, the Cavalier underpinnings shone through very clearly as soon as you punted the thing along a country lane.

I must admit I'm getting a bit irked with NG900/9-3 apologists by now who seem to regard everything with a saab badge through rose tinted glasses and brand everyone who dares to echo what the wide world says about these cars - in my case through having extensively driven just about every iteration, every competitor and in fact every non-exotic 'performance car' - as heretic. In fact, it's the main reaosn why I'm seldom found within the Saab community anymore.

The heart of the matter is, the NG900/9-3 series is built on a 1988 Cavalier platform and by Saabs engineers' own admission they got zero design input at the time. Yes, the structure is allegedly 50% stiffer than the Cavalier's. But it's got the Cavaliers lack of suspension travel up front (partly corrected with the MY 1997 revamp, not long before it morphed into the 9-3 with yet more chassis tweaks), it has the same front strut set up with the lower wishbone consisting of two separate parts connected with a marshmallow bushing, it has the same rear torsion axle with massive production tolerances. Apart from the exterior and interior design, the only part on the car that's truly Saab are the engines.
Sure, it can be made into a good car (a mate of mine has one with 340 bhp which does go though corners, quite unbelievable I'd say but the sums he spent at it are quite unbelievable, too) but if it's such a good car, why is everyone who's not a die-hard Saab fan who had one at some point, ehm - less than complimentary about its road behaviour? Quite simply, because they're right.


Why am I so adamant about this? Simply because everyone I know who got into a GM900 as their first Saab - often becuase they always had a soft spot for the classic Turbo's - was less than happy with it and after they got shot of it continued to rubbish the marque indefinitely (one even swore never to set foot into a Saab showroom again - luckily for Saab he didn't keep his word) whilst everyone I know who had a classic 900 at some point says they wish they'd never sold that car.

Edited by 900T-R on Thursday 11th January 18:50

[Prof Beard]

900T-R said:

Prof Beard said:

The Classics are lovely but old - you can get a much newer NG900 cheap.

For which there's a good reason...

For starters, especially 1994 and 1995 NG 900 models were not well built. The model was severely underdeveloped because it was rushed to the market. This is well documented up to and including Der Spiegel writing about Saab's quality woes at the time. Some of the quality shortfalls have been corrected with retrofit campaign - that is, if the cars involved were still within the dealer network at the time and if the dealer didn't just gloss over the campaigns because they couldn't be bothered.
Secondly, although the GM900 surely looked like a Saab inside and out, the Cavalier underpinnings shone through very clearly as soon as you punted the thing along a country lane.

I must admit I'm getting a bit irked with NG900/9-3 apologists by now who seem to regard everything with a saab badge through rose tinted glasses and brand everyone who dares to echo what the wide world says about these cars - in my case through having extensively driven just about every iteration, every competitor and in fact every non-exotic 'performance car' - as heretic. In fact, it's the main reaosn why I'm seldom found within the Saab community anymore.

The heart of the matter is, the NG900/9-3 series is built on a 1988 Cavalier platform and by Saabs engineers' own admission they got zero design input at the time. Yes, the structure is allegedly 50% stiffer than the Cavalier's. But it's got the Cavaliers lack of suspension travel up front (partly corrected with the MY 1997 revamp, not long before it morphed into the 9-3 with yet more chassis tweaks), it has the same front strut set up with the lower wishbone consisting of two separate parts connected with a marshmallow bushing, it has the same rear torsion axle with massive production tolerances. Apart from the exterior and interior design, the only part on the car that's truly Saab are the engines.
Sure, it can be made into a good car (a mate of mine has one with 340 bhp which does go though corners, quite unbelievable I'd say but the sums he spent at it are quite unbelievable, too) but if it's such a good car, why is everyone who's not a die-hard Saab fan who had one at some point, ehm - less than complimentary about its road behaviour? Quite simply, because they're right.


Why am I so adamant about this? Simply because everyone I know who got into a GM900 as their first Saab - often becuase they always had a soft spot for the classic Turbo's - was less than happy with it and after they got shot of it continued to rubbish the marque indefinitely (one even swore never to set foot into a Saab showroom again - luckily for Saab he didn't keep his word) whilst everyone I know who had a classic 900 at some point says they wish they'd never sold that car.

Edited by 900T-R on Thursday 11th January 18:50

Bit touchy aren't you!

I'm sorry I just don't agree. There is a vast NG900/9-3 owner community who clearly like the cars - just look on sites like Saab Central.

Quotes from the Saab Central NG900 Secondhand Buyers Guide - written by someone who has owned them:

"Introduced in late 1993 the GM900 was based on a Cavalier/Vectra floor pan but everything else was Saab except for the engine in the 2.5 V6 which was a GM unit. The early models had various teething problems (like all new cars do) which in most cases were rectified under warranty by recalls and during services once they had been identified."

And

"Conclusion

Ultimately the NG900s are as well built, solid and reliable as any other SAAB and if looked after correctly will go on almost forever."

I agree they are not the worlds sportiest drive, but they are IMHO pleasant to drive, and I would have though a 1994 car with no rust and everything working at 210,000 miles indicates reliability. (Yes - I have just had a cold start problem, but a £16 sensor seems to have sorted it).

[wadeski]

well he hasnt given a budget, but if he is talking 3-4 grand, i would look at a last-off-the line 9000 rather than a 900 or 93.

it fits his motorway / practical / fun criteria better, imho.

if he is prepared to punt up more cash, a 2.3T 9-5 with a chip would do very, very nicely!

[900T-R]

Prof Beard said:

Bit touchy aren't you!

I believe it's you that chastised me for stating something which is techniacally correct (i.e. the GM900 is Cavalier-based). If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck and no use pretending it's a swan.

Prof Beard said:

I'm sorry I just don't agree. There is a vast NG900/9-3 owner community who clearly like the cars - just look on sites like Saab Central.

Er, what would you expect from a Saab fansite... If you go to any one-make club or website, people will always defend every single model made, even though all of the outside world knows it's a bit rubbish, really.

Which is the crux of the matter - the hardcore Saab fans that happen to own them say "You know, they're not so bad after all." Everyone who has a somewhat broader automotive outlook says they're a bit rubbish. People who've had decent non-Saab cars before and after and bought one because they like the idea of a Saab, think they're a bit rubbish really.
Based on that, would you say a GM900 is a sound recommendation to someone who's never owned a Saab and doesn't have some kind of emotional attachment to the marque like you and I have?

[bob1179]

Get a nice 80's 900.

I had an '87 900 4 door Saloon in beige, 2 litre carb engine, rust in all the usual places but it cost me 100 quid with a years tax and test from and old guy that had it from new. It was just run in at 116,000 miles and it was great! The only thing I did to it in the year I ran it for was change a front wheel bearing, and I put about 14,000 miles on the old girl.

What a machine, what class, what style, what beigness.

Get a classic, job done.

[Chris71]

wadeski said:

well he hasnt given a budget, but if he is talking 3-4 grand, i would look at a last-off-the line 9000 rather than a 900 or 93.

it fits his motorway / practical / fun criteria better, imho.

if he is prepared to punt up more cash, a 2.3T 9-5 with a chip would do very, very nicely!

Nothing like that I'm afraid! I'm looking for an ultra reliable sub-£1k workhorse. First and foremost it has to be faultlessly reliable, preferably not *too* thirsty and finally as an after thought, something fun to drive would obviously be preferable to something which isn't.

Maybe something like this?

www.pistonheads.com/sales/116640.htm

Just to confirm - they have a hatchback and folding seats? Unfortunately I can see a turbo being a bit of a problem insurance-wise as I'm 23. Wouldn't be any issue as a main car, but if I'm likely to be paying £1000+ to insure my fun car, it would have to be something very cheap for the runaround.

It's not the end of the world if I end up with a soggy wheezing Escort or something, I'd just prefer my 'sensible transport' to be a little more interesting and a little more characterful if at all possible and thought a 900 might do that.

[Chris71]

Boosted LS1 said:

Chris71 said:

Hi,

* finally, as an after thought something which isn't too bad to drive would be good (did think about a 900 turbo, but I've heard the handling is a bit commical?)
.

Who told you that? Classic 900's have a very good suspension layout, double wishbones etc and equal length driveshafts iirc. Interior is cavernous on a 3 door, spares are cheap and readily available. Just make sure you buy a good one

Boosted.

Hello again!

I was just told they suffered from dramatic understeer, particularly in the wet. Might be (relative) from someone who hasn't fully grasped the concept of front wheel drive though!!

[900T-R]

Chris71 said:

Maybe something like this?

www.pistonheads.com/sales/116640.htm

Chris71 said:

Just to confirm - they have a hatchback and folding seats?

This one does, as does the 5-door variant. 2- And 4-door saloons still have a folding rear seat.

Chris71 said:

Unfortunately I can see a turbo being a bit of a problem insurance-wise as I'm 23.

Well that's the beauty of it - it's hardly a 'boy racer' car, is it? I bet you can get good quotes through the Saab Club, and as it's widely recognised as a classic you may well find good insurance deals provided you don't do stellar miles...

Chris71 said:

It's not the end of the world if I end up with a soggy wheezing Escort or something, I'd just prefer my 'sensible transport' to be a little more interesting and a little more characterful if at all possible and thought a 900 might do that.

At some point I owned 2 of the things, Saabine (which is in my profile and represents a near-complete re-engineering) and a battered '86 2-door T8v which was bog standard and as the new owner found out on the rollers, about 10 bhp down on power. Nevertheless he took it to the Nürburgring after a general tidying and 4 new shocks, and said it was brilliant fun!

As for understeer - these cars have quite keen turn-in characteristics and normally just go the way you point it without any drama, however near the limit they will naturally understeer quite strongly, especially in the wet. I'll let you in on a little secret here - get the rear torsion bar off a T16S model and don't bother with the front one (if you have a T16S, remove front bar). Dial in about 1.5 degrees negative camber on the front wheels, increase front castor to 2.5 degrees or more and set toe in as close to zero as possible without it actually being zero. Now you have neutral on-limit behaviour with a helpful dose of lift-oversteer available on demand!

Edited by 900T-R on Friday 12th January 13:53

[Chris71]

Thanks Eric You have my dream job btw - although it must be interesting in the Netherlands, I gather they shoot people for more than 2 kph over the limit?

Will see what sort of insurance quotes they produce. Just strikes me that there aren't many cars you can pick up for £600 and the 900 seems to have a little more character than most!

Any idea what sort of fuel economy a standard 900 will return in turbo'd and non-turbo'd forms?

I take it they're fairly robust? Seem to remember a lot of people claiming very high mileages with them.

[900T-R]

With the classic 900, the last thing you should be worried about is mileage - evidence of maintenance, and absence of rust in the usual places as well as the gearbox still being in one piece on turbo models are the things you're looking for. High mileage cars only get scrapped when people allow a backlog on maintenance itemes to build and then come MOT time, it results in a car that's uneconomical to repair because a 300,000 mile example isn't worth much... Replacement parts from breakers and within the Saab community are plentiful and normally quite reasonable.

Both turbo and non-turbo models return mid-20s to 30 mpg at best, when in good shape. There's nothing too specialised about a tune up on them so again, staying on top of normal, regular maintenance reaps its rewards.

The problem with speed cameras here and mobile flashers is that there are so many of them rather than the amount of leeway given, although the latter seems to be a lot smaller than in the UK (they allow for 3% error margin, but after having deducted that you will get done for 4 km/h over the limit on motorways). The upside is that there's no points on your license for speeding (disclaimer: get nicked for 50 km/h over the limit or more on motorways and 30 km/h or more in towns or at roadworks, and your license will be taken pending a court session...). Good thing to, as half of motorists here would be banned if we got 3 points for every transgression of the limit.

To give you an idea about the size of the speeding ticket industry here: every year, as many 'automatic' speeding fines are issued as there are cars here (7 million+). Other motoring offences like tailgating, drink driving, cutting off people, driving on the overtaking lane without need, etc. etc. attract only a couple of thousand convictions each...

Edited by 900T-R on Friday 12th January 15:09

[NiceCupOfTea]

Hi Chris,

Eric has said it all as usual!

You can still get a turbo for under a grand although it will be a little tatty. Try getting a quote from Chris Knott as they are the SOC insurer and you may get a decent deal.

As Eric said, they only understeer badly when you push hard in the wet (in fact driving a soggy auto 9-5 in the wet reminded me how sorted my c900 is when I accidentally took the wrong exit on a roundabout

3/5 doors have huge amounts of room in the back, you can sleep 2 people in there with the seats down. Only yesterday I had in the boot: 2 boxes of motoring related paraphanalia, a french horn, a bass trombone, a trumpet, a euphonium, 2 big bags, a ghetto blaster style stereo and my lunch - with the seats up

Non turbos not as fun, but find a nice late 80s 16v and they are still pretty good. The one in the classifieds looks good too!

Be aware though, cheap on fuel they are not. On a run you might see low 30s in a turbo. Daily driver, expect to see mid to high 20s. My average over 2.5 years is 26mpg, but I do drive it hard and I do a lot of stop/start.

Still, it's worth it!

[wadeski]

also be aware that as cheap motoring, on a shoestring budget, they arent the cheapest to fix if something goes wrong....

not horribly expensive, but if reliability and lack of time in a shop is a primary goal...you might want to consider swallowing your pride and getting a Nissan...

Primera GT?

[900T-R]

wadeski said:

also be aware that as cheap motoring, on a shoestring budget, they arent the cheapest to fix if something goes wrong....

not horribly expensive, but if reliability and lack of time in a shop is a primary goal...you might want to consider swallowing your pride and getting a Nissan...

Primera GT?

Problem with going the Japanese route that a) if something goes wrong, parts are a lot more expensive and b) they're a bit like Bic lighters - you'll have no problems whatsoever during its lifetime, but at the point they start to give trouble you'll find that everything has worn out to about the same extent and you're better off chucking it away. Determining where that point is at bargain basement level is a bit of a black art - or at least luck of the draw.
Where an old Saab -just like an old Mercedes or Porsche - is like a Zippo - keep it topped up and it'll keep going indefinitely.

Edited to say it is a luck of the draw regardless of the car, really. The 1986 900T8v (Silver Arrow Limited Edition, no less) I bought as a runabout ca.2000 was cheap because it had light front end damage (I got half a front fender into the bargain). So I had the damage repaired, had it serviced, found out why the boost built up so sluggishly (sticky wastegate), did some minor tidying... and just at the moment I thought I had it nailed, the left front tyre disintegrated at 100 mph, damaging the felt front fender I just had repaired at the tune of £500, and put a big dent in the door. It looked like $hit, but I still ran it for a year and a half subsequently, during which time it only cost me the price of an oil change, unsticking the rear brakes plus a set of ridiculously cheap OE rear pads. Still my relationship with that car never recovered, and I sold it to a mate after it had been sitting on the driveway looking sorry for itself for six months or so.

Edited by 900T-R on Friday 12th January 18:37

[chris71]

Well, I only intend to use it when I can't fit people/mountain bikes/guitar kit into the back of my Quantum or whatever I replace that with, so MPG I suppose isn't a huge issue, as long as the tank gives decent range. I have to pay for the insurance whether I use it or not though, so that might be prohibitive.

Actually enquired about that one in the classifieds, but didn't spot that it's one of the saloons (as opposed to hatchbacks) in fact the guy was selling it because he wanted something with better access to ferry his bike around!!

As for the japanese route, I had thought about an Almera GTi as I'd really prefer something a little smaller than a Primera (and for that matter a 900, but they have rather more appeal!)

[900T-R]

chris71 said:

Actually enquired about that one in the classifieds, but didn't spot that it's one of the saloons (as opposed to hatchbacks) in fact the guy was selling it because he wanted something with better access to ferry his bike around!!

Ah, now I see it too! The angle from which it's taken is a bit misleading - had to click for the bigger version of the picture to be sure...

Someone snap this thing up - the 2 doors are rare, have the stiffest shell of them all, and some motorsport heritage too (being the weapon of choice for the Saab 900 Turbo Challenge of the late '80s, featuring guest drivers like Tiff N and Damon H if I'm not mistaken, and the stepping stone for Abbott Racing to bigger 'n better things...)

The 900 is a long car (partly because of the bumpers but far from bulky. It tends to disappear visually when parked behind things like Golf IVs and Pug 307s. In fact, from behind the wheel it doesn't feel all that different from my MINI (although that could say more about the MINI's size than the Saab's ).

Edited by 900T-R on Friday 12th January 18:54

[Prof Beard]

900T-R said:

Based on that, would you say a GM900 is a sound recommendation to someone who's never owned a Saab and doesn't have some kind of emotional attachment to the marque like you and I have?

If someone is looking for an "entertaining drive" etc then no I'd agree with you to a large extent compared to the Classic 900, but if someone was looking for a durable hatchback with great load carrying capacity and good cruising performance, then yes I would recommend them.

I've no particular axe to grind on this, I really like the Classic 900, but have been very pleased (as have others I know) with the NG900 as a reliable and durable vehicle. (I also really like my current "classic" 9-3 aero convertible). The NG900 and "old" 9-3 may not have the character of the Classic 900, but are still very much Saabs and IMHO good cars provided you understand what they are good at and what they are not. To me the evidence is the large number of old NG900s sti8ll on the roads and in good condition - they obviously appeal to some people - not you, but that's your preference, we are all entitled to our own choices?