Saab 900 (gm) best engine
Discussion
Hopefully my golf is going this weekend, and i have decided to save myself the cash to save towards an MX-5, so want a comfortable commuter wagon to run as the daily hack. Been looking at the 900 as i can pick a mid nineties one up within my £1k budget easily. My 1hr commute is spent mostly sat in traffic, and i have recently been recovering from a serious shoulder/ neck injury, so must have a comfortable seat to sit in.
Anyway, should i go for the 2.5 V6 to get the comfy leather seats, or the non-turbo 2.0i with standard ones?
My other question is what are the relative fuel economies on the two engines?
Finally, does anyone have an opinion on the 4sp auto box? Good or bad?
2.0 Will be a lot cheaper to service than the Opel/Vauxhall 2.5V6 (30,000 mile cambelt service!) and is adequate for the car. Personally I'd hold out for a 2.3 or a 2.0 Turbo even. For a grand, the world's your oyster concerning GM900s anyway. Trey to avoid the '94 and '95 models, though, unless there's ample evidence they've been properly sorted.
Thanks, i've read about those years being one's to avoid!! Don't like the sound of a 30k cambelt service!! Any thoughts on the fuel economy of each? How comfortable is the standard interior? Am wanting to learn how to get handy with the spanners, so would consider getting a standrad car and changing the interior for a leather one from the scrappy. Are they easily had? You driven one with the auto box?
Turbo is the most expensive in terms of insurance i guess?
Turbo is the most expensive in terms of insurance i guess?
Edited by eltax91 on Friday 27th April 15:32
Regarding fuel consumption, there won't be much in it between the 2.0 and 2.3 N/A engines under normal circumstances; the Turbo will be a bit more driver-dependant 
and the V6 will be the least economical, overall. I'd say high twenties for the N/A four pots, 30+ if you're frugal.
The leather seats are just as flat as the standard ones in the NG900; you will have more lateral support with the cloth ones than on the slippery leather. I'd stick with the former unless I could get hold of a pair of 9-3 Viggen/Aero seats (but those may damn near the cost of the car if from a Saab breaker!).
and the V6 will be the least economical, overall. I'd say high twenties for the N/A four pots, 30+ if you're frugal. The leather seats are just as flat as the standard ones in the NG900; you will have more lateral support with the cloth ones than on the slippery leather. I'd stick with the former unless I could get hold of a pair of 9-3 Viggen/Aero seats (but those may damn near the cost of the car if from a Saab breaker!).
Excellent help so far, very much appreciated!! Think i'll probably go for the smallest engine to get the best economy. Simply because i will have the MX-5 for a fuel eating spirited drive!!
One last question? I was set on an auto because i think it'll be more comfortable sat in traffic and driving my regular trips up the M1. Am i right or are there drastic worries to navigate?
One last question? I was set on an auto because i think it'll be more comfortable sat in traffic and driving my regular trips up the M1. Am i right or are there drastic worries to navigate?
eltax91 said:
Think i'll probably go for the smallest engine to get the best economy.
One last question? I was set on an auto because i think it'll be more comfortable sat in traffic and driving my regular trips up the M1. Am i right or are there drastic worries to navigate?
One last question? I was set on an auto because i think it'll be more comfortable sat in traffic and driving my regular trips up the M1. Am i right or are there drastic worries to navigate?
Don't assume the smallest engine will give you the most economy...
I had a 1993 900SE (classic shape - not GM) with the 130hp n/a 2.0i engine. I had that for 2 years before replacing it with a full monty 9000 Aero with the 225hp 2.3 FPT turbo. The Aero used less fuel than the n/a 2.0i in the 900. I also ran a 9000 CSE with the n/a 3.0V6 engine and auto box and the ecomomy of that was about the same as the Aero.
So, if you want the auto for the commute, and that is a sensible thing to do, I'd definately not go for a n/a auto 900...
That's the most uneconomical engine/gearbox combination to pick. I'd go for one of the turbo's with the autobox, as they have shed loads more torque which means you won't have to work the engine as hard, much better option.
If you got to have an autobox, I tend to agree - but if fuel economy is a consideration at all, I'd give the slushbox a miss - an auto 2.0i or 2.3i will drink more than a manual turbo (that, and the combination 2.0i - autobox is positively lethargic, 13 sec 0-62 is nothing to write home about...). I'd sooner go for a manual turbo, which needs hardly any shifting action at all to keep up with traffic.
Another point is that at least the earlier 2.0 N/A (and probably 2.3, too) engines run Motronic and a mechanical distributor whilst the Turbo has the far more efficient Trionic engine management system.
Another point is that at least the earlier 2.0 N/A (and probably 2.3, too) engines run Motronic and a mechanical distributor whilst the Turbo has the far more efficient Trionic engine management system.
Edited by 900T-R on Friday 27th April 18:42
We have a 94 900S GM900 Auto (2 litre normally aspirated) ours has the B206l engine which no balance shafts (apparently this makes it a fair bit lighter and it produces a whole extra 3bhp over the heavier "standard" B204l engine.
Apart from the auto box expiring at around 190,000 miles (seemed fair and we had it rebuilt) its been very reliable. Recently had an abs issue but it was fairly easily sorted. Has just passed its MOT at 211,000 miles. One advantage it has over later cars is no DI Cassette. Ours is of course Motronic, so not as effecient as later Trionic versions.
However it isn't a "speedy" vehicle - it keeps up with the traffic fine however, and accelerates adequately on kick down for overtaking. It will cruise at a comfy 90 if you want it too. It also is fairly thirsty - low 20s round town, can get mid thirties on a long run. (My old shape 9-3 Aero conv auto is averaging around 30mpg however and I can get nearly 40 on runs if I try)
The cloth seats are very comfortable - I can see how they might be "slippy" in leather though.
Apart from the auto box expiring at around 190,000 miles (seemed fair
and we had it rebuilt) its been very reliable. Recently had an abs issue but it was fairly easily sorted. Has just passed its MOT at 211,000 miles. One advantage it has over later cars is no DI Cassette. Ours is of course Motronic, so not as effecient as later Trionic versions. However it isn't a "speedy" vehicle - it keeps up with the traffic fine however, and accelerates adequately on kick down for overtaking. It will cruise at a comfy 90 if you want it too. It also is fairly thirsty - low 20s round town, can get mid thirties on a long run. (My old shape 9-3 Aero conv auto is averaging around 30mpg however and I can get nearly 40 on runs if I try)
The cloth seats are very comfortable - I can see how they might be "slippy" in leather though.
eltax91 said:
Hopefully my golf is going this weekend, and i have decided to save myself the cash to save towards an MX-5, so want a comfortable commuter wagon to run as the daily hack. Been looking at the 900 as i can pick a mid nineties one up within my £1k budget easily. My 1hr commute is spent mostly sat in traffic, and i have recently been recovering from a serious shoulder/ neck injury, so must have a comfortable seat to sit in.
Anyway, should i go for the 2.5 V6 to get the comfy leather seats, or the non-turbo 2.0i with standard ones?
My other question is what are the relative fuel economies on the two engines?
Finally, does anyone have an opinion on the 4sp auto box? Good or bad?
Hi there,
I have a '97 Saab NG900 Turbo Coupe. It has cream leather seats, and is very very quick. I paid only £1700 after knocking the price down from £2200. It has only 76k miles on it, and drives like a dream.
Personally, I wouldnt bother going for an MX-5. If you go for a Saab like mine, you can still get 30-32 MPG if you drive normally, yet when you put your foot down it instantly turns into a tarmac munching, rubber burning monster, capable of out exelerating any MX-5 easy. Just today, i was coming back from basingstoke on the a30, and one slip into 3rd gear, wind up that turbo and i was able to overtake eight cars already traveling around 60 mph in plenty of time and space. You have to watch the speedo though, cos as i overtook pulled in it was touching 115mph by the time I slipped it into 4th...oopps! got told off by the wife big time!! lol An MX-5 wont overtake like that mate!
eltax91 said:
Thanks, i've read about those years being one's to avoid!! Don't like the sound of a 30k cambelt service!! Any thoughts on the fuel economy of each? How comfortable is the standard interior? Am wanting to learn how to get handy with the spanners, so would consider getting a standrad car and changing the interior for a leather one from the scrappy. Are they easily had? You driven one with the auto box?
Turbo is the most expensive in terms of insurance i guess?
Turbo is the most expensive in terms of insurance i guess?
Edited by eltax91 on Friday 27th April 15:32
Not as much as you would think on insurance.
I am paying £330 fully comp for the Saab 900SE Turbo with More Than insurance.
My Astravan that I use for my business, costs £440 a year full comp. thats with Tesco.
eltax91 said:
Excellent help so far, very much appreciated!! Think i'll probably go for the smallest engine to get the best economy. Simply because i will have the MX-5 for a fuel eating spirited drive!!
One last question? I was set on an auto because i think it'll be more comfortable sat in traffic and driving my regular trips up the M1. Am i right or are there drastic worries to navigate?
One last question? I was set on an auto because i think it'll be more comfortable sat in traffic and driving my regular trips up the M1. Am i right or are there drastic worries to navigate?
Test drive a 900 turbo first! then make your decision.
Prof Beard said:
Apart from the auto box expiring at around 190,000 miles
That's rather impressive. The trans rebuilders/remanufacturers I know from my line of work all tell me that 100-120,000 miles is a ' good' lifespan for an auto 'box, which means on average every car fitted with one will need a trans rebuild at some point (which personally makes me a bit weary of big, complicated, auto barges from the 'premium' makes that can be bought for a song at several years old with high mileage. Don't think a nice modern seven speeder with lots of ancillary electronics and CAN-bus facility will be cheap to repair/replace when the time comes...).
Edited by 900T-R on Saturday 28th April 19:44
900T-R said:
Prof Beard said:
Apart from the auto box expiring at around 190,000 miles
That's rather impressive. The trans rebuilders/remanufacturers I know from my line of work all tell me that 100-120,000 miles is a ' good' lifespan for an auto 'box, which means on average every car fitted with one will need a trans rebuild at some point (which personally makes me a bit weary of big, complicated, auto barges from the 'premium' makes that can be bought for a song at several years old with high mileage. Don't think a nice modern seven speeder with lots of ancillary electronics and CAN-bus facility will be cheap to repair/replace when the time comes...).
Edited by 900T-R on Saturday 28th April 19:44
Actually my experience with autos has been entirely positive, having had a Jag, a Daimler and even an auto Maestro all go well over 120,000 - the Saab was the only one that ever packed up. Perhaps they get neglected by a lot of people?
Hmmm,
Just reading your replies after a weekend away from the PC. Have arranged a test drive of a 1997 900 Turbo for Wednesday night (any tips of what to watch for on the drive?). Still not made my mind up on the auto/manual arguement yet. Never had an auto before, i just think as i spend at least an hour a day sat in traffic that it will be more comfortable.
Not that bothered about the Saab being the spirited drive, as we plan to have it alongside an MX-5 in the fleet! So my main worries are comfort, reliability and to a certain extent fuel economy. (I'm happy with 30 mpg though).
I'm researching the possible auto box lasting only 120k thing, as most cars i look at are circa 110k miles.
Anybody else have any stories about these boxes?
Just reading your replies after a weekend away from the PC. Have arranged a test drive of a 1997 900 Turbo for Wednesday night (any tips of what to watch for on the drive?). Still not made my mind up on the auto/manual arguement yet. Never had an auto before, i just think as i spend at least an hour a day sat in traffic that it will be more comfortable.
Not that bothered about the Saab being the spirited drive, as we plan to have it alongside an MX-5 in the fleet! So my main worries are comfort, reliability and to a certain extent fuel economy. (I'm happy with 30 mpg though).
I'm researching the possible auto box lasting only 120k thing, as most cars i look at are circa 110k miles.
Anybody else have any stories about these boxes?
Have a look on:
www.saabcentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15
This covers GM900 and "old" 9-3.
They share the same autobox apparently. Do a search on "auto" or similar - general opinion on there is the boxes are reliable.
www.saabcentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15
This covers GM900 and "old" 9-3.
They share the same autobox apparently. Do a search on "auto" or similar - general opinion on there is the boxes are reliable.
eltax91 said:
Still not made my mind up on the auto/manual arguement yet. Never had an auto before, i just think as i spend at least an hour a day sat in traffic that it will be more comfortable.
On that basis, defintately the auto......
I sold my mint low mileage manual 9000 Aero within a year of having to start to use it to commute everyday within the M25 boundary, as I just got fed up with spending an hour a day driving it in stop-start traffic. I actually spent a sad week clocking with a stop watch the amount of time spent in each gear on the daily slog.
Of the hour and 5 mins daily commute I spent the grand total of 1min 15 sec in 5th gear, and no more than 5 mins in 4th gear.....
So, I sold it and bought a 9-5 Aero auto......
Joy......within a month I noticed my traffic induced stress levels dramatically reduced as well as general fatique.
I would never go back to manual again for daily transport.
Prof Beard said:
Have a look on:
www.saabcentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15
This covers GM900 and "old" 9-3.
They share the same autobox apparently. Do a search on "auto" or similar - general opinion on there is the boxes are reliable.
www.saabcentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15
This covers GM900 and "old" 9-3.
They share the same autobox apparently. Do a search on "auto" or similar - general opinion on there is the boxes are reliable.
Top website prof, thanks!!
aeropilot said:
eltax91 said:
Still not made my mind up on the auto/manual arguement yet. Never had an auto before, i just think as i spend at least an hour a day sat in traffic that it will be more comfortable.
On that basis, defintately the auto......
I sold my mint low mileage manual 9000 Aero within a year of having to start to use it to commute everyday within the M25 boundary, as I just got fed up with spending an hour a day driving it in stop-start traffic. I actually spent a sad week clocking with a stop watch the amount of time spent in each gear on the daily slog.
Of the hour and 5 mins daily commute I spent the grand total of 1min 15 sec in 5th gear, and no more than 5 mins in 4th gear.....
So, I sold it and bought a 9-5 Aero auto......
Joy......within a month I noticed my traffic induced stress levels dramatically reduced as well as general fatique.
I would never go back to manual again for daily transport.
Just doing a few quotes etc, but i'm dropping down on the side of the auto as i'm sick of "aching left foot syndrome" whenever i got to work and leave again.
Think it's come down to a choice, on balance, between the 2.0 Turbo or the N/A 2.3 as a fair balance of Economy/ Power/ Insurance!! Did not realise these smaller sections of PH would prove so fruitful with info!!
eltax91 said:
Think it's come down to a choice, on balance, between the 2.0 Turbo or the N/A 2.3 as a fair balance of Economy/ Power/ Insurance!!
Turbo for the torque........no contest.
Once owned you'll never want another n/a car again....
(unless it's a chuffin great yank V8......
) Edited by aeropilot on Monday 30th April 12:52
aeropilot said:
eltax91 said:
Think it's come down to a choice, on balance, between the 2.0 Turbo or the N/A 2.3 as a fair balance of Economy/ Power/ Insurance!!
Turbo for the torque........no contest.
Once owned you'll never want another n/a car again....
(unless it's a chuffin great yank V8......
) Edited by aeropilot on Monday 30th April 12:52
Yeah, i think i might miss the torque if i don't get the turbo. I drive a Golf TDi at the minute!!
Gassing Station | Saab | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff