93 Aero or 95 Aero?

[barrettabolt]

I know, I know, it's a what car thread.

I'm returning back to blighty from a two year stint in the US and I'm pretty sure I'm going to get either a 95 Aero or 93 Aero. I'd want manual (I just get bored in an Auto).

The real question is which is the better to drive and more comfortable? It'll only be me in it most of the time. Budget will be 7-9k.

[J4CKO]

The 9-5 Aero is faster and has a more characterful engine and is quicker but is heavier and doesn't handle as well, the 9-3 Aero remaps to nearly 250 bhp so easy enough to redress the performance deficit, the 9-3 is a more modern design, looks wise I prefer the 9-3 SS as an Aero but I think the cooking models look a bit unfinished.


The 9-3 SS doesnt really seem to have much Saab-ness, its being diluted out.

I just got a 9-3 SS Aero in Grey, its a good car, not massively quicker than my old 9-3 LPT but handling wise another league.

[aeropilot]

barrettabolt said:

I know, I know, it's a what car thread.

I'm returning back to blighty from a two year stint in the US and I'm pretty sure I'm going to get either a 95 Aero or 93 Aero. I'd want manual (I just get bored in an Auto).

The real question is which is the better to drive and more comfortable? It'll only be me in it most of the time. Budget will be 7-9k.

The 9-5 Aero has the better engine.
The 9-5 Aero has the better comfort.
The 9-5 Aero has the better build quality.

On the other hand....
The 9-3 has the better manual gearbox.
The 9-3 has the better chassis, brakes and handling (in standard form)

For your budget, avoid a first year 9-3 (or before 2004).... lots of problems.
As for the 9-5, you'll get a 2002-on Aero for that budget, a 2003 would be best bet, with all the toys as standard, you'll get a better equipped car than a 9-3.

Plenty of either around.

[barrettabolt]

hmm, intriguing. So it sounds very much like the right choice would be either a 9-5 with uprated suspension (whats needed? Dampers, springs, bushes?) or a 9-3 with a bit more oomph (Does the re-map do anything serious to reliability longevity?)

Are the 9-3 and 9-5 fundamentally the same engine or they are entirely different?

[Wadeski]

/blatant plug

you can buy my 2002 9-3 FPT of me for a lot less than 7k...ive heard they remap to 220bhp

otherwise i would look at a nice 9-5 dogwagon. I dont like the 9-3 SS "vectraness" or reliability, personally.

[barrettabolt]

go on then, I'll bite. How much / spec etc? Is it advertised at the moment?

[Wadeski]

you got mail

[Phil Dicky]

get yourself an nice 95 Aero, which I have, a real sleeper of a car but sooooo comfortable.
Mines done 25k miles in 12 months without really missing a beat.

[aeropilot]

barrettabolt said:

Are the 9-3 and 9-5 fundamentally the same engine or they are entirely different?

Entirely different.
9-5 Aero has a proper Saab engine.

9-3 Aero has a Vauxhall engine.

barrettabolt said:

hmm, intriguing. So it sounds very much like the right choice would be either a 9-5 with uprated suspension (whats needed? Dampers, springs, bushes?) or a 9-3 with a bit more oomph (Does the re-map do anything serious to reliability longevity?)

Best suspension upgrade for a 9-5 Aero is the factory approved Hirsch damper/spring kit. It is expensive, but very, very good, with comfort levels better than stock Aero, because the Hirsch kit uses progressive springs.
Second choice would be the Eibach Pro dampers and springs, again these use progressive springs and in fact Eibach make suspension for the Hirsch kit. The Eibach kit though runs a little lower than the Hirsch and is a little stiffer.

The GM/Vauxhall/Opel engines in the 9-3 seem to take the upgrade's OK...not heard anything drastic so far.

But then again, you can take the proper Saab engine in the 9-5 Aero sooooo much further than the 9-3 one.......there are more than a few 9-5 Aero's in Sweden running 400+hp

[barrettabolt]

aeropilot said:

Entirely different.
9-5 Aero has a proper Saab engine.

9-3 Aero has a Vauxhall engine.

I don't know why, but that makes a pretty big difference. By all rational logic the biggest car company in the world should produce the better engine. Sadly we know that isn't always the case even if they do sometimes produce a corker.

aeropilot said:

Best suspension upgrade for a 9-5 Aero is the factory approved Hirsch damper/spring kit. It is expensive, but very, very good, with comfort levels better than stock Aero, because the Hirsch kit uses progressive springs.
Second choice would be the Eibach Pro dampers and springs, again these use progressive springs and in fact Eibach make suspension for the Hirsch kit. The Eibach kit though runs a little lower than the Hirsch and is a little stiffer.

Hmm, A bag of sand for the Hirsch kit - is it really THAT good? Handling is actually quite relevant, my daily commute will be across salisbury plain and other Wiltshire grin inducing roads followed by 30 miles on the M4 - so I really do need some all round capability.

aeropilot said:

But then again, you can take the proper Saab engine in the 9-5 Aero sooooo much further than the 9-3 one.......there are more than a few 9-5 Aero's in Sweden running 400+hp

For the love of all things holy, what on earth must that be like with FWD? Must be like some sort of snorting, rocket propelled hedge magnet.

[aeropilot]

barrettabolt said:

aeropilot said:

Entirely different.
9-5 Aero has a proper Saab engine.

9-3 Aero has a Vauxhall engine.

I don't know why, but that makes a pretty big difference.

Yes........one was designed by Engineers, and the other designed by a team from the world's largest (worst) car company.

barrettabolt said:

Hmm, A bag of sand for the Hirsch kit - is it really THAT good?

YES.

I have it on mine. HUGE transformation.

barrettabolt said:

For the love of all things holy, what on earth must that be like with FWD? Must be like some sort of snorting, rocket propelled hedge magnet.

With a Quaife ATB diff installed, and decent suspension.....not really.....but it's the 600-odd Nm of torque that can get you into trouble

Have a look at this one on the Maptun tuning site, 521hp and 642Nm.....
http://www.maptun.com/cars.php?id=212 

[JamesK]

My god that car looks stock! What a sleeper!

I have been thinking about it for a while but threads like this have convinced me - my next car WILL be a post 2002 9-5 aero estate! Just need to find one with all the toys at a good price. Sadly the wife is fairly insistent on an auto but I hear they are pretty good?

[aeropilot]

JamesK said:

My god that car looks stock! What a sleeper!

I have been thinking about it for a while but threads like this have convinced me - my next car WILL be a post 2002 9-5 aero estate! Just need to find one with all the toys at a good price. Sadly the wife is fairly insistent on an auto but I hear they are pretty good?

Actually, I think the 5-speed auto is better than the manual.
I had a manual 9000 Aero, and when looking for a 9-5 Aero tried an auto and a manual back to back as my dealer happened to have one of each. I tried the auto first and was impressed, so much that after an hours drive I went back to try the manual, and after 10 mins took it back as I knew I wanted the auto.

Best bet for the auto is to go for a 03 model onwards with the Sentronic auto with the flappy paddle change. The wifey can leave it in auto, and you have something to play with if you want hen your driving.
The first year face lift cars in 02 only just had the 'conventional' 5-speed auto.

The only disadvantage of the auto is you can't go too silly on the torque output if you upgrade as, and you can't obviously install the Quaife diff, but there are plenty of tuned 9-5 Aero auto's that will put a grin on your face.

Edited by aeropilot on Tuesday 30th October 10:59

[J4CKO]

Grin inducing roads ?

300 bhp front wheel drive barge ?

No matter what you do to it, its never going to be all that nimble. Watch the Clarkson video on Youtube and decide whether you want to throw it around lanes, remember the chassis dates back to the mid eighties, though it was one of the better ones back then and had lots of development. You never get the feeling that the chassis is struggling in the new 9-3, in my old one it turned to jelly fairly early on.

I do perfer the Saab unit to the Vauxhall one, my 150 LPT felt almost as strong as the 210 bhp one in my new Aero, however the Aero seems better on fuel so far, its a lighter alloy engine so it doesnt seem to have as much weight over the front, I reckon with a remap it should be more appealing and its not that different in character, I drove a Clio 182 which felt rubbish after my old LPT wheras the Aero immediately felt like what I was used to.

Also, the 9-3 doesnt make you look like a trilby wearer !

[barrettabolt]

J4CKO said:

Grin inducing roads ?

300 bhp front wheel drive barge ?

No matter what you do to it, its never going to be all that nimble. Watch the Clarkson video on Youtube and decide whether you want to throw it around lanes, remember the chassis dates back to the mid eighties, though it was one of the better ones back then and had lots of development. You never get the feeling that the chassis is struggling in the new 9-3, in my old one it turned to jelly fairly early on.

I do perfer the Saab unit to the Vauxhall one, my 150 LPT felt almost as strong as the 210 bhp one in my new Aero, however the Aero seems better on fuel so far, its a lighter alloy engine so it doesnt seem to have as much weight over the front, I reckon with a remap it should be more appealing and its not that different in character, I drove a Clio 182 which felt rubbish after my old LPT wheras the Aero immediately felt like what I was used to.

Also, the 9-3 doesnt make you look like a trilby wearer !

Trilby's? I think that's half the appeal - smoking down the road in the most unlikely conveyance you can find.

I reckon I'm going to need to find a couple of modded Saabs to have a ride in when I get back. Has anyone here driven both a re-mapped 9-3 and a re-suspended 9-5?

Funnily enough I had a Alfa 166 3.0 for a short time before I went to the states. That was shown up to be woefully inadequate around Wiltshire, the suspension travel was just too short, so I know what you mean about powerful FWD barges and twisty lanes.

[Laird]

FWIW I drove an LSD equipped 9000 fpt back to back with a standard one and the difference was amazing. If poss get one with LSD

[aeropilot]

barrettabolt said:

I reckon I'm going to need to find a couple of modded Saabs to have a ride in when I get back. Has anyone here driven both a re-mapped 9-3 and a re-suspended 9-5?

Yes thanks

The chassis in the 9-3 is way better, I'm not blind to that, as I actually wanted a 9-3 Aero instead of the 9-5 Aero.

However, for me, and this is personal pref of course, it was just about all the other aspects of the 9-3 that pushed me in the direction of the 9-5.
I just can't get a comfortable drving position in the 9-3 as the seats are poor compared to a 9-5 Aero.
I prefer the dash layout of the 9-5, the quality of the interior trim is superior in the 9-5, I prefer the Saab engine in the 9-5, and it was difficult to find a 'fully loaded' 9-3 Aero at the time.
And as I knew the Hirsch stuff totally transforms the 9-5, so, in the end it wasn't a contest.

[barrettabolt]

aeropilot said:

barrettabolt said:

I reckon I'm going to need to find a couple of modded Saabs to have a ride in when I get back. Has anyone here driven both a re-mapped 9-3 and a re-suspended 9-5?

Yes thanks

The chassis in the 9-3 is way better, I'm not blind to that, as I actually wanted a 9-3 Aero instead of the 9-5 Aero.

However, for me, and this is personal pref of course, it was just about all the other aspects of the 9-3 that pushed me in the direction of the 9-5.
I just can't get a comfortable drving position in the 9-3 as the seats are poor compared to a 9-5 Aero.
I prefer the dash layout of the 9-5, the quality of the interior trim is superior in the 9-5, I prefer the Saab engine in the 9-5, and it was difficult to find a 'fully loaded' 9-3 Aero at the time.
And as I knew the Hirsch stuff totally transforms the 9-5, so, in the end it wasn't a contest.

I know you can only ever give a completely subjective answer to this, but do es the Hirsch stuff bring the 9-5 up to 9-3 standards?

[aeropilot]

barrettabolt said:

aeropilot said:

barrettabolt said:

I reckon I'm going to need to find a couple of modded Saabs to have a ride in when I get back. Has anyone here driven both a re-mapped 9-3 and a re-suspended 9-5?

Yes thanks

The chassis in the 9-3 is way better, I'm not blind to that, as I actually wanted a 9-3 Aero instead of the 9-5 Aero.

However, for me, and this is personal pref of course, it was just about all the other aspects of the 9-3 that pushed me in the direction of the 9-5.
I just can't get a comfortable drving position in the 9-3 as the seats are poor compared to a 9-5 Aero.
I prefer the dash layout of the 9-5, the quality of the interior trim is superior in the 9-5, I prefer the Saab engine in the 9-5, and it was difficult to find a 'fully loaded' 9-3 Aero at the time.
And as I knew the Hirsch stuff totally transforms the 9-5, so, in the end it wasn't a contest.

I know you can only ever give a completely subjective answer to this, but do es the Hirsch stuff bring the 9-5 up to 9-3 standards?

No, because the engineering on the 9-3 is more high-tech with the re-axes rear wheel steering helping to give it that more go-kart feel.
The Hirsch (or even the Eibach-Pro) just make the 9-5 a lot less barge-like, and in the case of the Hirsch, more comfort than standard, as well as significantly improve steering response/turn-in. I've also found the Hirsch suspension has dramatically reduced tyre wear as well, by as much as 40%, (and I'm running the 18" Hirsch alloys with 40 profile tyres as well)which is a good way of offsetting the cost of it over time.

As an old git, acting like a loon on corners on public roads is of less a consideration for me thesedays, so I prefer the huge grin-factor of the 9-5 Aero engine and it's stonking mid-range grunt and ability to overtake multiple vehicles with impunity without breaking sweat

Also, being an old git, with the 9-5 Aero, I can drive 500 miles and get out of it feeling as fresh as I got in, and I've not been able to say that about many other cars.

[Nick_F]

J4CKO said:

Grin inducing roads ?

300 bhp front wheel drive barge ?

No matter what you do to it, its never going to be all that nimble. Watch the Clarkson video on Youtube and decide whether you want to throw it around lanes, remember the chassis dates back to the mid eighties, though it was one of the better ones back then and had lots of development. You never get the feeling that the chassis is struggling in the new 9-3, in my old one it turned to jelly fairly early on.

I do perfer the Saab unit to the Vauxhall one, my 150 LPT felt almost as strong as the 210 bhp one in my new Aero, however the Aero seems better on fuel so far, its a lighter alloy engine so it doesnt seem to have as much weight over the front, I reckon with a remap it should be more appealing and its not that different in character, I drove a Clio 182 which felt rubbish after my old LPT wheras the Aero immediately felt like what I was used to.

Also, the 9-3 doesnt make you look like a trilby wearer !

Chassis is mid-nineties, not mid-eighties.