9000 Aero or 9-5 Aero?
Discussion
Coming up to 2 years ownership with the old 9000 CD XS 2.0 NA which has been faultless if a little sedentary. its the cheapest and probably most reliable car I've ever owned, great stuff.
However its patently apparent that I now must own an Aero.
But should it be the 9000 continuing the rock solid build and running that I've experienced in the 9000 or do I go 9-5 and compromise a bit of build quality for some modernity.
9000 Aeros seem to be getting rather leggy, which is understandable, its old now and 9-5 Aeros seem to be shedding value at a rate of knots so a bargain can be had.
Max budget of around £3500 for either car.
Over to the experts.
However its patently apparent that I now must own an Aero.
But should it be the 9000 continuing the rock solid build and running that I've experienced in the 9000 or do I go 9-5 and compromise a bit of build quality for some modernity.
9000 Aeros seem to be getting rather leggy, which is understandable, its old now and 9-5 Aeros seem to be shedding value at a rate of knots so a bargain can be had.
Max budget of around £3500 for either car.
Over to the experts.
Plotloss said:
Coming up to 2 years ownership with the old 9000 CD XS 2.0 NA which has been faultless if a little sedentary. its the cheapest and probably most reliable car I've ever owned, great stuff.
However its patently apparent that I now must own an Aero.
But should it be the 9000 continuing the rock solid build and running that I've experienced in the 9000 or do I go 9-5 and compromise a bit of build quality for some modernity.
9000 Aeros seem to be getting rather leggy, which is understandable, its old now and 9-5 Aeros seem to be shedding value at a rate of knots so a bargain can be had.
Max budget of around £3500 for either car.
Over to the experts.
If you thinking of modding it - go for the 9000However its patently apparent that I now must own an Aero.
But should it be the 9000 continuing the rock solid build and running that I've experienced in the 9000 or do I go 9-5 and compromise a bit of build quality for some modernity.
9000 Aeros seem to be getting rather leggy, which is understandable, its old now and 9-5 Aeros seem to be shedding value at a rate of knots so a bargain can be had.
Max budget of around £3500 for either car.
Over to the experts.
Plotloss said:
Max budget of around £3500 for either car.
Over to the experts.
I've had a 9k Aero and I've now got a 9-5 Aero.Over to the experts.
On that budget, I'd go with the 9k Aero as 3.5k won't get you a face-lift 02-onwards 9-5 Aero, and these are way, way better than the 99-01 versions.
If your budget would stretch to a face lift 9-5 then I'd recommend one of these over a 9k Aero.
Boosted LS1 said:
Does a 9-5 use the same block as a 2.3 9000? I ask because a friend breaks saabs and he sells no end of 9000 blocks to saab dealers who use them to rebuild the later saabs. Apparantly later blocks are pretty crap.
It's not the blocks that are crap at all, theres no issue with the actual block.On pre-04 9-5's it's the engine PCV system tht had a design flaw that affected the 2.0 and 2.3 engines in that the sump oil pick up gets blocked with sludged oil and so the crank siezes. This is particularily common on the non-Aero models as these were wrongly recommended to use semi-synth oil which didn't help. Occasionally you'll find an Aero that has had the problem, but it is much more unusual for an Aero to be affected.
Using a cheap s/h 9k bottom end is a lot easier fix that's all, although, you will get less economy as the 9k engine has heavir reciprocting components than the 9-5 version, and isn't as freer revving.
Boosted LS1 said:
^ Thanks for that. The breaker seems to do a roaring trade due to this problem. Maybe roaring isn't the right word but he can raise his prices. Do the cranks sometimes damage the blocks? If so that would explain the demand.
No, unless of course it's throws a rod through the side of the block.It's just that there's lots of cheap 9k engines in breakers so it's easier to swop over the whole bottom ends of a 9k into the 9-5 rather than looking for a 9-5 engine.
Personally, I'd rather get a used 9-5 engine and give it a thorough sump clean and then use full sythn oil thereafter, as I think the more freely revving later engine is nicer as a driver than the heavier 9k engine.
Usually, people want the 9k bottom end as it's made of much stronger and heavier parts and can cope with 500hp in stock form. The lighter newer design in the 9-5 was a product of more stringent emissions and economy regs and so has weaker pistons than won't allow much more than 310-320hp before having to fit a set of forged slugs.
Boosted LS1 said:
^ That makes a lot of sense but I'm surprised dealers are fitting used parts. Most 9000's have racked up a few miles by now. Still, they probably re-ring and reshell them first.
I'd be surprised if franchise dealers were doing this as well, Saab specialist independants yes, but franchise dealers I can't see doing this, as it's not a like for like swop, as a little bit of 'fiddling' is involved IIRC.I doubt they re-ring or re-shell them either, a 9000 bottom end is almost indestructable in normal use, 200k miles and it's only just run in, 350k and over isn't uncommon.
Plotloss said:
So the facelifted cars came in 02 onwards?
How can I tell? As I've seen a number of 51 plate cars with the silver dashboard that is prevalent on the later cars.
That's model year 02 onwards, not actual calender year 02.How can I tell? As I've seen a number of 51 plate cars with the silver dashboard that is prevalent on the later cars.
Saab model years run from approx Aug to Aug.
So, the first face lift cars were sold in the UK from begining of Sept 01 on a 51 plate.
But, you will see a few left over unsold pre-facelift cars on 51 plates, so not 100% accurate.
Different front end style is the dead give away of course, the face lift cars having the 3 piece grille and bigger light units with no headlight wipers.
Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 24th April 12:07
[quote=aeropilotOn that budget, I'd go with the 9k Aero as 3.5k won't get you a face-lift 02-onwards 9-5 Aero, and these are way, way better than the 99-01 versions.
[/quote]
Depends on the mileage you'll tolerate.... my 02-model Aero is in the classifieds, and in budget, albeit with 150k up. Needs a good home.
Same as Aero, I've had all of them - 9k Aero, 2000 9-5 Aero, and 2002 9-5 Aero. Neither of the later cars had the same boot-in-kidneys punch of the 9k Aero, same as my 9-3s lacking the loony punch of my old NG900 SE Turbo, but then the reality is the 9-5s are just that much faster. Superior traction, handling and ride make it a much more pleasant and refined experience, yet still with the trad-Saab midrange torque for easy overtaking.
[/quote]
Depends on the mileage you'll tolerate.... my 02-model Aero is in the classifieds, and in budget, albeit with 150k up. Needs a good home.
Same as Aero, I've had all of them - 9k Aero, 2000 9-5 Aero, and 2002 9-5 Aero. Neither of the later cars had the same boot-in-kidneys punch of the 9k Aero, same as my 9-3s lacking the loony punch of my old NG900 SE Turbo, but then the reality is the 9-5s are just that much faster. Superior traction, handling and ride make it a much more pleasant and refined experience, yet still with the trad-Saab midrange torque for easy overtaking.
Plotloss said:
Wouldnt be adversed to buying a modified version of either car but probably wouldnt modify or at least not passed the usual map/exhaust.
As appealling as 500bhp through the front wheels is I'm not a fan of consumable gearboxes
300 BHP is there with a 3" exhaust and remap for the 9000, more power than that needs a lot of stuff changed, still an appealing choice 300BHP and plenty of torque in a car that weighs the same as a mk5 Golf GTI. As appealling as 500bhp through the front wheels is I'm not a fan of consumable gearboxes
I knew mine was only just run in at 140k ! No takers though yet, even for an engine tunable to 500bhp. Maybe i should just run it for another 20 years !
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/469468.htm
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/469468.htm
ITP said:
I knew mine was only just run in at 140k ! No takers though yet, even for an engine tunable to 500bhp. Maybe i should just run it for another 20 years !
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/469468.htm
I'm down that way at the weekend, just finding out what my insurance company would want from me to insure this and I might be giving you a call.http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/469468.htm
Was hoping for a 94 or older one for classic insurance but if I can get a decent price out of them I'll be in touch!
No problem steve just give me a call.
Not wanting to steal this thread my opinion can only be formed on models a bit lower in the range than aero's having driven mine, obviously, and a few 9-5's when mine's been in for service. The 9000's definately feel and somehow sound more solid. Also being more rare a 9000 aero (which will be a good one for 3.5k) will be a more 'special' car to own and if kept in mint condition will be worth more in the future aswell whereas 9-5 aero's will eventually by almost worthless (like my car!) due to lots more being built. Don't get me wrong i like 9-5 aero's and would buy one, it just depends what you will be using it for. Also if you don't want an estate the hatchback of a 9000 is very practical, although i think the rear seat folding of the aero version is compimised a bit by the rear seat design.
Not wanting to steal this thread my opinion can only be formed on models a bit lower in the range than aero's having driven mine, obviously, and a few 9-5's when mine's been in for service. The 9000's definately feel and somehow sound more solid. Also being more rare a 9000 aero (which will be a good one for 3.5k) will be a more 'special' car to own and if kept in mint condition will be worth more in the future aswell whereas 9-5 aero's will eventually by almost worthless (like my car!) due to lots more being built. Don't get me wrong i like 9-5 aero's and would buy one, it just depends what you will be using it for. Also if you don't want an estate the hatchback of a 9000 is very practical, although i think the rear seat folding of the aero version is compimised a bit by the rear seat design.
I own a 9000 Aero, and have spent quite a bit of time driving a 2003 9-5 Aero.
The 9-5 is much nicer to drive, handles better, better brakes as standard, less wind noise, fewer rattles.
The 9000 Aero is lighter, has more power when modified (mine has Speedparts Stg3) and is now v.cheap.
You budget is more than you should spend on a 9000 Aero, even in v.good condition, and perhaps at the lower end of face lifted 9-5 Aero territory.
Buying a 9000 Aero (or a later Anniversary model which has the same turbo) and then having spare cash to spend on upgrades and maintenance (of which there could be a lot) is a good idea.
http://www.sevenman.f2s.com/blog/
The 9-5 is much nicer to drive, handles better, better brakes as standard, less wind noise, fewer rattles.
The 9000 Aero is lighter, has more power when modified (mine has Speedparts Stg3) and is now v.cheap.
You budget is more than you should spend on a 9000 Aero, even in v.good condition, and perhaps at the lower end of face lifted 9-5 Aero territory.
Buying a 9000 Aero (or a later Anniversary model which has the same turbo) and then having spare cash to spend on upgrades and maintenance (of which there could be a lot) is a good idea.
http://www.sevenman.f2s.com/blog/
Gassing Station | Saab | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff