9-5 Aero 2006- opinions?

[T5GRF]

I need a larger saloon car due to juniors arrival. I am thinking of a 9-5 Aero facelifted saloon which I think were first available late 2005 or early 06.

We currently own a 9-3 Aero which has on the whole been a good car over the last 2 years and 30k miles, although the overall build quality of it is not brilliant, and I am pleased we bought from a main dealer with SAAB warranty.

Looking at SAAB's tech specs the boot space of the 9-5 doesn't seem a great deal larger than the 9-3 neither does rear passenger space, has anyone here gone from a 9-3 to a 9-5 and noticed a useful gain in rear/boot space?

Secondly how well screwed together are these newer cars, will I be mad to run an Aero without a warranty? Are there common weak points to look out for? Anyone got a link to a decent buyers guide?

Lastly can someone point me in the direction of a link to a spec list for the Aero, and details of what options were available.

Cheers in advance

[NST]

i looked at a couple of facelist 9-5 Aero Hot manual estates before going for the 9-3 estate. the main reason i didn't like the 9-5 was the interior.. it is slightly better screwed together but it also looks very dated. boot space not much greater if at all over the 9-3 estate. the 9-5 has a softer ride/handling balance over the 9-3. Seats are nice and comfortable though.

NST

[aeropilot]

Rear leg room/space is greater on the 9-5 than the 9-3.
Seats are sooooooooo much on the 9-5.

Boot is huge on 9-5 salooon, and bigger than a 9-3 saloon.

Build quality on newer shape (Sept 05-onwards) 9-5 is still better than a 9-3, although it's not as good as earlier 9-5's. Personally I think the 9-5 dash is still leagues ahead of the messy 9-3 one, although the newer style one isn't as good as the older 9-5 layout.

Suspension is more compliant and comfy than hard riding 9-3, but in standard form chassis is less precise than 9-3 (but than can be remiedied if you desire )

Engine on 9-5 Aero is sooooooo much better.

Defintately look for a Lux Pack equipped 9-5 Aero to get all the toys.

Everytime I drive a 9-3 I desperately want to like it with a view to the future, but I'm always so glad to get back in my 9-5 within 5 mins......

[T5GRF]

Thanks for the feedback, has anyone got a link to a relevant buyers guide for the facelift 9-5?

[aeropilot]

T5GRF said:

Thanks for the feedback, has anyone got a link to a relevant buyers guide for the facelift 9-5?

Be carefull with any buyers guides for a 9-5 as they will mention things like sludged engines and other stuff only relevent to older pre-04 cars etc., and there is very little in any of these guides for the newer post 06 versions.

What info are you looking for..?

[RedLeicester]

aeropilot said:

Rear leg room/space is greater on the 9-5 than the 9-3.
Seats are sooooooooo much on the 9-5.

Boot is huge on 9-5 salooon, and bigger than a 9-3 saloon.

Build quality on newer shape (Sept 05-onwards) 9-5 is still better than a 9-3, although it's not as good as earlier 9-5's. Personally I think the 9-5 dash is still leagues ahead of the messy 9-3 one, although the newer style one isn't as good as the older 9-5 layout.

Suspension is more compliant and comfy than hard riding 9-3, but in standard form chassis is less precise than 9-3 (but than can be remiedied if you desire )

Engine on 9-5 Aero is sooooooo much better.

Defintately look for a Lux Pack equipped 9-5 Aero to get all the toys.

Everytime I drive a 9-3 I desperately want to like it with a view to the future, but I'm always so glad to get back in my 9-5 within 5 mins......

Lots of nodding - I've had 3 9-5's over the years, and when the 9-3 wagon thing appeared, we considered one, but by comparison found it cramped both front and rear, the boot was tiny whereas the 9-5s is cavernous, and more to the point, whilst the 9-3 is the newer car the 9-5 particularly in Aero form simpy rides and handles sooooo much better. The 9-3 can be quite lumpy even on the standard 17" wheels, let alone the 18"s, whereas the 9-5 remains composed. That of course is before you even think about comparing performance - I had high hopes for the promised 3.2 V6 litre twin turbo 4WD Aero 9-3..... and then crushing disappointment when it appeared as a single light pressure turbo 2.8 V6 with barely more power than the anaemic 2.0T Aero engine...

9-5 all the way for me - I think the 9-3 is a lovely car, especially in wagon guise, but as a "practical" vehicle, and in terms of driving pleasure and enjoyment the 9-5 may be old, but it wins hands down.

[K321]

www.saabcentral.com

[skyrocketship]

I went from a 9-3 Saloon to a 9-5 Saloon - i liked the 9-3 but have had the 9-5 6 months and 10k miles I much prefer it and wouldn't go back.

Much more space in a 9-5, I find it more comfortable and feels just a better car all round than the 9-3, the boot is huge, performance and mpg are similar, although the 9-3 felt a bit more planted and stopped better - but then it's smaller and lighter so no surprise really .

The interior is slightly more dated, but feels better laid out and better built than the 9-3, mine has a ally dash trim which imo looks a bit fresher than the wood ones - the 9-3 was a bit plasticy and lightweight inside, the 9-5 feels like it will last a long time. Also the 9-5 was cheaper to buy at 36k miles than an equivilent 9-3 at higher mileage.

All totally subjective and unscientific but I like the 9-5 and to be honest won't be looking for another everyday car anytime soon

[NST]

skyrocketship said:

I went from a 9-3 Saloon to a 9-5 Saloon - i liked the 9-3 but have had the 9-5 6 months and 10k miles I much prefer it and wouldn't go back.

Much more space in a 9-5, I find it more comfortable and feels just a better car all round than the 9-3, the boot is huge, performance and mpg are similar, although the 9-3 felt a bit more planted and stopped better - but then it's smaller and lighter so no surprise really .

The interior is slightly more dated, but feels better laid out and better built than the 9-3, mine has a ally dash trim which imo looks a bit fresher than the wood ones - the 9-3 was a bit plasticy and lightweight inside, the 9-5 feels like it will last a long time. Also the 9-5 was cheaper to buy at 36k miles than an equivilent 9-3 at higher mileage.

All totally subjective and unscientific but I like the 9-5 and to be honest won't be looking for another everyday car anytime soon

i'd agree with all that, the planted feel and less dive under braking makes for a more secure feeling but the ride is alittle jiggly around town but the trade off is the ability to throw the car around when the wife isn't in the car rear seat space isn't great, but then again it isn't as long as the 9-5 or Mondeo. the question you need to ask is how much space do you really need? if you really need the extra space then go for the larger car.

[K321]

i am tempted by a cheap 9-5 (1999-2000),do they cost more to fix? i know about the sludge thing

[Saabatical]

Talking about 9.5 Sludge? Well......
A man goes into his garage and says: “Hey, can you get me a 9.5 Saab Aero.”
“Yeah, here: direct from Saab dealer. Just out of 3yr but with Full Service History. Enjoy”.
Man drives Saab round a few corners and back for a service. Garage says:
“Lost a bit of oil there. What you been doing? Polishing your pistons... ha ha lol? Naa Don’t worry, they’ve got extra warranty for this. Let’s see what they say.”
Garage rings dealer.
“They say, if it blows up they’ll replace it.”
“But it hasn’t blown up, it’s just glossing up its pistons!”.
“Only if it blows up, they said!”
“But what if it blows on a motorway? At speed?..?”
“Only if it blows up.”
“OK.”

Few weeks later, “Hello? ..Dealer?... What if it’s running on NO oil?”
“No oil?”
“Yes No oil.”
“How d’you know its been running on NO oil?”
“Because its hot; very hot. And ’cos it smokes from the front now as well as the back and the badge on the bonnet is stuck to the jack”.
“Oh that hot... alright then, but don’t tell everyone or they’ll all want one.”
“Don’t tell everyone what?”
“Look, just bring it in and we’ll give you a new engine.”
“What a completely new engine?”
“Yes, well a sort of new engine... “
“Sorry I didn’t hear that...”
“A ‘Short’ of new engine”
“Just.. short of a new engine?”
“Well, just sort of a new engine that’s just a ‘SHORT’ new engine.”
“What , not one with all the bits; like a new turbo for the one that’s been driving round for the last year without enough oil in it?”
“Come on don’t push it. You’ll get a ‘Short Engine’ and like it!”
“Short as in LIFE; or short as in SIZE? .... No sorry OK OK..”
“Look do you want it or not?!”
“Yeah, I want it... but, does it fit a banana ? ”
“WHAT!!??”
“Does it fit a banana?”
“You trying to be funny????”
“No. Only how are you going to get your new, ‘one short of a pic-nic engine’ , to sandwich fit along with my old ‘cooked-on, cooking stove’ head? ...... WHY NO NEW HEAD??”
“Look, it’s SHORT or nothing... seee! And also, you want a new turbo, you buy it.”
“I buy it?”
“Yes, you buy it.”
“OK, OK, I buy it. .. and ..... no new head.??”
“NO!... NO NEW HEAD!”


Man gets car back
After all that was said.
But with new engine embedded
In old engine’s head.

Paid for his turbo
But not for new rail
They called that a recall
[Another whole tale].

He drove it around; some miles as before
Six hundred & fifty
“Precisely?”
“Sure.”

Then just short of 660
He learnt:
WHAT
SHORT
MEANT.
While others drove-by
His engine bent!

He had to laugh trying
To control his emotions;
On phone to his wife,
Describing explosions.
He’d done as they’d said.
He’d tried to be wise.
But t’was SHORT as in LIFE!
Not SHORT as in SIZE VERY SHORT


So car back with Saab
Now not so R’ A-C.
He thinks they’ll stand aaahing
With egg on their facies
He thought they would fix it
And that without question;
But they sent him a bill
For their time of inspection!

And when he enquired
What might have just caused it?
They confess’d, “No idea!”
“T’was you that had bought it!”

“But find it important perhaps to say why?”
“Not our ‘spons’bility;
“Bye bye.”
“Bye bye.”

And so we ‘ave ended
With a
‘postrophies.
SPLENDID!

It was not that the rhyme
Was full of omissions.
But because their reply
might affect their positions.


The Man – currently in legal process – is being pressed to the expense of forensic expert evidence. And Saab, beyond taking off the head after the catastrophic motorway engine failure, refused to do anything; neither mend nor even investigate. After complaint, they withdrew their ‘bill’; but said that the failure was not caused by either their short engine, nor their replacement DI rail; and they maintain it is not their position to prove or find the cause of the failure.

The Man’s garage rebuilt the engine with re-bores and a replacement head (a 2nd hand re-con.) In a Statement of Truth to the Courts, Saab’s Solicitors commented on this and stated that to use a second-hand head was “..not something the Defendant would recommend.” [What weight or bearing this should have upon the horse already having bolted.? Save for the fact: when Saab undertook to effect their engine replacement, they were happy to use the head that had suffered not only oil depravation for probably well over many months, including at one point complete oil starvation, but Saab deemed that for them the original head was all fair game and ‘well up for the job’.] The proof of the Banana is buried in the explosion.

Moral:

As with: “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.”
“Don’t hook a gift engine in the head.” [I’m a-freud about that as well.]

And: “Don’t park your Saab in the hall ..... the Vauxhall. Premier Vaux pas”


And the Man?:
He thought that he bought a Saab, a marque he’d been driving for more than twenty years– the trouble was, he hadn’t realised he’d bought it from Vauxhall.

Anyone had a similar 'Sludge' experience? It's because even within warranty fully synthetic oil was not being used on these 2.3's and sludge blocked the sump [so no warning light] and from then on it was just oil loss all the way.

[K321]

christ i think i will stick to saab 9-3 and 900's then. i drove my abbot saab like i stole it everytime i was in it and it went to 200k miles

[aeropilot]

K321 said:

christ i think i will stick to saab 9-3 and 900's then.

It's not all gloom and doom, it's VERY rare for an Aero to get sludge issue's unless the service schedule has not been followed, and using a non fully synth oil IS not following the manufactuers service schedule on a Aero.

The lpt's on the other hand had the issues because originally they were serviced at dealers by using semi-synth, and really that was a mistake by Saab, which is why (especially in the litigatious USA) they offered the non-publised 8 year engine warrenty as long as the car had a FSSH.

From model year 04 onwards there are no sludge problems as the engine block and head and PCV system were totally redesigned.