Will I be disappointed with a 54/55 plate 95?
Discussion
I have a 93 2.2 tdi MY 2002 which I've had since new. It's got 110k miles on it and (touch wood 
) has been great. I had quite a lot of "sensor" type problems in the beginning and it's showing signs of age now but all in all I'm pleased with it.
I know the 2.2 tdi engine isn't the best and it's a GM Saab so not a real Saab in many people's eyes but I do feel that I've had a good Saab experience with it.
We now need a second car and I'm looking to add a 95 Diesel Estate, probably a 54/55 age. I looked at the new 93 a little while ago and was quite disappointed with it - it really was much more of a Vauxhall.
We're going to have a look at a couple on Saturday and I wonder whether I'm going to be disappointed and whether it's going to be very much a Vauxhall or whether because it's an older Saab model it'll be a good'un?
Views, thoughts and buying advice very welcome
) has been great. I had quite a lot of "sensor" type problems in the beginning and it's showing signs of age now but all in all I'm pleased with it. I know the 2.2 tdi engine isn't the best and it's a GM Saab so not a real Saab in many people's eyes but I do feel that I've had a good Saab experience with it.
We now need a second car and I'm looking to add a 95 Diesel Estate, probably a 54/55 age. I looked at the new 93 a little while ago and was quite disappointed with it - it really was much more of a Vauxhall.
We're going to have a look at a couple on Saturday and I wonder whether I'm going to be disappointed and whether it's going to be very much a Vauxhall or whether because it's an older Saab model it'll be a good'un?
Views, thoughts and buying advice very welcome
I had a 3.0 Tid 95 Vectra Estate on an 04 from new.
I also have an 05 9-3 Aero rag top. There is a noticible build quality between the 2 (although this is overlooked with the obvious advantage of a rag top!)
I now run a 2.7 Tid S Type Jag, and to be honest, the seats in the 9-5 I think are a little more comfortable than the Jag.
Build quality on the 9-5 was good, the engine was smooth, but the engine was the weak point. Many people on this site said it would drop cylinder liners (which it never did), but a big expence was when the fuel pump failed.
Apart from that I was very happy with the car.
It might also be worth you looking at petrol. With the Saab oil burners not been the best, and the petrol units been very robust, most petrol models give better than 30 mpg, most oil burners give 40 ish, with the difference between the fuels been in the favor of petrol, it's not much of a premium to pay for reliability (and a bit more performamce!).
Happy hunting
I also have an 05 9-3 Aero rag top. There is a noticible build quality between the 2 (although this is overlooked with the obvious advantage of a rag top!)
I now run a 2.7 Tid S Type Jag, and to be honest, the seats in the 9-5 I think are a little more comfortable than the Jag.
Build quality on the 9-5 was good, the engine was smooth, but the engine was the weak point. Many people on this site said it would drop cylinder liners (which it never did), but a big expence was when the fuel pump failed.
Apart from that I was very happy with the car.
It might also be worth you looking at petrol. With the Saab oil burners not been the best, and the petrol units been very robust, most petrol models give better than 30 mpg, most oil burners give 40 ish, with the difference between the fuels been in the favor of petrol, it's not much of a premium to pay for reliability (and a bit more performamce!).
Happy hunting
John D9395 said:
I had a 3.0 Tid 95 Vectra Estate on an 04 from new.
............
............
.............
Build quality on the 9-5 was good, the engine was smooth, but the engine was the weak point. Many people on this site said it would drop cylinder liners (which it never did), but a big expence was when the fuel pump failed.
......................
Did you have a 3.0 TiD saab or vectra?............
............
.............
Build quality on the 9-5 was good, the engine was smooth, but the engine was the weak point. Many people on this site said it would drop cylinder liners (which it never did), but a big expence was when the fuel pump failed.
......................
I seem to recall the engine $hitting itself issue only applies to the Saab 9-5 3.0 TiD, hence why they're so cheap!
The 2.2 is fine though, relatively, as far as I know.
I once hired a 2.2Tid for a drive down to London (from Leeds), about 5 years ago, IIRC it did nearly 50mpg, that aint too shabby....but....
Get an aero
And mine is a 80k 54 reg aero. The only sign of wear is the drivers seat bolsters are just starting to give a bit. And a littel bit of creaking from somewhere under the drivers side dash, but it goes when the cars warmed up.
Shame they're FWD. If Saab did a RWD 9-5 Aero it would be the perfect motor.
Shame they're FWD. If Saab did a RWD 9-5 Aero it would be the perfect motor.
Dave, mine was a 9-5 Estate, the vectra bit (probably miss spelt) was the trim level, ie top of the range with that engine, only the Aero trim being higher, but only available as a petrol Aero.
Was your 50mpg in a 9-5 or 9-3. I was loaned one for the day a while ago, did a 300 mile trip on a motorway and only managed 41. Also, you had to work the engine hard to get the weight of the 9-5 moving, fine once you got to motorway speed though.
That said, the bhp is probably 50 bhp down on the 3.0 Tid I was used to.
Was your 50mpg in a 9-5 or 9-3. I was loaned one for the day a while ago, did a 300 mile trip on a motorway and only managed 41. Also, you had to work the engine hard to get the weight of the 9-5 moving, fine once you got to motorway speed though.
That said, the bhp is probably 50 bhp down on the 3.0 Tid I was used to.
It was a long time ago so it's a bit fuzzy but it was a 9-5 2.2Tid and I did approx 400miles on the mway at a pretty steady 70-75 and I seem to remember it saying 47.something mpg (so nearly 50).
I also remember it being relatively spritely, for a big diesel, but it wouldn't be as torquey as the 3.0, never driven one though.
FWIW I wouldn't touch a 3.0TiD 95 with someone elses given they seem to be pretty much assured to lose the engine at some point. Might be a bit of internet mythology in that though?
I also remember it being relatively spritely, for a big diesel, but it wouldn't be as torquey as the 3.0, never driven one though.
FWIW I wouldn't touch a 3.0TiD 95 with someone elses given they seem to be pretty much assured to lose the engine at some point. Might be a bit of internet mythology in that though?
I have a 2000X 9-5, its done nearly 200k now and build quality has been great. It is fairly well known that after 04 GM starting cost cutting qite a bit on the 9-5, so you may find that at 04 model has more toys as standard than later models.
Saab diesels are bit odd though as the 2.2 sounds like a tractor and a 3 litre will drop a liner whenever you're not looking (there are very few 3.0 litre diesels above 120k on their original engine on the Saab forums)
Unless your mileage is high, I would go for a petrol one, you will have a lot more choice and better refinement. As long as the latest PCV mods have been applied and the car has always been run on flly synthetic oil you should have no issues (my car has never had a sump drop and is running as well now at 198k as it did at 100k)
Personally thogh I'd go for an Aero (if budget allows), same economy as the other petrol cars but better reliability (no sludging issues and stronger turbo)
davidy
Saab diesels are bit odd though as the 2.2 sounds like a tractor and a 3 litre will drop a liner whenever you're not looking (there are very few 3.0 litre diesels above 120k on their original engine on the Saab forums)
Unless your mileage is high, I would go for a petrol one, you will have a lot more choice and better refinement. As long as the latest PCV mods have been applied and the car has always been run on flly synthetic oil you should have no issues (my car has never had a sump drop and is running as well now at 198k as it did at 100k)
Personally thogh I'd go for an Aero (if budget allows), same economy as the other petrol cars but better reliability (no sludging issues and stronger turbo)
davidy
Piglet
I've towed a 1 ton caravan on several occassions with my 9-5 (done over 2000 miles towing in last couple of years)and a TVR on a trailer. I have a 2.3LPT Auto. What I would say is that they make good stable towcars because of their weight, but
1) The 4 speed auto is not suited to towing, it spends a lot of time in 3rd which hammers the MPG
2) I've alawys felt the brakes to be marginal when towing, I like good brakes, but you have to think ahead quite a bit with the 9-5
3) The low compression off boost, makes geatways when towing a little tardy. There is no shortage of torque with the Aero though
HTH
davidy
I've towed a 1 ton caravan on several occassions with my 9-5 (done over 2000 miles towing in last couple of years)and a TVR on a trailer. I have a 2.3LPT Auto. What I would say is that they make good stable towcars because of their weight, but
1) The 4 speed auto is not suited to towing, it spends a lot of time in 3rd which hammers the MPG
2) I've alawys felt the brakes to be marginal when towing, I like good brakes, but you have to think ahead quite a bit with the 9-5
3) The low compression off boost, makes geatways when towing a little tardy. There is no shortage of torque with the Aero though
HTH
davidy
DavidY said:
2) I've alawys felt the brakes to be marginal when towing, I like good brakes, but you have to think ahead quite a bit with the 9-5
Cheers David, that's all useful...you want to try towing a heavy trailer with the 9-3 - the brakes on that are poor at the best of time....with the trailer you really do have to think two roundabouts ahead
RedLeics
It does depnd where that torque starts, a turbo car by it's nature is low compression, and therefore often a bit gutless at low rpm, take off speeds.
I'd agree that the Aero will make a better towcar than a regular Saab Petrol engine, but better than a diesel, I wouldn't bank on it.
davidy
It does depnd where that torque starts, a turbo car by it's nature is low compression, and therefore often a bit gutless at low rpm, take off speeds.
I'd agree that the Aero will make a better towcar than a regular Saab Petrol engine, but better than a diesel, I wouldn't bank on it.
davidy
DavidY said:
RedLeics
It does depnd where that torque starts, a turbo car by it's nature is low compression, and therefore often a bit gutless at low rpm, take off speeds.
I'd agree that the Aero will make a better towcar than a regular Saab Petrol engine, but better than a diesel, I wouldn't bank on it.
davidy
Yep there's definitely that, though to be fair the torque curve on the Aero is rather more "diesel-y" than many turboed cars! Tis a good point though. Still, it'd be rather more fun when one wasn't towing It does depnd where that torque starts, a turbo car by it's nature is low compression, and therefore often a bit gutless at low rpm, take off speeds.
I'd agree that the Aero will make a better towcar than a regular Saab Petrol engine, but better than a diesel, I wouldn't bank on it.
davidy
Thanks all...well we had a look at a couple last week end and have gone for an 05 2.2 Tdi Estate with 46k miles on it. We were able to compare the 05 with the new 1.9 Tdi 06 model and we prefered the feel of the older one (plus it was cheaper!).
I know it's the agricultural diesel engine but we've got one of those already and we're familiar with it.
Fingers crossed it will work out alright...
I know it's the agricultural diesel engine but we've got one of those already and we're familiar with it.
Fingers crossed it will work out alright...
Gassing Station | Saab | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff