Auto box on a 2003 9-5; how reliable/good?

Auto box on a 2003 9-5; how reliable/good?

Author
Discussion

mdotd

Original Poster:

6,806 posts

191 months

Saturday 21st March 2009
quotequote all
Hello everyone,

A '03 9-5 2.3T Vector Saloon has caught my eye and nearly my wallet; it ticks all the boxes having only done 56k and having a good spec level, however it's an auto. I'm not adverse to them, just don't know much about how good / reliable they are; any opinions? Do they ruin the mpg compared to the manual alternative? Preference would be a manual but open to the idea of an auto if they prove to be decent.

Cheers all smile

Prof Beard

6,669 posts

234 months

Saturday 21st March 2009
quotequote all
I'm not aware of any issues with the 9-5 auto boxes

aeropilot

36,519 posts

234 months

Saturday 21st March 2009
quotequote all
The Asin-Warner 5-speed auto in the 02-onwards 9-5 is one of the best fwd auto gearboxes, and is actually better than the manaul in terms of reliability.

If you drive in city centre traffic all day then economy will be a bit less, but on a run there's no real difference between auto and manual as the 5-speed auto has mechanical lockup in 3rd, 4th and 5th.
You also have the flappy paddle manual mode and a very good 'S' sport setting to give you 3 different modes for use.

John D9395

377 posts

215 months

Sunday 22nd March 2009
quotequote all
I was in the same position as yourself about 6 months ago, wanted a manual 2.3, only to find that about 99.9% of 9-5's with this engine size were manufactured with an auto box.

The auto didn't bother me, in fact I went on to buy an auto (S Type Jag with 2.7 Diesel), it just wasn't a Saab. Still have the 9-3 Aero Rag top (manual!).

The thing that put me off was the 3-4 mpg that you lost with the auto, but the main thing was the CO2 emissions. Road tax on a manual is £210 / year, the auto jumps to close on the maximum of £400 ish.

That plus the fuel (I am a 30k / annum road user), just tipped the balance for me.