Saab guru help needed. Looking at buying 9-3 Sport combi

[markus037]

heres the car in question

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=19464&endYear=2016&modelC ode1=9-3&showcaseOwnerId=578353&startYear=1981&makeCode1= SAAB&searchRadius=25&maxPrice=14000&mmt=[SAAB[9-3[]][]]&listingId=399857937&Log=0

looking for input. from my research the cars seem to be pretty reliable and by 2007 most of the electronic crap has been sorted out. How well do the automatic transmissions hold up? I read somewhere the common issue is water pumps that leak that requires a special tool to replace. Also are there a lot of tuning options out there? The car looks like its in pretty good shape and would easily swallow a mountain bike and a dog in the back.

[Rainier]

I was a long time Saab guy for years, go and check out Saabnet.com first. That's the website with all the details that you're looking for. As for the water pumps they don't die more or less than any other manufacture. But what these cars do is run forever, my sister is still driving my 99 9-3 that I bought new and she can't Kill it. And these cars are becoming a deal since becoming orphans a couple of years ago. Check out the top gear tribute to Saab, it was a weird car brand but I do miss it.

My dad's 04 9-3 has an auto and no problems with it at all. You can fit a lot in it this it'll be just as easy to find a used roof rack on eBay for change.

[KingOfJericho]

Hopefully they improved in the late 1990s because I had a 1992 9000 CD Turbo (auto) and nearly everything that could have gone wrong did. Ignition cassettes, transmission, exhaust, suspension, etc. I LOVE the cars but I can't recommend one with a straight face.

[lowbudgethero]

They are pretty reliable, about average, drive train is good unless you start adding a ton of power and abusing it. I have 2 saabs with over 150K and 170K miles on them, they have their issue over 120K, but for the most part I've been the one to break them with power/hard driving. Beware of chinese parts from autozone though.

[Alfisti]

I drive an 08 combi, a few things to consider.

- by 2006 a lot of the bugs were ironed out, my car has been faultless except for one issue (see below)
- These cars are excellent value, very smooth drivetrain to say the least
- They handle poorly, a bad combination of super stiff springs trying to make up for a sloppy chassis
- I'd go a 2008 over an 07, it looks MUCH newer really suits the combi shape
- The size of the wagon is near perfect, any smaller, so A4, V60, golf, v50 etc and you cannot carry the stuff you need to carry if you're gonna go wagon. Lost count of the number of times things JUST fit in the car that would not have for the above examples.
- These cars eat batteries, budget for a new one.
- Now the clanger, anything 2007 through 2009 I would budget $2K, yes $2K, for new intake valves. It's a near certainty that you will need them on the 2T motor, the V6 is fine. Go to Saabcentral and ready the sticky.

[markus037]

is there any way to see if the intake valves ahve been replaced?

[markus037]

other than taking the head off

[Alfisti]

Easy, full documentation from an authorised repairer. Otherwise, point to the thread and lop off another $2K after you have negotiated a price.

[markus037]

going to drive it wednesday. looks pretty clean, upon further research it looks like its a 60th anniversary edition.

[Jamesons Viggen]

Yes, its an 60th anny car which was nice, wheels and bolstered seats are the give away.

I prefer the 6spd auto to the 5spd auto cars. I have had 3(04, 08, 11) and have had good luck with them. There are some good tuning options for them. I was very happy with my JZW tune.

[Alfisti]

60th anniversary is sweat, bugger wheels and much better seats.

[donR]

We had a 2005 2l aero model with sports suspension, larger brakes and a little more power. I think 155kw, 300NM. It was a great car for front wheel drive and never had any problems with it.

We then got a 2006 aero sport combi with the 2.8l V6 turbo engine with 184kw/350NM. Once again went quite well for front wheel drive and no real mechanical problems.

I would say the auto transmission was the big let down as it is quite slow to shift otherwise you could easily sort the suspension.

I'd definitely get the V6 model for tunability and performance. I also believe that engine is bomb proof so to speak and none of the problems like the N54.

[Alfisti]

No one here has a fucking clue what a KW is chief. I do but i am transplanted.

[markus037]

gonna go check this one out tomorrow instead. they dropped the price to $

http://www.chevy21.com/VehicleDetail...-PA/2542647223

[Alfisti]

That's a nice wagon, what's he asking for it?

Keep in mind that as of 2010 the AERO went with the 2T, the V6 was dropped. At the very, very least do a cold compression test.

[markus037]

$15k im gonna go check it out tomorrow

[markus037]

drove the car. lets just say it isnt for me. what a disappointing car. its like GM threw everything that you hate about them into an attractive car. crappy steering, poor handling, engine sucked, transmission sucked, handled like a truck, cheap interior bits etc... is the 9-5 like this too?

[markus037]

forgot spongy brakes. awful

[Alfisti]

OK handling i understand, I kind of agree re. brakes but poor engine and tranny????

That makes zero sense. My 9-3's tranny is way smoother than our X1 and the engine is way quieter and smoother as well. There's no comparing them.

Yes the X1 has 40 more HP but it's a 10 year younger design.

[Dackelone]

Matt really nailed it here with his review and thoughts of Saab ownership. I used to work at a car dealer that used to sell Saab's brand new... one of the old salesman told me that Saab USA told them that they KNOW that the people that buy their cars are nuts/crazy/weird. I have to aggree. Saab owners are a totally different breed.

And ohh yes... the Saab trans are really their achilles heel. Especially the manual trans are known to break - often. Thats why trade in value is terrible with Saabs.

Be sure to listen what Matt says in the closing of this video...

[lowbudgethero]

Originally Posted by markus037

drove the car. lets just say it isnt for me. what a disappointing car. its like GM threw everything that you hate about them into an attractive car. crappy steering, poor handling, engine sucked, transmission sucked, handled like a truck, cheap interior bits etc... is the 9-5 like this too?

Pretty much, only the Aeros/viggen had half decent handling and brakes stock look for a 95 aero wagon if you can find one.

The reason I keep mine is that it's heavily modified and has way more cargo room than modern hatchbacks of similar performance

[markus037]

yeah i gotta say. that car was just a disappointment overall. and yes, the 2.0T in that didnt seem as peppy as i remember. the VW 2.0T is much better in terms of power delivery. the steering had poor feedback as well. i couldnt wait to get back in my E90.