Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Saab 9-5 Sedan

17475777980110

Comments

  • dskidski Posts: 414
    I did make mention of a potential danger of side air bags for kids riding in back.

    But... Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are dangerous in general. They are ONLY a potential hazard if they were to go off when a child was resting/ sleeping with their head resting against the side door panel. I don't know how much the side curtain type changes the potential hazard.

    There have been some aritcles pointing out the potential hazard but I have NEVER read about any actual injuries from the side bags.

    Drew
  • ncvolncvol Posts: 196
    So how is the safety record for backseat passengers in the 9-5? I know that in general the car is very safe.
  • tuftstufts Posts: 3
    I have a new 03 9-5 Aero (150 miles), and it is a great car except for one problem. It seems to make a very annoying low grade whirling noise, esp when the steering nwheel is turned. Does anybody know what the problem is?
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,448
    based on the time of your post, i'd go back to the dealer monday morning, and drive another one.
    have an '01 se, but don't hear any noises steering related.
  • jgraveljgravel Posts: 54
    Morning everyone, can anyone advise how to re program a lock remote that had every dead battery for a 99 Saab 9/5. It's my daughters car and she neglected to tell me the remote didn't work for a few months. I just changed the battery per the owners manual ( replace battery and press unlock 4-5 times ) and nothing happens. I assume it needs to be re programed from the beginning.

    The second remote that my wife keeps works fine.

    Thanks in advance for the help.

    -Jay
  • ncvolncvol Posts: 196
    Before this year, I thought that the V6 engine in the Arc seemed like the right engine for me in the 9-5 line (enough hp, smoother, quieter). Now they've ditched it for another I4 on the 2004 Arcs. Is this indicative of a problem with the V6? Should I be worried about trying to find a 2003 or before with the V6 in it?
  • GBrianKGBrianK Posts: 211
    No, this is not indicative of a problem. I believe the reason is that GM is discontiuing production of this 3.0l engine in favor of the new GM Global Engines. Remember, SAAB spent quite some time with the current/old Six reinforcing and smoothing it out to accept a turbocharger. Don't know if they have had enough time with the new engines yet (2.8l V6).
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,448
    the v6 is definitely smoother than the 4's in the linears, i've driven. gets pretty good mileage too; usually 22+-24+ mpg with no long trips.
    the 4's seem fine other than idle.
    don't know about the 4 in the '04 arc model.
  • jaydolljaydoll Posts: 120
    Just bought a 9-3 vector earlier this week. What a piece of @!#$%&^. What was I thinking? Test drove a 9-5 aero tonight. What a world of difference. Where do I start, much better ride, better performance cabin is really nice looking. My 9-3 cabin looks like it came from the Starship Enterprise. 2003 Program aeros are selling for $29900 with 5K miles. Does this sound like a good deal?

    Thanks for any advise
  • GBrianKGBrianK Posts: 211
    Sounds like a good price jaydoll...bet you could get a few more dollars... The 9-5 is running on older technology, BUT there are virtually NO GREMLINS. All the bugs have been worked out.
  • rbrrbr Posts: 106
    Haven't posted here for a while, but I feel I must after taking my 2001 9-5 SE for service and getting a 2004 Aero wagon as a loaner. First point -- I was not particularly impressed with the 2004 Aero, especially the plastic aluminum look dashboard which, IMO, would have looked cheap in a Buick. Also, for a sportier car, the seats felt like they were overly padded ("cushy," if you know what I mean)-- it just seemed like a really weird combination. The engine certainly had reasonable power, but it was nowhere near as smooth as the V6 in my SE.

    That brings me to my main point -- what in the world was Saab/GM thinking not offering a V6 in the 9-5 sedan for the 2004 model year? Even granted that GM is/has/was discontinuing the current V6 engine, they couldn't plan a bit? I mean no disrespect to the I-4 Saab drivers out there (I used to be one), but I'm "all grown up" now and I have no intention of getting a four cylinder car when pretty much all of Saab's competition offers a strong V-6 as their standard engine. If I may say so. IMO if GM was serious about Saab they could have had a 300 HP HPT V6 Aero out by now.

    I have been driving Saabs for 6 years and I'm now 2 months from the end of my lease. Saab Financial wont let me extend a year (in the hope Saab gets its act together on a V6) so I dont believe I'm left with much of a choice. Saab (I probably should say GM), sorry but you're losing me and its an entirely self-inflicted wound.
  • GBrianKGBrianK Posts: 211
    Join the club. My SmartBuy is terminating in March on my '01 9-3 and have already started to look for a replacement. Not sure what to get. I have been pampered by the low payments and VERY comfortable seats. So far, I have narrowed the playing field down to a used 530i, new TL, or possibly a modified Accord coupe. Funny, I traded an Accord for my first Saab...looks like I may be going back. Sad.
  • rob999rob999 Posts: 233
    I think when you start a discussion between Saab owners between the merits of the I4 and the V6 it soon erupts into something like the old "TASTES GREAT" - "LESS FILLING" beer ads. Everyone has their own preferences and opinions.

    I prefer the I4, it has plenty of power and delivers great gas mileage on road trips. Yeah, it vibrates slightly at idle, but the vibration vanishes at anything above idle speed. I have no complaints.

    I'm sure the decision to drop the V6 had mostly to do with improving production economics, i.e. not having to support 2 engine options. With all manufacturers seeming to increase power in engines these days, I'm guessing Saab will come out with something competitive in the next generation 9-5.

    I agree on the cheesy 'aluminum' dash in the Aero. I think upgrading to the wood or carbon dash would be a good thing.
  • rbrrbr Posts: 106
    I dont mean to overstate to V6 I4 issue, and the 2004 Aero engine was impressive at speed. However, my 9-5 SE with a V6 was a fabulous value proposition when I got it compared to the competition, IMO, and notwithstanding Edmunds somewhat "crabby" reviews of the car. I got it at invoice, less advertising, and it included free scheduled maintenance, loaners, etc. My lease rate was within $30/ month of what I was being quoted for a V6 Accord. I guess a lot of that is still there, by Saab really hasn't moved the ball along as far as improvements to the 9-5 and, again IMO, took a major step back by deleting the V6 from the lineup and mucking up the interior appearance of the Aero. Sigh ...
  • Sorry guys, the I4 Vs. V6 controversy can't be dismissed as easily as a beer commercial. The Saab product planners simply fell asleep with the North American market (e.g., Saab was THE Swedish winter car until Volvo converted to FWD and then cleaned house with their AWD, which now does so well that they sell more XC wagons than the less expensive FWD!)

    And their bad (lazy?) product planning can't be dismissed as simply a lack of money. Saab could have taken the existing V6, hung a turbo on each bank (like the Audi 2.7 engine), beefed up some of the internals, and voila you'd be reading about Saab not the new Volvo R series in all the current buff books and buying at the full Moroney. Hello?

    While I'm no fan of GM, one would have to think that the General is getting a bit impatient with the Swedes. Saab doesn't compete well in its segment against Volvo, Audi, Acura, BMW, etc. and doesn't seem to be getting positioned to do any better. An AWD (quick, just call Haldex and outsource it--just like Volvo) 9-5 with a twin turbo V6 would be a start.
  • ncvolncvol Posts: 196
    I'd buy that car right now if they made it
  • rbrrbr Posts: 106
    I agree. A lot of people (particularly current Saab 9-5 drivers) would. Plus it would get more interest back in the brand. Two other observations:

    It may have been a fluke, but on my recent service visit to the dealer they had a bunch of unsold current year cars -- many, many more (2-3 times) than I had ever seen before. Possibly they are not moving as fast as they used to.

    I noticed at our auto show (Minneapolis, MN) last spring that GM has Saab mixed in with the other GM brands now instead of with the imports. I dont think that's such a good idea.
  • ffb13ffb13 Posts: 181
    sorry drew ,your question was back on sept.10 regarding tires .i have been traveling and are currently in connecticut in the middle of a wind storm that just knocked a branch into my house as i type this.a big one.
    anyhow the blow outs occur because the tire gets a nail and develops a slow leak..........and with these tires you just cannot tell..........so,it blows.
    i checked the tires when getting into the car but given that i drive from fla. to conn. and vt. 4 times per year -- by the time i stop to get out of the car it is too late and the tire has already blown.
    so far 3 in front and one in the rear.
    -i hate the new air--buses---rather drive....

    and yes i do have not only 4 but 5 of the 16 inch wheels ......4 with snow tires and one is my full size spare.,
    and yes,i may go for 16 inchers all around and get rid of the 17 inchers....thinking about it.

    re----i4 vs 6.......

    saab is a rather unique car /4 cyl.engine.all the sixes that have been shoehorned into this engine bay have never been able to improve on the 4. and most have been very unreliable.

    i selected the aero because of the 4 ......and its power.and it is smooth.and lets face it it is what saab knew how to make well.........this now changes with g.m.......we will see.
    but give me a 4 anytime.
    its power is amazing for the size and 32 mpg at 85 mph all day (true 72 mph average speed )is just incredible.--it gives me a range of 600 plus miles.....before having to stop for gas when i drive from fla. to vermont.
    last trip with the a/c on the average was 29 mpg.

    i prefer lite weight cars with small engines and high horsepower.......so,saab.
    i recently test drove the mb500 and the 300amg.
    nice but the feel is artificial ......and all that power is required to move that overweight mass.----i do beter with the saab.

    my other favorite car is my 1955 porsche spyder by beck.......it weights 1200 lbs. and has a racing engine putting out 175 hp.---on skinny tires and direct steering-----you guys do not know what fun is until you live with one of these-----forget viper and vette......those are heavy ....high mass cars with thick tires.i own one and prfer the 550.........

    this is why,the i4 saab engine is such a delight.......
    remember that the need for the v6 and v8 and v10,etc....is only due to the weight of the cars that they have to propel ......and they are getting heavier as we add more stuff to the cars.....and the tires wider to keep suspension costs down .........
    a well tuned suspension on good sized tires will ,for driving in the usa,be better than those 17 and 18 inchers.....

    now ,if you drive in europe and are near southern and mid germany where you can go flat out in most ,not all areas ,then it is a different story.
  • I am researching a 2001 Saab 9-5 wagon and noticed that they offer a V6 engine. Saab historically has offered 4 cylinder turbos and has eliminated the V6 for the 2004 model year.

    Should I avoid the V6 engine, or has it been reliable?
  • ffb13, you make some nice arguments for a nimble, high output car, but what did you mean by the statement relating tire width to saving on suspension costs?? Colin Chapman, RIP, might have disagreed with you.
Sign In or Register to comment.