Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
i even had the odometer checked.
i thought ,when i bought the car, that i would be lucky to get 18,000 miles out of the michelins based on my other cars.
i do understand that the rotation is based on mileage.i just took the easy way out.
They are NOT Side Curtain Air bags. There is debate about which design is better. The bottom line however is that the 9-5 does provide side impact protection that is effective. Is there a better way? Perhapse.
Good Luck
Drew
there is plenty of tread left. rotate every 10k, but check pressure often, usually set to 32-33 lbs. look like they would be good at least to 50k.
mostly local trips.
Also is the 9-5 Aero a good car to own? It seems like going with the Saab you can get a lot more car for the money that a BMW 330 or 530. Also how is the resale for the cars back in the states/how do they hold their value?
i did get 60,000 miles on the first set.
only 1 blow out.
on this second set i have had 2 blow outs with less than 300 miles the first and 2000 miles the last one.
at $ 220.00 a pop i am thinking of getting rid of these 17 inchers and use my snow tire wheel (snowflake design ) to go into 205-55-16 tires which cost half of the 17 .
any thoughts out there ?
it is an aero 9.5 and i know the handling will suffer ,but i am not driving this car in europe ,but in the 80 mph max. usa. so,the effect will be minimal.
That doesn't sound good. I've never had that misfortune and certainly hope I never do. In most cases, you will have plenty of notice or indication that a tire is damaged before it actually Blows Out. A slipping of the Belts is one common factor and the situation will cause an extremely poor ride before it fails.
I'm guessing yours are due to being Low Profiles that get damaged and blow very fast afterwords. Performance tires are great but I don't think I'd be happy with them for everyday driving. I'd be worried about every pot hole or bad road surface.
Drew
I think previous 9-3 owners are more likely to move up to a 9-5 now. I have a 9-3 and I won't move up to a linear (185hp only ? Why should I switch to a 9-5 ?) and I don't like the GM V6.
The 220hp ARC would be enough for me.
I hope Saab will use the concept AWD Sport wagon as the new 9-3SS Viggen and put at least 300hp to the 9-5 Aero.
I like the brakes on our 2003 9-5 Aero but I a am little more concerned with level of floatiness over bumps in the road. The car tracks great but it gets more unsettled than it should over rough patches. The bump stops come in to play more than they should on rough curvy roads. It needs stiffer progressive springs and stouter dampers.
Good Luck
Drew
Thanks for any thoughts
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
have an '01 se, but don't hear any noises steering related.
The second remote that my wife keeps works fine.
Thanks in advance for the help.
-Jay
the 4's seem fine other than idle.
don't know about the 4 in the '04 arc model.
Thanks for any advise
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Should I avoid the V6 engine, or has it been reliable?
This is one of those eternal debates within the Saab 9-5 community. The fact is that both engines are very reliable. Your friend's mileage figures are 100% arbitrary and seem to have little or no basis in reality. I wonder how your friend became such an expert in Saab engine durability.
The current 2.3L 4 cyl is based on an old design which has been upgraded many times over the years. Its almost over-engineered and is very robust. With proper maintenance 200K+++ is easily attained.
The current 3.0L V6 is sourced from Vauxhall (GM England) and is heavily modified by Saab. While its only been in the line since 1999 its proving to be very reliable. About the only beef people have with the V6 is that it uses a timing belt instead of a chain, and the belt needs to be changed every 60K (Saab pays for the first replacement). Comments from dealers show the V6 to be less troublesome than the already reliable 4 cyl but that's prolly due to there being fewer V6 Saab's on the road.
Saab made a critical mistake with this one which is why they are dropping it. The Timing Chain issues, Assymetrical Turbo (silly idea)etc... are not in anyones benefit. Particularly for Saab who is paying for services in the first whatever miles. That's costing them more than they anticipated it seems. The time needed for serivce has to be killing their dealer reimbursements.
True, the I4 is not as smooth at idle as the typical Honda. That's mostly due to the fact that they have been able to Pack a relatively small engine with a nice level of Horse Power. That comes with a cost.
When Saab has a 6 as nicely designed as BMW's, I'll buy one. Until then, there is NOTHING wrong with Saabs I4's.
Drew
No one I've met has mentioned anything about the difficulty in working on the engine. There is no "timing chain issue" with the V6 - it uses a timing belt, like many engines do, and needs replacement every 60K, like many engines do. I have not heard or read a thing about abnormal warranty service costs with the V6. At least, not any worse than the 4 cyl.
I own a 9-5 V6. My ear is CONSTANTLY on the tracks, listening for any known or potential problems with this engine that could cost me big $$$ down the road. Probably the most common thing I've heard over the past 3 years is the animosity towards the V6 which comes mainly from the "I hate GM" crowd and the vocal Saab Philistines who almost constantly bemoan the rape of the Saab culture.
Look, every engine has its issues. What you need is a local shop or mechanic that knows and understands the car, not just the engine. The V6 may not be as robust as the 2.3L 4 cyl, but the 2.3L 4 cyl days are numbered as new designs and technologies come from GM and Saab. I say drive cars with both engines and buy the one YOU like best, not what some voice on the internet tells you to buy. It's your money after all.
As for which engine, it is totally up to the purchasing party. I prefer the 4 since it gets slightly better fuel economy and I think it's slightly lighter (better agility, in my opinion).
>Probably the most common thing I've heard over >the past 3 years is the animosity towards the >V6 which comes mainly from the "I hate GM" >crowd and the vocal Saab Philistines who almost >constantly bemoan the rape of the Saab culture.
Bretfraz, people are nervous when it comes to change... GM has not set the best standard in the auto industry for decades, but they are getting better. Most folks looked at the Cadillac Catera, which shared the same engine, body, and interior components with the 9-5, and began to worry.
As for the "Saab Philistines", I would like to thank them. Without their years of loyalty, SAAB would not exsist today in the US. Their purchasing dollars are what held this company together until GM came along to assist.
Most "GM haters" must have a reason to vocalize their anger. I would like to understand why they feel this way. Are there any folks out there that have issues with their SAAB?
This is Saabs second attempt at a V6.. both have failed which is why both designs have had a very short Product Cycle.
FWIW.. to prove I don't have those "Prejudices"... I had the first Saab V6 in our '94 900. UGH What a Dog that was.
Drew
A better place to discuss the ins and outs of GM as an industry is on our News & Views board. One likely discussion is The Return of GM's Might II.
Let's let this conversation focus on its subject, the 9-5.
Thanks!
i own a 1999 saab 93. for the most part i like it a lot.
BUT....
i let my dad drive it today and i told him that the only way to remove the key is to put it into reverse.
well, he got home and put it into what he must have thought was reverse and he couldnt remove the key. so i went out to check it out and it looks like it is in 4th, but i have to keep the parking brake on or it will roll. worse, is i cna remove the key and reinsert it, but i can not turn the ignition or move the gear shift from what looks like 4th gear. if that werent enough, the car is parked in front of the garage door where my mothers car is parked and she cant get it out. HELP!!!!!!!! if anyone has experienced this and has the secret to starting the car, i would be much obliged.
please email me at: backcountryjournal@hotmail.com to be sure i get it.
thanks in advance!!!!
mike
Another suggestion -- given that this is an "emergency," you may want to try posting on saabnet.com given the number of very active Saab owners that contribute there -- good luck.
colin was famous or infamous for his light weight cars and flimsy but excellent suspension systems.
many crashed and did not survived because of this and many won races because of this.
a well tuned suspension does not need oversize tires .............but yes they do help and improve cornering...but with these tires came ovrely agressive power steering ,it needs it.
so,give me a good suspension,skinny tires up front and mid size tires in rear and no power steering.....a la lotus elan and i am in heaven.
g.m.-i decided to buy american 3 years ago and went for a cadillac deville.
on day one the accelerator pedal fell off.i got home by tying a string to the cable and pulling on it.
the onstar quoted a time of 3 hours or so to come get me.in downtown miami.
then a month later the oil cooler hose came off,in my garage ,so no damage.but a lot of oil spilled. htey came the next day to pick up the car and got it back in 3 hours.
the northstar engine used 1 quart of oil every 400 to 700 miles.
the brakes did not.a recall was made but,still they were no good.
other failures made me sell the car at a loss of 25 gs.after 18 months.
the new g.m.---yes ,maybe, i do own a vette,86 conv. and it has been great.
who knows ,i will buy their stock over any other car company at this time.