 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / January 20059-3 Aero woes
I've had my 2004 9-3 Aero with the 7 speed auto box for three months now, Its done 5,000 miles. AND I HATE IT It's the worst car I have ever driven!! Its road holding with the reAxe is superb, its ride although harsh picks up all the imperfections on the road and it tramlines on the motorways, you are constantly fighting to keep it in a straight line on the granny lane. You could live with all this because its a sporty car, but not with that auto box. This box ruins an otherwise good car. There is a 2 second delay between gearchanges. Even in semi-auto mode there is a delay and sometimes it will not change up if the revs are too high. Other times it will not kick down. This is definately not sporty driving. For a 210bhp car, its regularly left standing by the average kids in hot hatches. Its been to the dealer 3 times, all they did was change the accelerator sensor and told me that the car was working fine. (Furneux of Houghton Regis). I only got the auto because the brochure convinced me that it was as good as a manual. As its a company car I have another 6 months to go with this car and I shall not get another Saab. I can't see why it got voted Top Gear car of the year. > I've had my 2004 9-3 Aero with the 7 speed auto box for three months now, > Its done 5,000 miles. AND I HATE IT It's the worst car I have ever driven!! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > could live with all this because its a sporty car, but not with that auto > box. Inner motorways lanes often have deep groves from heavy lorries (M4, M25). They can catch your car like rails. > This box ruins an otherwise good car. There is a 2 second delay between > gearchanges. Even in semi-auto mode there is a delay and sometimes it will > not change up if the revs are too high. Other times it will not kick down. > This is definately not sporty driving. For a 210bhp car, its regularly left > standing by the average kids in hot hatches. 7 speed auto? Sounds like the auto doesn't suit this car. >>I've had my 2004 9-3 Aero with the 7 speed auto box for three months now, >>Its done 5,000 miles. AND I HATE IT It's the worst car I have ever driven!! [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 7 speed auto? Sounds like the auto doesn't suit this car. It's only a 5 speed auto on the Aero's? A 6 speed auto is available on the 1.9 TiD's 150bhp version. >>>I've had my 2004 9-3 Aero with the 7 speed auto box for three months now, >>>Its done 5,000 miles. AND I HATE IT It's the worst car I have ever [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > It's only a 5 speed auto on the Aero's? > A 6 speed auto is available on the 1.9 TiD's 150bhp version. no, the auto is indeed a 7 speed (well, actually a 5 plus 2)...it has two more intermediate gears on the aero which is supposed to improve acceleration. "Alistair" <news@alistairbremoveme.co.uk> wrote: >Its road holding with the reAxe is superb, its ride although harsh >picks up all the imperfections on the road and it tramlines on the >motorways, you are constantly fighting to keep it in a straight >line on the granny lane. This may be the fault of the tires, not the car itself. My 9-5 Aero started traminling badly when I switched to Pirelli PZero Nero all-season radials. The original tires didn't do this at all. >This box ruins an otherwise good car. There is a 2 second delay >between gearchanges. Boy, does that sound familiar. If you've seen any of my rants on my 9-5 Aero, you've seen me complain about the 1.5-2.0 sec delay between gearchanges. But this is with a manual gearbox, not the 9-3's auto. At least on the 9-5 Aero, the problem is not the transmission, but the turbo. They use such a big turbo it takes forever to spin up. And for some reason when you shift and the engine spins down, they blow off the exhaust fumes in such a way that the turbo also spins down -- instantly. So after each shift you have the same 2 second delay. I don't know if the 9-3 Aero has the same problem with the turbo, but it sure sounds like my 9-5 Aero. >This is definately not sporty driving. For a 210bhp car, its >regularly left standing by the average kids in hot hatches. Hell, I'm often left standing by cowboys in pickup trucks and sometimes even soccer moms in minivans. When your acceleration goes to near zero for 2 seconds, you fall waaaay behind. Once the turbo spins up, the car slams you into the seat, but you have a lot of catching up to do -- and then you have another 2sec pause after the next shift, etc. Gary >>Its road holding with the reAxe is superb, its ride although harsh >>picks up all the imperfections on the road and it tramlines on the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Gary I don't think the delay in the gearchange is to do with the turbo as the 9-3 doesn't seem to suffer from turbo lag. I've noticed that the turbo gauge shows midrange most of the time which is indicative of the turbo being constantly on low boost which I believe is one method that Saab use to eliminate turbo lag on the 9-3. Luton_Lad >>Its road holding with the reAxe is superb, its ride although harsh >>picks up all the imperfections on the road and it tramlines on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > started traminling badly when I switched to Pirelli PZero Nero > all-season radials. The original tires didn't do this at all. Grippy tires will do this. Complain to your public works department. >>This box ruins an otherwise good car. There is a 2 second delay >>between gearchanges. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that the turbo also spins down -- instantly. So after each shift > you have the same 2 second delay. Preload the shifter then execute a fast clutch/shift. > I don't know if the 9-3 Aero has the same problem with the turbo, but > it sure sounds like my 9-5 Aero. Road races are not won off the line. >>This is definately not sporty driving. For a 210bhp car, its >>regularly left standing by the average kids in hot hatches. Go buy a Honda Civic then. > Hell, I'm often left standing by cowboys in pickup trucks and sometimes > even soccer moms in minivans. When your acceleration goes to near zero > for 2 seconds, you fall waaaay behind. Once the turbo spins up, the > car slams you into the seat, but you have a lot of catching up to do -- > and then you have another 2sec pause after the next shift, etc. If you are on a curvy road, take them in the corners. >>>7 speed auto? Sounds like the auto doesn't suit this car. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > more intermediate gears on the aero which is supposed to improve > acceleration. Can't find any info about this '7' speed trans, sounds like dealer speak for the torque convertor lockups? >>>>7 speed auto? Sounds like the auto doesn't suit this car. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Can't find any info about this '7' speed trans, sounds like dealer speak > for the torque convertor lockups? The 7 speed auto is referred to as the "Sentronic +2" and is only available on the 9-3 Aero HOT. It has 2 paddles on the steering for use in semi auto mode. To quote the brochure " Two extra intermediate gears permit faster acceleration in automatic mode and provides even sportier driving." A LOAD OF RUBBISH!! The Aero HOT should have never been built with this box. If Saab wanted an auto box on the Aero they should have gone the same route as the Golf GTi DSG 6 speed automatic, I have driven one and the quick gear change makes my Aero feel like an old Mercedes taxi. Luton_Lad >>>>>7 speed auto? Sounds like the auto doesn't suit this car. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Luton_Lad beginning to sound worse and worse for me.. I'm going from a 325 sport auto BMW, which has a fantastic auto box, to what *might* turn out to be a complete hunk of shite in the shape of a saab...oh well...lessons learnt and all that.. >>>>>7 speed auto? Sounds like the auto doesn't suit this car. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > DSG 6 speed automatic, I have driven one and the quick gear change makes > my Aero feel like an old Mercedes taxi. Maybe you should have test drove tthe car before you bought. Either way, enjoy what you have; its a state of mind. > I've had my 2004 9-3 Aero with the 7 speed auto box for three months now, > Its done 5,000 miles. AND I HATE IT It's the worst car I have ever [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > with this car and I shall not get another Saab. I can't see why it got > voted Top Gear car of the year. this does concern me a little though, I'm picking up my TiD 150 vector in 5 days time...and it's an auto...hope I haven't made a mistake. > I've had my 2004 9-3 Aero with the 7 speed auto box for three months now, > Its done 5,000 miles. AND I HATE IT It's the worst car I have ever driven!! [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > with this car and I shall not get another Saab. I can't see why it got > voted Top Gear car of the year. It is possible that the car was voted Top Gear car of the year when it was tested with a manual transmission - not an automatic. I prefer a manual transmission in a car with a turbo - you can take full advantage of the turbo by keeping your rpms up because you choose when to shift. > It is possible that the car was voted Top Gear car of the year when it > was tested with a manual transmission - not an automatic. I prefer a > manual transmission in a car with a turbo - you can take full advantage > of the turbo by keeping your rpms up because you choose when to shift. Not with the 9-5 Aero, you can't. The instant you let off the gas and hit the clutch to shift, the turbo **instantly** spins down. No matter how fast I shift, I can't get it into the next gear before the turbo gauge drops. A Saab service person, who seemed to know what he was talking about, said this was done intentionally to reduce pollution. Don't know if that's true or not, but it sure destroys the car's performance in shifting situations. Alistair, I don't know much about the 9-3. In the 9-5 world, only the Aero has the huge slow-to-spin-up turbo. The lower models have smaller turbos that deliver less steady-state horsepower, but they spin up much faster. Your Vector might not have the lag problem. Can't say how the automatic gearbox will perform, though. Gary Gary Fritz wrote: >>It is possible that the car was voted Top Gear car of the year when >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Don't know if that's true or not, but it sure destroys the car's > performance in shifting situations. Interesting information. How does it spin down so quickly - a brake of some type? You can't ignore the laws of physics - once a body is in motion it tends to stay in motion. A spinning turbo at full boost is a not a minor amount of centifugal motion. Not that I would highly recommend it, but you could eliminate this turbo spin down by not taking your foot off the gas. There are some people, professional truck drivers, who never use the clutch after they get the vehicle moving from a dead stop. These drivers drive hundreds of thousands of miles a year and their rigs are worth over $100K, so I would think they would not take any chances on abusing their transmission. > Alistair, I don't know much about the 9-3. In the 9-5 world, only the > Aero has the huge slow-to-spin-up turbo. The lower models have smaller [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Gary > Gary Fritz wrote: > > Not with the 9-5 Aero, you can't. The instant you let off the gas and > > hit the clutch to shift, the turbo **instantly** spins down. > Interesting information. But wrong. He has posted this misinformation previously instead of fixing whetever it is that is wrong with his engine. > How does it spin down so quickly - a brake of > some type? No brake. There is a bypass valve that opens to connect the pressure tube, between the output side of the turbo and the throttle, to the inlet side of the turbo. This keeps the air circulating through the turbo preventing it to stop. If the bypass valve does not open (broken or the control hose has been disconnected) then the air pressure builds up between the turbo output and the closed throttle plate. This will cause a turbo stall. Every manufacturer of turbo charged engines will do whatever is needed to keep the turbo spinning. Adding a brake to spin down the turbo is not something they will waste money on. > A spinning turbo at full boost is a > not a minor amount of centifugal motion. True. When the turbo is stopped, due to the shock wave from the air that was unable to go into the engine due to the closed throttle, there is a high probability that the turbo is damaged.  SignatureG?ran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/saab/ Göran Larsson wrote: > > Interesting information. > > But wrong. He has posted this misinformation previously instead of fixing > whetever it is that is wrong with his engine. Göran, I would dearly love to fix whatever is wrong. That's why I keep posting the info, to either warn others of the behavior, or find someone who KNOWS what is wrong and can tell me how to fix it. I have been told roughly the same thing by two different dealers. I have tried replacing the bypass valve with a high-performance version, and saw no change. I have test-driven other 2002 9-5 Aeros (only automatics, unfortunately) and saw the same behavior. This all seems to indicate that this is just the way the car works. Maybe the European models don't, but the US model sure seems to. If you have some idea what IS wrong, I'd love to hear it. If all you can say is that what I'm seeing isn't true, that's not very helpful. > > A spinning turbo at full boost is a > > not a minor amount of centifugal motion. You would certainly think so. After all, it takes 2 seconds to spin UP when I'm stomping on the gas, so I have no idea why it stops so quickly when I let up. But it does. And in 2.5 years and several mechanics looking at it, nobody has been able to tell me what, if anything, was wrong. Gary For "sporty" driving, a REAL manual transmission is ALWAYS best! I've driven and owned various SAABs and my experience with the 5 speed automatic was better than you describe with the 7. By the way, I thought it was a 6 speed. Shelly Rabin > I've had my 2004 9-3 Aero with the 7 speed auto box for three months now, > Its done 5,000 miles. AND I HATE IT It's the worst car I have ever driven!! [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > with this car and I shall not get another Saab. I can't see why it got > voted Top Gear car of the year. > For "sporty" driving, a REAL manual transmission is ALWAYS best! > I've driven and owned various SAABs and my experience with the 5 speed > automatic was better than you describe with the 7. By the way, I thought > it > was a 6 speed. > Shelly Rabin it's a 5 speed for the petrol versions, a 6 speed for the diesel (150 only) and 7 speed for the aero > it's a 5 speed for the petrol versions, a 6 speed for the diesel (150 only) > and 7 speed for the aero Not the US Aero. Mine is a 5 speed. >> it's a 5 speed for the petrol versions, a 6 speed for the diesel (150 >> only) >> and 7 speed for the aero > > Not the US Aero. Mine is a 5 speed. The UK Aero is definitely 7 speed, You can hear the engine and watch the revs drop on the rev counter on hard acceleration with a delay between changes. Luton_lad > > Not the US Aero. Mine is a 5 speed. > > The UK Aero is definitely 7 speed, You can hear the engine and watch the > revs drop on the rev counter on hard acceleration with a delay between > changes. Can you select all 7 with the Sentronic? >> > Not the US Aero. Mine is a 5 speed. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Can you select all 7 with the Sentronic? No the extra two gears are only available in automatic mode, There are only 5 in manual. > I've had my 2004 9-3 Aero with the 7 speed auto box for three months now, > Its done 5,000 miles. AND I HATE IT It's the worst car I have ever driven!! [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > with this car and I shall not get another Saab. I can't see why it got > voted Top Gear car of the year. Why did you buy a 9-3 Aero with an automatic? So far I am overall very impressed with the 9-3 Aero Manual. >> I've had my 2004 9-3 Aero with the 7 speed auto box for three months now, >> Its done 5,000 miles. AND I HATE IT It's the worst car I have ever [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Why did you buy a 9-3 Aero with an automatic? So far I am overall very > impressed with the 9-3 Aero Manual. * My wife only drives automatics * I'm attracted to new technology (7 speed semi automatic to quote the brochure " Two extra intermediate gears permit faster acceleration in automatic mode and provides even sportier driving." sold me. * The Audi or the BMW M3 automatics do not have this problem. My beef is Saab should not have ruined an otherwise good car with the "Sentronic +2" box. >>>I've had my 2004 9-3 Aero with the 7 speed auto box for three months now, >>>Its done 5,000 miles. AND I HATE IT It's the worst car I have ever [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > My beef is Saab should not have ruined an otherwise good car with the > "Sentronic +2" box. I do believe you are right about the gearbox. I have a 9-3 ARC (210hp) with a 5 speed Sentronic. I can comfortably do 0-60 in 7.5 seconds (book says 6.8s). 40-70 is a breeze, fast enough that I have never bothered with the "semi-manual". I sometimes drive on a coastal road with plenty of twists and turns where the manual comes in handy and almost always I find myself tail-gating the car in front . I am yet to find some one on my tail. The tramline problem is not very noticeable on the 16" wheels, though I feel it when road is really bad. I have driven a friend's M3 which was a dog to keep in line when driving on grooved tarmac. So I guess tramline also plagues the 'ultimate driving machine'! >I've had my 2004 9-3 Aero with the 7 speed auto box for three months now, Why, oh, why would anyone buy a Saab with auto? Why would anyone who buys an auto trans complain about performance? Malcolm > Why, oh, why would anyone buy a Saab with auto? Why not? If you are driving in a heavily congested metropolitan area it is far more convenient to drive an automatic. I hate to burst your bubble, but a SAAB is not exactly a "Performance" auto. I don't see the big deal for why one *has* to be had with a manual. Incidentally, I think the SAAB implementation of a manual transmission is among the poorest I have driven, specifically the NG900s and 9-3s. The pedals (clutch and brake) are too close together and offset toward the center of the car such that one has to sit skewed in the drivers seat to operate them. The shifters are pure garbage, even when new. Floppy, vague, blah. OTOH, the auto transmissions used in SAABs are pretty much status quo for all euro sedans. Contrary to all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about them, they are actually quite reliable and provide reasonable performance. One advantage of an automatic when coupled with a turbo engine is that once you get the boost up you can just keep your right foot into it and never have to come down off boost to shift. In all of the newer SAABs the boost gets dumped as soon as it senses the clutch being depressed. Plus there is a programmed lag in the fly-by-wire accelerator which is intended to produce lower emissions. It makes shifting one of these cars during spirited acceleration a jerky affair. > Why would anyone who buys an auto trans complain about performance? Perfomance is primarily a measure of the engine (acceleration) and suspension (handling), not so much the transmission. But I have no evidence that suggests that performance suffers when the same engine is coupled to an automatic. -Fred W PS - 3 of my 6 current cars have manual transmissions. >One advantage of an automatic when coupled with a turbo engine is that once >you get the boost up you can just keep your right foot into it and never >have to come down off boost to shift. Key phrase "once you get the boost up". Pulling out in a turbo automatic is the problem. Once you are moving, they are fine. But , it's the reason I would never buy a turbo auto anything - unless it was a high performance motor with plenty of NA power with the turbo there for super performance reasons. >>One advantage of an automatic when coupled with a turbo engine is that >>once [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > was a high performance motor with plenty of NA power with the turbo > there for super performance reasons. My experience is that the boost comes up plenty fast enough in that situation, and if you are looking to hot-dog (or drag race) you could just two-foot the launch and have full power instantly, though I would not suggest that on a regular basis for obvious reasons... Opinions can certainly vary on this as ours do, but mine is that the (later versions of the) SAAB Turbo engines are actually *more* suitable to an automatic transmission, which may be one of the reasons that I have become somewhat disenfranchised with the brand these days. I really wanted to like the NG SAABs. Especially the 2000 9-3SE CV (5-speed) that I bought last winter to have as a weekend fun car, but even after doing some suspension mods I ended up selling it off (at a tidy profit I might mention) and going for a 2-seater BMW Z3 instead. Don't get me wrong. I am not anti-SAAB in general. One of the favorite cars that I have ever owned was my '90 900 (NA, 5-speed). I also have both of my daughters driving SAABs. A '93 9000CSE Auto and a '98 900SE 5-speed. The post GM cars, while nice, are just not the same driving experience as the classic 900s or the 9000s. -Fred W >Don't get me wrong. I am not anti-SAAB in general. One of the favorite >cars that I have ever owned was my '90 900 (NA, 5-speed). I also have both >of my daughters driving SAABs. A '93 9000CSE Auto and a '98 900SE 5-speed. >The post GM cars, while nice, are just not the same driving experience as >the classic 900s or the 9000s. I think the fallacy here is that Saabs would have remained the same if GM hadn't taken over. While they might be a little more sport oriented, for Saab to survive they had to move to a marketing approach that bites a bigger share - that's not the Saab cult market. I'd like to be able to buy a '67 Alfa Romeo new but I think that leaves me in a small market segment and Alfa doesn't make the same cars either. As to the automatic - you are right, it's a matter of opinion. I find that a tweaked NG900 5 speed is fine to drive. But, I would not drive one with an auto. Maybe in the country where the "quick pull across traffic lanes from a stop" is not needed but not anywhere more populated. I have nothing against automatics - but I like them hooked to an engine with a lot of NA torque. Bob >>Don't get me wrong. I am not anti-SAAB in general. One of the favorite >>cars that I have ever owned was my '90 900 (NA, 5-speed). I also have both [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >to be able to buy a '67 Alfa Romeo new but I think that leaves me in a >small market segment and Alfa doesn't make the same cars either. This got me thinking: what alternatives would there have been if GM hadn't bought into Saab? Would ownership by any other American/ European/ Japanese group have been more benign? The development costs for new cars are now so great that it's unlikely that Saab would have continued as a true independent; the only example of a small independent volume car maker I can think of is Rover, which since BMW sold it has been troubled by a string of boardroom scandals and failed joint ventures. But what other sorts of alliances, apart from outright ownership, with a large manufacturer might have been possible for Saab? Martin > >One advantage of an automatic when coupled with a turbo engine is that once > >you get the boost up you can just keep your right foot into it and never [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > was a high performance motor with plenty of NA power with the turbo > there for super performance reasons. I once drove a Volvo 740 Turbo automatic, night and day difference between it and my almost identical 740T manual. Also drove a VW Golf TDI automatic, very similar experience. Mash the pedal frantically to pull out into traffic, then finally it takes off like a rocket, but by that time I'm already up to speed. There's a little bit of lag with a manual but with the newer slightly smaller turbos it's almost non existant. >>I've had my 2004 9-3 Aero with the 7 speed auto box for three months now, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Malcolm Malcolm Its obvious from your comments that you have never driven a performance car with an autobox. If ever you get the chance try a M3 BMW with the autobox or for the ultimate autobox try the new Golf GTi with the twin clutch. I've driven the Golf and that's going to be my next car. Luton_lad |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.