
Signature
Peter <X-Files Fan>
Please Note: Emailed replies cc'd / bcc'd , containing HTML or attachments
auto-binned as spam
> Are there any particular "gotchas" I should be on the lookout for with
> this particular model?
I have a 2002 9-5 Aero Wagon. My experience (which some here disagree
with, but I'm not sure they've driven the US version of the Aero) is that
the Aero is a pretty disappointing car.
The HOT engine can crank out an amazing amount of power. The trouble is
that it very seldom delivers it when I need or want it.
I've been told by 3 different Saab mechanics that the Aero's turbo is a
very large turbo with a lot of inertia. Because it is large, it can pump
a lot of air through the engine and deliver a lot of power. But because
it has a lot of inertia, it takes a very long time for it to spin up to
the point where it gets into that power stage.
In my car, there is a lag of 1.5-2.0 seconds from "hit the gas" to "full
turbo power." I've driven 2 other Aeros and they were similar. Doesn't
matter how fast you're going -- you can be cruising at 4000 RPM and hit
the gas, and the power doesn't fully kick in for over 1.5 seconds.
That's a long time to wait for power if you're trying to pass on the
highway. It's an eternity when you're trying to dart out of a side road
onto a busy street.
Furthermore (again according to the 3 mechanics), because of emission
controls, the turbo apparently somehow spins down EXTREMELY rapidly when
you let off the gas -- faster than I can shift. (I don't see how this
high-inertia turbo can spin down that fast, but it does.) This means
that you face the same turbo lag on EVERY shift. Because the car does
have some power before it maxes the turbo, and because you accellerate
VERY rapidly once you finally spin up the turbo, and because you have to
go through the same cycle on every gear, you end up spending VERY little
time in the "full power" mode. You spend a lot more time in the "geeze
when will this tank finally start moving" mode. It's maddening.
(My car has a 5-speed. I believe the engine may be better matched with
an automatic transmission, which would allow the engine to keep torquing
more steadily than a manual, but that's a guess.)
You'll also find the Aero has (comparatively) very little power off the
line -- the turbo isn't spun up. In 3 years of pretty aggressive
driving, I have NEVER ONCE "burned rubber" in my car. It CAN'T. There
isn't enough power there, from a standing start, to do it. There's
barely enough to get the car moving quickly without choking. Pretty
pathetic for a "sporty" car that was advertised to have a ruler-flat
torque curve all the way down to 1400rpm. (I test drove a 2003 9-3 once
and ACCIDENTALLY chirped the tires several times. After driving my Aero
I just wasn't used to that much torque off the line.)
If you spend all your time on a dynamometer -- like the ones they used to
generate those torque curves -- then the Aero's engine is a monster. The
steady-state power delivery is amazing. It would be terrific if you
climb a lot of mountain roads. It's pretty good for highway driving.
But if you spend a lot of time driving in town, frankly I think it sucks.
If I'd understood this before I bought the car, I wouldn't have gotten
the Aero. I would have gotten the regular turbo 9-5 and probably would
have been a lot happier.
Gary
Johannes - 26 Aug 2005 19:25 GMT
> > Are there any particular "gotchas" I should be on the lookout for with
> > this particular model?
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>
> Gary
Hmm. Perhaps it's not such a bad idea that Saab/GM has now come up with a
new turbo charged 2.8/6 engine with the same power 250bhp.
Trust No One® - 26 Aug 2005 20:13 GMT
> You'll also find the Aero has (comparatively) very little power off
> the line -- the turbo isn't spun up. In 3 years of pretty aggressive
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Pretty pathetic for a "sporty" car that was advertised to have a
> ruler-flat torque curve all the way down to 1400rpm.
LOL! This reminds me of a past episode of a popular UK motoring program "Top
Gear". The presenter was showing off a Japanese performance car - forgot the
make/model I'm afraid. The program showed dramatic footage of the presenter
in the Japanese car easily keeping pace with a Lamborghini Countach on the
test track - indeed the pressure got to the driver of the Countach and he
spun it!.
The presenter then pointed out that while the car was seriously fast, it had
serious issues with turbo lag. To demonstrate he lined up with a dinky 1.1
litre Ford Fiesta (or similar) and they both floored the accelerators
together. The dinky 1.1 litre car easily left the Japanese in its wake from
a dead stop! It was quite a while before the turbo kicked in and the
Japanese car came up to speed.
I guess the Hot Aero isn't as bad as this though!

Signature
Peter <X-Files Fan>
Please Note: Emailed replies cc'd / bcc'd , containing HTML or attachments
auto-binned as spam
Sleeker GT Phwoar - 26 Aug 2005 21:14 GMT
>> You'll also find the Aero has (comparatively) very little power off
>> the line -- the turbo isn't spun up. In 3 years of pretty aggressive
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>test track - indeed the pressure got to the driver of the Countach and he
>spun it!.
Yep, that was a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 8 versus a Diablo, not a Countach.
>The presenter then pointed out that while the car was seriously fast, it had
>serious issues with turbo lag. To demonstrate he lined up with a dinky 1.1
>litre Ford Fiesta (or similar) and they both floored the accelerators
>together. The dinky 1.1 litre car easily left the Japanese in its wake from
>a dead stop! It was quite a while before the turbo kicked in and the
>Japanese car came up to speed.
I think it was a family 1.4/1.6 something (renault megane maybe) and it
was 4th gear at 30mph or something equally silly.
That is why the turbo didn't spool.
>I guess the Hot Aero isn't as bad as this though!
Maybe he hasn't spun tyres because if traction control?
Or maybe he drives like my granny? Who knows.

Signature
Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Gary Fritz - 26 Aug 2005 23:42 GMT
In article <3n97uqFfstqU1@individual.net>, dana.scully@usa.xnet says...
> The presenter then pointed out that while the car was seriously fast,
> it had serious issues with turbo lag. To demonstrate he lined up with
> a dinky 1.1 litre Ford Fiesta (or similar) and they both floored the
> accelerators together. The dinky 1.1 litre car easily left the
> Japanese in its wake from a dead stop!
Happens to me quite often, actually.
>>I guess the Hot Aero isn't as bad as this though!
>
> Maybe he hasn't spun tyres because if traction control?
> Or maybe he drives like my granny? Who knows.
Traction control isn't the issue -- it's the same with the traction
control off. I drive like your granny only if she's a wildwoman. :-) I
start out slower than I'd like from stoplights because that's all the car
is capable of. Even after 3 years of learning to baby the thing from a
start, I still occasionally "choke" it because it just doesn't have the
power to start moving the car as quickly as I'm trying to. If I drove
like a granny, there wouldn't be much problem -- THAT it can do.
Similarly with shifting &etc -- you don't notice the "no power, then huge
surge of power" problem if you keep the turbo gauge in the white zone.
But if you do that, any soccer mom in a minivan can pass you, and what's
the point of driving an Aero?
Gary
David Taylor - 28 Aug 2005 09:07 GMT
> control off. I drive like your granny only if she's a wildwoman. :-) I
> start out slower than I'd like from stoplights because that's all the car
> is capable of. Even after 3 years of learning to baby the thing from a
> start, I still occasionally "choke" it because it just doesn't have the
Any other 9-5 Aero owners want to comment because this doesn't sound
right to me?
NeedforSwede2:Understated. - 28 Aug 2005 12:08 GMT
>> control off. I drive like your granny only if she's a wildwoman. :-) I
>> start out slower than I'd like from stoplights because that's all the car
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Any other 9-5 Aero owners want to comment because this doesn't sound
>right to me?
Agreed. I can understand the "big" turbo on a 9-5 Aero being smaller
than similar on say an old C900, but that should make it easier to get
off the line.
I know that European C900's got a lot higher compression than US models,
which made them a lot more "driveable" off boost, and my new convertible
seems perkier than my old '84, so I guess it has the Mistu rather than
the Garrett turbo. I wonder if the US 9-5 Aero was a lower compression
beasty too, which made it more sluggish

Signature
Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Pooh Bear - 27 Aug 2005 12:12 GMT
> > Are there any particular "gotchas" I should be on the lookout for with
> > this particular model?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> The HOT engine can crank out an amazing amount of power. The trouble is
> that it very seldom delivers it when I need or want it.
I was looking at the secs for the HOT engine about a wek ago.
I was surprised to see that although it produces more power than say the 9000
Aero, it's way down on torque.
Not a good configuration imho.
Graham
Malt_Hound - 27 Aug 2005 12:59 GMT
>>Are there any particular "gotchas" I should be on the lookout for with
>>this particular model?
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>
> Gary
This is very different from my experience with the HOT engine in a 9-3.
The spool-up was rapid enough. It would spin its wheels in gears 1-3
at the drop of a hat. And while it does dump boost whenever the clutch
pedal is depressed, it was not too bad coming back up on boost after a
shift.

Signature
-Fred W
Toys for sale, Hey get your toys here:
<http://users.adelphia.net/~fredwills/>
Peter Wilkins - 28 Aug 2005 00:58 GMT
>(My car has a 5-speed. I believe the engine may be better matched with
>an automatic transmission, which would allow the engine to keep torquing
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>and ACCIDENTALLY chirped the tires several times. After driving my Aero
>I just wasn't used to that much torque off the line.)
>If I'd understood this before I bought the car, I wouldn't have gotten
>the Aero. I would have gotten the regular turbo 9-5 and probably would
>have been a lot happier.
I have a 1998 9-5SE automatic transmission regular turbo (2.3L 4 cyl)
and yes, I have spun the tyres with that, accidentally too, and there
is virtually no noticeable turbo lag either. You would have been
happy with one of those instead of the Aero, I am! (Don't think there
was a 1998 9-5 model in the USA - think the first one there was 1999)

Signature
Regards,
Peter Wilkins
Profanity is the crutch of inarticulate @ssholes
David Taylor - 28 Aug 2005 09:05 GMT
> You'll also find the Aero has (comparatively) very little power off the
> line -- the turbo isn't spun up. In 3 years of pretty aggressive
> driving, I have NEVER ONCE "burned rubber" in my car. It CAN'T. There
Ok, mine's a 9000 Aero so apples and oranges maybe but I have no problem
whatsoever with NOT burning rubber, in fact, if I bury the throttle in
1st even when moving, there's a huge tendency for the tyres to break
away and these are Bridgestone S03's so hardly a cheapo high mileage
aka. hard slippy tyre.
David.
Clint Olsen - 28 Aug 2005 17:44 GMT
> If I'd understood this before I bought the car, I wouldn't have gotten
> the Aero. I would have gotten the regular turbo 9-5 and probably would
> have been a lot happier.
I just recently test drove my friend's 2004 9-5 Aero sedan, but he has the
automatic. It did appear that the programmed sport shift mode kept the
engine running at RPMs that were more conducive to keeping the turbo
spooled up when you got on the accelerator. This also seems consistent
with Edmund's recommendation of purchasing the automatic to be able to
better take advantage of the 2.3 HOT's peculiar performance
characteristics.
Alas, the 2005s are all but pretty much blown out due to the GM fire sale.
-Clint