 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / January 2006Just a Saab ng newbie question
Although it's our 3rd saab, it's my first (few) time around this ng.The other day, while following a 9000 CD rusted to the bone with my new '06 9-3 aero combi, the question strucked me ; is there a clivage between pre-GM saab owners and post-GM in this ng ? Should I be careful when posting to take that into account ? > Although it's our 3rd saab, it's my first (few) time around this ng.The > other day, while following a 9000 CD rusted to the bone with my new '06 9-3 > aero combi, the question strucked me ; is there a clivage between pre-GM > saab owners and post-GM in this ng ? Should I be careful when posting to > take that into account ? Seems that this is up to what you want. I've never seen a rusted 9000, the body is galvanised steel. Good luck with your new aero combi, very nice one. >>Although it's our 3rd saab, it's my first (few) time around this ng.The >>other day, while following a 9000 CD rusted to the bone with my new '06 9-3 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the body is galvanised steel. Good luck with your new aero combi, very > nice one. I've seen a number of rusty 9k's, and both my '92 and '93 had the beginnings of body rot when I parted with each of them. The road salt they use here in New England (Northeast USA) seems to have no problem getting through even the superior coachwork of the 9000. I'll do just about anything to the engines and drivetrains to keep my cars on the road as they age, but I don't do rust... ;-)  Signature-Fred W > > Although it's our 3rd saab, it's my first (few) time around this ng.The > > other day, while following a 9000 CD rusted to the bone with my new '06 9-3 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the body is galvanised steel. Good luck with your new aero combi, very > nice one. What are you, nuts? I see rusted-out 9k's all the time! Really badly rusted out 9K's. The CS-body cars tend to be in good shape, sometimes a little corrosion around the rear wheelwells etc, but the flat-nose 86-90 ish cars, wow. C900's I have also seen many rusty. Saabs do tend to look good for a long time, and are relatively good on rust. But damn how I hate that lower control arm rust issue on the C900. >>>Although it's our 3rd saab, it's my first (few) time around this ng.The >>>other day, while following a 9000 CD rusted to the bone with my new '06 9-3 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > little corrosion around the rear wheelwells etc, but the flat-nose > 86-90 ish cars, wow. C900's I have also seen many rusty. The C900s tend to be rusty because they handle so well in the snow and ice that they beg to driven under those conditions. Unfortunately, there is usually salt on the road, so the rust becomes an issue. My fir st C900 had rust on the front fenders within 16 years. My 1982 rear wheel drive Volvo has minimal rust - because it was parked in the garage for the winter while I was playing in the snow with the Saab :-) > Saabs do tend to look good for a long time, and are relatively good on > rust. But damn how I hate that lower control arm rust issue on the C900. > Although it's our 3rd saab, it's my first (few) time around this ng.The > other day, while following a 9000 CD rusted to the bone with my new '06 9-3 > aero combi, the question strucked me ; is there a clivage between pre-GM > saab owners and post-GM in this ng ? Should I be careful when posting to > take that into account ? Well..... the C900 owners are justly proud of their steeds. 9000 owners are perhaps more quietly confident of their car's heritage.. There's some debate as which was the last 'genuine' pre-GM Saab but no-one seems to get too excited over it IMHO. Owners of the newer models are equally welcome though. There's a general feeling that V6 versions don't really cut it though. Maybe that's because it was a Vauxhall engine with a timing *belt* . Yuk ! Puzzled about the rusty 9000 btw. Graham >> Although it's our 3rd saab, it's my first (few) time around this ng.The >> other day, while following a 9000 CD rusted to the bone with my new '06 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Owners of the newer models are equally welcome though. Thanks :) > There's a general feeling that V6 versions don't really cut it though. > Maybe > that's because it was a Vauxhall engine with a timing *belt* . Yuk ! We had 3 9-3, 2 4 cyl turbo and the newest V6 turbo ( 1 hatchback, 1 trunk, 1 combi). It's a far superior engine so far compared to the 4 cyl (2 weeks) except for gas consumption but it's new and -20 C outside. Smooth at every RPM and no lag. Don't know where it comes from, but pretty good to me. Before purchasing it, I test drove a BMW 330xi and an A4 3.0 L (both V6) and saw no real difference in terms of performance (winter time testing). So to me, that's a pretty good point of comparison. > Puzzled about the rusty 9000 btw. Well, yes it was rusty. The trunk lid and the back body side behind the wheels were pretty bad. But I live in Montreal, so calcium and winters makes it hard on cars. BTW, I also remember one friend near 1992 who owned a 900. He was so pissed off with electric problem, it was a running gag. > Graham > We had 3 9-3, 2 4 cyl turbo and the newest V6 turbo ( 1 hatchback, 1 trunk, > 1 combi). It's a far superior engine so far compared to the 4 cyl (2 weeks) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > saw no real difference in terms of performance (winter time testing). So to > me, that's a pretty good point of comparison. The BMW is not a V6, it's an inline 6. Big difference in terms of maintenance and longevity. > Although it's our 3rd saab, it's my first (few) time around this ng.The > other day, while following a 9000 CD rusted to the bone with my new '06 9-3 > aero combi, the question strucked me ; is there a clivage between pre-GM > saab owners and post-GM in this ng ? Should I be careful when posting to > take that into account ? Nah, we just think GM SAABers a little dim :) Personally, I'm more than a little jealous of more vintage SAAB owners. My personal fancy is for a Sonett I (but whose is not, eh?) or more realistically, a late 96 V4. I think the problem people have with the GM/SAAB is that the NG900 was an appalling car all round. I'm sorry to NG900 owners, but it is. It's horrible. The Vauxhall Vectra (Opel Cavalier?) that shared the same platform was a far superior car and in fact not at all a bad car. I don't know why putting the same engine into a SAAB made it so bad, but it did. The car was awful. The 9000 continued to be a good (and better) car throughout the release of the NG900, anyway. The influence GM had on SAAB to release V6 cars, too, was equally bad. Come on, since the early 1970s, SAAB focussed on 4 cylinder turbo cars and made them great. Funnily enough, there was a 2.1 900i which "broke the mould" and is not seen too favourably amongst C900 owners. In perspective, the NG900 was around for a mere 5 years and as such those which have survived are probably okay cars. I don't think there is a "pure SAAB" vs "GM SAAB" schism, since the matter of determining "pure SAAB" would be highly contested by our V4 and two-stroking friends here :) I think we see SAAB as SAAB, with or without GM ... Give or take, one little blip. So, no! Post away and pay no heed whatsoever to what vintage of SAAB you own. I've always used my experience to help others, and in fact, I know a little more than I should admit about Vauxhall (Opel) cars and have been known to help the odd NG900 owner here and there :) But ... Shhh! My C900 cred would suffer if that got out ;) Happy New Year everyone, Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >> Although it's our 3rd saab, it's my first (few) time around this ng.The >> other day, while following a 9000 CD rusted to the bone with my new '06 [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > 1989 900 Turbo S > http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ ....don't know where the latest V6 engine comes from but it will have to be good to earn the same reputation as the Saab 2 and 2.3 litre engines. Do V6's need more maintenance than straight 6's? Tell us more! As to whether GM Saabs are considered to be 'proper' Saabs, maybe they will be considered to be so if GM folds or they start making Saabs in China. (Just a joke folks, just a joke...!). > >> Although it's our 3rd saab, it's my first (few) time around this ng.The > >> other day, while following a 9000 CD rusted to the bone with my new '06 [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > ....don't know where the latest V6 engine comes from but it will have to be > good to earn the same reputation as the Saab 2 and 2.3 litre engines. Which will be discontinued when the 9-5 is replaced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_H_engine Recent 9-3s don't use it either. Graham ><snip> >As to whether GM Saabs are considered to be 'proper' Saabs, maybe they will >be considered to be so if GM folds or they start making Saabs in China. >(Just a joke folks, just a joke...!). You Mean they're going to build Saabs in China INSTEAD of Mexico???? There goes the quality <grin>. There are no "pure" cars 'out there' even Porsche is riddled with Bosh products and has a history of VW parts inclusion. GM has a history of good cars and of cr*p. Depends on which one's the bean counters had a large say in. Enjoy your new Saab. I'll stick with my GENUINE 9000 <grin> > I'll stick with my GENUINE 9000 You mean genuine Fiat Croma or Lancia Thema? SignatureMH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '91 900i > > I'll stick with my GENUINE 9000 > > You mean genuine Fiat Croma or Lancia Thema? The similarity is superficial. Some dimensions are identical, e.g. wheelbase. But there is a huge difference in substance. Nothing is transferable. I know because I have owned a Fiat Croma CHT for 10 years and a Saab 9000 for 8 years. > Nothing is transferable. I understand the doors and front window of the 9000 and Fiat Croma are the same. SignatureMH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '91 900i > > Nothing is transferable. > > I understand the doors and front window of the 9000 and Fiat Croma are the same. No they are not. The doors are of the same external shape, but that's all. The doors on the 9000 are heavier, the locking mechanism is different and the window motors are more durable. The doors on the 9000 have a quality feel, whereas the doors on the italian cars are flimsy; the window surrounds on my Fiat Croma rusted, the plastic interior warped and detached. Not so on the 9000. It may be possible to use the Fiat Croma windscreen, but again the window colouring and sun-shade on the 9000 is different. > > Nothing is transferable. > > I understand the doors and front window of the 9000 and Fiat Croma are the same. And the front suspension? SignatureRichard Sutherland-Smith 19 Webb Road, Wanganui 5001, NZ > > > Nothing is transferable. > > > > I understand the doors and front window of the 9000 and Fiat Croma are the same. > > > And the front suspension? Front suspension is MacPherson struts like most transverse engined FWD cars these days. Nevertheless, The Fiat Croma and the 9000 handles very differently. The Fiat Croma turns in nimbly, but the 9000 has great straight line stability, which is nice and relaxing. Class warfare in the NG! Actually a Thema would be fun as lon as it wasn't your only ride. > > I'll stick with my GENUINE 9000 > > You mean genuine Fiat Croma or Lancia Thema? > Class warfare in the NG! Actually a Thema would be fun as lon as it wasn't > your only ride. And you could get a Thema with a Ferrari 3.2L V8 engine. > > Class warfare in the NG! Actually a Thema would be fun as lon as it wasn't > > your only ride. > > And you could get a Thema with a Ferrari 3.2L V8 engine. But a 9K Aero could still smoke it ;> Now THAT's superior Swedish engineering! :D I have a 900 SE V6 with 200K miles... > > > Class warfare in the NG! Actually a Thema would be fun as lon as it wasn't > > > your only ride. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But a 9K Aero could still smoke it ;> Now THAT's superior Swedish > engineering! :D I raise you a humble 2.0L Vauxhall Astra VRX: 152mph, 0-60 in 6.2 ;o So what's the magic in your 2.0L rocketship??? 2 bar of boost?? What's that ticking noise?? Woof. >> > > Class warfare in the NG! Actually a Thema would be fun as lon as it >> > > wasn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I raise you a humble 2.0L Vauxhall Astra VRX: 152mph, 0-60 in 6.2 ;o > So what's the magic in your 2.0L rocketship??? 2 bar of boost?? What's that > ticking noise?? > > Woof. Not mine, I just quoted new car data from Auto Express. Yes, it has a 240bhp turbo, probably gleaned something from Saab. But my point was really that performance as such is not expensive or necessarily exotic these days. > > So what's the magic in your 2.0L rocketship??? 2 bar of boost?? What's that > > ticking noise?? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 240bhp turbo, probably gleaned something from Saab. But my point was really > that performance as such is not expensive or necessarily exotic these days. Yep, definately related to the Saab 9-3's block/head... About the C900 rust issue, the cars are relatively well protected. Except for that lower control arm area. If you analyze the area, you can see how its design traps salt/mud/etc and basically rusts the metal away. It's a high-quality metal and paint, and so will live for 15 years or whatever. But it is a very bad place for your car to rust! Also the door bottoms are bad on rust. The heat shield over the catalyst rusts in <5 years. It's made from cheap, very thin, galvanized steel. The heat from the catalyst just burns it away. Then the heat burns the undercoating off the floor, then the paint. Then the metal disappears. After the metal disappears, the plastic over the asbestos heat sheild goes away, and your wiring melts and by this time the carpet is on fire ;>. The C900 will look "good" and "not rusty" for a very long time. This doesn't necessarily mean the car is actually solid, or even roadworthy. I learned the hard way, having just lost $2500 on a "rust-free" car I sold only to have it come back with serious lower control arm rot so I am told. A repair panel is $200, though I am sure I can weld something up there. But I am very disappointed. Considering the basic design of the car had been around for 20+ years at the time of the construction of the 900 in question, I would hope that Saab would have least learned from their mistake. And I haven't seen a rusty NG900 yet ;> On this whole issue, I have a feeling that 10 years from now, as the late 80s and early 90s majority of "authentic" Saabs tragically kick the bucket, the late 90s and current Saab portfolio will suddenly gain authenticity approval among the Saab community. For some reason, anything that doesn't have 200k on the odometer or isn't nearly 20 years old doesn't cut it with the diehards. :-) I am looking forward to my 2002 Convertible being enviously admired as a classic. :-) ...pablo > On this whole issue, I have a feeling that 10 years from now, as the late > 80s and early 90s majority of "authentic" Saabs tragically kick the bucket, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I am looking forward to my 2002 Convertible being enviously admired as a > classic. :-) Possibly any Saab with the H engine will count ? The last relic of original Saab engineering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_H_engine Graham If anything I'd say the new Ecotec engines (9-3 SS) have more Saab engineering in them than even the original H motoren. If anything I'd say the new Ecotec engines (9-3 SS) have more Saab engineering in them than even the original H motoren. > If anything I'd say the new Ecotec engines (9-3 SS) have more Saab > engineering in them than even the original H motoren. Really? I was of the impression that the H-engine is as pure Saab as it gets. > If anything I'd say the new Ecotec engines (9-3 SS) have more Saab > engineering in them than even the original H motoren. Could you elaborate on that ? Graham The Ecotec engine as it is now called, was developed by Opel and Saab jointly. The Saab version also has it's own heads/bottom end/block which appear to have been recently shared on other GM products (ie supercharged Delta cars, some Opels and Vauxhalls) but partswise it is very much Saab engine, and "engineering train of thought" wise it is mostly a Saab motor. Compared to the original Ricardo motor (ie completely non-Saab) which the H engine evolved from. > The Ecotec engine as it is now called, was developed by Opel and Saab > jointly. The Saab version also has it's own heads/bottom end/block [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Compared to the original Ricardo motor (ie completely non-Saab) which > the H engine evolved from. Phew...... so the Australians only build it! SignatureRichard Sutherland-Smith 19 Webb Road, Wanganui 5001, NZ No that is the 2.8T motor. Which also has Saab heads, turbo system, etc. > The Ecotec engine as it is now called, was developed by Opel and Saab > jointly. The Saab version also has it's own heads/bottom end/block [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Compared to the original Ricardo motor (ie completely non-Saab) which > the H engine evolved from. That's where I thought you were going. Sorry, but I'd submit that an engine with 15+ years of Saab-performed changes, and zero interchangable parts (except the oil filter, unless I'm mistaken) is more a pure Saab design, than an engine jointly designed with Opel/GM. We never had sludge problems with the H engine until after GM came on the scene... > > The Ecotec engine as it is now called, was developed by Opel and Saab > > jointly. The Saab version also has it's own heads/bottom end/block [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > We never had sludge problems with the H engine until after GM came on > the scene... Additionally, I gather that the H engine was a 'joint venture' between Ricardo, Triumph and Saab from the beginning. In comparison how much Saab input is there in the Ecotec ? Is it indeed as good an engine ? I wouldn't expect a generic GM engine to be as long-lived as a Saab one for example. Graham ><snip> >Is it indeed as good an engine ? I wouldn't expect a generic GM engine to be as >long-lived as a Saab one for example. GM isn't all bad. the 350 (5.7L) & 307 (5.0L) would run hundreds of thousands of miles with minimal maintenance. Having said that they have also released quite a few engines "built" by accountant committees. > ><snip> > >Is it indeed as good an engine ? I wouldn't expect a generic GM engine to be as > >long-lived as a Saab one for example. > > > GM isn't all bad. the 350 (5.7L) & 307 (5.0L) would run hundreds of > thousands of miles with minimal maintenance. A 'lazy V8' isn't subject to the same wear and tear as a high performance turbo inline 4 though. Nor does it remotely offer the same power/weight-capacity ratio ! Or fuel economy - by a *long* way ! > Having said that they have also released quite a few engines "built" by > accountant committees. My only experience of a true GM engine is in the Vauxhall Cavalier. I believe it was also a 'Holden' made engine. Not bad actually but one of them was pretty shagged after 180,000 miles. No real complaints but a Saab engine fares better. My current 9000 CSE has 157,000 miles on it and oil consumption ( a good indicator ) is still very low. Graham Fuel economy? 400 horsepower Corvettes get 30 miles per gallon on the highway! It is also entirely aluminium with a plastic intake manifold, and thus rather light for it's power output. It is also very short due to being an overhead valve V8. > Fuel economy? 400 horsepower Corvettes get 30 miles per gallon on the > highway! It is also entirely aluminium with a plastic intake manifold, > and thus rather light for it's power output. It is also very short due > to being an overhead valve V8. 30 mpg? The one guy I knew who had one said he got more like 18-21 on the highway, which still isn't too shabby for what it is, but not great either. It was more like 12-15 around town. Granted his was a few years old, mid to late 90s I think. James Sweet <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Qxnvf.20502$If.16829 @trnddc05: > 30 mpg? The one guy I knew who had one said he got more like 18-21 on > the highway, which still isn't too shabby for what it is, but not great > either. It was more like 12-15 around town. Granted his was a few years > old, mid to late 90s I think. The newer all aluminum engines from GM and Ford get much better highway mileage than the older cast iron engines. They first came out in the early 90s. I had a 1995 Lincoln Mark VIII with the OHC Aluminum V8. It got 26 mpg on the highway. When it kicked into overdrive, it would loaf along at 1200- 1500 rpm running 80-90 mph. Around town I got about 12 mpg. Wonderful highway car though, which is where I drove it 95% of the time. When I got rid of it with 200,000 miles on it, the engine was still running fine, although the rest of the car -- transmission, climate control, brakes, paint, etc, -- was dead or dying. The relatively high highway mileage is pure highway driving only in the top gear. This is a common trick used by GM and Ford to improve the CAFE. The real mileage for most drivers would be city and combined, which would be closer to under 15 MPG and maybe 20 something MPG. Drive the Corvette aggressively and you might even see it drop to below 10 MPG. When my wife drives a four cylinder car, she gets 24 MPG city, when I drive the same car on the same roads, I get 26 MPG. Driving style probably impacts gas mileage more than anything else. > Fuel economy? 400 horsepower Corvettes get 30 miles per gallon on the > highway! It is also entirely aluminium with a plastic intake manifold, > and thus rather light for it's power output. It is also very short due > to being an overhead valve V8. >> That's where I thought you were going. Sorry, but I'd submit that an >> engine with 15+ years of Saab-performed changes, and zero interchangable >> parts (except the oil filter, unless I'm mistaken) is more a pure Saab >> design, than an engine jointly designed with Opel/GM. > Additionally, I gather that the H engine was a 'joint venture' between Ricardo, > Triumph and Saab from the beginning. Nope. that was the 1.75 and 1.85 liter engine before the "B" engine, which came before the "H" engine. Not much in common between the "Triumph" engine and the H engine, if anything. Again, maybe the oil filter. > In comparison how much Saab input is there in the Ecotec ? How much Saab input is there in Saab? How many actual Saab engineers still exist? >>> That's where I thought you were going. Sorry, but I'd submit that an >>> engine with 15+ years of Saab-performed changes, and zero interchangable [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "Triumph" engine and the H engine, if anything. Again, maybe the oil > filter. Indeed! Even the B type was substantially redesigned from the Triumph engine. There were a few internal common parts, but hey, bolts are bolts :) It could still be called a derivative, but the H type in no way could be thought of as a derivate of the Triumph - it's completely different. Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ Well the H is a derivative of the B, and the B is a derivative of the Ricardo-designed Triumph unit, then Socrates says H is a derivative of the Triumph ;> > Well the H is a derivative of the B, and the B is a derivative of the > Ricardo-designed Triumph unit, then Socrates says H is a derivative of > the Triumph ;> ... and they're all "derivatives" of the Model T, too, but ... I see what you're trying to say, but you're wrong. Sorry. Simple as that! The B type is so far removed from the Triumph engine, that it might as well be a new design. The H type is, again, a world away from the B type. Okay, the 8V H type bears a number of similarities to the B type, but it is still distinctly different. I know that H type knowledge can be translated to assist a B type owner, but it's still "on the H type, I'd do this ... Your B type may be different". You're on a loser, mate :) The H type is "pure SAAB' ... Simple as that! I have one of the last of the 8V H types, which is the real essence of classic 900 motoring ... 16V? Pah! Just to start another fun flame war :) Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ [...] > I have one of the last of the 8V H types, which is the real essence of > classic 900 motoring ... 16V? Pah! Just to start another fun flame war :) > > Paul Not to mention B202 versus B204. The B204 was introduced from MY 1994, but I've been quite happy with the B202, less fuss end energy waste. But I remember I was concerned at the time, as marketing told us that balancer shafts were a must-have in this class of car. > I have one of the last of the 8V H types, which is the real essence of > classic 900 motoring ... 16V? Pah! Just to start another fun flame war :) Having never driven an 8V 900, only a 16V what's the difference other than less power? I've driven plenty of 8V Volvos but never a 16V so I can't really compare in either case. > Having never driven an 8V 900, only a 16V what's the difference other than > less power? Nostalgia? :-) >> I have one of the last of the 8V H types, which is the real essence of >> classic 900 motoring ... 16V? Pah! Just to start another fun flame war :) > Having never driven an 8V 900, only a 16V what's the difference other > than less power? I've driven plenty of 8V Volvos but never a 16V so I > can't really compare in either case. It's more like the Triumph original ... LOL :))) The 8V SAAB is a very similar engine indeed to the 8V Volvo. I think there's more low end grunt. It seems sharper off the line. I also prefer the sound of the 8V over the 16V. It's a personal preference. If my car was totalled tomorrow, I'd look for another 8V. I just prefer 'em. Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ > Well the H is a derivative of the B, and the B is a derivative of the > Ricardo-designed Triumph unit, then Socrates says H is a derivative of > the Triumph ;> Sure, and we all owe a debt in that case to Dr. Otto, right? Doesn't mean that the H engine has anything in common with his engines, aside from concepts. The real question is how many of the current GM Saabs will last 10 years or 200,000 miles. The engine may be fine, but all of the GM electrical components will be dead. How many luxury cars that cost over $40,000 new will be on the road with broken SIDs, AC, power seats, and power windows? The dead DI cassettes or dead computer controlled automatic transmission will definitely keep these cars off the road. Price may not even be an issue - especially if the major parts (computer boards) are not available at any price in 10 years. Insurance companies will total a 10 year GM Saab after a minor accident because the damage is more than 75% of the current value. Think about a crash where the bumper/lights/hood are damaged. Add the cost of all those airbags. Now think about how quickly GM Saab depreciate - do the math. A 1996 900 convertible is worth $3,600, 75% of that is only $2,700. Anyone been to a body shop lately? > On this whole issue, I have a feeling that 10 years from now, as the late > 80s and early 90s majority of "authentic" Saabs tragically kick the bucket, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ...pablo > those airbags. Now think about how quickly GM Saab depreciate - do the > math. A 1996 900 convertible is worth $3,600, 75% of that is only $2,700. > Anyone been to a body shop lately? That may be as you say, but how much is a '90 900 worth? Or a 1982, if they still drive around? ...pablo >> those airbags. Now think about how quickly GM Saab depreciate - do the >> math. A 1996 900 convertible is worth $3,600, 75% of that is only $2,700. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >...pablo Probably around the same money. For most vehicles it all depends upon condition after about 8 years. Might be $50 might be $5,000. Most insurance companies pay about $1000 for "basic transportation." which is what most vehicles of advanced age are defined as. >>>those airbags. Now think about how quickly GM Saab depreciate - do the >>>math. A 1996 900 convertible is worth $3,600, 75% of that is only $2,700. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > insurance companies pay about $1000 for "basic transportation." which > is what most vehicles of advanced age are defined as. The sad part is, the GM Saab cost over $40,000 (cost plus financing) new. To end up valued at $1,000 in 8 to 10 years is really sad. In the year 2016, who would spend $10,000 to fix up a 10 year 9-3 when it is worth $2,000. > The real question is how many of the current GM Saabs will last 10 years > or 200,000 miles. The engine may be fine, but all of the GM electrical > components will be dead. My NG900 will soon be 11 years old, everything, and I mean everything, works perfectly. Apart from a headlamp bulb sensor unit, bulbs and spark plugs no electrical items have ever been replaced. >> The real question is how many of the current GM Saabs will last 10 years >> or 200,000 miles. The engine may be fine, but all of the GM electrical [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > electrical > items have ever been replaced. I also think the NG900/9-3 up until the SS don't go overboard on irreplacable electronics. The SID display is a known weakness, however it's not like the cars will be undrivable without it. I totally like older Saabs because of their appeal, however I do not buy into the whole "they were better cars" nostalgia. Nor did they hold their value any better than post-94 Saabs. I recall I could not lease a Saab in '90 as a company car because of the residual value - the standard issue BMW 318 was infinitely superior in that respect against the old, classic 900 in the latter's heyday. ...pablo > I totally like older Saabs > because of their appeal, however I do not buy into the whole "they were > better cars" nostalgia. Nor do I! I do buy the "they were better cars, fact" thing, though :) Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >>>The real question is how many of the current GM Saabs will last 10 years >>>or 200,000 miles. The engine may be fine, but all of the GM electrical [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > because of their appeal, however I do not buy into the whole "they were > better cars" nostalgia. WHat normally happens to the SIDs anyway? Being an electronics geek I'd be curious to have a look at a dead one. > WHat normally happens to the SIDs anyway? Being an electronics geek I'd > be curious to have a look at a dead one. Far as I've read, it's that flexi-board crap, in an iffy-contact to the edge of the display board, which corrodes. I'd guess it's a straight matrix addressing, based on the failure mode usually being horizontal or vertical groups of pixels. I find it hard to believe that connector technology hasn't been figured out. > > WHat normally happens to the SIDs anyway? Being an electronics geek I'd > > be curious to have a look at a dead one. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I find it hard to believe that connector technology hasn't been figured > out. I'm sure the connector technology exits. For some reason though car makers seem to like trying their own methods. Graham >>The real question is how many of the current GM Saabs will last 10 years >>or 200,000 miles. The engine may be fine, but all of the GM electrical [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Apart from a headlamp bulb sensor unit, bulbs and spark plugs no electrical > items have ever been replaced. I have 2 - 8 year old 900's, both model year '98's, both with about 100k miles. I have done nothing but preventive maintenance to them in the past 2 years. These NG, GM SAABs suck, huh? To be honest with you, I don't think the classic SAAB electrics were all that spiffy... It was the mechanicals that were always a cut above. Signature-Fred W You ever have problems with GM electronics? I remember crumbling wiring like on the 1985-1986 900's... and - you'd be hard pressed to find an 1985 or 1986 900 still on the road. Crash wise, a NG900/9-3 is much simpler and easier to fix. No huge expensive hood like the C900, no *welded* fenders like the 900, etc. Plus the NG900 / 9-3 front end is designed with deformable "boxes" behind the bumper and ahead of the frame rail. So in an impact enough to destroy the bumper (and otherwise bend the frame), the box will take the brunt of the impact, and all you need to do is bolt on new boxes and a new bumper, instead of putting the car on a frame jig. Insurance companies totaling 10 year old cars is nothing new. It's much worse when they are totalling 6 month old BMW's because nobody knows how to repair the chassis. > You ever have problems with GM electronics? I remember crumbling wiring > like on the 1985-1986 900's... and - you'd be hard pressed to find an > 1985 or 1986 900 still on the road. Has it ocurred to you that the age of the wiring might have something to do with its condition ? Graham > Has it ocurred to you that the age of the wiring might have something to > do > with its condition ? How do wires age? What mechanical stress is electrical wire exposed to? Even questionable quality electical wire will stay around for a while. Most local phone loops are a testimony to that... ...pablo >>Has it ocurred to you that the age of the wiring might have something to >>do [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ...pablo The problem was a biodegradable insulation they used for a while on some cars. It was fine throughout most of the car, but when exposed to extreme heat or engine fluids the decomposition was greatly accelerated. I didn't realize Saab used this stuff too but apparently they did for a few years. If you have a car with that problem you'll know it. Wires on and around the engine will have the insulation crumbling off anywhere they're exposed. > > Has it ocurred to you that the age of the wiring might have something to > > do [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > questionable quality electical wire will stay around for a while. Most local > phone loops are a testimony to that... Wiring is typically aged most by heat and also in the case of cars, exposure to various chemicals. A car environment is fairly arduous. Graham Particularly the main harness that runs over the exhaust on the 900. The heatshield over the catalyst vapourizes and it burns the wiring on the other side of the floor. The 85-86 were particularly bad due to a poor insulation... 84's are safe though. Hey I have five C900's. Great little cars. But, many faults. Still, excellent ergonomics and road performance make up for it. Plus I can tell girls in bars that I drive a Saab. > Plus I can tell girls in bars that I drive a Saab. It beats most brands of car for pulling power. ;-) Graham It's the rolling of the "a"'s. Makes it sound very expensive and dignified. I like that ;>. > You ever have problems with GM electronics? I remember crumbling wiring > like on the 1985-1986 900's... and - you'd be hard pressed to find an > 1985 or 1986 900 still on the road. There's loads of them around here, dunno, maybe people replaced the wiring harnesses, Volvo had the same problem for about 8 years, I just got done rebuilding the harness in my 740, it was a pain in the a.s when it failed suddenly and left the car dead in it's tracks but then it did make it some 273K miles before that happened. ><snip> > >Insurance companies totaling 10 year old cars is nothing new. It's much >worse when they are totalling 6 month old BMW's because nobody knows >how to repair the chassis. It's only worse if you're not BMW selling the same car twice :-) >><snip> >> >>Insurance companies totaling 10 year old cars is nothing new. It's much >>worse when they are totalling 6 month old BMW's because nobody knows >>how to repair the chassis. If I had a 6 month old BMW that got hit hard enough to bend the frame I'd want it to be totalled too. In an accident like that the car is just never completely the same no matter what, and the resale value is lowered accordingly. > You ever have problems with GM electronics? I remember crumbling wiring > like on the 1985-1986 900's... and - you'd be hard pressed to find an > 1985 or 1986 900 still on the road. It's precisely that era of C900 that is plentiful where I live. My '89 is a spring chicken compared :) I'm green with envy every time I see a flat nose C900 ... Damn, I miss that car :( Over time, the wires do go "green" at the ends, but a cut and splice when things start to go soft seems to fix most issues. I wouldn't call it crumbling ... That's much more for cheap Euro-tat cars! Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >> You ever have problems with GM electronics? I remember crumbling wiring >> like on the 1985-1986 900's... and - you'd be hard pressed to find an >> 1985 or 1986 900 still on the road. >It's precisely that era of C900 that is plentiful where I live. My '89 is a >spring chicken compared :) I'm green with envy every time I see a flat nose >C900 ... Damn, I miss that car :( >Over time, the wires do go "green" at the ends, but a cut and splice when >things start to go soft seems to fix most issues. I wouldn't call it >crumbling ... That's much more for cheap Euro-tat cars! Lol well some of the wires in my early-80's C900's are definitely crumbling. Well more to the point - it's the insulation that's crumbling, leaving bare tarnished copper strand bundles behind! The stuff that creates short-circuits and can be a potential fire hazard if not sorted out early on... Especially around the hottest parts of the engine such as turbo, exhaust manifold, engine block itself, etc. Craig. SignatureCraig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide! Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc. > >> Although it's our 3rd saab, it's my first (few) time around this ng.The > >> other day, while following a 9000 CD rusted to the bone with my new '06 [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > be considered to be so if GM folds or they start making Saabs in China. > (Just a joke folks, just a joke...!). Australia, I'm sorry to say! SignatureRichard Sutherland-Smith 19 Webb Road, Wanganui 5001, NZ or from Subaru ;( >> > in article %SBtf.117577$ZG5.1617193@weber.videotron.net, Junkyard >> > Engineer [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >> > Australia, I'm sorry to say! Not no more... GM sold off their stake in Fuji Heavy (Subaru's parent). Jeremy > or from Subaru ;( > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >> >>Australia, I'm sorry to say! except that Saab still carries out the 9-2X from Subaru. > Not no more... GM sold off their stake in Fuji Heavy (Subaru's parent). > [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] >>> >>>Australia, I'm sorry to say! >> ....don't know where the latest V6 engine comes from but it will have to be >> good to earn the same reputation as the Saab 2 and 2.3 litre engines. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >Australia, I'm sorry to say! Yes I believe it's a product of GMH here in Australia. I'm not sure if it's a fully-original design but GM in the US like the engine so much they're planning to use it in quite a number of their brand platforms, including Saab. For some reason Holden has actually got a very good team of people designing powerplants. After all the Holden Commodore (which the Monaro that's sold in the US as a different badge) is one of Australia's most popular cars. Doesn't mean they're any good though. 8-) Craig. SignatureCraig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide! Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc. Re: The dim view of V6 engines. As SAAB driver since '68, I can say that from a personal perspective that a good deal of the SAAB allure is the presence of elegant engineering. Any time an engineering team can make 1 work better than 2, I get all warm and runny. Knowing full well that the boys at SAAB have NEVER designed an engine from the "ground up", I have always been amazed with the results of their magic with otherwise bland or inferior powerplants. Their secret, it seems to me, stems from identifying solid, basic, fundamental engine designs and making the best of it. A 3 cyl. 2 stroke is an inherently smooth, well balanced design. Likewise the 4 cyl. 4 stroke as long as the stroke stays under 3 ". And when they had to go over 3" stroke they did it so well that they lost nearly no durability. Astounding. It is a suspicious coincidence that SAAB's first foray into the dark world of inherently UNstable engines (read: V6) came as their GM associates started their quest for full ownership. To more than a few SAAB enthusiasts, it has a high "Yuck" factor. The basic math of a 6 cylinder engine works fine with an in-line 6 journal design. Works well with a flat 3 journal design too. But to make a V6 work you have to start messing with heavily compromised concepts like split journal cranks, wildly fluctuating thrust angles and multiple harmonic balancers. There's a reason why Ferrari, Maserati, Citroen, Peugeot, Renault, and Volvo have all backed away from this concept. A V8 race engine is a more dependable and economical powerplant than a V6. The concept sucks at a very basic level. With bottomless pockets and limitless brilliance (Toy, Hon) you can make a robot that jumps, a V6 that works (pretty much) and a pig that flies. But why bother when a blown OHC 4 does it all for 200k mi.??!! I'll buy a 6 cyl. SAAB the same day I buy a 6 wheeled SAAB. Woof. >> in article %SBtf.117577$ZG5.1617193@weber.videotron.net, Junkyard >> Engineer [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > will be considered to be so if GM folds or they start making Saabs in > China. (Just a joke folks, just a joke...!). |
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.