Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Saab Cars / March 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

V6 9-5 - is it worth the risk?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bill Jackson - 20 Mar 2006 23:58 GMT
I've read a lot about this in the past few years here, seems that there is a
good bit of apprehension abut the 3.0l V6 in a 9-5.  I have to say that I
never really paid a whole lot of attention.  Turns out that the back posts
aren't archived on my news server so I can't go look them up.

I am looking to replace my '99 SE 4-cyl and came across a very nice looking
2003 with a 6-cyl.

What's the downside?
Dave Hinz - 21 Mar 2006 00:06 GMT
> I've read a lot about this in the past few years here, seems that there is a
> good bit of apprehension abut the 3.0l V6 in a 9-5.  I have to say that I
> never really paid a whole lot of attention.  Turns out that the back posts
> aren't archived on my news server so I can't go look them up.

They're always available at google.com - click on the "usenet" tab.

> I am looking to replace my '99 SE 4-cyl and came across a very nice looking
> 2003 with a 6-cyl.

What do you need for the '99 4-cyl?  What's wrong with it?  Auto, or
stick?
James Sweet - 21 Mar 2006 02:51 GMT
> I've read a lot about this in the past few years here, seems that there is a
> good bit of apprehension abut the 3.0l V6 in a 9-5.  I have to say that I
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> What's the downside?

Poor fuel economy, difficult maintenance, less power than the 4 cyl
turbo, lower resale value, etc.
SmaartAasSaabr - 22 Mar 2006 02:43 GMT
Well the V6 was 200 hp and the 2,3 turbo was 185...

Maintenance isn't that difficult having looked under the hood...

*Lower* resale value?

And the V6 has none of the turbocharger and oil sludge problems that
plague the four-banger models.

Personally, I like the 4-banger better - usually better economy and it
comes with a stickshift, and it feels more "Saaby". But honestly, the
V6 does not deserve to be dragged in the mud continuously when in
*reality* the V6 is a much cheaper and safer option in a used 9-5 of
questionable history. If you know the 9-5 you want to buy has always
had the oil changed with Mobil 1 or somesuch at 3000 miles on the dot,
then you aren't really in a bad spot. But if you don't know, a lot of
bad things can be lurking under the hood of a 4-cylinder 9-5.
John Hudson - 22 Mar 2006 06:49 GMT
> Well the V6 was 200 hp and the 2,3 turbo was 185...
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> And the V6 has none of the turbocharger and oil sludge problems that
> plague the four-banger models.

For what its worth I have just sold my 1995 2.3 non turbo 900S. It had 57k
miles, perfect condition both mechanically and electronically. Never used
synthetic oil  as not vital in non turbos, use best non syn changed often
enough. Every type / make of engine will get sludge under certain
conditions. Personally I am not keen on V6's in confined bonnet/hood spaces
and they are almost twice the work if you have head gasket problems. A
straight 4 with balancer shafts is a sensible simple solution.
SmaartAasSaabr - 22 Mar 2006 19:18 GMT
> > Well the V6 was 200 hp and the 2,3 turbo was 185...
> >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> and they are almost twice the work if you have head gasket problems. A
> straight 4 with balancer shafts is a sensible simple solution.

Are you following the 9-5 4-cyl drama (at least here in North America)?
All the 9-5 models are turbocharged, 4 or 6. Saab recommended a 10 000
mile (16 000 km?) oil change interval. As well, they installed smaller
low-friction piston rings, a lower-friction oil pump, an OBD-II
compliant PCV system and several other enhancements that really give a
much better fuel efficiency on these new motors, designated B205 (2,0
litre not in North America) and the B235 (standard 9-5 USA market
motor). However, this puts a lot more stress on the engine oil than you
had with the older B204 and B234 engines. Of course, since Saab said
change oil at 10k miles, people are putting in the 69 cent at Wal Mart
a quart oil and changing it at 12k or more miles and putting a crappy
Fram or something oil filter that clogs and goes into bypass at 6 k
miles.

Result - engine starts to sludge up. The timing chains start to make a
little rattling and in no time the engine is junk. This is a far cry
from the old B202 engines that basically could use molybdenum grease
for oil and run a billion miles and still look like new on the inside.

If the engine is properly maintained the B2x5 engines can run a very
long time as well and serve the owner with excellent economy and
performance, especially in R tune. However unless you have a proper
maintenance log for it (and then Saab's 8-year warranty will apply too)
it might be better to not touch it. Mind you, 9-5 Aero cars
(particularly manual transaxle) probably had "more enthusiast" owners
who took much better care of them...
James Sweet - 22 Mar 2006 06:59 GMT
> *Lower* resale value?

Everyone always says to avoid them, the turbo 4 cars sell for
substantially more, at least around here.
 
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.