Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 19:18:33 GMT
From: r600nopsamejanews.com
Subject: Re: 9-5 SE or GS300


Past Saab's did reflect comparatively poor quality, but above average durability. the new 9-5 and 9-3 are tracking among the best; coming JD power rankings will reflect this. In regard to repair costs, and maintenance costs, the Car Book shows Saab 9-3 and 9-5 lowest in entry luxury, except for those brands (BMW and Audi) that pay for the first three years... In article <36D8B16C.1BB9nopsam.com>, jvanabranopsamnet wrote: > Steve wrote: > > > > Multiple sources have called the reliability of past cars into > > question. The reliability record for the 900 and 9000 listed at > > www.carpoint.com is poor. Consumer Reports, though giving the 9-5 a > > very good review, questions the reliability based on past > > Saab history. > > A couple weeks ago a friend was contesting the reliability of > Saabs, for for fun we called up Carpoint and went through > its reliability ratings of post 1988 Saabs - basically where > Carpoint's info begins. I've owned 8 900s and 4 9000s ranging > from 1984 to 1990, with most concentrated in the '88 to '90 > region. A read just about everything I can on Saab, talk to > people, and do my own research via repairs. I consider myself > fairly 'in the know' about what fails on these older cars, > and I could not correlate any of Carpoint's information with > my own experiene. Granted, my 12 cars vs. Carpoints basis > of hundreds of thousands is pretty insiginificant, but I > can't honestly say I've had problems with ANYTHING they > mentioned, nor has anyone I know... I don't doubt that older > Saabs had some weird problems, but not a single thing I would > personally take into account when considering a car's overall > reliability... > > > The dealer also showed a list of services that would cost > > over $200 every 10,000 miles. The list seemed very basic, > > check fluid levels, belts, etc. and the price steep. The 30,000 (I > > think) tune up list was also extensive and expensive. In this day of > > 100,000 mile tune up intervals, 30,000 miles seems to be quite short. > > Don't look to the dealer. Most will charge you excessive amounts > for basic services. I recently got a mailer from the local > dealer advertising a 50% off sale on oil changes - sounded > good. It included an oil change and filter, and topping off > of other fluids. The price, after discount, was $40. Huh? > Does that mean they actually normally charge $80 for an oil > change? What universe do they live in? Not mine, apparently. > You're best off finding an independant garage for basic > things like that... > > Additionally, don't forget the "100,000 services" don't mean > anything. It's a marketing gimmick. These services that > can be put off for that long include spark plugs, wires, > etc. You'll still be responsible for fluid changes and > refreshes every 5,000 to 10,000 miles just like any other > car. The Saab does have slightly higher requirements for > its services, partly due to its turbocharging, but nothing > above nor beyond the requirements for a Lexus, BMW, or > Mercedes. Actually, Mercedes have the highest maintenance > per mile cost of any production car, I believe. When you > get into higher performance cars maintenance costs go up, > but you won't find these costs out of line on a Saab. > > > The other car I am considering is the Lexus GS300. I don't like the car > > as much, it's rear wheel drive AND more expensive, but it > > promises both low maintenance and high reliability. > > Lexuses (Lexi?) are great cars. You can't beat them for > performance and reliability. They have European pedigree > with Japanese backing. A great package. But you won't get > the driving enjoyment out of them. Comparing a Lexus LS400 > to a Mercedes S500 (and I've driven them both a fair amount) > is like comparing a Corolla to a Ferrari. The MB is more > in tune with the road and definitely would be my preference > for long-term ownership, despite it's ENORMOUS maintenance > costs... My opinion: Saab exciting, Lexus boring. And > I'm not talking about styling, either... in which case it > might be the opposite... :) > > > Are there any significant changes to Saab's in the last couple of years > > that make them a better bet? Any comments? > > Yes. 1994 and 1995 were 'questionable' in terms of reliability, > and mostly the 900s and not the 9000s. The 900, being a > totally new platform being developed under totally new > management, had some bugs. By '96 they were virtually > eliminated (I say virtually just for CYA purposes :) > and I'd have no compunctions about recommeneding a 9-5. > If they made an 'Aero' version of it (with well over 200hp) > I'd be in line to buy... I'm just waiting until I can > buy a 225hp 9-5 Wagon, then sign me up! > > -Justin > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Return to Main Index

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2019 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Saabnet.com Mission and Purpose Page.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]