Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 02:30:00 +0200 From: "Guy Drieghe D." <guynopsamx.be> Subject: Re: 9.3 - am I disappointed ?
In article <01bee308$0521d760$cd2b00c3nopsamult> , "Luc TINTILLIER" <equipe.systemenopsamir.be> wrote: > Hi Guy, > Hi Luc, thanks for explaining and clarifying these things to me. > Here are some considerations from a (happy but objective) 9-3 owner. > >> Not only does it accelerate like a truck, but it also behaves like one, > especially on slopes... on a 4% slope, while pushing the pedal to the floor > and [I was] unable to go faster than 120km/h. Is that normal... ? > > Alas, yes! 2.0i 16V was introduced in 1986 or somewhat, for the old 900 > model (1200kg). Now the 9-3 weights 1400kg or more with AC! The problem > doesn't come from the power, it comes from the torque (torque = > acceleration capability). A 177Nm torque, especially at 4300rpm, is > definitely insufficient for this car... Western Europe is the last > remaining market where 2.0i engine is offered; everywhere else the engine > range begins with 2.0t 154hp (LPT), and even with 2.0T 185hp in US and > Canada (but 9-3 is considered there as a "niche" model). > Ok, I should have test-driven it first. :( > When I planned to buy a 9-3, I testdrove the 2.0i and I was disappointed: > I've no sporty habits at all, but I like to have some extra power in > difficult situations, such as overtakings... and the 2.0i doesn't have this > capability. > Exactly my problem ! Not a very safe car in such conditions. Maybe Saab (or should I say GM?) should have been less money-hungry, by taken this model out of production ? > If I had wanted a stick, I would have chosen the 2.2TiD. I testdrove it > too, and I was really impressed: you almost forget it is a Diesel... Since > the auto box was unavailable with 2.2TiD, I chose the 2.0t (LPT) 154hp, > probably the best engine/box combination for this type of car, except if > you want to race with everybody :-) . I chose an auto box only for traffic > considerations: I live near Brussels and I suppose you know about the > traffic problems on the Ring... I highly appreciate this auto box, and I > doubt I will buy a manual ever again :-) . > Well, I don't like diesels too much, and I like playing with a manual stick. Manual shifting has this extra 'edge' over auto, imho. >> I could easily fry an egg on an ejected CD. Again, is this normal? > > Err... sorry but I didn't notice that. Yes, when you eject a CD, it's hot, > but not THAT hot, maybe 40°C ? And AC has nothing to do with this > phenomenon, since hot air exhaust is outside of the car, near the rear > bumper. > I was just wondering if the AC had anything to do with it. And yes, it really gets _hot_ ! And only when the radio/CD is on for half an hour or so. I'll check with the garage... >> I find it to be a very noisy car, especially the cooling fan(s?). > > What do you mean with noisy car: inside or outside? If you mean inside, > it's about vent fans: yes they make noise, but the "efficiency/noise" rate > is great. I never had a car so "silent": in my Volvo 440, with vent fans at > full speed, you couldn't listen to each other :-( . > Yes, the inside noise level is ok. It's just the outside noises from the cooling fans, the engine and the wind turbulence which annoy me a bit. Probably has to do with the overall shape of the body, which is clearly more designed for safety than for cx-coefficiency. >> Also the wind noise at speeds higher than 100km/h is rather disturbing... > > Yes, I agree. I think it is because of the windshield shape. BTW I like > almost vertical windshields: you have a feeling of space and you don't get > the sun visor just in front of your eyes... So I considere the wind noise > as "a price to pay" for comfort. Furthermore, the car is well isolated, so > the wind noise seems more important. > True. But my guess is that most of the wind noise comes from the outer mirrors, no ? At least, that's where I feel most turbulence noise is generated... >> The front shield just cracked... while being parked. > > Yikes! I wouldn't have liked that too... :-( . Was it a badly mounted > windshield? I don't know yet - it's still there (I know, risky!). There is no sign of any impact from stones or such. And it's only the outer layer which is broken. >About Saab Assistance, it seems that everybody complains :-( . > Fortunately, the 1st year it's free! Afterwards, I will keep my Touring > Assistance and drop the Saab one... > What is the use of that Assistance (free or not), if they don't give any (assistance) !? Sounds more like a sales or marketing trick to me, which leaves me with a bad taste in the mouth...especially for a brand of cars which claim such excellent (after) service... >> Heavy rainstorm and... the car's windows got all damped within minutes! > > Err... 'comprends pas. Such a phenomenon is practically impossible with an > AC! Sorry but... did you operate the ventilation system well? I mean, > playing with windshield defrosting, AC on, full speed fans, electrical > rearshield defrost, ...? Watch out! if fan speed is on "0", AC and > ventilation don't work! Personally I never had such a problem when driving. > It usually occur at first start, when it rains and the car is outside: with > ACC, I just select the defrost program (electrical rearshield defrost > symbol) and everything disappears within seconds! > Yes, that's what I tried (I do read the manuals ;-)). That's exactly why I was so surprised by it's poor performance. Also, it struck me that the rear window defroster works very slowly, compared to some of the Japanese cars I owned. It took the defroster at least 10 minutes before I could see anything through the rear window again ! >> Back to Honda the next time, or am I overreacting? > > Hmm... too early to say that. Actually, the 9-3 is a GREAT car: it is > solid, comfortable, designed for long distances travels; it has a high rate > safety (crash test results, airbags, SAHR, safety cage, ...), the BEST > seats in the world (for driving, not for relaxing), a wonderful ergonomic > dashboard, a GIANT trunk; the car itself is almost bullet-proof, but > today's cars are stuffed with so much electronic devices (gadgets?) and I > fear about having problems with electronics, since mechanics are not > engineers... However, I'm sorry to say again that the 2.0i engine is a > handicap, and with it the car cannot behave as well as it could be :-( > That sums up perfectly my feeling about the 9.3i ! :) But of course, I'm still new to this car, so I might change opinion after a while (let's hope so, I had great expectations for this Saab thing). As for the safety, I was unhappily surprised that it doesn't come standard with a passenger airbag ! Not done, nowadays, and certainly not within this price class. > If you wonder about 9-3 reliability, I would suggest you to visit "The Saab > Network" Web site at "www.saabnet.com" . It's a VERY good site (not an > official Saab one, thus unbiased) with plenty of info and bulletin boards > about 900/9-3 and 9000/9-5. Each day there are +/- 50 questions on each BB, > and practically each one gets (at least) one answer. > I'm not really doubting the Saab's reliability - although only time will tell. I always have been an avid Honda and Mitsubishi owner, and _never_ever_ had the slightest problem with any of them !! When my little 5-year old Colt is parked outside in the cold and rain for over 2 weeks, I turn the key and that old thing just plain starts and revs up without the slightest hesistation. Today, my 2 weeks old Saab needed 3 retries before it started; which kinda makes me sit up and think whether I made the right choice ? Actually, the Saab is my first European car I bought new in over 20 years, so please forgive my doubts... :) > Good luck with you 9-3! > Thanks for all the advice ! :) -= Guy DD __________________________ Annex Hypermedia Design http://www.annex.be __________________________ And a slice of life http://www.annex.be/life __________________________ New version 6.6 is online !
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
