Date: 3 Oct 2001 08:00:57 -0400 From: tednopsamack.accurev.com (Ted Ede) Subject: Re: 94 900s vs. 94 9000cse
In article <cFju7.1529$mF4.557979687nopsamter1.starband.net>, FWills <Fred.Willsnopsamam.starband.net> wrote: >The 9000 is a LOT more car than a NG900 (by the way, I thgought that in '94 >900's were still classics) and the 4 cylinder saab engine is much better >than the GM designed V6. Seems like a no brainer! Lack of turbo on the >9000CS is too bad. That makes it a much more fun ride. You might want to >keep looking. There are plenty of them out there... The 94 900 is the first of the NG 900s. The 94 convertable was the old style. The timining belt, which Saab promised would last 100,000 miles needs to be replaced every 35K. They will pay for it for up to 100,000 IIRC. I traded in a 95 900S, 5-speed for a 97 9000CS automatic. (My office moved from the suburbs to boston) The 9000 is much bigger, roomier car, and it handles that way. It's fine but I agree the turbo is *much* more fun (my wife has a 9000 CSE Turbo). Keep in mind the 94 900 will have all of the first year gremlins and the 94 9000 has 5 or 6 years of improvement in it. The 2.3L in the 9000 is pretty bulletproof too. Like any Saab with 100K+ miles, I'd make sure to set aside some cash for repairs if you buy one. ted