Date: 29 Jan 2002 10:29:48 -0800 From: micvognopsamail.com (Michael Vogt) Subject: Re: 2002 SAAB 9^3 SE HOT (US) - What do you think?
Thanks H. 9^3 it is. H. <musicboxnopsamrider.co.uk> wrote in message news:<j2ta5u0skaqf54v4rvkd7v7n5r4t6bmk6inopsamcom>... > Michael, I'm about to buy my 3rd Saab from that generation - I had a > 94 NG900 Turbo, I currently drive a 2000 9-3 Cabrio, and I'm about to > buy a 2002 9-3 Aero (not available in the US, but in the UK is > basically a 9-3HOT with the Vigen bodykit and seats). > > In a nutshell, yes I would buy one again - likewise I looked long and > hard at the 9-5, and don't doubt it's a better car, but I still need a > hatch, and don't want a huuuuge estate car. > > I would slap your wrists for buying an auto, but I sympathise with the > traffic problems! The only thing I would say is both of mine have had > the odd little fault, but none of it has cost me - all warranty work, > and I am blessed with an excellent dealer - my last dealer was next to > useless, the current one is fantastic - so keep your ears open to find > a good dealer local to you and you'll be fine. > > H. > > > On 28 Jan 2002 07:49:26 -0800, micvognopsamail.com (Michael Vogt) > wrote: > > >I am thinking of buying/leasing a 2002 SAAB 9^3 with automatic > >transmission (no flaming please - I live in bumper-to-bumper traffic). > > As I live in the U.S., the only available version is the SE 2.0 Turbo > >(I believe it is the HOT). > > > >Is there anything I should know about the car (good and bad)? This > >will be my first SAAB, but I have loved the 9^3/900S from the time I > >saw it after the body change in 1993(?). I especially like the > >utility of the hatchback design with sportiness of the entire car - > >something I understand will not be around with the new 9^3s due out at > >the end of the year. I read some earlier posts and agree that the 9^5 > >is definately more car and a better value - but again, I like the > >utility of the hatch. > > > >Essentially, I guess I want to know if would you buy it again? And, > >is the car solid (read that to mean rattle-free)? > > > >Thanks. > >Michael
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
