NG900 & OG93 |
Vintage Models |
Clubs & SOC |
Other Cars |
Books Movies & Music |
Member Photo Galleries |
Member Directory |
What's New |
Photo of the Month |
Having owned the others you ask about...
My '89 C900 was a 16v non-turbo so it wasn't very fast. My '05 9.2x aero is way faster (no surprise) but you need to keep the revs up. Not much power below 3000 rpm.
The rear driveline takes up a lot of room. The trunk/hatch floor is surprisingly high. Cargo room is a lot smaller than either the C900 or the 9.3.
One handling issue I never liked about the C900 was the short wheelbase, long overhangs, & higher polar moment. That's so much better in the 9.2x.
Our '01 9.3 base feels kinda soft & flexy. It could use the steering rack brace, etc. That's a lot better in the 9.2x.
The other cars got better gas mileage than the 9.2x. But that might be related to my driving habits...
posted by 12.155.9...
Posts in this Thread:
Post a Followup
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
This is a moderated bulletin board - Posting is a privilege, not a right.
Unsolicited commercial postings are not allowed (no Spam). Please, no For Sale or Wanted postings, SERIOUSLY.
Classifieds are to be listed in The Saab Network Classifieds pages.
This is a problem solving forum for over 250,000 Saab owners, so expect to see
problems discussed here even though our cars are generally very reliable. This is not an anything goes
type of forum. Saabnet.com has been a moderated forum since 1988. For usage guidelines, see the
Saabnet.com Mission and Purpose Page. Please remember that you are
not anonymous. Site Contact | Site Donations | Other Sites by SP -
Your address is: 18.104.22.168 - Using CCBot/2.0 (http://commoncrawl.org/faq/) - Logged.