1979-1993 & 94 Conv [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main C900 Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: Auto or standard transmission? Posted by Notnoel [Email]  (#23) [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Notnoel) on Wed, 7 May 2008 06:28:06
In Reply to: Auto or standard transmission?, Cutshaw, Wed, 7 May 2008 04:47:40 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
I just finished the 5-speed conversion a couple of weeks ago, and I must say that I am in love with the car in newfound ways.
I drove the Autobox for about 2 years and it was OK, but the gas mileage sucked at 18-22 (city-highway). It was convenient for riding around with a drink in my hand (no cupholders), and talking on the cell phone, but 1st is very high (accelerates slowly) and the engine is at 4,000 rpms+ at 75-80 mph. Still, it was OK for what it was, and yes. I did get the car cheap at least in part because of the autobox.
The other issue, is the longevity of the AT. After extensive reading here, the consensus was that these ATs give out very predictably at 155,000 to 160,000 miles. Mine failed at 157,500 - go figure. A seal will blow inside, and suddenly you will have no power whatsoever (like being in neutral). A good $200 flush will likely enable you to drive the 15 miles back from the shop, but not much more.
That being said, the 5-speed is a dream to drive. The gearing provides a powerful response from dead stop through highway speeds. Coupled with the power curve of the turbo, highway driving is extremely nice - the turbo spools up providing acceleration in a fashion similar to the AT kickdown for passing at full speed.
Gas mileage in the 5-speed is also wonderful too. To say I haven't really tried to see what my best mileage will be is rather an understatement (actually, I have been pushing the car around like a drunk 16-year old on saturday night). Anyway, my mileage on my first tank, driving around town (DC area/beltway),like a lunatic, was 22.6 mpg. That's as good or better than the autobox ever got on an extended, all highway, road trip.
A 5-speed conversion, including all miscellaneous parts, and a fully rebuilt tranny from Ericksson Industries (via the saabsite.com), was about $2,200 with me doing all the labor ( you may need to add $500 core charge to that unless you've got a 5-speed to give them as a core). Is not too bad a job, but very time consuming. An independent mechanic will charge you about $1,500 to $2,000 to do the job. You can click on my name above and follow the whole thread of the AT failure and the 5-speed resurrection, if you like.
My suggestion, buy the car with the 5-speed, rather than do the transplant. The best way for you to resolve this is to simply test drive both models. The difference will be immediately apparent. Best-o-luck.
posted by 63.139.1...
, Wed, 7 May 2008 06:28:06 <-- Viewing This Message, Thu, 8 May 2008 03:54:09, Wed, 7 May 2008 14:28:25, Wed, 7 May 2008 18:07:16, Wed, 7 May 2008 19:08:40, Wed, 7 May 2008 14:30:40, Wed, 7 May 2008 14:32:05
, Wed, 7 May 2008 11:56:36
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.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
