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
1989 NA Posted by Snowmobile [Email] (#686) [Profile/Gallery] (more from Snowmobile) on Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:14:02 In Reply to: Most reliable years of the 900?, Winonabat, Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:45:36 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
The 16 valve 2.0L NA engine is bombproof. 1989 was the last year iirc. Totally overbuilt to the extent of being bomb proof. Can not kill that engine.
I disagree with SaabStalker on the 2.1L NA's of the last few model years. I have one, and they came with a bad hg from the factory, and frequently have undergone some level of engine damage as a result of coolant leakage from the bad hg. I've had our 2.1L rebuilt twice already. Really depends how on the ball the original owner was.
However, transmission and rust are the 2 biggest factors in terms of what will kill a c900, not the engine... so I'd be more inclined to go for an engine you like, and personally for me that is the 2.0 turbo. The 2.0NA and even the 2.1 NA are not terribly quick cars (though the low end torque is not bad for an NA engine of that size).
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.