Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 14:00:18 -0700 From: Justin VanAbrahams <jvanabranopsamnet> Subject: Re: SPG or 9000
Luke Krummel wrote: > > I may have the chance to pickup a used Saab probably in the 87-89 > range...I am considering an > SPG or a 9000 Turbo or a Taurus SHO, Anyways which car the SPG or the > 9000 do you think > would be better. I will be a college student and am looking for > something Sporty/Econimical/Can > still bring 4 friends somewhere...emphasis on Sporty. Which car is > faster an SPG or a 9000T > ....Any Opinions Welcome > Trent I've owned all three - in fact, there was a point at which I've owned all three at the same time. Weird, eh? Anyway, the SPG was the smallest, the SHO next up, and the 9000 was the largest in terms of trunk and interior space. Despite the fact that the SHO is larger on the outside (and least longer) the 9000 is MUCH bigger on the inside. Rear seat passengers are generally not happy in an SPG, okay in the SHO, and people are actually *comfortable* in the back of a 9000... :) But, with the rear seat folded down you can sleep in an SPG. Not so in the SHO, which does not have a folding seat. Annoying. The 9000 was the slowest, the SPG the middle, and the SHO the fastest. Keep in mind when I say slow, I am not talking about Geo Metro slow - the 9000 was a VERY fun car to drive, and certainly capable of holding its own. But the SHO has a sub-7 second 0-60 and you can really tell. But, since the 9000 and 900 are both turbos, they have LOTS of torque and don't suffer much from having several people in the car. The SHO did. Also, both Saabs are much better at slow speeds, because they have lots of torque at low RPM, whereas the SHO needs to be revved up for any power. Gas mileage was the opposite - the 9000 got the best, the SHO got the worst. All three cars have roughly an 18 gallon tank. The 9000 could get 400 to 500 miles on a tank of freeway driving; the 900 between 350 and 400, and the SHO usually between 300 and 350. The SPG suffered the worst from hard driving - gas mileage would take a serious plunge. The 9000 and SHO didn't seem as bad, each still managing over 300 miles per tank. I found shifting in the SHO to be really horrible, the SPG alright, and the 9000 the best. My SHO was an '89, so it had a cable shifter which is notoriously inaccurate and hard to shift, and the clutch was vastly too small. At high RPM (6000 or 7000 or so) the SHO would have trouble getting into 2nd gear. The shifter is also real notchy and a pain in traffic. I do not believe that the 9000 has a good shifter either, but it's definitely the most pleasant and easy going in traffic. The SPG was easy to shift, but still not a good shift. I've never had a problem shifting a Saab 900 tranny (I've owned six 900s) but many people complain. The 9000 got the fewest complaints. From a reliability standpoint, I'd say the SHO is the best. But, the SHO does suffer from many known problems, all of which will eventually crop up. Front brakes on the SHO are worthless, and subject to warping. The trannies have been known to go bad, although mine at 100k still feels great. It has a timing belt, so that's a maintenance item. I've never had any issues with mine... but the front brakes are currently warped. It's been a good car so far, and is right now under the care of my dad, who uses it as his daily driver. The 9000 never had any problems when I had it - when I bought it I had to install new motor mounts which ran $700, but other than that nothing cropped up. I put about 25k on it (running from 100k to 125k) and only had normal maintenance items to deal with. It never left me stranded, never had issues starting, or failed in service. The SPG has been the worst, but has never left me stranded or anything like that. Most problems that 900s have are stupid, little problems, like failed vacuum lines or electric switches. Simple things to fix, but annoying that they have to be dealt with... the transmissions are the only major expense a Saab 900/SPG owner will have to deal with - and you *will* have to deal with it. They are not very strong are exceptionally reliable, but take good care of it and it will probably last a good long while. My '85 has almost 200k on the original tranny... but it's definitely not the norm. Most fail at or around 120k or so. Overall, I found the SPG to be the most fun. My current black 19990 SPG is my second SPG, and I've owned four other 900s to boot. I love Saab 900s! The SHO was the second most fun to drive, but it's a tough call whether I'd choose one over a 9000. My 9000 was an '86, with the 2.0l engine, which is part of it. I would almost certainly choose a 2.3l ('90 or later) 9000 over an SHO, in terms of fun and reliability and practicality. Good luck! If you want some other thoughts on buying a 900, check out my website: http://csrtech.sac.bfp.net/saabweb/9cbuyfaq.htm -Justin
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
