Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 03:43:40 GMT From: "Todd Meaney" <tmeaneynopsam.com> Subject: Re: used '96 vs '98 900's
Depends on how you like to drive. The 900SE is a fast cars that handles very well. The 900s is also nice, but not as fast, doesn't handle anything like the SE. I myself own a 96 900SE and like everything about it, though right now it needs a few seals, blower motor, radio head unit, and clutch (result of the rear main seal leaking). I think most of the problems I am encountering are related to the dealer where I bought my car... Anyway check out www.kbb.com. The SE you are looking goes for about $26k retail and the s for about $16k. The short answer is that I think the SE is the much better deal and a lot more fun to drive. Before buying however find a place you trust to check the car out. Also if they offer an extended power train warenty, take it. I bought an additional 3/36 for mine for about $1200, it has already saved me about $2000. Anand Modi <delockenopsamdnet.att.net> wrote in message news:38C6FE1C.263563EBnopsamdnet.att.net... > I'm looking for an opinion on what to buy-- i recently lost my beloved > 92 acura vigor in an accident. I loved that car because it was so unique > (2.5L inline-5 cylinder engine). So I started looking for a car that was > just as unique, and in the same general category as my vigor (compact > 4-door sport sedan). the search led me to my local saab dealer, and i > was presented with 2 options: > 1996 900S, ~37K miles, off a 48 month lease. 5 speed: $16,500, auto > $16,900 > 1998 900SE Turbo (w/ leather and the like), ~28K miles, off a 24 month > lease, includes 4 snow tires on rims in addition to normal street tires, > $21,000 > > which is a better deal? is there a substantial difference between the > turbo and the normally aspirated engines? are there any mechanical > issues inherent to either model that i should take into consideration? > thanks > > aj >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
