Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:32:55 GMT From: Marc Escuro <mgescuronopsami.com> Subject: Re: Test Drove a 9-5 Aero
Great report here!! But you're comparing the M3 to a 9-5 Aero. Not exactly Apples to Oranges. M3 to Viggen. 540i to Aero. That's nitpicky. I do agree with you about the "soupy" handling of the regular 9-5's. I didn't like it either, and it wasn't handling the corners as aptly as the Aero's. I don't mind the low-profile tires of my Aero. They are very expensive though. That's the only thing. The 2002 Aero's a far improved from the "older" Aero's. It now has the same 5-speed auto as found in the 5-series. Note that the 5-speed auto is made by GM. The engine is bumped up to 250HP. And the seats have better support!!!! I swear, if I hade the money, I'd go get the 2002 Aero and trade in my 2000, just to get the friggin seats!!! The SAAB is a great car. It isn't heavy to drive; it's nimble. My dad's C280 drives like a tank. Hard to drive and takes a while to get used to. The 9-5 has a better look (in my eyes). Hopefully the next-gen 9-5's won't have the cooky looking grills as seein in the 9-X or 9-3X. On 2/17/02 7:32 PM, in article 3C7075E1.CEA6A1C6nopsam.com, "Geoff Goldberg" <geoffreynopsam.com> wrote: > Well at the risk of fanning the flames, my wife and I bought a new family > sports > car about two years ago, and after much hunting, got the Aero. My sister had a > Saab 99 for about 14 years, when she and I had bought cars together. My Alfa > Alfetta at the time lasted about 8 years, but her Saab just kept going! I just > could never fit in the seats comfortably. > > We thought we'd rather have the 9-3, but it just wasn't comfortable enough for > us, and the regular 9-5 was too "soupy" or soft handling, and my wife said she > got car sick. So we go the Aero after much looking and she and I are very > happy. > > The irony is my Alfa 164 finally gave up on being pracical (another 8 year > car, > finally the little stuff is too much of a pain) so I went up to the BMW dealer > and wanted something with rear-wheel drive. So I got a 1997 M-3, and it is an > interesting comparison between the two cars. > > Just some background - I'm an old car buff and own a bunch of Lancias from the > 1950's, and have had both Italian and BMW bikes. I can live without the BMW > attitude, which is painful, but they do some things quite nicely. People > skills > are not their long suit. But they can design some things very well, and some > things poorly. So here is the reveiw and comparison: > > 1. Handling: little to improve on the Saab. Very good family sport sedan. > The > BMW has higher limits, and is more sporty, but the steering effort is too > heavy, > and the twitchiness on the road is painful. I changed the BMW to 16" wheels > from > 17" to ease up the ride. > > 2. Suspension: the BMW chassis is incredibly sophisticated. A bit of > ahard > ride, but very very good. Impeccable. The Saab is good, but could benefit from > better components. BMW still can't figure out chassis flex: I ahd to add an > aftermarket front suspension brace to cut down on the number of squeeeks over > bumps in the city. The BMW brakes are about the best I have ever had. The Saab > is > a good bit heavier. > > 3. Motor - the Saab motor is very very good. The low end torque is great, > and > the turbo is fine. But it is a four cylinder and sometimes makes funny air > intake > sounds, especially slow revs, full throttle. The BMW engine is awesome. So > smooth. > > 4. trans - the Saab tranny is notchy and the shifts a bit cheezy. THe BMW > is > pefect here, no driveline snatch. Easy to use around town. > > 5. practicality - the Saab has a lot of benefits over the BMW. Ease of > access, > more space, its a bigger car. The only place the BMW is better is in the > ventilation, wehre you can actually figure out what is going on. > > 6. looks - I prefer the uniqueness of the Saab, ut the E36 styling of the > BMW > is nice enough. > > 7. Value for the money - the Saab is a great deal. But then again, a 4 door > boy-racer you can drive in the city, has AC, and I can park on the street and > take my kid to school for about $30k (used in 2000) is an interesting thing. > > 8. nits - the Saab tends to have a bit of wind noises from the doors and > the > roof panel. But the BMW is just plain noisy and not so relaxing. The Saab > seems a > bit cheaper, but all the bits seem to work. The BMW is heavy handed in some of > its engineering. > > In conclusion: for a weekend sprint, the BMW is a great car to have. So too, I > rather like it to drive around town, and bop here and there. It is easy to > drive, > very fast, and smooth, and easy shifting. > > The Saab is more relaxed, a better GT car. I'd rather drive it on the highway > for > any distance. We go up to the races from Chicago to Wisconsin (3-4 hour drive, > esp. if we take one of the older cars) and with our 6 year old, no dobut about > which car we take: the Saab. > > So too, I rathe think that Lancia and Saab came together in the 1980's for > good > reason: the idea of comprehensive thoughtful engineering and design runs deep > in > both companies. So if I go to replace the BMW, I may look at a Saab. I am not > too > sure about Viggen torque steer, but I will visit the dealer. > > The MW 5 series is a pretty neat car, but the status issue is a pain. > > One other thing - > neither car does well in the snow as equipped. We bought wheels and tires for > the > Saab too, as the low profile tires aren't great. But it doesn't need the bags > of > sand in the trunk of the BMW! > -- Marc Escuro mgescuronopsami.com mgescuronopsamnet
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
