Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 10:49:46 -0400 From: KeithG <noonenopsamspring.com> Subject: Re: Looking to buy..
OK, I'll add: If it is a NG900, make sure that the shift linkage (5 sp) is updated to the 97+, that the front strut bearings and strut assys are up to the latest standard (97+), that the snorkel tube is not leaking (gear lubricant on the front edge of transmission and a very hard clutch pedal), that the SID display is not missing pixels and that the clutch cable is properly functioning. The problem is that a car with these 'repairs' is made of unobtanium and still probably flawed if you can find one. Also, a proper comparison is not usually possible. I have a bad taste for these ng900s after my '96 experience and reading about all the other 'issues'. I am sure that the 9^3 is significantly better, but I am still leery enough to not 'suggest' it to someone. The 9^5 on the other hand is a better bet IMO. I have seen 60kmi '99 9^5s for <U$16k. Both front and rear seats are more comfortable in the 9^5 though not as nice as in my 9k or C900 (IMO). KeithG davehinznopsamcop.net wrote: > Someone who looks an awful lot like KeithG <noonenopsamspring.com> wrote: > >>don't settle for a 900/9^3, get a 9^5. > > > Well now, hang on a second. I've got a 9-5 and like it very much. But, the engineering > in both is of equally high standards, and if he doesn't care about a bit more back-seat > legroom, and the creature-comforts that the 9-5 adds, it may be oversimplifying to say > "go for the 9-5". With his budget of $16,000, it'd be pretty tight to try to find > a 9-5 for that, besides. > > Rick, how are you planning to use the car? You mention school - do you have kids? > If you want a hatchback, the 9-3 is your only option...that sort of thing. > > Either car is exceptionally well designed and made. I'd stay away from the V6, but > other than that, no matter what you decide it won't be bad. > > Dave Hinz >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
