Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 16:59:59 GMT From: "Just Asking" <fakenospaml.com> Subject: Re: So, would you say Saabs are reliable? Thanks and more info.
"Tex" <texnospamm101.org> wrote in message news:o_GdndokbNdrfhbfRVn-uQnospamast.com... > It narrows down what you value more in a car. However, it leads to the > more relevant question...how long do you expect to drive a vehicle? If > you don't expect to drive a car for more than say 50k miles (common these > days), then long term reliability is probably not so important (unless of > course you're buying a _really_ used car..say one w/125k miles+ on the > odometer). But if you dont expect to log more than 50k miles, then those > little nagging issues become all the more relevant (as those are more > likely to be the issues the driver faces everyday). > > Getting back to the original post, I get the impression that the guy won't > be logging anywhere near 200k miles on the car. In which case, his > concerns over the nagging little day-to-day issues are warranted. This is exactly right. I do keep my cars for many years (8,14, currently 5) years but don't put many miles on them. I don't mind so much say needing major break work after a long time of ownership but the smaller things, like a windshield wiper that overshot its path and kept hitting the window frame which took several visits to 3 different mechanics to fix. Or a fuel gauge which showed a true reading for the first half of a tank but then dropped down to near empty, forcing me to use the trip odometer to gauge how much gas I had left. Repair would have been a major undertaking requiring removing the gas tank said the dealer. Or the small leak that developed under the door which allowed rain water to soak the carpet under the floor mats. The pop up sun roof that developed a small leak requiring me to leave a small bucket on the back floor to catch the drips. The electric window which would sometimes refuse to work but be ok most of the time. A steering wheel where the outer plastic cracked cracked. Etc. Some of these things happened within the first 2 or 3 years and were covered under warranty but it is a major pain to bring the car in and have to wait around the dealer for hours to get these annoyances fixed. (Only my last dealer provided a loaner car and only if they knew they had to keep my car overnight.) These were all American cars. One develpoed a transmission problem about the 11th year but I wouldn't say that was because the car was generally undrliable. I can't say I've had a car that needed a lot of major work since the 70s or early 80s. I have friends who swear by their Toyotas and Hondas, claiming to never need anything but oil changes. Sounds good to me, but the key here is they don;t keep their cars for more than 4 - 6 years. To answer the question many of you asked, I was considering a new 9-3. I liked the safety rating it received a short time ago. But I do hear Volvo and Saab owners talk about their cars being "quirky." If quirky means a lot of little things going wrong but it still starts and runs, I don't consider that reliable. That it should start and run I consider a given. > As for me, I bought a new 9-3 three months ago. It has been in the shop > four times for major defects (brakes, struts, various rattling noises, > radio problems, esp issues, broken seat, broken undercarriage cabling, and > about a half dozen other minor but annoying issues). While I love the > car, these little issues are _very_ annoying and detract from the overall > experience with the car. I'm guessing/hoping my experience is not > typical. But from what I've read, the initial quality reports on the new > 9-3 series is not favorable...that is, achieving just barely above average > results. This does not sound good. Thanks for all the replies so far.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
