Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 07:57:24 -0400 From: Malt_Hound <Malt_Houndnospamm*yahoo.com> Subject: Re: 9-3 or 9-5?
Al wrote: > Recently nearly bought a 9-5. However, due to oil sludge issues with that > particular car, see previous post, we are out of that deal and looking > again. > > The oil-sludge issue is apparently common on all 95's, not just those Saab > have chosen to give additional warranties on. (Three Saab specialists have > told me this) > > We need a good family car, for around the £4.5k mark. The 95 fit the bill > very well. Size, safety features, value for money and the Saab badge. And > yes, it is pretty important to me that it's a Saab, if I wanted a Honda I'd > be on the Honda group. > > Speaking with another Saab specialist in Sheffield he recommended we go with > a 93. Apart from the oil problem, 95's are considerably more expensive to > repair than 93's. > > Gut feeling is to change tack to the 93. My wife has been driving a NG900S > for the last 4 years and has always enjoyed it. The 93 is essentially a > development of that car, so a) There's historically more SAAB in it than 95, > and b) This means less 'new model' teething problems. > > I really don't want to start a debate about GM/SAAB. I drive a SAAB C900 > Aero, but we need to be sensible here. This will be our main family car for > day to day shopping trips as well as the longer 100 to 500 mile round trips > we do, so another C900 is not an option. > > What do you think? > > 93 for proven reliability > > 95 for extra space and safety. > > Cheers > > Al > > You may want to try to search around and see if you can find a low mileage, late model (1997-1998) 9000. Space, safety and reliability all in one car. Actually, with the hatchback you also get the added versatility of a station wagon with the good looks of a sport sedan. -Fred W
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
