Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 13:05:58 +0100 From: "DervMan" <thedervmannospaml.com> Subject: Re: 9000 CS vs. Aero...what's the difference?
"Johannes" <joh-stop-spam-snospamstop-spam-efitter.com> wrote in message news:44D3A8B3.BAABDEA5nospamstop-spam-efitter.com... > > > Nasty Bob wrote: >> >> Jon R. Pickens wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I'd found a '97 9000 Aero that I was going to buy, but the seller was >> > less than motivated to be rid of it. >> >> That's understandable :) >> >> > What's the difference between the two cars? >> >> The Saab 9000 was available in 5 basic flavours - >> 2.0 litre low pressure turbo (LPT) >> 2.3 litre LPT >> 2.0 litre Full pressure trubo (FPT) >> 2.3 litre FPT >> 2.3 litre FPT Aero (Hot) >> >> If you like fast cars, hold out for a 2.3 FPT or Aero. >> If you like to cover a lot of miles in comfort go for the LPT's. The >> LPT's or "eco-power" models have turbos, but use them mainly to help >> efficiency so they get slightly better mpg. >> >> I used to have the 2.0 CS LPT. Recently got an Aero & the difference is >> incredible. The LPT covered 0-60 in around 10 secs, my Aero does it in >> just over 6.0 so I find it a lot more fun to drive :) IMHO > > I don't think there is a 2.0 FPT. The choice really depends on his > requirements. > The 2.0 LPT is plenty fast, cheaper to insure and maintain. The 2.0 LPT is > an > excellent daily car and cost very little to run, provided oil change > intervals > less than 6000 miles are fastidiously adhered to. My 1993 2.0 LPT is still > sweet. I can't remember seeing a 2.0 FPT and can't see where it'd fit in the range, either. The 2.3 turbo was available with 170, 200 and 223 bhp... wasn't the 900 / 9-3's 2.0 turbo available with 150, 185 and 200 bhp (more or less in each case)? > It's of course not as racy as an aero, but how often do you need this > performance? Hmm. One part reckons that you can never have too much power! :) On the other hand if I were wanting a 9000 it'd be the 2.0 LPT. -- The DervMan www.dervman.com
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
