1979-1993 & 94 Conv [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main C900 Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
My Own $0.02 Posted by Justin VanAbrahams [Email]  (#32) [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Justin VanAbrahams) on Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:37:42
In Reply to: 900 vs. 9000 comparison, Ron, Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:34:24 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
Having owned like a dozen 900s and, er, three or four 9000s I figure I'll throw in what I know:
1. 9000s are, pound for pound, more reliable than a 900. There are a lot fewer deviations in build quality than 900s and are, IMHO, better laid out mechanically than a 900. BUT, when things break on a 9000 it will almost invariably be more expensive to fix than a 900 will. That is my experience. I would feel more comfortable
2. 9000s get better mileage than 900s. As someone else said, they have a more efficient transmission and a more efficient engine layout than 900s. I can get 400-500 miles from my '88 9000T which is more than I get from any 900 I've ever owned.
3. 9000s are a lot more luxurious feeling, a lot bigger on the inside, a lot quieter on the inside, and have a few ammenities which I really enjoy - a tilt/slide power moonroof being one of the nicest. The 9000 feels like a much more modern car (even the older ones) than a c900 ever did (even later ones).
4. 9000s are also a tangible amount safer than a 900. Better body design, earlier adoption of ABS and SRS, etc. Which isn't to say a 900 isn't a safe car, just than 9000s are REALLY safe.
5. Performance wise, I feel a lot closer to the car in a 900 than a 9000. There is a connection in a 900 which I feel absent in a 9000. I can push a 900 farther than a 9000 and feel good about it. But, the 9000 has better tuning potential and arguably better handling potential. In a race with professional drivers I'd put my money on the 9000s. Anyone who claims the MacPhearson struts on a 9000 are a liability may not have all the info - I welcome anyone to drive my Alfa or any of the M5s and retain that opinion. My '88 9000T and my '86 900S have Bilsteins and Jamex springs, and the 9000 is just as sticky and just as responsive in turns. The 9000s has a wider footprint, and I believe a longer wheelbase and it's very stable at speed and very confident in turns. The only complaint I have is the 9000 is much more susceptible to torque steer than the 900. Much more.
6. 900s look a hell of a lot cooler than 9000s. I have never really seen a 9000 and said, "Wow, what freakin' sweet car!" I have said that about a lot of 900s. If 9000s looked better, I would sell all four of my 900s and have five 9000s. In the end, the fact that a 9000 is bigger on the inside, smaller on the outside, gets better gas mileage, is faster, and handles just as well is a lot of incentive. But it depends on what you want in your car - a 900 is closer to being a sports car than a 9000. If you're going for sporty, the 900 is the way to go. But, if you have a lick of sense and can deal with occasional major repairs (as opposed to daily minor repairs on a 900 :) a 9000 is hard to beat. Or, go the route I did and buy an Alfa 164 and get the best of both worlds. :> Remember, Saab 9000 chassis + Italian V6 + Pinninfarina styling = automotive sex. Or something like that. :)
, Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:37:42 <-- Viewing This Message
, Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:35:30
, Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:02:42, Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:40:22
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
