1985-1998 [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main 9000 Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: 9000 Standard/Auto Posted by Ari [Email]  (#2847) [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Ari) on Fri, 7 May 2004 08:03:58
In Reply to: 9000 Standard/Auto, SaabBob, Fri, 7 May 2004 07:15:30 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
This will be fun. You'll get a lot of comments on this one.
The automatic has never been the strong point in the 9000 design. The ZF is a weak spot. That said, it all has to be taken in context. A typical ZF automatic will last between 80 and 120K miles. A few die sooner, and some last much longer. But 100K miles is a good 'average.' OK, so why would you ever buy a car with a known issue? Well, first off, it's know, and you can plan for it. Second, needing work at 100K miles isn't a terrible thing. And manual trannies aren't bulletproof, either.
A rebuilt tranny is running around $2K installed these days. If you drive 15K miles a year, that's a new tranny every 6 years or so, or about $330 a year for 'tranny' maintenance. No car takes no maintenance, or at least no car that doesn't say 'Tonka'. With lots of automatics out there, the price will be lower. When buying any used car, you must assume some hidden maintenance issues, and build that into the price. That's true if it's a Saab or a Honda. If you are looking at a 80K mile 9000, assume a $2K tranny job in the next 2-3 years, and build that into the price. Use it as a bargaining point. If the tranny goes, then you've set the price to cover it. And you'll have a car with a tranny good until 200K or more. If the tranny stays fine, you're that much farther ahead.
As to performance, there is no question that a manual tranny will provide better acceleration, control and gas milage than an automatic. However, a '98 CSE is a pretty potent beast, and the automatic doesn't really slow it down. If you're looking for the ultimate performance machine, the power drag of an automatic may be too much for you. But if you're looking for the ultimate performance machine, the question of an automatic would never have come up. A '98 CSE with an automatic is pretty damn fast. If you were talking a '91 900 manual versus standard, it would be a different story.
You will hear a lot about the reliability (or lack thereof) of the automatic. Most is true. But if you put it into context, and realize the drawbacks and account for them, it can be neutral - some positive, some negative.
If you want a manual, get a manual. They are 'better'. If you want an automatic, don't be ashamed. If you want as much performance as possible, wait for a manual. Don't feel like less of a man (woman, carbon-based life form) because you are considering less than max performance - if that were true, we'd all be sliding around in Vipers. An auto CSE with 200+ hp is a fast beast.
posted by 192.249....
, Fri, 7 May 2004 09:03:16, Fri, 7 May 2004 08:03:58 <-- Viewing This Message
, Fri, 7 May 2004 07:58:37
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.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
