[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Hatchback is a poor SportWagon.. Posted by Mike Lynch [Email] (#81) [Profile/Gallery] (more from Mike Lynch) on Tue, 8 Apr 2008 12:47:04 In Reply to: Re: Yeah, keep going.....9-5's can be cool...., brick8, Tue, 8 Apr 2008 11:46:09 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
Just to start an argument, a hatch back is a poorly designed SportWagon. Saab hatcabacks have high liftovers, floors that aren't flat, big blind spots and lotsa' hatch rattles. The 9-5 SportWagon is the perfected hatchback, low bumper height liftover, flat floors for sleeping and cargo, no blind spots and 9-5's are the most solid Saab ever. And don'tcha' like the rich wood and all the luxury touches including the H/K sound? Lotsa' that stuff is just unavailable on lessor Saabs.
The answer to your fuel mileage question is a 9-5 with a turbo four. If you're wondering why they don't make a lower output 9-5 anymore it's because, 185, 220, 235, 20 or 260hp 2.3 turbos all get the same fuel economy which is about 10-20% better than the V6.
Also I find the V6 is un-reponsive to the sport mode in the auto tranny. It really doesn't want to rev higher before shifting, normal is fine, very little difference. The turbo fours on the other hand are really transformed by the sport mode. And like I said, drive a 250hp Aero with a 5-speed auto, 2002 and up, and then tell me how much you hate it.......
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.