I would look for a 2.3t or an Aero. Though you can get the pre facelift 9-5 with the 3.0V6 diesel engine, an Izuzu unit, there have apparently been a couple of issues with it though it is relaxed and punchy if not a ball of fire due to not being that torquey for its size though still more torquey than the tweeked 2.0 you mention, 370nm.
|
|
|
|
Don't worry, Billy - I've diverted my share of other people's threads! If you really want to, it looks like you can download an MP3 of the song from the Saab UK site.
|
Out of interest whats the budget ? nearly new ones are available at huge discounts, new ones at good discounts from brokers.
My father bought an ex-saab car last month (an 06 with 2000miles on the clock) for £16k for the 1.9jtdm 150bhp. (in silver which is the only colour that doesnt look dreadful with the facelift front). not sure of spec but it is reasonable (no leather but plenty of other bits).
I know a few other people who have had very good prices on ex-demo 93 and 95 just recently. I suspect that the new front has slaughtered sales and there are plenty at good prices in the dealers.
|
£16,000 is about right; could probably run to £18,000. A 9-5 is the 'heart' option, whereas my head is advocating an S-Max 2.0D - not strictly comparable, I know, but both have attributes that would fit them well for family life chez deBeest.
I've driven a 1.9D 9-5 estate and it's a proper modern diesel - a vast improvement on the old 2.2. I could certainly live with that. But the old front was handsome and the new one is horrible, and I don't think the new interior is a step forward either - Saab dials have orange needles dammit, not white ones!
But it's still a Saab, and if the prices have come down that far, perhaps I could live with the new design. (Even 18 months on, though, I see lots of original 9-5s but very few facelift models - what will long-term values be like?) But then if I could get a good 55-plate 2.0t for £14,000, and give it the Hirsch treatment...
|
|
|
'but the 2.0t engine is short of oomph in such a big car - it struggles to maintain 50mph up my modest test hill even with only me and one small boy aboard.'
If that's the case I suspect you have a mechanical problem. I have a standard 9-5 and whilst no rocket ship it has pretty reasonable performance, in fact enoughh performance to make me wonder why anyone, on British roads, would want more.
|
So where's the catch? Apart from the £900 or so to install the upgrade am I letting myself in for a huge insurance premium a car I can't sell or what?
Many of the run-of-the-mill insurers are likely to baulk at the idea but you should be able to get insured for not much extra through specialists like Adrian Flux or Greenlight. But I would try for some quotes first to satisfy yourself its not going to be extortionate.
Looks like a good idea to me, you will get more power/ torque than a 2.3t, and if you drive it with not too heavy a right foot you should be able to do a few extra mpg than in a standard 2.0t.
Only downside is the price, Hirsch know how to charge; Superchips will give you similar power increase for £500 including fitting. I suppose the extra £400+ pays for the full Saab dealer support.
Alternatively you could consider the 3.0 V6 TiD that Cheddar mentions, and get it chipped to 210bhp and 420 NM. I have heard of reliability issues with the 3.0 TiD (someone posted in technical last year, having problems with injectors IIRC).
Rich.
|
Trade Sales have got some facelift 55 plate 9-5 1.9TiD Linear Sport saloons for £13,999.
Same diesel engine as used in the Vectra and Signum and not without it's faults apparently.
I've got the standard tune SAAB 2.0T engine (175bhp) in my Vectra and I find it's got more than enough oomph in all driving situations so not sure why you want or need an upgrade even given the fact the 9-5 has a heavier body...
Just my opinion, but 15k + is a lot of money to spend on what is essentially an old design car even if you are a SAAB nut
|
Just my opinion, but 15k + is a lot of money to spend on what is essentially an old design car even if you are a SAAB nut
Indeed so. I have historically admired SAAB in the same breath as Citroen not just for daring to do things differently but for doing them well, but leaving aside the dubious Subaruesque facelift, the 9-5 interior is that of a shed compared with more recent opposition. That SAAB markets itself as premium sector brand with aviation pretentions make this unforgivable. Very poor quality plastics and fit and finish. Quite boomingly noisy too, at least in the 2.0 lpt and Aero of colleagues in Sweden. I don't know if a 9-5 replacement is on the cards or whether GM are going to hang SAAB to whither on the vine (I write the latter knowing Astras will now be built in Sweden as one of the production sites), but if they are going to keep and develop the brand it unfortunately can't come soon enough.
|
|
|
175 bhp is 25 more than you get from a standard 9-5 2.0t. (I think the 175 engine goes in the 9-3, where the 150 is perversely badged 1.8t.) Don't get me wrong - the 2.0t isn't painfully slow, but it wouldn't maintain 50 in 5th up a moderate A-road hill and I had to boot it hard to get it up to speed out of a tight, uphill motorway sliproad. That capability, to me, is what makes for a relaxing long-distance car, and that's the premise for this whole thread - that much as I like the pre-2005 9-5, I wouldn't want one with the 2.0t or the 2.2TiD engine.
As for 'old design', well, maybe - but it was significantly improved in 2001. In any case, does that matter if it does what I want from a car? It's one of the few non-MPVs I've tried where the front seats don't squash my children's feet against the rear seat cushion. (The V70 does, unless you can order / find one with the rare built-in boosters - and even then I can't fit adults in the back; the Avensis doesn't, but competent as that is, it is rather dull.) Only Volvo offers seats that fit me so well. The dashboard layout works brilliantly. And the keys don't dangle against my knee when I'm driving. It may be old but it's well designed and feels thoroughly grown up and well sorted - in a way that impresses me, the user, rather than the average handling-fixated journalist.
If I want modern and sensible, I'll have an S-Max - and it's entirely likely that's what I'll decide. But indulge me a bit longer and let me test out this idea!
|
certainly the new 95 has a lot more internal space than the old one did - I ruled the older ones out when I was looking for an estate for the same reason - children/child seats and legroom - doesnt seem to be a problem in the newer one. Although I have not driven it, only looked at it on his drive. He is very pleased with it. As a mechanic he drives and works on a lot of cars and says that the price premium for the bmw/merc/audi just isnt worth it.
Dads last car was a 900 bought new back in 1993 or something, If he keeps this one the same length of time then depreciation rates are pretty irrelevant.
I think the 1.9 is the alfa/fiat unit which seems to have a good reputation and is also very tunable (or so Im told) I think alfa offer it in 175bhp trim now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
