We about to trade our 2004 Vectra CDTI 117k miles for either a 9-3Sportswagon Diesel, A4 Avant TDI, Volvo V50 2.0D or a Honda CRV diesel.
The car is for my partner and whilst i'd prefer the Audi because of build and proven running gear, her in doors prfers the Swedish or Japanese option.
Any information/ opinions would be appreciated.
Billy
|
My advice is - dont !
I had a 93SS a couple of years ago, and only kept it 16 months from new.
They are basically a posh expensive Vectra with loads of build quality and other niggling issues. I went for the Audi, which is actually a slightly cheaper car to run in a lot of ways, ie depreciation, servicing (though not much)and fuel economy.
Admittedly the 1.9 Diesel in the Saab is probably slightly quieter at idle but on the move no difference.
Dealer service is reasonable on the Saab simply because they are not as busy as some dealreships.
My second choice would be the Honda, although I've heard they are not as 100% perfect as we would be led to believe.
|
Thanks for the advice. I agree with your views and whilst i'm sure you are right about the Honda its one of my prefered options.
SNIPQUOTE!
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 27/02/2008 at 21:16
|
I've been a Saab fanatic most of my life, but since the takeover by GM, the car is basically a Vectra with a different body and has lost all the quirkiness and general reliability that Saab used to be famous for.
Must admit, I'm now a japanese fan -maybe not the best styled, but way ahead on reliability.
|
I've been a Saab fanatic most of my life but since the takeover by GM the car is basically a Vectra with a different body
You're so right !
I bougt my Saab because I always wanted a Saab from the days of the 900 Turbo and 9000's.
Sadly the marque is now screwed by GM.
|
Try them, the Saab is a bit of a marmite car, you either think they're a Vectra in disguise or you think they are great.
I have had a 93 saloon for 2 years and had a hatchback 93 for 4 years before that I would recommend then to anyone , as you can see that is not a universal view.
Short answer I reckon, having tested A4 and Accord when I chose the Saab, is that they are all good cars you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Edited by commerdriver on 28/02/2008 at 09:21
|
|
|
|
|
I also was a SAAB man for many years. I had thought about a 1998-2002 9-3, because I wanted a hatchback. I am looking at a 6-7 year old one with 60K on it. I don't want anything fancy, just a 2 litre auto. Are they that unreliable?
Edited by MW on 28/02/2008 at 12:09
|
This Saab 9-3 reliability issue is something I've been chewing on for ages. They don't come out well in surveys, and that's the only real data available - but I owned a hewn-from-granite old model 900 for 10 years, and a 1998 GM900 for the past 7, and they've been extremely dependable, with excellent friendly (& not too expensive) main dealer service. Have I just been lucky, and is now the time to go Japanese?
As you point out, the later 9-3s are saloons only & for me too that's a slight negative, but if I do decide to stay with Saab I'd definitely go for a post-2002 model, persuading myself that the bugs must be getting ironed out...!
|
|
Go on - if you want to buy her a Sportwagon, make it an Alfa 159! Same engine...
|
I agree with Comm Driver - you pays your money and you takes your choice. I have a 2005 93 saloon with 40k and the wife has a 2007 93 convertible with 10k and we like them a lot. Indeed I'm going to keep mine for another two years at least which is a first for me as I usually change at 3 years old. The dealer's been excellent and I've only had two reliabilty issues in the 40k - (a) the EGR valve which has gone twice (the dealer claimed the first one had been replaced by a valve from a faulty batch as they'd had a few back i.e. a duff supplier) and (b) a malfunctioning electric window system (i.e. the system that cuts in if it detects an obstruction and lowers the window). That has happened twice but the dealer has sorted them both out twice with the minimum of fuss.
The wife's convertible has been faultless.
Would I buy another? Convertible? - definitely. Gorgeous car. Saloon?- definitely but won't because I'll want to spend less on buying my next car.
The newer interior (like the wife's) is much nicer made than the original 2002 on models. And it might be because it's installed in the convertible but her 150 TiD has a lot of insulation round the engine. Mine with same engine doesn't and is consequently a lot noisier. Not bad but not as good as hers.
So we've never regretted buying them and in my case I've found them a huge improvement on my three previous Golfs which, incidentally, cost me pretty much the same amount!!!
|
Saab 93 - buying advice -- don't - I would not touch one with your barge pole let alone my own.
I appreciate there are some good stories above but in my experience they are the exception - not the norm.
You are getting a vectra for more money (a bit like skoda and audi).
My brother has had a number of them now (4 or 5 I think) - he has to as company cars - no other choice - and each one has been plagued with faults.
Every time the AA man comes out he gets the speech about saabs and renaults being his most frequent calls.
I'm sorry but Honda and Saab are leagues apart in terms of reliability and trouble free motoring.
|
|
|
|
I looked at all of these last year and of the list I'd go for the Audi every time (I actually went for the Golf 2.0 TDI estate as it was £4,000 cheaper).
Saab - terrible turbo lag and some of the interior finish would have disgraced a Perodua. The AA men's view about reliability is too widely shared for confidence.
Honda - the Accord Tourer is an alternative to the CRV if you don't need 4wd, but several people on this forum have had major engine trouble, possibly because Honda are comparatively new to diesels.
Volvo - you might as well have a Focus as this is what it is underneath. They charge a lot more for a badge which not everyone would agree is all that prestigious.
Other alternatives that we tried, apart from the aforementioned Golf -
Octavia TDI - narrowly beaten by the Golf as its residuals should be better - otherwise the oily bits are the same as the VW and Audi (SKODA stands for Some Kind Of Downmarket Audi - :). Great to drive.
Toyota Verso diesel - you may not want an MPV but this is a good one, less wallowy than the Renault Scenic.
BMW 320d Touring - too expensive and I couldn't get on with the driving position or the gearchange - but this is subjective and just about everyone else loves them.
Mercedes B-class - this is what I had after an A4 and before the current Golf - a potentially good car spoilt by a truly diabolical diesel engine.
|
I had a 900 for 3 years from new and then went for a 9-5 afterwards as I loved the SAAB so much. The 900 didn't put a foot wrong and the 9-5 was largely problem free and a dream in comparison to the marques I've owned, with the exception of my current Subaru.
If Vectras are really as well designed for the driver and as comfortable to be in for hours on end and as reliable as the SAABs I've owned then buy one, but I've never heard anyone describe a Vectra like that. SAAB dealers are also a cut above, in my experience.
|
|
Oh no, not the old 'Saabs are just Vectras' argument again. How many times does this come up, almost inevitably from people have little or no experience of Saabs. I've had Saabs for years, currently having a 9-5, so I have experience of pre-GM and now GM cars and I just keep on buying them. They've all been little trouble ( in fact I had more trouble relatively from my pre-GM 900 Aero than any other Saab I've owned) and are very comfortable. Dealers in Suffolk are very good too.
|
It keeps coming up because it's true! I'll grant you the 9-5 is a lot more than just a Vectra, but the 9-3 is exactly the same platform as the Vectra-C. Sure, it's nicer to look at inside and out, but fundamentally it is the same car. The electronics, mechanicals and non-visible parts are all the same, bar a few minor exceptions.
However, I don't think that's a bad thing as the Vectra-C is a fine car, apart from the image, a problem the 9-3 doesn't really have. If only the 9-3 was more reasonably priced, then it wouldn't seem such a big deal being based on the Vectra, would it?
|
|
|
|
I had two SAAB 900 classics in the past and they were good, however, I think a little romance has crept in as they were never as relaible as my Mercedes 124; although they did always give notice of any trouble. I like this in a car, although I suspect that being quite 'pre-black box' that was the reason. So many cars now just die into limp mode, or die.
Anyway, fears about reliability did put me off another one, but looking in Autocar, I was surprised just how cheap and good (?) they seem to be. So, they might be back in the frame. Need to make a change in the summer as the old girl is nearly 16 years old and reality must prevail. If I spend money on tyres, repairs etc, I want some future from them.
So far in the frame, all petrol and auto are
Mondeo 2 litre 2003-4 - worried about autobox
SAAB 9-3, hatchback, 2002 - worried about reliability
Mercedes E class, 1999, - worried about rust and fall in quality
BMW E46 tourer 2002ish- worried about price, and size
Nissen Primera 2001, - worried about age, bit dated, although not a real problem
The real surprise is how secondhand prices have fallen, such that a Mercedes similar to my last one is now about 35% of what I paid for a 6-7 year old model in 1999.
Some thinking to do.
|
|
|
|
Also add my favourite, a 2001Camry, but there only seem to be 7 of these in the UK!
Edited by MW on 04/03/2008 at 19:31
|
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=42474
Unfortunately the link to Vincent´s road test has gone, but it´s a good thread anyway, and may prove relevant.
|
|
|
|
I've got a 56 plate 93 Sportwagon TID 120 hp. Its a very comfortable motorway mile muncher. But... the trim is cheap, rural/town driving gives around 38 mpg. It suffers bad turbo lag and won't pull under 1700 - 1800 rpm. You really have to watch it when pulling out as its very easy to stall, ie, you've got to get the revs up and there seems to be an obvious lag between pressing the throttle and the engine pick up. I nearly killed my self because of this problem. Yes, the Saab dealer says its perfect.
Its not very roomy, especially for the back seat passengers.
It looks nice.
To be honest, my old Skoda Octavia diesel was a better car and far more economical.
I selling the Saab...
|
|
Oh, the depreciation is terrible.
|
|
|
|
