Saab 9-3 1.8i, linear - good, bad or indifferent...

...after months of trawling for a car a dealer offered me the above, in mint condition, for 23k yesterday. Looks lovely but always heard Saabs had a bad reputation and fell apart on rural roads. The car looks lovely, but anyone had experience with them?

Eoin

Hi Conor, Parkers.co.uk is the first site I check for a good review of a car; they have a hatch and a saloon listed here

TheWaterboy

i was the of the same opinion until my parents bought a 03 2.2 diesel Sabb. Absolutluy lovely car with excellent power and great to drive. They bought a 06 one recently and is the same.

We had only one issue with the 03 Sabb regarding the key and central locking. Other than that no problems. One of my friends has the 1.8 version that you are interested in. Is a sales rep and loves the car.

PauloMN

How old is it?

Doubtless you'll get the "it's a Vectra in Saab clothing" bit, but given that the Vectra is a fine car IMO, I don't think that's a bad thing.

I'd have a Vectra over it based purely on value for money, but if you like the Saab (and they are lovely looking cars), go for it!

Think there's a couple of 1.8's, any idea what the bhp figure is for the one you are looking at?

Henry Ford III

I thought that old 2.2 diesel was a bit of a tractor.

The modern 1.9 units are much better.

bazz26

The 1.9 diesel is a Fiat Multijet unit afaik.

PauloMN

Yep, 150bhp as used in the Alfa GT/159, Vectra, and the Chroma (I think).

Supposed to be a cracker, haven't driven one yet though.

Re. the Saab, the only ones I'd (personally) be inclined to avoid would be non-turbo 1.8 petrols, or the 120bhp diesel.

bazz26

1.8 petrol (non turbo) 122bhp, 0 to 60 - 11.1 sec, top speed - 123mph.

1.8t petrol (turbo) 150bhp, 0 to 60 - 9.2 sec, top speed - 129mph.

2.0t petrol (turbo, 5 speed) 175bhp, 0 to 60 - 8.2 sec, top speed - 135mph.

2.0t petrol (turbo, 6 speed) 210bhp, 0 to 60 - 7.3 sec, top speed - 145mph.

2.2TiD diesel 125bhp, 0 to 60 - 10.7 sec, top speed - 125mph.

1.9TiD diesel in both 120bhp or 150bhp from July 2004.

Borzoi

Deleted User wrote:

...after months of trawling for a car a dealer offered me the above, in mint condition, for 23k yesterday. Looks lovely but always heard Saabs had a bad reputation and fell apart on rural roads. The car looks lovely, but anyone had experience with them?

A lot depends on the age of the car.. whether it's good value or not.

I've had a 900 for over 5 years, I've just got a new 9-3. The new car has a much softer ride, in part due to its standard profile tires - something you'll also have on the 'linear' model. The older 900 has stiffer suspension and low profile tires - you do feel everything but it is a great drivers car. The newer yoke has all the electronics, and is defineitly more of a cruiser.

BTW Saab seats are reknowned for comfort, so if you do long haul driving, look hard at it.

impr0v

Deleted User wrote:

...after months of trawling for a car a dealer offered me the above, in mint condition, for 23k yesterday. Looks lovely but always heard Saabs had a bad reputation and fell apart on rural roads. The car looks lovely, but anyone had experience with them?

what year is the car?

Cyrus

apparently the 1.8t is actually the 2.0t in a lower state of tune, all the petrols are versions of the same 2 litre engine,

a remap should bring the power up on the "1.8"

Thanks for all the comments.

Should have specified that the car is a 2004 with 57,000 miles up. The price is actually 25k, but getting 2k off for my beat up 1996 Audi A4 1.6 that has no NCT Cert for years and is sliding all over the road, so pretty happy with the tradein amount.

bazz26

Deleted User wrote:

Thanks for all the comments.

Should have specified that the car is a 2004 with 57,000 miles up. The price is actually 25k, but getting 2k off for my beat up 1996 Audi A4 1.6 that has no NCT Cert for years and is sliding all over the road, so pretty happy with the tradein amount.

Yes alot of dealers are now having scrapage deals on their used cars as new car sales begin to slow down a little from this time of year on.

unkel

Sound car, as said it shares the same platform with the Opel Vectra (nothing much wrong with that)

Deleted User wrote:

the car is a 2004 with 57,000 miles up. The price is actually 25k, but getting 2k off

That's about the going rate from a dealer with warranty. A bit pricey imho as you'll still suffer quite a bit of depreciation over the next few years. For similar money you should be able to pick up a higher spec (Arc or Vector) late 2004 1.9 diesel 150bhp privately. You'd get more enjoyment, better performance with lower running cost and lower depreciation

Or perhaps stretch a couple of grand and go for something like this 2005 one. £13k minus cash / negotiating discount + €9k VRT

Again thanks for all the help.

Sorry for dripfeeding information, should have specified that I am doing leasing through work so won't get any cash discount.

In the circumstances, reckon I might just ask him to fire on alloys and shake hands on it then.

Henry Ford III

Cyrus wrote:

apparently the 1.8t is actually the 2.0t in a lower state of tune, all the petrols are versions of the same 2 litre engine,

a remap should bring the power up on the "1.8"

The 1.8T, 2.0t, and 2.0T, with 150/175/210 bhp respectively are actually all the same engine at 1988 cc.

I doubt a simple remap would turn 150bhp into 210 however.

Suspension, brakes, and tyres all need to be considered too.

Cyrus

i think it would, or bring you pretty close, you really think they have gone to the bother of fitting an uprated turbo etc in every engine if they couldnt be arsed using different engines in the first place

Brakes maybe be bigger on the 2.0t over the 1.8t, but i doubt it, ditto the suspension

altho id hope the aero has uprated bits and bobs :eek:

maidhc

Cyrus wrote:

i think it would, or bring you pretty close, you really think they have gone to the bother of fitting an uprated turbo etc in every engine if they couldnt be arsed using different engines in the first place

Don't know about the Saab, but isn't a far fetched notion at all. Using the same block and bolting on different stuff is pretty common with all manufacturers.

PauloMN

Henry Ford III wrote:

The 1.8T, 2.0t, and 2.0T, with 150/175/210 bhp respectively are actually all the same engine at 1988 cc.

I doubt a simple remap would turn 150bhp into 210 however.

Suspension, brakes, and tyres all need to be considered too.

Weird, I never knew that, it's also a bit deceptive especially in Ireland where engine size determines road tax.

The 1.8 non turbo is a proper 1.8 by the looks of it.

The 1.8t figures from saab.ie:

1.8t 150bhp

Four-cylinder light pressure turbo.
Displacement: 1,988 dm3.
EEC rating: 110 kW (150 hp) at 5500 r/min.
Recommended fuel: 95 octane (min. 91).
Top speed: 131 mph ; auto. 131 mph. 0 to 60 mph: 9.0 sec; auto. 10.2 sec.

150bhp is very little from a 2 litre turbo petrol when you look at it like that. I'd have the 1.9 16v diesel (also 150bhp) over that (only €800 more from new) as you'd get so much more torque.

jimmycrackcorm

The 9-3 linearis unbelievably sore on fuel. The 1.8t is worth it though.