MB vs blowing up Saab's

[lotusmark2]

Saab aware people ! So when my mum who knows nothing about cars buys one
she gets a nice bill for a new engine.Folks this is poor engineering,sort of like the weekly rebuilds old brit bikes needed.
As I said everything has a price and a used V6 9-5 estate is a useful bit of kit for not much money,so yes it can be a good buy
if your handy with spanners.

adam

Best she sticks to a ford then
Oh I have a 1949 Royal Enfield Model G bike as well:bannana:
Ah well

 

[Dieselman]

Dieselman,I'm disappointed I thought you knew everything automotive ...
this thread will get you up to speed
http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58536
Ain't the internet a wonderful thing....instead of being fobbed off by the suit
behind the service desk the facts are available to all.

adam

Thanks (I think).

The thread is refering to US cars where owners are running on semi synth not full synth oils. Most US oils are no better than camel dung due to high sulpher content causing coking.
I don't see why this should affect UK cars run on fully synth oils, although I am surprised at eh Swedish car report and the need to change the oil every 5000Km.

Although I think SAAb are quite well screwed together I am not a particular fan. 20 years ago my bosses had 900 Turbos and one cracked the head after 18 months, my BIL had a 9000 which had a noisy gearbox at 160,000km and was nothing special.

I notice the SAAB guys use engine flush. I do think this is a good idea.

 

[lotusmark2]

I notice the SAAB guys use engine flush. I do think this is a good idea.

I must admit I'm not a fan of flush on SAABs, just a bit to uncontrolled but many do.
I work on the little and often system 6K oil and filter change on fully synth

 

[Donk]

Hi all, my first post here but thought I would just chip in with my findings, and hope its not to much off topic.

I recently swapped my 2004 MY SAAB 9-5 Aero for a 2004 W211 E Class, and to be frank the difference (my perception) is like night and day in build quality. I cant comment on reliabilty yet between the two as I have not had the E Class long enough, but I can safely say the Saab was possibly the most unreilable vehicle I have ever owned. Problems ranged from worn seat runners so that the front seats slid back and forth under braking, switches falling off, gearbox syncro problems, clutch replaced, persistent AC / Blower panel fault neccesitating 3 weeks off the road to fix, Xenon adjusters breaking, Heated seat switches broken, Alarm faults, fluid level indicators inoperative, dash replaced twice to cure major rattles, split pipe to Turbo and several more issues. This was on a car with less than 22K miles on the clock, and I had just had enough by then. I heard that in 2003 GM changed suppliers for a lot of components, hence the problems, but I dont know how true this is. My local dealer service was exemplary throughout though, even giving me a 3 month old E class as a hire car for 3 weeks while mine was being fixed. In my view the 9-5, although undeniably quick in a straight line, just cannot compete with the drive of the W211, although of course one is FWD but theres a bit more too it than that, well for me anyway.

The daft thing is we owned a 98 MY 9-3 for 3 years that gave no problems whatsoever and had four times the miles on it. Also ran a couple of E39 5 series BMW's of 1997 and 2000 vintage that again never seemed to go wrong. I'd like to think I had a Friday car, but having heard other owners experiences of the newer Aero's I'm not so sure.

Bit of a shame really as I'd wanted a 9-5 Aero, I guess something of the percieved underdog appealed to me, but the experience has really turned me off the brand now. Having said that, I do love the Merc, so its not all bad

 

[big x]

Hi all, my first post here but thought I would just chip in with my findings, and hope its not to much off topic.

I recently swapped my 2004 MY SAAB 9-5 Aero for a 2004 W211 E Class, and to be frank the difference (my perception) is like night and day in build quality. I cant comment on reliabilty yet between the two as I have not had the E Class long enough, but I can safely say the Saab was possibly the most unreilable vehicle I have ever owned. Problems ranged from worn seat runners so that the front seats slid back and forth under braking, switches falling off, gearbox syncro problems, clutch replaced, persistent AC / Blower panel fault neccesitating 3 weeks off the road to fix, Xenon adjusters breaking, Heated seat switches broken, Alarm faults, fluid level indicators inoperative, dash replaced twice to cure major rattles, split pipe to Turbo and several more issues. This was on a car with less than 22K miles on the clock, and I had just had enough by then. I heard that in 2003 GM changed suppliers for a lot of components, hence the problems, but I dont know how true this is. My local dealer service was exemplary throughout though, even giving me a 3 month old E class as a hire car for 3 weeks while mine was being fixed. In my view the 9-5, although undeniably quick in a straight line, just cannot compete with the drive of the W211, although of course one is FWD but theres a bit more too it than that, well for me anyway.

The daft thing is we owned a 98 MY 9-3 for 3 years that gave no problems whatsoever and had four times the miles on it. Also ran a couple of E39 5 series BMW's of 1997 and 2000 vintage that again never seemed to go wrong. I'd like to think I had a Friday car, but having heard other owners experiences of the newer Aero's I'm not so sure.

Bit of a shame really as I'd wanted a 9-5 Aero, I guess something of the percieved underdog appealed to me, but the experience has really turned me off the brand now. Having said that, I do love the Merc, so its not all bad

Your right the BMW E39's are night and day better than Saab's in almost every way.I give Saab top marks for seat design and safty but that's about it.

adam

 

[lotusmark2]

oh come on you've got to give them points for mid range power delivery (aeros are faster than boxsters!)

 

[big x]

Thanks (I think).

The thread is refering to US cars where owners are running on semi synth not full synth oils. Most US oils are no better than camel dung due to high sulpher content causing coking.
I don't see why this should affect UK cars run on fully synth oils, although I am surprised at eh Swedish car report and the need to change the oil every 5000Km.

Although I think SAAb are quite well screwed together I am not a particular fan. 20 years ago my bosses had 900 Turbos and one cracked the head after 18 months, my BIL had a 9000 which had a noisy gearbox at 160,000km and was nothing special.

I notice the SAAB guys use engine flush. I do think this is a good idea.

There are threads on that forum from people running into problems using Mobil 1 even with 6k change intervals on unmodified cars.I find it amazing that anybody running a petrol turbo of any make would run it on dino in the first place.Mind you I see wisebuyers list a
9-5 2.0T 1997 R 100k poor condition at £445 !!

adam

 

[big x]

Oh I have a 1949 Royal Enfield Model G bike as well:bannana:
Ah well

Your driveway must be awash with oil from the weekly Saab sump dropping and Enfield leaks

adam

 

[BonzoDog]

Was it Dieselman who said these reports referred to the USA and gunge oil? We sold our 98 9-3 one year ago to a friend. It had done 128,000 kms and has now done around 160,000 kms.
Rocket car and never a sign of any of these problems or any serious mechanical problem. Some GM type niggles.

 

[lotusmark2]

Your driveway must be awash with oil from the weekly Saab sump dropping and Enfield leaks

adam

I'll have you know the only oil spots on my drive are from the Smart car (its a bugger to do oil changes on!)
160k miles on my SAAB now, still giving between 36-40 mpg and still putting a VERY big smile on my face everytime i hit the sport button.

(disclaimer, 36-40 mpg does not happen in sport mode )

 

[grober]

Next SAABS to be German Built??

This thread sheds further light on my previous question here. http://mbclub.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=30674&highlight=saab
I have since learned that GM have sold their shares in Subaru to Toyota which is probably a good thing for Subaru. SAAB continues under the GM banner and appear to be offering 4wd in their next model 9-5 which is rumoured to be built in an OPEL plant in Germany rather than Sweden. http://www.trollhattansaab.net/archives/2006/08/about_those_95.html

 

[nick mercedes]

I've never heard of a mercedes having early total engine failure due to poor design like this.

Cdi diesels which need new heads/engines due to siezed heater plugs injectors?

 

[HaggisMerc]

I've had my SAAB 95 Aero for 16 months and spent £250 on servicing. My wife has had her C320 for 8 months and I've spend £600 keeping it on the road, not to mention it is rusting into the driveway. we all have our stories and opinions, but I'll keep the Saab long after the merc has blow away in the wind.

 

[Vlad]

Just to shed some further light on the Saab sludge issue.....I've dealt with a lot of these over the years through my leasing company.

Pre 2001 Saab 9.3's do not suffer from the sludge problem...the problem came when the 9.3's adopted the 2.0 engine from the 9.5 which has a slightly different sump pattern. The oil pick up in the engine is located very close to the sump pan, so if an owner has not adhered to oil changes as and when they should have, the engines will collect sludge and this then gets sucked up the oil pick up and things get clogged, which can then lead to things going bang.

My local Saab indi now, as a matter of routine, will drop the sump on 2001+ cars and clean the sumps out.

Other than that these cars are capable of huge mileages...they can also suffer from heating controls breaking, but thats normally more of an inconvenience than anything else and once fixed with modified parts the problem should not re-occur.

The nice thing about 9.3's are their comfort and the ability to cover huge distances and still get out of them feeling fresh.....and they don't rust!

All in all I think they make great second hand cars and if I wasn't such a Merc man I would consider one as a family run about.

 

[BonzoDog]

Other than that these cars are capable of huge mileages...they can also suffer from heating controls breaking, but thats normally more of an inconvenience than anything else and once fixed with modified parts the problem should not re-occur.

The nice thing about 9.3's are their comfort and the ability to cover huge distances and still get out of them feeling fresh.....and they don't rust!

All in all I think they make great second hand cars and if I wasn't such a Merc man I would consider one as a family run about.

As I mentioned earlier we sold our '98 9.3 last year. Last week I was a passenger in it and I can endorse all you say. It is still in excellent condition and it should easily manage another 20 years.
I had a few niggles but that's all they were niggles.
However I prefer the Murky.

 

[Hartzpartz]

We have a 2001 9-3 Aero as well as my R129 500 SL. I must say the Aero has been excellent without any major problems thus far.

The engine is very clean internally, due mainly to very regular oil changes and use of a decent oil (Currently Mobil 1). Anyone who neglects oil changes or uses inferior oil should expect some sludge?

Build quality isn't up there with BMW or perhaps MB although we chose the Saab over a C class of a similar year due to hearing of quality issues via this forum (Saabs seldom rust. Hee!).

Also, for the money at the time (around £8k) we got all the extras including excellent, comfortable heated leather seats. Something we would have had to pay a premium for on Mercs of the same age.

Performance is excellent, 205bhp as standard with 0-62 in 6.8 seconds and about 140mph. Turbo lag is a slight issue due mainly to Saab using the big turbo from the 235bhp "Viggen" model. Mid range performance is amazing. I think you would have to buy an AMG to get this performance from a C class MB?

I can't comment on the new shape 9-3 but I believe it also comes in second to BMW/MB.

I think Saab has always been the choice for those who want something a little more "quirky" that still provides a good mix of performance and comfort. I'm sure they have the same reliabilty issues as everyone else and, as always, you often only hear the horror stories and not from the thousands of highly satisfied comsumers like myself.

I must say that given the choice, I would chose my SL over the Saab every time, even though it's 10 years older. It has so much more character and you can really "feel" the quality and over engineering of the era in which it was manufactured.

 

[HaggisMerc]

Just another merc vs saab line. My wifes 2001 w203 has just cost me £700 to get it through its soddin MOT. While my 2001 95 aero only cost me the price of the mot + 2 indicator bulbs. GO SAAB!

 

[lexuscol]

Had a 1999 Saab 9.3 worst car I ever had, in the garage every week even got Saab UK involved kept it for 3 months then swapped for C class never looked back.
I took the key out of the ignition one day on the saab (Stand At A Bus stop) and the engine kept running.

 

[crockers]

oh come on you've got to give them points for mid range power delivery (aeros are faster than boxsters!)

until you come to a bend in the road...................

 

[blackscooby]

Came from a 2002 9-5 Aero HOT (250 bhp) to the AMG. Saab was faultless. Drove it from 28k to 70k. Full Saab service etc, never had any issues with it (except pixel issue on the display... thump it and it works again !).

Very little in terms of running costs (except fuel and front brake pads which it used a lot of both). More of a driver issue than Saab !

Very big quickish saloon, and very erm.... soft and woolly handling. Good fun turning off TCS and leaving 100's of feet of black lines when in silly mood. Didn't do corners... at all. Needed a tiller and someone to shout "tack" before it would attempt to turn....

Obviously depreciated like a brick off a cliff !