Hello,
I’m new to the Saab world (but I’ve always been a fan).
I was looking to buy a ’96ish 900, but I heard a nasty rumor from
another enthusiast that the 1994+ redesign was "very bad".
He told me that it wasn’t the same car as the 1993 – that Ford handled
the redesign and "screwed it up" – that you could feel the difference
by driving them both comparatively, etc. etc. (he wasn’t very specific).
Does anybody wish to confirm or refute this?
Just using Ford and Saab in the same sentence makes me a bit queasy.
Did Ford have a big part in the redesign?
Do the two styles of car handle very differently?
Are there now large maintenence issues?
Do I have to think of it as an American car?
Your opinion would be appreciated,…
Thanks,
Milt
First of all it wasn’t Ford but GM.
Secondly if you have a 900 from 1995 on then you could have a good one.
Please some more specifications (V6 or not,…)
Johan
83 900 GLi
94 9000 CS
94 9000 CSE
Comment by admin — January 31, 2010 @ 7:32 am
Milton,
Your friend does not know that much about Saabs. First, Ford had nothing
to do with the redesign of the 900. Saab had been in bed with GM for a
long time. It was Saab that helped GM with their quad four engine for
the Pontiac. That is probably why the first time I saw the new style 900
from the rear, I swore somebody from Pontiac designed the tail
lights….The 94 year model run had some problems. What first year car
has not. Saab has gradually improved the 900 until their latest version
called the 9-3. You can probably find some nice 96 and 97 900s around. I
would avoid the 94/95 years, although some people have had few to no
problems with some of theirs.
Ken Washington
87 9000S
87 900S
83 900T
Comment by admin — January 31, 2010 @ 7:32 am
Milton Yarberry a écrit dans le message <36F7DED0.95B52…@cognex.com>…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Hello,
>I’m new to the Saab world (but I’ve always been a fan).
>I was looking to buy a ’96ish 900, but I heard a nasty rumor from
>another enthusiast that the 1994+ redesign was "very bad".
>He told me that it wasn’t the same car as the 1993 – that Ford handled
>the redesign and "screwed it up" – that you could feel the difference
>by driving them both comparatively, etc. etc. (he wasn’t very specific).
>Does anybody wish to confirm or refute this?
>Just using Ford and Saab in the same sentence makes me a bit queasy.
>Did Ford have a big part in the redesign?
>Do the two styles of car handle very differently?
>Are there now large maintenence issues?
>Do I have to think of it as an American car?
>Your opinion would be appreciated,…
>Thanks,
GM screwed it up. So 94, 95 , 96, 97 , 98 are well below what Saab use to
make. I was selling them and I did not make any friends doing
it……………..
You best bet is to get the 9-3 wich is a much better car.
Good luck
Comment by admin — January 31, 2010 @ 7:32 am
I was looking at 4 cyl, turbo, non-convertable S or SE.
do you have any idea what the most common problems
are? (transmission, electrical, body, interior?)
Thanks,
Milt
PS Did you see the other replys to my post? Not quite the
concensus builder that I hoped that it would be.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Johan LAUWERS wrote:
> First of all it wasn’t Ford but GM.
> Secondly if you have a 900 from 1995 on then you could have a good one.
> Please some more specifications (V6 or not,…)
> Johan
> 83 900 GLi
> 94 9000 CS
> 94 9000 CSE
Comment by admin — January 31, 2010 @ 7:32 am
Depends on what year it is. I heard a lot of problems with the 1994 but
again I have heard a lot who didn’t have any problem.
Normally you could find a good car but all depends of course (and that is
for every car) on how the previous owner treated it.
Which year is the car you are looking at ?
Johan
83 900 GLi
94 9000 CS
94 9000 CSE
Comment by admin — January 31, 2010 @ 7:32 am
I have a 1994 900S with a V6 with 82K miles on it and have had only one
problem with it. I had a bad right front wheel bearing $300 at 71K.
That is the only non-wear or non-normal maintenance problem I have had
with the car. I have replaced the rear shocks, because the left one was
leaking. I love the car.
I have seen a lot of "bad" reports on this NG about the 94 and 95,
specifically the V6. However, I had had NO problems with the V6 and
know 2 people (94 900S and 95 900SE) with V4′s who have had problems
with thier V4′s.
Also, I have not seen one specific reason, "so and so is bad", "___
fails early", etc to not buy a 1994 V6. And no one on this newsgroup
has ever been able to show me anything to backup their stories.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Milton Yarberry wrote:
> I was looking at 4 cyl, turbo, non-convertable S or SE.
> do you have any idea what the most common problems
> are? (transmission, electrical, body, interior?)
> Thanks,
> Milt
> PS Did you see the other replys to my post? Not quite the
> concensus builder that I hoped that it would be.
> Johan LAUWERS wrote:
> > First of all it wasn’t Ford but GM.
> > Secondly if you have a 900 from 1995 on then you could have a good one.
> > Please some more specifications (V6 or not,…)
> > Johan
> > 83 900 GLi
> > 94 9000 CS
> > 94 9000 CSE
Comment by admin — January 31, 2010 @ 7:32 am
Milt, Buddy,
Ford has nothing to do with Saab. Non-the-less, an equally evil
force has come to the helm of the Saab wheel. General Motors. (lions and
tigers and bears…). But your freind was right in another aspect. The
new
Saab 900 from 1994 is built on an Opel platform. Remember them from the
early ’70′s? In the same move they moved their North American headquarters
from Orange CT. to Georgia. It’s still an O.K. car, but not the stuff of
legend
as were the pre ’94′s.
Jim
S…@MOHAWK.NET
Milton Yarberry <myarb…@cognex.com> wrote in article
<36F7DED0.95B52…@cognex.com>…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Hello,
> I’m new to the Saab world (but I’ve always been a fan).
> I was looking to buy a ’96ish 900, but I heard a nasty rumor from
> another enthusiast that the 1994+ redesign was "very bad".
> He told me that it wasn’t the same car as the 1993 – that Ford handled
> the redesign and "screwed it up" – that you could feel the difference
> by driving them both comparatively, etc. etc. (he wasn’t very specific).
> Does anybody wish to confirm or refute this?
> Just using Ford and Saab in the same sentence makes me a bit queasy.
> Did Ford have a big part in the redesign?
> Do the two styles of car handle very differently?
> Are there now large maintenence issues?
> Do I have to think of it as an American car?
> Your opinion would be appreciated,…
> Thanks,
> Milt
Comment by admin — January 31, 2010 @ 7:32 am
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
AutoBody wrote:
> Milt, Buddy,
> Ford has nothing to do with Saab. Non-the-less, an equally evil
> force has come to the helm of the Saab wheel. General Motors. (lions and
> tigers and bears…). But your freind was right in another aspect. The
> new
> Saab 900 from 1994 is built on an Opel platform. Remember them from the
> early ’70′s? In the same move they moved their North American headquarters
> from Orange CT. to Georgia. It’s still an O.K. car, but not the stuff of
> legend
> as were the pre ’94′s.
> Jim
> S…@MOHAWK.NET
> Oh, yeah, because of "the stuff of legent" SAAB almost went out of business
> and because of
the 94+ model it is still alive and doing much better then before. I wondering
if any of these "experts" ever drove 94+ SAAB.
94 900s 155000 mi.
Comment by admin — January 31, 2010 @ 7:32 am