I keep thinking I want a Saab for my next car. They're what I keep circling as I search Craigslist and such.
Anyhow, what I can't figure out is which are the transmissions to avoid. Near as I can tell, they are all glass and prone to breaking. But seriously, some of you folk probably know and can guide me on which ones are better, and which ones I really should avoid.
This is for the 900's to the 9-3 series Saabs.
Only classic 900s really have gearbox issues. The GM900/9-3 aren't known for great shifting, but don't have any strength or reliability issues. They are actually grandparent to the Cobalt SS gearbox and apparently you can swap parts of the gearset.
yes, the classic 900s are the ones with the less than robust transmissions. They were designed for a lighter and less powerful car (the 99) and never upgraded when the car got heavier and more powerful
The auto in the 9000 is the glass one. The auto in the c900 is more like a tough ceramic. 
The GM era SAABs used automatic transmissions made by Asian (I think, I know they weren't ZF or GM) . They are decently reliable, but not bullet proof. My friend at the all SAAB Indie shop says that trans fluid and filter service according to the maintenance schedule is important. The manual gearboxes in 9000s and GM era cars are all good stuff.
I've had many SAABs, all c900s and 9000s. I've also wrenched on some GM era SAABs too. I personally prefer the pre GM cars, especially c900s, and if the right 9000 turbo came my way I wouldn't turn it away. If I had to have a GM era SAAB I'd take a 9-5 Aero 5spd.
BTW, I've never personally experienced a catastrophic gearbox failure in any of my c900s. Technique has a lot to do with it, and most of mine were '88 or later manuals with the improved pinion bearings.
ok, thanks for the clarifications
my 87 Turbo came to me with a dead R&P. I am in the slow process of swapping over to the (rebuilt) transmission, suspension, and brakes from my dead 91 2.1
You'll need to log in to post.
