Looks like we're better off having a dedicated backup car for my wife if/when the RR is out of commission. I've been tempted by the prices on mid-2000 Saab 9-3s and my wife likes the looks of them. Oh, and it will have to be one with a slushbox.
Run away?
Because backing up a car with questionable reliability with another car of questionable reliability is.....questionable?
Seriously I would own either one, but you seem to have terrible luck with the cars you buy 
Yeah, I'm really good at this terrible luck thing... Some of my friends call it my "inverse Midas" touch, and they weren't taking about the automotive service place.
I'm curious about the questionable reliability part, because the classic 900s I used to own tended to be as reliable as an anvil, yet I keep hearing a lot about reliability issues with the GM Saabs.
So far I haven't managed convince SWMBO that a W124 Mercedes would be a good idea. She likes the idea of an E36 convertible, but I'm not sure if they're any better than the Saab.
Except for chassis flex that takes away any sporting pretensions, possible sludge issues and rapidly wearing trim and interior pieces, there is nothing wrong with a mid 2000 Saab 9-3.
fanfoy wrote: Except for chassis flex that takes away any sporting pretensions, possible sludge issues and rapidly wearing trim and interior pieces, there is nothing wrong with a mid 2000 Saab 9-3.
Yup. OP may want to specify if he is looking at a 95-03 "OG" 900/9-3 or the 04-current "SS" 9-3. Neither is bad but they are both different. Chassis flex is a big issue on the 95-03 (aftermarket parts do exist but who cares if it's the wife's car), and 00-03 had possible sludge issues. Both had issues with the convertible top gears stripping out due to idiot owners, and as far as I know those specific parts are NLA (for the 95-03 at least), so bear that in mind if you find one with a top that only works manually. 04-current issues tend to be more electrical and convenience-related in nature. I doubt either would ever leave you stranded but the wrong car can certainly nickel and dime you to death.
That said, unless your wife really loves Saab, a Volvo C70 or BMW 325ci would probably be a better choice. Saabs aren't as bad as the internet legions make them out to be, but the main draw is that they are tough and can take a ton of boost...the chassis leaves a lot to be desired.
We're talking about both 
.
The one that's higher up on the list is an 04, there may be a 97 that's of interest also but given that they are similarly priced I'd probably go for the later car. What's the spares situation on the "SS" ones?
I hadn't thought about a C70, my wife doesn't like Volvos that much, but I'll run one by her.
I'd love to get a C900 convertible but it seems that everybody abhors the autobox on them so they're out 
.
Junkyard_Dog I had to laugh too when I read the post. When your first car is a Land Rover, your back up should be a Honda, Toyota or a bicycle.
Well, my wife nixed the idea of the bicycle so I guess I better go look for a Honda or a Toyota...
My Dad has had an 06 9-3 vert for about 6 years and while there have been a few small things it has been solid. Like Slick said they are much better than the internet says.
Yeah, what about a Solara convertible? Or if we really want to get crazy, a Mustang?
I don't think I can stand the view of a Solara convertible parked outside our house , and the budget (less that 5k) will really only buy us a decent Fox body convertible. Not sure if I want something that old. We're not wedded to the idea of a convertible either, it just happened that the Saabs with non-flaky sellers all were convertibles.
She'd also like to get something with good to very good fuel economy and as I don't want a Toyota Pious I'm trying to convince her that looking at a 1st gen Insight and a 318ti might be a good idea.
The 9-3SS/SC is a spectacular car. The only way I'd want another OG9-3 for myself is if it was a Viggen. The chassis of my '01 9-3 5-door was very floppy (thought there are braces to take care of most of that), but for an automatic-transmissioned wifemobile, who cares. Other than the stiffness complaints (lol) and a dead a/c compressor, it was a good car.
Tim Suddard wrote: Junkyard_Dog I had to laugh too when I read the post. When your first car is a Land Rover, your back up should be a Honda, Toyota or a bicycle.
Better yet, replace said questionable car (this applies to rover, saab and just about anything out of europe) with a honda to toyota and have no need for a backup car.
evildky wrote: Better yet, replace said questionable car (this applies to rover, saab and just about anything out of europe) with a honda to toyota and have no need for a backup car.
My wife wanted to own a Range Rover at some point in her life. I like a happy wife.
Plus, I'm the guy who took a Honda to a dealer (friend of mine was working as a service writer there and I got "mate's rates") and had the mechanic scratch his head going "funny, I've never seen one of these go wrong". Multiple times. Heck, I've owned several Hondas that were less reliable than my FD RX7.
I think you do want an 04 or 05 Saab vert. Even if you only drive it occassionaly the newer ones are much improved over the prior generation in stiffness, safety, looks and everything. Expect good gas mileage with the 4cyl. There have been some top hydraulic issues reported, so make sure the top is working well. Parts aren't a problem yet.
Depreciation has been your friend on these. They cost about 1/2 as much as a similar year BMW with twice the mileage and lesser equipment.
The only warning I could give about using any car as a backup to a Range Rover is the miles you'll pile on the backup car.
BoxheadTim wrote:evildky wrote: Better yet, replace said questionable car (this applies to rover, saab and just about anything out of europe) with a honda to toyota and have no need for a backup car.My wife wanted to own a Range Rover at some point in her life. I like a happy wife. Plus, I'm the guy who took a Honda to a dealer (friend of mine was working as a service writer there and I got "mate's rates") and had the mechanic scratch his head going "funny, I've never seen one of these go wrong". Multiple times. Heck, I've owned several Hondas that were less reliable than my FD RX7.
When I was 10 I wanted tattoo's on my face....thank god no one wanted to make me happy.
I actually have a tech friend who doesn't care for honda's of certain years but they are still better than their european counterparts.
Is there a good specialist shop or dealer reasonably close? The only thing that would make me hesitate to own an OG9-3 (my folks have one that's been great) or a similar vintage 9-5 (a wagon may be in my near future) would be if I were somewhere that didn't have some technical assistance available when required. Otherwise, I'd go for it, personally. I like them.
(By the way, the answer to pretty much any running issues or CELs is the Direct Ignition Cassette (DIC) it seems. They're not exactly cheap at $300-$400, but it takes about 3 minutes to swap one out and solve a lot of problems, from what I gather.)
I'm not sure if the specialist we had around here is still in business, so that might be a big negative point.
In reply to alex:
The DI cassette is only on the 2003 and earlier verts, and 02 and earlier hardtops. If the OP winds up with one of the earlier 9-3s, then they should buy any reasonably priced DI cassettes and throttle bodies they can find at pull-a-part. The DI cassettes fail and leave the car a non-runner, and if the throttle body wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, it'll dump you into limp home mode,which means nothing over 2000 rpm and barely over 45 for a top speed.
When it's playing nice with me, my 2001 9-3 base hatch is a very pleasant car to drive, even with the slushbox. Pop the sport button in on the selector, and it will pull far better than its claimed performance numbers.
evildky wrote:Tim Suddard wrote: Junkyard_Dog I had to laugh too when I read the post. When your first car is a Land Rover, your back up should be a Honda, Toyota or a bicycle.Better yet, replace said questionable car (this applies to rover, saab and just about anything out of europe) with a honda to toyota and have no need for a backup car.
Now that's just boring
you guys make it sound like Rovers, Saabs, or any and all Euro cars just fall over dead every other week.
except for two Hyundai's.. all of my cars have been euros. Aside from a Saab with just over 300,000 miles on it.. all the ones that died, did so due to rust
BoxheadTim wrote: I'm not sure if the specialist we had around here is still in business, so that might be a big negative point.
Well, they have timing chains and generally don't need a whole lot if they're kept up, so you shouldn't really need a specialist unless you just plain never want to touch the thing. If you are shopping for a 9-3SS I would avoid 2004 cars, they have a one-year-only air injection system that is known to be problematic.
As an aside, most people have no issue with adjusting to the 9-3SS but the NG900/OG9-3 is absolutely a car that must be driven to see if it "fits." The interior, seating position and handling of the earlier cars is extremely polarizing.
Don't be afraid of a SAAB. They are reliable, easy to work on and DIY info is easy to come by. Do the regular maint stuff and you will get many many miles out of one with ease.
Cotton wrote:evildky wrote:Now that's just boringTim Suddard wrote: Junkyard_Dog I had to laugh too when I read the post. When your first car is a Land Rover, your back up should be a Honda, Toyota or a bicycle.Better yet, replace said questionable car (this applies to rover, saab and just about anything out of europe) with a honda to toyota and have no need for a backup car.
How true, drive a dependable car and you'll never have a cool story about how after being stranded by your sketchy car you were abducted by a troupe of gypsy David Hasselhoff impersonators.
You'll need to log in to post.
