When did GM, uh, GM-ize SAAB?

I'm trying to convince my buddy to look at a SAAB, but I'm not sure when GM poisoned the well. I think in his price range he might be able to find an early 2000s car.
That being said, any things he should be looking for or running from in a sub $3000 SAAB?

prolly everything.......I think early 90's or so when gm attempted to make saab profitable

GM poisoned the well when the V6 900 started.

Wouldn't make me stay away from them, other than said V6 900. Those things sucked bad.

In my opinion the only "GM" stuff to stay away from is anythign with a V6. Stick with the 4s and you should be good.

Parts had been creeping in for awhile but the big watershed was 2002. That was the last year before the 9-3 essentially became the first SAAB Malibu. Most SAAB folks I know consider the first generation 9-3 (1998-2002) to be the last SAAB with SAAB in it.

However, soon after its debut in 1993, the Opel Vectra V-6 equipped SAAB NG900s ("New Generation") started experiencing catastrophic engine failures. Cranks and cams were snapping like twigs. SAAB offered full engine replacements under warranty so all the defective motors should be gone. However, the turbo 4 is much more desirable anyway.

I shopped a lot of Saabs but as my needs changed I moved on to other choices.
If I still had the same need, I would be all over an early 4cyl 9-5. Deals like this are easy to find:
http://toledo.craigslist.org/cto/3349995365.html#.UIbMbWds_Q8
Figure a real $3k buying price and it looks like a good find for someone who is DYI capable.
http://toledo.craigslist.org/cto/3349995365.html#.UIbMbWds_Q8

I avoided anything V6 due to both less reliability and less mpg. I avoided the 9-3 because I liked the 9-5 better, especially the wagon.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: GM poisoned the well when the V6 900 started. Wouldn't make me stay away from them, other than said V6 900. Those things sucked bad.

The funny thing is, the V6 was a SAAB design.

Knurled wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: GM poisoned the well when the V6 900 started. Wouldn't make me stay away from them, other than said V6 900. Those things sucked bad.

The funny thing is, the V6 was a SAAB design.

Thought it was a European GM/Opel design?

Thanks guys.

Knurled wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: GM poisoned the well when the V6 900 started. Wouldn't make me stay away from them, other than said V6 900. Those things sucked bad.

The funny thing is, the V6 was a SAAB design.

are you sure about that? I thought it came from the Cadillac Catera, and it is closely related to the Saturn L series V6.

i don't know who's fault that 54degree engine was exactly, but they were in the L-series, early VUE, Catera, and SAAB's.

Yeah that's the EuroGM/Opel motor.

From WiKi:

General Motors' Opel subsidiary in Europe designed a compact V6 engine with an odd 54° vee angle. It was an iron block/aluminum head DOHC design with 4 valves per cylinder. All 54° engines were assembled at Ellesmere Port in England.

Rusted_Busted_Spit wrote: From WiKi: General Motors' Opel subsidiary in Europe designed a compact V6 engine with an odd 54° vee angle. It was an iron block/aluminum head DOHC design with 4 valves per cylinder. All 54° engines were assembled at Ellesmere Port in England.

thar's yer problem right thar

The major thing to look for in an early 2000s saab is sludge on the 4cyl. The cars had problems with PCV system(you want PCV mod 6). I have owned the 9-5 and 9-3 of this vintage and both are wonderful cars. My wife has the modern 9-3(2010) and it turns out to be very differnt than a malibu. @10 turbo hp and still can cruise and over 30 mpg on the highway. enjoy your serch.

Chris

that should be 210 hp

HappyAndy wrote: are you sure about that? I thought it came from the Cadillac Catera, and it is closely related to the Saturn L series V6.

Again IIRC, the reason it was 54 degree was because SAAb designed it to fit in their existing large-car platform, which was (obviously) designed around a four.

The best Saab is the Saabaru... 9-2x is basically a Subaru Impreza wagon, also available in wrx trim. They were better looking than the Subarus and had nicer interiors. Subarus are pretty reliable and easy to work on. Best of all prett much no GM involved.

I have had both classic 900s and NG900s... I started with the NG and went to classics if that says anything

On a related note, I went by a big multi brand dealership that used to sell Saabs. They had about a dozen dusty but brand new 2011s on a back lot. It didn't look like they were making any effort to get rid of them.

Woody wrote: On a related note, I went by a big multi brand dealership that used to sell Saabs. They had about a dozen dusty but brand new 2011s on a back lot. It didn't look like they were making any effort to get rid of them.

I like the looks of the last 9-5 alot but my goodness, can you think of a car less desirable to own?
A complete redesign 1 year before the brand demise. No parts replacement structure. No junkyard sourcing, etc. Same goes for the Saab 9-4x that was out a very, very short time.
To see either on the road is very rare.
Last 9-5

9-4x

I've seen a decent number of the last 9-5 on the road in the Philly area, but never a 9-4x.

On a related note: I have a friend that is the lead tech at a SAAB indie shop, he said the build quality on the last 9-5 is disappointing. Cheap brittle plastic, ect.

JohnRW1621 wrote: 9-4x

There was at least one of these there.

JohnRW1621 wrote: I like the looks of the last 9-5 alot but my goodness, can you think of a car less desirable to own?

Thw wiper blades are 9-5 specific. They are "curve" style with a bizarre, proprietary connection to the wiper arms, and not supported by the aftermarket.

Let that fully sink in.

"Buy one new 2011 Saab 9-5, get a second parts-car FREE!!!"