Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/27/2007 8:21:27 AM EDT
I found a really good deal on a used Saab with turbo, and wanted to know the opinions of the Arfcom collective.........any issues?
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:22:52 AM EDT
Turbo = fine

SAAB = yuk

SAAB builds a fair to decent auto but repair parts are rediculous in price.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:23:01 AM EDT
I have a Volvo XC90 with the twin-turbo T6 engine. We have almost 60k on it, and much of it has been either in VERY hilly portions of Kalifornia or on the Autobahns in Germany.

No problems to report.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:23:42 AM EDT
Yes.

Boost is addicting.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:24:31 AM EDT
I just bought one today. Rover 620ti.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:25:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/27/2007 8:26:41 AM EDT by cyclone]
I have heard alot of conflicting opinions on SAAB before..........some like them, some dont. It seems to get a really high approval rating, but the cost of repair parts would scare me away..........also looked at Volvo as well, and a Mazda 6, due to the pretty decent prices these cars cost..........I am going to replace my Impala soon, and dont want to have to deal with GM service again, after a bad experience


Originally Posted By SouthHoof:
Turbo = fine

SAAB = yuk

SAAB builds a fair to decent auto but repair parts are rediculous in price.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:25:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyclone:

....

used Saab with turbo

....




What year?

Generally speaking, Saab turbos are not that good in sealing their motors with respect to turbo charge applications, they have bad head gaskets and whatnot.

If you can buy it for say, 500 bucks, it'll be a decent project sleeper car.

Good luck.

:}

Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:25:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SouthHoof:
Turbo = fine

SAAB = yuk

SAAB builds a fair to decent auto but repair parts are rediculous in price.


+100000

Wife had a Saab [non-turbo]. Repairs were fucking ludicrous...for that kind of money I'd rather have a Beemer.

YMMV
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:27:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/27/2007 8:27:58 AM EDT by cyclone]
2003 9-3 convertible...........still thinking about it, but also looking in other areas........I am not sold on it


Originally Posted By 888:

Originally Posted By cyclone:

....

used Saab with turbo

....




What year?

Generally speaking, Saab turbos are not that good in sealing their motors with respect to turbo charge applications, they have bad head gaskets and whatnot.

If you can buy it for say, 500 bucks, it'll be a decent project sleeper car.

Good luck.

:}

Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:28:11 AM EDT
If your gonna go stock turbo, go with Audi. Any car you see brand new with a turbo is going to be expensive. Get a BMW 335i
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:28:21 AM EDT
depends on the model, some of teh newer model Saab 93 turbos are actually subaru WRXs with Saab doodads on them
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:28:55 AM EDT
it's a 2003...........


Originally Posted By Vamousegun:
depends on the model, some of teh newer model Saab 93 turbos are actually subaru WRXs with Saab doodads on them
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:30:18 AM EDT
Wife has a saab. I'm mixed on it, it drives nice, gets good milage and has good power. However, repairs will eat you up and it has been troublesome.

I do not recommend them without a warranty.

-JTP
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:30:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/27/2007 8:37:17 AM EDT by spd2230]
Turbochargers = Good

Saab = Bad

Imagine that a Jaguar, a Cadillac Cimarron and a steaming pile of shit somehow meld together to become the finest automobile Sweden can muster. That, my friend, is the joy that is Saab.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:32:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cyclone:

....

2003

....





The newer ones have decent gasket to head sealing, so it may be a non issue in '03 turbos.

Don't pay more than what it's worth though, they're not worth much.

Most folks aren't into Saab's but I think they are decent and unique in a different way, a lot better than what Ford and GM cars with respect to engineering.

They are right up there with the Volvo's, primary target markets are the doctors, lawyers and other folks with $, who prefer to keep a low profile.

Good luck.

:}

Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:33:24 AM EDT
if it's the saab-subaru I'd say go for it. My WRX has been the beast.

link
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:35:21 AM EDT
This car is still under the 100,000 mile warranty, as it only has 31,000 miles on it, and it's listed at 15,500.........I dont like the idea of being robbed for repairs, even if it does have the warranty, as I drive alot to and from work, and thoselast 69,000 miles will come quickly.........think I might just look around or maybe get a new car


Originally Posted By JakeThePimp:
Wife has a saab. I'm mixed on it, it drives nice, gets good milage and has good power. However, repairs will eat you up and it has been troublesome.

I do not recommend them without a warranty.

-JTP
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:36:16 AM EDT
good friend has a Subaru WRX; he swears by it, I think its fun to ride in.

YMMV
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:36:48 AM EDT
Turbos are nice, particularly if you live at high altitude.

Saabs are maintanence nightmares.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:37:41 AM EDT
Thanks for all the replies..........I will look elswhere
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:40:07 AM EDT
Turbos are fun.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:45:07 AM EDT
I've known a few people who had Saabs and were pretty happy with them. I'm not sure about the newer Saabs that are GMish, but the older ones- yeah, you'll want to find a Saab specialist and it's going to cost you. Not necessarily that they are unreliable, just they are not common so finding someone who can work on them isn't so easy.


Originally Posted By FourStringSlinger:

Originally Posted By SouthHoof:
Turbo = fine

SAAB = yuk

SAAB builds a fair to decent auto but repair parts are rediculous in price.


+100000

Wife had a Saab [non-turbo]. Repairs were fucking ludicrous...for that kind of money I'd rather have a Beemer.

YMMV


I think motorcycles are a little different.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:47:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spd2230:
Turbochargers = Good

Saab = Bad

Imagine that a Jaguar, a Cadillac Cimarron and a steaming pile of shit somehow meld together to become the finest automobile Sweden can muster. That, my friend, is the joy that is Saab.


+1

I used to work for Enterprise Rent a Car back in the last 90s early 00s and we had a few Saab 9-3s or 9-5s, they were constantly in the shop, they didn't even make it to 5K miles before we got rid of them for being so troublesome.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:48:52 AM EDT


Subaru STI, feel the freedom.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:50:31 AM EDT
What model is it? I've found that most people who bash Saabs have no idea what they're talking about.
Not everyone, but most.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:53:16 AM EDT
Never had any experience with turbo cars until buying a Grand National.

This car is faster than some of the big block chevy powered cars I built years ago.

10.95 @ 122 with the stock engine, bigger turbo, injectors, etc... Strictly bolt-ons.

Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:53:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/27/2007 8:53:49 AM EDT by metroplex]
Subaru WRX's and STi's are technically excellent cars, but they look fugly to me. I cannot fathom driving around in one of those especially when Subaru offers discounts to certain groups that cater to tree hugging.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:55:08 AM EDT
Had a 1989 Dodge Caravan with a turbo 4 (think it was 2.5 liter) Mitsubushi engine.

Ran great. Had over 123K miles on it when it was stolen at the RR station. . .

Yeah, ---bitchin' minivan. . .
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:55:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Blue_Genes:
i179.photobucket.com/albums/w303/Blue_Genes/DSCN0889.jpg

Subaru STI, feel the freedom.


Sorry but that Tribeca grill is @#$% hideous. I have always liked the WRX but damn thats bad. Good thing they have already shitcanned it.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:56:38 AM EDT
my old 87 lebaron station wagon was turbo'ed.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:57:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dragracer_Art:
Never had any experience with turbo cars until buying a Grand National.

This car is faster than some of the big block chevy powered cars I built years ago.

10.95 @ 122 with the stock engine, bigger turbo, injectors, etc... Strictly bolt-ons.

i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc83/yullose/grandnat06.jpg


Sweet Monte Carlo
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 8:59:16 AM EDT
Had two Saabs:

An 85 900 Turbo. Orginal turbo went south at 191K miles. A new turbo and some upgrades, the car really moved. Bad gearbox took it off the road at 217K

Currently own a 2000 9-3. Original turbo running strong at 170K. Take care of it and it will run for quite a while. Regular oil changes and maint will keep it on the road for a while.

The 9-3 hatch also carries plenty of ARs.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 9:00:29 AM EDT
I personally owned a '79 900S 3 door and loved it.

I worked for Bosch in Chicago from 1980-90 and I had a late 80's 900 turbo 4dr as a parts car.

IMO...its easy to work on. Lots of room for turbo housing to breathe, and it's a hoot to see the looks on the faces of people driving Trans Ams, Camaros and Vettes as you smoke them at lights with an ugly 4 door...

I currently drive a 2003 VW GTI VR6 so I'm not screaming Saab fanatic. Just my personal observations.

Link Posted: 11/27/2007 9:01:09 AM EDT
read up on the Saab Talladega challenge

Saab made (makes?) some solid cars that are fun to drive
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 9:03:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ghetto:

Originally Posted By Dragracer_Art:
Never had any experience with turbo cars until buying a Grand National.

This car is faster than some of the big block chevy powered cars I built years ago.

10.95 @ 122 with the stock engine, bigger turbo, injectors, etc... Strictly bolt-ons.

i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc83/yullose/grandnat06.jpg


Sweet Monte Carlo


Unless your joking, revoke the man card
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 9:58:00 AM EDT
SAAB -- born from jets

Why would anyone want a car that (like a jet) A) consumes lots of fuel, B) consumes lots of expensive maintance, C) runs short distances between needing A and B.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:02:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FudgieGhost1:
Had a 1989 Dodge Caravan with a turbo 4 (think it was 2.5 liter) Mitsubushi engine.

Ran great. Had over 123K miles on it when it was stolen at the RR station. . .

Yeah, ---bitchin' minivan. . .


yeah they had the 4g63 engine in them, the same engine that was in the mitsu eclipse, eagle talon, and plymouth laser at the time. I've been to a drag strip in wisconsin and this kid pulled up in an 89 caravan and it ran an 11.2 1/4 mile. He had swapped in a 60 trim turbo.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:03:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/27/2007 10:04:53 AM EDT by Deej86]

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
I just bought one today. Rover 620ti.
Nice!

my dad had a couple turbodiesel pickups...that count?
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:04:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dtrain323i:
If your gonna go stock turbo, go with Audi. Any car you see brand new with a turbo is going to be expensive. Get a BMW 335i

the audis are maitnence nightmares.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:08:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cypher15:

Originally Posted By Dtrain323i:
If your gonna go stock turbo, go with Audi. Any car you see brand new with a turbo is going to be expensive. Get a BMW 335i

the audis are maitnence nightmares.


which is why i said go with the BMW. 5 year free maintenence
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:10:31 AM EDT
I don't know anything about Saabs, but I had an Audi with a turbocharger. Disadvantages were that it required premium gas, and it was recommended to let the turbo cool down for a minute or two before shutting it off if you've been driving hard. The turbo on this particular model (A4 with 1.8 liter) was very reliable, but they're "something else that can break", and not cheap to fix if it does fail.

Advantages were that I bought a chip for $500 that got me 30 horsepower and 55 lb/ft of torque, and it still got 30 mpg on the highway. I don't think that the performance aftermarket for Saab is as mature as it is for Audi, so a reasonably priced, well tested chip may not be an option.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:13:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dtrain323i:

Originally Posted By FudgieGhost1:
Had a 1989 Dodge Caravan with a turbo 4 (think it was 2.5 liter) Mitsubushi engine.

Ran great. Had over 123K miles on it when it was stolen at the RR station. . .

Yeah, ---bitchin' minivan. . .


yeah they had the 4g63 engine in them, the same engine that was in the mitsu eclipse, eagle talon, and plymouth laser at the time. I've been to a drag strip in wisconsin and this kid pulled up in an 89 caravan and it ran an 11.2 1/4 mile. He had swapped in a 60 trim turbo.


No, they didn't. The 4G63 is a 2.0L only.
It had the 2.2/2.5 Dodge turbo engine. Think Omni GLHS, Daytona IROC, etc... Shelby CSX.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:18:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/27/2007 10:22:08 AM EDT by Toiyabe66]
I have a Turbo car. I actually have more than one turbo car.

Currently:
2005 Mitsubishi Lancer Evo MR.
2002 Subaru WRX rallycar.
1999 Ford F250 7.3l diesel.

Turbos probably account for 50% of the cars we work on. They're fun, they're cool. Saab made some great motors, the 2.3L was, in particualr, a great engine. That being said, I wouldn't buy one.

The Saabaru, (also known as a 9-2x) was available with both a turbo 2.0L (EJ20) or an NA 2.5L (EJ25). They are mechanically identical to an equivalent year WRX with the following exceptions:

1) Front fenders, hood, front and rear fascias, tailgate.
2) No roof rack.
3) Quicker steering, same rack as an US-Spec STi.
4) Stiffer springs with slightly softer shocks.
5) Factory 17" wheels.
6) 250lbs of sound-deadening.

They were selling new here for 16,500. In other words, they couldn't give them away. Great car though.

Edit to add:
Today, I have two 930s (911 Turbos), two 951s (944 Turbos), a WRX, a 1.8t GTi, a 1.8T A4. and an Audi S4 (2.7 bi-turbo) in the shop.
I like the boost.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:22:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Toiyabe66:

Originally Posted By Dtrain323i:

Originally Posted By FudgieGhost1:
Had a 1989 Dodge Caravan with a turbo 4 (think it was 2.5 liter) Mitsubushi engine.

Ran great. Had over 123K miles on it when it was stolen at the RR station. . .

Yeah, ---bitchin' minivan. . .


yeah they had the 4g63 engine in them, the same engine that was in the mitsu eclipse, eagle talon, and plymouth laser at the time. I've been to a drag strip in wisconsin and this kid pulled up in an 89 caravan and it ran an 11.2 1/4 mile. He had swapped in a 60 trim turbo.


No, they didn't. The 4G63 is a 2.0L only.
It had the 2.2/2.5 Dodge turbo engine. Think Omni GLHS, Daytona IROC, etc... Shelby CSX.


The caravan I saw definately had a 4G63. Swapped in i suppose, accept my apologies. I'm not a mitsu expert
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:22:37 AM EDT
My Subaru WRX has been fine with 90k on it so far...
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:24:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dtrain323i:

Originally Posted By Toiyabe66:

Originally Posted By Dtrain323i:

Originally Posted By FudgieGhost1:
Had a 1989 Dodge Caravan with a turbo 4 (think it was 2.5 liter) Mitsubushi engine.

Ran great. Had over 123K miles on it when it was stolen at the RR station. . .

Yeah, ---bitchin' minivan. . .


yeah they had the 4g63 engine in them, the same engine that was in the mitsu eclipse, eagle talon, and plymouth laser at the time. I've been to a drag strip in wisconsin and this kid pulled up in an 89 caravan and it ran an 11.2 1/4 mile. He had swapped in a 60 trim turbo.


No, they didn't. The 4G63 is a 2.0L only.
It had the 2.2/2.5 Dodge turbo engine. Think Omni GLHS, Daytona IROC, etc... Shelby CSX.


The caravan I saw definately had a 4G63. Swapped in i suppose, accept my apologies. I'm not a mitsu expert


No worries, there is a local here with a Lotus-head 2.5 Caravan that runs low 10s. He has lightened it so much he can lift the rear tires off the ground. Says it makes a fun street-racer.
The turbo/manual combo on the minivans was only one year, 1989 iirc.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:27:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:27:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/27/2007 10:30:15 AM EDT by Followthehollow]

Originally Posted By Dragracer_Art:
Never had any experience with turbo cars until buying a Grand National.

This car is faster than some of the big block chevy powered cars I built years ago.

10.95 @ 122 with the stock engine, bigger turbo, injectors, etc... Strictly bolt-ons.

i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc83/yullose/grandnat06.jpg



You make me jealous.

That to me will always be the ultimate sleeper car. Many people don't have a clue what it even is.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:28:14 AM EDT
My wife drives an Audi A4 with the 1.8 turbo. It lags a little like most turbos do, but it has been reliable.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:34:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By streetfighter:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
I just bought one today. Rover 620ti.


You really have settled in
620 Ti


When you wrote Rover I thought you were referring to a Land Rover.

You sir, have a sweet ride.
Link Posted: 11/27/2007 10:43:35 AM EDT
I had a 2003 A6 2.7 Turbo. That car kicked ass, but maintenance was $$$$. Another bad note was good German Auto mechanics in the Midwest are few and far between. I would by another Audi in a heart beat.

Traded that in on a 2005 Saab 9-5 Turbo. Saab gets better MPG, is cheaper on ins. and payments, and is certified to 100K. The warranty covers everything under the hood.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top