Saab: My test drives of 9-3 Linears

Bob H wrote:
 


I am sorry to hear this about the quality of the 2003/2004 9-3s. For
that price, you would think these issues would have been eliminated.
Did you test drive any other Saab 9-3s, just in case you might have
found two lemons?

I prefer the Classic Saabs, primarily because the design. I have not
noticed the squirrelly handling and suspension noise with my Classics
that you found with the new 9-3s - and my Classic have well over 100,000
miles each.

 

What do you mean by "gas hungry"? I get 26 mpg (US) with a 900 SPG in
combined city/highway driving.

 

 

In article <1MxOb.1903$news.adelphia.net> null writes:
 

Two years ago I tested a demo 9-3 with 17" wheels and thought it
unacceptably harsh. This was on normal country roads in Norfolk,
UK, decently maintained with odd pots and gouges here and there.
Conditions limited sane driving to maybe 55 mph. I was assured
the 16" were softer but never had a chance to see for myself.

Does "squirrelly" == harsh or just excessively lively?
--
Andrew Stephenson

Bob H wrote: 

Quite surprised to hear that, is it only the Linear? Possibly a car with
brand new tires is more noisy? Did you try a model with more mileage on it?

Road noise isn't really acceptable in a premium class car. One thing I enjoy
in my 1993 9000 CSE is the lack of (intrusive) road noise. Actually, I never
think of it as it's not an issue. This is my problem; you never know that you
have a good car before you try another one.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:38:37 GMT, in alt.autos.saab you wrote:

Try a 9-5, or try an earlier model year. Saab certified gives you a
100K mile/6 year warranty. Perhaps the earlier ones are a bit less
GM'd up.

Harvey

 

"ma_twain" <com> wrote in message
news:com... 
squirrelly 
designed, 
me. 
loose 

The two samples, except as noted, drove similarly. There was nothing about
them I would describe as lemon-like. Their characteristics//unexpected
noises as noted did not appeal to me and perhaps could be cured with dealer
adjustment. As a matter of fact the sales manager told me the dealership
bought back two cars with 17's, so unhappy were the owners. And he offered
to swap 16's onto the 2003 at no charge. He did not dispute the road noise.
He suggested I try a 9-5, but after having read complaints about excessive
road noise above 60 mph in it, I declined citing unacceptable depreciation
issues.
 
tank if 
cruise 

I found it very easy to burn gas quickly when pressing the vehicle to
accelerate and drive fast. The fuel gauge indicator seemed to drop as fast
as the one in the hungry eight cylinder engined vehicle which I frequenly
"push". As it should. The slushbox undoubtedly did not help matters any.
Very easy to trash the EPA ratings. I simply thought that it would be more
economical even when thrashed somewhat, what with the engine size. But I
suppose to generate that much power from that size engine, it would required
respectable amounts of fuel under turbo-charged conditions.

Bottom line: if the road noise was (largely) absent, I would be driving it
next week.
 
right 
pricing. 
cabin 
surprised at 
from me 

"Andrew Stephenson" <demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:demon.co.uk... 

The 16's are definitely softer. I did not find the 17's too harsh, although
they were harsher. But it did not ride anywhere near as harsh as a Lincoln
LS with 17's. That one is harsh.

 

"Johannes H Andersen" <com> wrote in message
news:com... 
squirrelly 
designed, 
me. 
loose 
tank if 
cruise 
right 
pricing. 
cabin 
surprised at 
it?

Not anywhere near enough sound-deadening. Perhaps the pre-GM units are
quieter, but I prefer the styling of the GM's. It's too bad they are
running the show, because in my thinking they've largely ruined what could
be a much more successful and pleasing automobile.
 
enjoy 
never 
you 

That being said I must agree with you, as my present vehicle , which
stickered for U$4,000 less two years ago, is much quieter. I have a
newfound respect for it.

"Harvey White" <netcom.com> wrote in message
news:com... 

I really would like to drive the 9-5, but I will not spend at that level due
to rapid depreciation issues (I tend to trade about every three years).
Perhaps a lease would make more sense. Also, I have read complaints of
intrusive road noise above 60 mph in the 9-5. I do not remember which model
year the author referred to.

Given its present direction, GM may end up poisoning the whole line of
vehicles with their mindless cost-cutting. Too bad to ruin Saab. I feel
gyped.

 
squirrelly 
designed, 
me. 
if 
right 
pricing. 
cabin 
at 
me