and some of them are flaming Audi's products and reliability for the last 1-2 months.
Seems like some of them can't get used to Audi's renaissance while some desperately want to trade their Saabs for the RS4 or S6!
Just a warning!
Tom (Previous Saab owner of 88 900i 8V and 92 900S 16V)
97 A4 1.8TQMS
99 JETTA IV GLS 2.0
00 NEW BEETLE GLS TDI (ON ORDER)
98.5 A4 1.8TQAS WETTED<ul><li><a href="http://www.saabnet.com">SAABNET WEBSITE LINK</a></li></ul>

It doesn't have the same level of organization, focus, or depth as a4.org. Unfortunately, I think this is telling about Saab.. Saab owners seem truly not to want to hear anything negative about Saab. What is negative about Saab? Drivetrain, chassis, suspention, quality, quality control, outsourced engine and transmission (and chassis). This "saab rules everything else sucks" is the expression of a bankrupt mentality.

"while some desperately want to trade their Saabs for the RS4 or S6! "

Could you point me to where someone has said that?

"What is negative about Saab? Drivetrain, chassis, suspention,
quality, quality control, outsourced engine and transmission (and chassis)."

I won't discuss the new 900, that's a GM product so it's suspect IMO. But as to the "Classic" 900 (~1980-93), I've had several and now have an '89 since new, with 131k miles on it. It's been reliable, not overly expensive to maintain, and is still rock solid after 11 years.

Drivetrain: not great but my A4Q (which I love) is a bit clunky
Chassis: OK by 80s standards, not so today, but very predictable handling & tossable.
Suspension Quality: No suspension repairs in 11 yrs/131k : wish I could say that about A4s with all the control arm problems I read about.
Outsourced Engine: Not on the "Classic" 900: 131k, no measurable oil consumption, still runs well and pulls strong.
Transmission: A Saab weak link, to be sure.

My point: I think you commit the same "sin", from the other perspective, that you accuse some of the Saab'ers of doing. Your brush is too broad.

Suspension Quality: No suspension repairs in 11 yrs/131k : wish I could say that about A4s with all the control arm problems I read about.


WHOA, you're falling into the trap too. You, too, are talking about stuff you've heard. I agree with your original intent of showing "here's my Saab experience based on facts for a car that has 131k" and then you lost your reputable quality when you talked about stuff you've heard, which is exactly what the other post was about. I'm not defending either car, but to keep a high reputation, you have to.....blahblahblah I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore....

I've owned and enjoyed several of the 'Classic' 900: got to 165,000 mi. on one before it was totalled. Currently have an '87 with 135,000 and a '90 with 102,000.
Great cars, esp. the late 16-valve models.
Not so for the newer 900, from test drives, the experience of friends, and from all I've heard.
Last year, looking for a car, I was at a loss for what to buy (BMW? Look for a low mileage older 900?).
Then I drove the A4. Case closed. '98 A4 QMS.

I'm amazed that "JSC's" Saab needed no suspension parts in that many miles. Geez, even my Hondas went through suspensions in half that many miles. Twice on my 140k mile Honda.
Maybe he lives where the roads are like glass.
I know Steve S. hasn't had the suspension issues on his '96 A4. Maybe that's the luck of living in California. I live in Michigan where pot holes can actually swallow cars. I'm on set #3 of control arms. That's not that unusual....when you consider the roads I drive on and the fact that I push my car very hard at about 6 track events or so per year. Still, I think Audi needs to get this problem solved ASAP. I can accept replacements every 70-75k (like my Hondas) but not every 30k.
We should all remember when comparing what car does what vs. other cars, that not every car with a different driver and geographical location is a good comparison.
-Cathleen

My A4 replaced a 1992 900S (older body style). I owned a 1980 900 Turbo and a 1988 9000 Turbo as well. When looking for a new car I considered the 93 but it seemed to have too much "GM" in it and lost the unique Saab feel.

I agree w/ what JSC says about the old style 900/9000 and would like to add some points.

All the Saabs I had were a LOT of fun to drive and had a lot of utility to them. Probably more utility than a lot of the SUVs out there. Here are some things I transported in the back:
-wheelbarrow
-clothes dryer
-a yard of mulch
-lots of wood (2x4, 4x4, 6x6, etc) from Home Depot.
-tons of bike stuff, etc, etc

I would use this car rather than my wife's Jeep GC for transporting big but not heavy items because it seemed to have more space as well as easier to get things in and out.

Performance wise they could hold there own when up to speed. Handling was great with all cars especially the '92 that had an SPG suspension. Wet, dry, or snow they were well balanced and did better than most cars of the time.

Another good point is that the 900s were relatively straight forward to work on. Suspension, brakes, exhaust, and other 'external mechanicals' weren't tough. On the other hand some items were best left to a mechanic (ex. the motor would have to be pulled to get to the tranny, the waterpump and other items were burried in the back between motor and firewall)

Yes, Saab were/are a little different and quirky. It's too bad that the new models diversed so much from what was special about the older ones.

-don b

I agree that there's nothing wrong with Saab. Saab is a good company with small line-up. Remember Saab's factory is basically smaller than a shopping mall as one of my salesperson told my dad when he purchased the first Classic 900 8V in early 1988.
Our Classic 900i 8V still going strong while the newer 900S 16V is not as reliable maybe its because GM has input before the last bunch of C900 came out.
In 10 years of Hong Kong to bumper-to-bumper traffic every day. The 2.0 liter 8 valver 125 horsepower 900 still going extremely strong. No rattles, no sequaks and no mechanical problems, much more reliable than my first 92 Civic LX-SE and 97 Toyota RAV4.
However, the newer 900S 16V didn't have that good track record as the first 8-valver. Rattles, check-engine lights on for 2 times, airbag light on 1 time and lots of leaking and wiring harnesses problems. Thanks GM. You guys influenced a once rock-solid Swede into almost like junk! :<
Even more horrible is my girlfriend's 95 NG 900SE V6 Convertible. You know that V6 came from the Opel factory. There are lots of electronic problems, oil leaking problems and even the top cover leaked one time. After 3.5 years, she traded-in for A4 in mid-98. Forgot GM for pushing Saab introduced the NG so quick in 94, thank you!:<
Just hope no more generalizes Saab. Saab made some very dependable vehicle before GM inputs in late 80s. The only Saab that's reliable after GM input is the 9-5. Forget about NG900/9-3 before they introduce the next generation, too GM-ish! :<
Tom
97 A4 1.8TQMS
99 JETTA IV GLS 2.0
00 NEW BEETLE GLS TDI (ON ORDER)
98.5 A4 1.8TQAS WETTED
Previous owner of 88 Saab 900i 8V and 93 900S 16V

I did, as to the Saab: also made it very clear that the A4 control arm problems are based on what I heard.... from LOTS of people here. Thank god I haven't needed a new one in 15k.

Re; the SAAB: Cathleen I wish the roads were glass here but it's lived in No.Va./DC all its life and the roads aren't great -- better than Mich. but not good.

BTW, another one of our Saabs had over 150k with no suspension breakdowns.

I love 900's before model year 1994. I was talking about 94 model year and later 900 and
9-3. 9-5 also has outsorced engine, quality control issues, and many say that the suspention is too soft. I'd still have a Viggen or a 9-5 Aero, but I'd rather have any A4 because it is the feeling of stability that is what I want. 900's never felt like Audi's, of course, but they were great cars in their own right. Saab is literally being merged into Opel. My comments were about Saab as a company such as it exists now. Sorry for not having been more clear.

The 200hp 3.0 liter V6 24 valver that's optional on the 9-5 is the only Saab engine that's available in North America is outsource from Opel/GM Europe. The other engine is not developed from Saab itself is the 2.5TDI that they brought from VW/Audi AG to install in the 9-3.
All the 2.0 liter LPT/HPT, 2.3 liter LPT standard on 9-5 and even the Aero and Viggen engines are developed by Saab itself. Saab is not completely Opelness.
I have driven the new 9-3/9-5. Even though their handling still not at Audi/BMW kinda of sharpness, they are still very much fun-to-drive and tossable. I don't feel the 9-5 being too soft as all, still as firm as the previous 9000. 9-3 is much improving over the lousy NG900 but still needs to take lots of time before catching up to A4 and 3-Series's benchmark standards.
Overall, Saab still a highly respectable company which builds some wonderful cars.
If you want to discuss more about new Saab or old Saab, you can email me directly! :>
Tom (Previous owner of 88 Saab 900i 8V and 92 900S 16V)
97 A4 1.8TQMS
99 JETTA IV GLS 2.0
00 NEW BEETLE GLS TDI (ON ORDER)
98.5 A4 1.8TQAS WETTED

in which I was condemned to discuss Saab for enternity! Thank you for your response. Last year, Saab (USA) emailed me and stated that the 9-3 engine came from Opel factory in Germany. The chassis for the 94 900 is an Opel chassis. The transmission is Aisin or Assinine or something. All kidding aside, I very much enjoy your comments and I think this forum is the best!