Which one is more reliable ? VW,Saab, Volvo

FWIW, I believe the only Saab to ever earn a "Recommended" rating from Consumer Reports was the 9-5. The rating, IIRC, is based upon a number of factors, including repair frequency data. I know that folks around here tend to look down their noses at CR, but their repair data is probably as good as you're going to find short of stopping in at Saab's HQ and asking to see theirs. I've not spent a lot of time in them but I find them comfortable and fast on the highway. I have several non-car-guy friends who haul their families around in them and they like them just fine.

Along with a number of other marques, Saab engines had issues with oil sludging. You DO want records to document regular oil changes, with synthetic oil.

For more info on the Saabs, ask on Saabnet.com, which has forums devoted to both models.

I've owned both Saabs and Volvos. I'll probably never own another Saab (DI cassettes, info displays, oil sludge problems, high parts prices). I would still consider Volvos although much of their reputation came from the 240s and 740s and they sharre nothing with more recent models.

I'd look at the E36 3-series and E-34 5-series Bimmers if I were in the market today.

If you are close to Columbus you are more than welcome to take a look at my 03 9-5 Aero.

SlickDizzy wrote: Run away from a VW. You thought A2 VW's were bad? I weep at the thought of A3's...too many friends have lost their souls to those wretched cars...BTDT. Both recent Volvos and Saabs tend to be a crapshoot, but the Saabs seem to be the worse of the two. 9-5s seem to be pure trouble, despite the sharp styling. "GM-ified," if you will (vs "Ford-ized" Volvos). If we're talking C900 Saabs vs 700/900 series Volvos, then it's a whole different ballgame. And they will all be just as hard to fix, considering they are all transverse FWD. Parts costs will be similar. Look for an 850R/V70R or a Saab 9-3 Viggen if you really want to go down this road. Honestly a BMW would probably be better suited from a build quality/maintenance standpoint if you can handle the RWD.

I've got two miatas so I can handle the RWD, Drove a past miata thru one of our heavier winters and loved how it handled the snow (snow tires). Not sure why I didn't include BMW. I guess I'm more interested in Saabs and Volvos. I the look of the 850Rs.

Someone in an earlier post suggested acura. There's just nothing sporty about the older acuras in the same price range as the cars mentioned in my original post. The RSX doesn't count.

I can deal with little dumb stuff needing fixed I just don't wanna be stranded on the side of the road or not being able to pick up my son because the car won't start.

I've had, in order: 1980 Rabbit, 1980 Vanagon, 1986 GTI, 1986 Saab 900, 1984 Rabbit Diesel, 1995 Saab 900S, 2000 Golf 2.oL, 1988 Volvo 740 Turbo, 1999 Volvo V70 XC "Cross Country" (current), 2003 Passat (current)

I've had more VWs than anything, but no A3s. My A2 GTI ('86, the last 8-valve GTIs with "high content") was dreadful as far as reliability was concerned. It was a blast to drive, but the transmission had problems and build quality was practically Soviet Union. I've never had an A3 VW, but my dad has had three or four. I think they're pretty decent cars for what they are. They get really good fuel economy, and can be pretty fun if you do things to them.

Saab: If you're looking at "classic" Saab 900s, I think you can find a really dependable car. Bear in mind the newest "classic" 900 is now over 17 years old, so my recommendation may not hold water as these cars age. I do know the "new generation" 900 and the first-gen 9-3s are pretty bad cars. At least my 1995 900 was. From what I've gathered, the manual transmissions are weak, the turbo engines sludge up if not maintained better than by-the-book, and they performed really badly in crash tests. That said, the 9-5s are far superior in every regard. Get an Aero; from what I've read, the Aero engines are better in terms of reliability than the low-pressure turbos. I'm not too familiar with the 2003 and later 9-3s, but I've been impressed with how they drive. And they're cheap.

VW: I have an '03 Passat V6, 5-speed manual which we bought with around 100,000 miles. It has been nearly flawless in terms of reliability. I bought my 2000 Golf new, and it was also practically flawless, although I sold it at about 47,000 miles.

Volvo: (Sometime I'll tell you about my stick-shift '88 740 turbo. It was wonderful.) We also have a '99 Volvo Cross Country; it also had around 100,000 miles when we bought it. It has been pretty good overall, but more trouble than the Passat. The center differentials in early AWD Volvos are pretty fragile, and ours went out a couple years ago, costing nearly $2000 to put right. My mechanic, however, says the 850/70-series Volvos are pretty bulletproof, and I agree except for the AWD system.

As far as driving them goes, I think the Volvo is a nice comfy cruiser, the Passat is a bit more sporting, and I find the Saab 9-5 the best drive of the three. Our Volvo seems mushy and unresponsive compared to the Passat or Saab 9-5. A Volvo with a stick shift and FWD would probably be far more fun to drive than our automatic Cross Country.

BMW was mentioned here... my Ti.. after I took care of the suspension (it was worn out) has given me nothing but joy and so far has been THE most reliable car I have ever owned.. and this includes a pair of brand new hyundais...

CaptainSpaulding wrote:

NGTD wrote: I had an A3 Golf, dead-nuts reliable. Never threw a CEL.......... It was a TD. Seriously probably the most reliable car I have ever owned. Didn't have a lot of electric junk.

Never actually seen a MK3 Golf diesel. Lots of Jettas but never a Golf.

Never available in the US. Mine was a 95. It was an IDI, not a TDi. You can't even import them to the US - banned on EPA website.

I had an 85 jetta GLI and between the fuel injection and vacuum leaks it needed work every week it seemed. Bought an 87 jetta with low miles and ran perfect but within two weeks started having issues. I'm sure they weren't maintained well but still the amount of problems my 85 had was crazy.

It's been stated here in the past but E36 interiors disintegrate sooner than you'd expect from a premium brand. If you don't mind dealing with headliners, door panels, and window regulators rivaling 70's Detroit for poor build quality, they are a good bet.

In reply to Clarty:

I think you are getting some of the C900/NG900/OG9-3 stuff mixed up. The C900 is the one with the "weak" trans. From what I have read as long as you don't do many/any drop clutch starts and change the fluid you should be fine. The sludge issue is for any 9-3 or 9-5 up until about 06 and it seems like the LPT 9-5 turbos are a little weak( I forget who makes them,Garret maybe).

As far as safety goes this is what the IHS says about the OG9-3 (99 - 02)

Saab 9-3 1999-2002 models mfg. after Dec. 1998 FRONTAL OFFSET TEST

OVERALL EVALUATION: Acceptable

There is also this:
he Saab 9-3 along with the Saab 9-5 and the Volvo S70 were the first cars in the world to earn the maximum score in a side impact augmented by a pole test[citation needed] based on Euro NCAP testing.

I do think you are right on with the driving thing. In my opinion our 9-5 Aero has a very nice ride. It is sporty but will not beat you up on the crappy roads we have here in Ohio.

Unfortunately, c900 (that is, 79-93) manual transmissions will die even if well-cared-for. The problem, usually, is the pinion bearings. There are a lot of theories floating around as to why this is, but regardless, a dead c900 gearbox usually means end-of-life for the car: the engine must come out, the rebuilds are very expensive, and the hard parts are becoming scarce: some shift forks, synchros, gears, layshafts, etc. are NLA and the aftermarket has not picked up the slack. For an average person, this puts them in the market for another car. Also for an average person, they ignore the gearbox whine to the point that nothing is re-usable when they finally bring it to a shop.

When I bought my 86 (in my profile), which came with bad pinion bearings, literally ten minutes after I paid for it my 89 made the first tell-tale signs dying pinion bearing. The 89 was jealous, I guess... Both cars, one a Turbo, one an S, had about 150k on the clock at the time.

I guess I'll weigh in here, at least with regard to the Volvo 850. I've owned mine for ten years. For the record, Ford bought Volvo in 1999, and carried some strictly Volvo designs nearly until they sold to the Chinese.

If you read the list of 850 common faults - shift microswitch, odo gear, ABS relay, headlight switch, evap. core, etc. - mine has had them all. None have left me stranded and all were relatively cheap fixes (except for the evap. core).

Otherwise the car has been rock solid and I fully believe that I could drive it for another ten years with routine maintenance. It isn't worth squat, even with relatively low milage.

Bang for the buck in a used car - I don't think you can beat a Volvo 850 for everyday transportation.

I'm also fond of e36's and have had several. These are also at the bottom of the depreciation curve and great bargains. If I had $2500 and needed to get to work, I'd buy a Volvo. If I wanted a fun car, I'd buy the BMW.

I've owned a dozen VW's but nothing past '92. I think I rode in a Saab once.

I am still wondering about all of these electrical problems that the A3 chassis VWs have. Its a pretty simple car with two control units max and thats if it has a slushbox behind the engine.

Pretty simple cars.

It is just a VW rep that gets repeated.......now B5 Passats, that is another issue.

No A3 VWs will ever show on my insurance card. Nope. Can't do it. Saw too many of them puke expensive electronics for no particularly good reason.

Kiponator wrote: It's been stated here in the past but E36 interiors disintegrate sooner than you'd expect from a premium brand. If you don't mind dealing with headliners, door panels, and window regulators rivaling 70's Detroit for poor build quality, they are a good bet.

the window regulator thing is an EASY fix.. it is brought about by dead grease. Clean out all the nasty crap that has turned to gum (as opposed to a lubricant) and regrease.. you should never have window problems again with an E36.

81gtv6 wrote: In reply to Clarty: I think you are getting some of the C900/NG900/OG9-3 stuff mixed up. The C900 is the one with the "weak" trans. From what I have read as long as you don't do many/any drop clutch starts and change the fluid you should be fine. The sludge issue is for any 9-3 or 9-5 up until about 06 and it seems like the LPT 9-5 turbos are a little weak( I forget who makes them,Garret maybe). As far as safety goes this is what the IHS says about the OG9-3 (99 - 02) Saab 9-3 1999-2002 models mfg. after Dec. 1998 FRONTAL OFFSET TEST OVERALL EVALUATION: Acceptable There is also this: he Saab 9-3 along with the Saab 9-5 and the Volvo S70 were the first cars in the world to earn the maximum score in a side impact augmented by a pole test[citation needed] based on Euro NCAP testing. I do think you are right on with the driving thing. In my opinion our 9-5 Aero has a very nice ride. It is sporty but will not beat you up on the crappy roads we have here in Ohio.

Right you are, gtv6! The C900s didi have weak transmissions, and I can't recall many I've driven not having a little of the dreaded pinion bearing noise. That said, I bought my '86 900 with 130,000 miles and put about another 130,000 on it with no transmission problems--not even a clutch! When I bought my '95 NG900, it had about 50,000 miles. I had the transmission repaired twice in six months for popping out of reverse. And this was at a well-regarded Saab-only independent shop.

As far as crash tests go, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Knt2zNNiQ.
It's a NG900, but I figure the 9-3s through 2002 are pretty much the same. I'm pretty sure it was the 2003 and later 9-3s that had the really good crash test results.

There is quite a big difference under the skin of a NG900 and a OG9-3. My 99 9-3 has @ 250K on it with the original clutch and the trans has never been opened.