If you had a '95 Saab 900...

A local Honda dealer has a '95 Saab 900 for sale. It would obviously become my (or someone else's) beater. But I'm finding it hard to pass up since it's a big hatchback (somehow cooler than a wagon), yet at the same time I know zip about Saabs (of course, that could also be a plus, as in "...now for something completely different..." as they used to say on Monty Python).

According to the posted CarFax, this car has just under 155k miles and has been in an accident where it was hit in the front (about a year after it was purchased new, so it didn't do any serious damage...apparently). The hood seems to be faded a bit more than the rest of the car, but that's the only visible accident damage.

Also, this is a "base" model, NON turbo with a manual transmission, which would also be good for someone just getting there feet wet with a strange brand.

What should I be looking at/for? as far as potential troublespots? What are good websites for (almost vintage) Saabs?

Biggest thing is rust. Look for rust around the rear quarter panel and doors. The hatch is great on those things, I can fit a ton of stuff into my dad's 94 900 S (who is original owner) but I hate the car with a passion because its 1) boring to drive 2) very slow 3) worst manual transmission I have ever driven 4) huge blindspots 5) steering wheel is difficult to turn because it is both too stiff and too small relative to the steering ratio 6) I always have to drive it when my DD breaks down.

Its reliable, hauls a lot of stuff, gas mileage is about 30 mpg, built like a tank.

I would get the turbo one if I was to get a 900 S

I had a '95 900S. Was a damn tank.

I think in the year I drove it I put a rheostat in it, and a flex pipe. Oh and the gas gauge stopped working after I slid into a ditch and clipped a stump at 30mph. If I could have any car back that I used to own, that's the one :( Best I could manage (on 30psi inflated allseasons) was a 16.8 @ 83mph.

I've been driving a '94 V6 900 for a week now.

So far, so good, except for the FWD factor.

I parted out my 94 NG turbo for a 91 900s. I am MUCH happier

"If you had a '95 Saab 900"

I'd be wondering where I went wrong in life.

Dave, if you could see my Civic, you'd know where you went wrong.

Actually, it wasn't in too bad a shape until about 4-5 months ago. Then I sort of started driving like a kamikaze pilot on a bad caffeine overload. Somewheres along the way, I lost an inner fender liner, which (apparently?) tore the exhaust system loose and in January I had a low speed collision with a light pole in a parking lot. As much as I like the idea of a small, light, efficient coupe....it has a difficult to load trunk, even when you fold the back seat (which I'm still trying to figure out how to do). I'd still actually replace it in a minute with another Civic coupe...if I could find a used one that isn't modded to within an inch of it's life AND has a manual transmission.

ampire wrote: Biggest thing is rust. Look for rust around the rear quarter panel and doors. The hatch is great on those things, I can fit a ton of stuff into my dad's 94 900 S (who is original owner) but I hate the car with a passion because its 1) boring to drive 2) very slow 3) worst manual transmission I have ever driven 4) huge blindspots 5) steering wheel is difficult to turn because it is both too stiff and too small relative to the steering ratio 6) I always have to drive it when my DD breaks down. Its reliable, hauls a lot of stuff, gas mileage is about 30 mpg, built like a tank. I would get the turbo one if I was to get a 900 S

Ampire pretty much covered it. I had a '95 Saab 900S is the same configuration you describe for a little while when I was in college. I learned how to drive stick with it, and even then I could tell it sucked. The shifter is very rubbery with long throws and the "self-adjusting" clutch cable stretches out over time, which makes it so you have to practically push the clutch pedal through the floor. You can replace the cable yourself or do a hydraulic clutch conversion from a later GM900/9-3, but I wouldn't bother with the latter unless the car was a turbo.

I'll also vouch for the tank statements. I ended up spinning out in slushy weather and took out the front-left corner of the car on a guardrail. I installed a new headlight and had a shop install a new radiator and I drove it like that for three months until I bought my next car (a Subaru Impreza). It tended to stall on inclines but otherwise drove the same as it did before the accident.

My cousin's hubby had a Saab. He grew a beard, smoked a pipe, wore a sports car cap and pretended he was an intellectual. Whenever I see an older Saab I always think of him. :-)

ampire wrote: 3) worst manual transmission I have ever driven 4) huge blindspots

I think the shifting experience is better than most car's I've owned, but apparently I've owned cars with the worse shifters known to man.

The shifter in my 99 9-3 was not the greatest but far from the worst I have ever driven. Aside from the fact that a non turbo SAAB is slow they do get good gas mileage, will hold a ton of stuff and you don't see them all over the place.

I have a 97 900s, just a 2.3 under the hood. Yea the blind spots do suck, but it was the easiest oil change I have ever done.

If I had a '95 Saab 900, I'd be questioning my sanity!

I did have one; it was perhaps the worst car I ever had (or was my 1980 Vanagon?). It WAS the worst disappointment, though. I bought it Christmas Eve 1999 and was rid of it by July. At 60,000 miles, the manual gearbox was popping out of reverse, it burned massive amounts of oil, and it was rusting (bulging, flaking, crunchy rust) underneath the driver's door mirror!

Compared to the 1986 Saab 900 I traded in for this wheeled turd, the '95 900 was much less tank-like in terms of build quality, and probably even safety. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X39irHLwFnw

That said, I wish they were good cars. I desperately wanted to like them. They're dirt cheap, look great, hold tons of crap, and aren't too bad to drive. They are loaded with really cool features like the "deadbolt" door locking, the "Black Panel," which darkens all the instruments except the speedometer below 80, I believe. It's great for night driving; there's no cooler dashboard anywhere than the NG900s. And, they're great in snow.

But if you have the opportunity to buy one of these, run as fast and as far away as you can. Do not be fooled by the legend of Saab greatness. Other Saabs are indeed excellent cars. The NG900/early 9-3s are not.

I really liked my 99 9-3, there were a few things that went wrong with it but overall it was a very reliable car. We got it with 75K on it and I gave it to my brother with 210K on it. It doesn't burn any oil, pulls like a freight train and gets good gas mileage. That being said I would not get one without a turbo though.

Can you explain the no-turbo sentiment in this thread? My Mom has a high-mileage GM9-3 turbo that I'm afraid I may get when she's done with it. Is it going to nickel and dime me to death?

Not sure on the no-turbo thread... I can only say that some of the GM saabs had issues with sludging when coupled with the turbo. The early 900s with the Trionic 5 (t-5) injection didn't seem to have the problems. but the 9-3 with the T-7 did.

I've had two 9-5's in the shop over the last while, and both have waited for parts for over a month. By the time you find a dealer, who orders the GM part numbers through the remains of the Saab network from Spyker, who then hires casual labor to go through the warehouse to find the leftover parts, then hires a bicycle courier to bring them here from Sweden....

6 weeks for a water valve for the heater on the first one, we are now 4 weeks into waiting for a fuel line on the second.

I like Saabs, but you gotta be nutz to own one now.

integraguy wrote: ...(somehow cooler than a wagon)...,

them fightin words

hmmm.. I guess GM is not required to stock parts for ten years on a car they disowned?

Streetwiseguy wrote: I've had two 9-5's in the shop over the last while, and both have waited for parts for over a month. By the time you find a dealer, who orders the GM part numbers through the remains of the Saab network from Spyker, who then hires casual labor to go through the warehouse to find the leftover parts, then hires a bicycle courier to bring them here from Sweden.... 6 weeks for a water valve for the heater on the first one, we are now 4 weeks into waiting for a fuel line on the second. I like Saabs, but you gotta be nutz to own one now.

Good point here.

My mom owned a 95 900S convertible. It was an automatic and slow... It was a nice convertible but the convertible top is like a Rube Goldberg Machine in terms of complexity. A quote from a Saab parts website "It's not if the top mechanism will fail to work but when" Seriously over/underdesigned depending on how you look at it.

The basic car was fairly reliable. It didn't get as well maintained mechanically as it should have been but held up fairly well. The front main seal seems to be a common oil leak look for a line of oil spray inside engine bay on crank pulley side. (Its not actualy the front main seal but a giant O-Ring that seals the oil pump that tends to leak.) It was an easy and cheap fix if you do it yourself but the dealer will charge big bucks to change it. The dash information panel tied in with the radio will sometimes have lines burn out so you can't read it.

If the top wasn't down I hated driving the car.

I finally convinced her to sell it this past spring and she bought... a Miata. Problem solved... Cheap, Reliable, Convertible..

As far as parts go I have not had any issues getting stuff, but then I usually order online and do what ever it is myself.

Mine have all been very reliable, are fun to drive and get good gas mileage. When my 9-5 dies I would like to get a 9-3 sportwagon to replace it but I think I will get another 100K out of my car so it will be a while.