What Car: Saab 9-5 Aero, Volvo S60 or M-B 300SD?

I'm looking for a comfy, sporty, manual (unless it's a Benz), well-made 4-door car to replace a decent, fast, safe and reliable 2003 Passat that I've come to dread taking on long trips because it's so painfully uncomfortable.

The car has to be able to swallow similar amounts of crap, family and dogs as the Passat without making me ache for days after a trip. I also need to avoid incurring a big debt, so I'm looking at stuff in the $3,000 to $6,000 range. I figure I should be able to get around $5,000 for a clean '03 Passat V6 GLX 5-speed with 150,000 miles and nothing major wrong with it.

At this point the finalists are: 1) 2002-'05 Saab 9-5 Aero manual; 2) same era Volvo S60 manual; 3) some sort of Mercedes W123 or '126 diesel that's clean and unmolested.

I like European crap, and my dad has had two 9-5s and I like them a lot. They seem to handle well and are comfortable and safe. I've heard the Aero engines are the best or most resistant to sludging or something like that.

SWMBO has a '99 Volvo V70XC, and it is really comfortable on a trip of any length, but there's more than a bit of LTD Country Squire thrown into the handling and Boeing 747s can turn around in less space than that Cross Country. The S60R cars are too expensive and their complexity gives me the heebie-jeebies. I've found the AWD on our Volvo is fragile, breaks expensively and isn't all that great when it's working properly anyway. For this reason, I'm interested only in FWD Volvos.

As for the Mercedes-Benz fascination, I've always thought of the W126s as the best-made production cars ever made, and the W123s are pretty close. I love the way those cars feel, and I suppose if I have to explain why, it wouldn't make sense anyway.

Any insights you may have are welcome.
Any experience you could offer with any of the three sorts of cars is mainly what I'm wondering about. Thanks.

I did the 850 manual wagon and loved it. If doing it now, I would look for a 9-5 manual wagon. Is the 9-3 manual wagon down to your price range yet?

9-5 Sedan can swallow more stuff than you can imagine. Wagon would be even better. I'd go this route personally for a few reasons:

• Our 02 9-5 sedan could hold more stuff (and people more comfortably) than our 04 V70 (wagon version of S60)
• The newest of the Benzes are 20 years old (18 if you include W124's). That old of a German car scares me even more than a SAAB for DD'ing. I would do it, but I'm 23 with no kids.

Although I would personally go with the 9-3 Arc simply for the comfort, since you mentioned comfort in that.

I do love old Volvos, and those 850s have some similarity to an old 740 Turbo I once loved.

The 9-3 wagons seem to hover just out of reach. Funnily enough, I'm not a huge fan of the 9-3's looks, although every time I drive my brother-in-law's 2007 9-3, I walk away with the intention of buying one. I think they're just a little too small for toddler transport. Let me know if I'm wrong about that, though.

Thanks, mtn. Are the Aeros stiffies? I like handling, but I have an MG Midget for those jollies. I want a comfy, big fatty sort of car, but not as woozy as our Volvo XC.

9-3 Arc? I think my Dad's current 9-5 is a Linear, and I like its ride/handling mix. You said 9-3, though, right? Hmmm...

Strathclyde wrote: Thanks, mtn. Are the Aeros stiffies? I like handling, but I have an MG Midget for those jollies. I want a comfy, big fatty sort of car, but not as woozy as our Volvo XC. 9-3 Arc? I think my Dad's current 9-5 is a Linear, and I like its ride/handling mix. You said 9-3, though, right? Hmmm...

I said 9-3, but I meant 9-5. I've been out of SAAB's for awhile now, but we had a 9-5 Linear. I loved that car, even though it was the base model of them.

IIRC, the 02-03 Linear's had the 185hp turbo 4 and the softest suspension. In 04 it became a wagon only. The 02-03 Arc had the turbo 6. Pass on that one, you don't want it. The in 04 the Arc got the same engine as the Aero, but with a smaller turbo. This one I think has the same soft suspension as the Linear.

I've only driven in an Aero in an autocross and don't remember it being overly stiff, but frankly don't see why you need the extra power when a tune to the lower models will get you there anyways, and the Linear was a lot of fun around town anyways, even with a blown turbo.

One last thing: Swedish Auto's Always Break

I had read the Aero engine was the most reliable, or didn't have the sludging problems the base engines did. I don't recall what the reason given for the Aero engine being better, besides more power always being better.

Yes, Swedish Autos Always Break. Have a DI cassette in the trunk and a few bucks to regularly replace SIDs, too.

Anyone familiar with the AC blend door failures on older 9-5s? Inoperative AC is a deal breaker for me; is it really a couple grand to fix?

Finding a 300SD with working A/C is somewhat unlikely to happen. Mine has no trouble keeping up with traffic (as long as you dont have to go up steep hills) and handles reasonably well with lowering springs and bilstiens, and 16x8 wheels with good tires. They are really easy to work on too, Its really weird to work on a car that is designed to be fixed easily rather than nothing coming apart the way its supposed to. Next time you see a w126 in the junkyard, try taking the door panel off, if you have done the same thing on most other cars you will be surprised how easy it is and how you can easily get it apart without breaking anything.

If you go for the Volvo, you won't regret ponying up for the S60R. The AWD system isn't inherently unreliable so long as it isn't driven without fluid. Many people will have a leak but continue to drive the car anyway destroying it.

I can vouch that W126s are nice to work on due to their large size and relatively small engine (everything is spread out).

Can't give you a ton of technical expertise, as I'm not a great mechanic, but my past two daily drivers have been a '96 Volvo 850 wagon, and my current '01 Saab 9-5 wagon. The Volvo was an auto, the Saab is a stick.

If you're interested in the Volvo, I wouldn't bother with AWD. FWD handles fine, even in snow. I know a lot of people have had trouble with them, but I put 35+k mostly trouble free miles on mine. It had about 140k on it when I sold it. I really liked the car a lot, and regret selling it. Most comfy seats I've ever sat in. Tons of cargo room. While it wasn't a sports car, handling was acceptable for what it was. It's well designed and well laid out. Fuel mileage sucked, but beyond that, I loved it. Not sure about the newer ones, but Volvos of my era also had notable A/C issues. Mine had a slow leak, but a can of 134 from AutoZone lasted most of the summer, and it was ice cold. Overall, it was a great car to eat up lots of miles in comfort and was a great DD.

I really like my Saab as well. More luxurious than my Volvo. A bit of a better cruiser, though not by much. Handling is about on par with the Volvo, maybe a little better (maybe due to the car being newer). Fuel mileage is better, about 27mpg vs 21mpg in my Volvo. Seats are comfy enough, but not the thrones in the Volvo. Shifter isn't Miata-esque, but works fine. It's more of a luxury car feel than my Volvo was. My A/C doesn't work, and I have yet to figure out why.

Honestly, the two cars have a very similar feel. If I was forced to pick one, I'd probably pick the Volvo by a slim margin.

The Saab motor is the same for sludge Aero or non-Aero. You either want an 04 or newer or an earlier one that has had all the PCV updates and frequent oil changes with synthetic. An 06 9-3SC or $5k is going to have pretty high miles. You would want the 2l and no XWD. Easier to find a 9-5 for that money which is also a good car but more dated in looks. Seats will be better in the 9-5 vs a base 9-3.

Aspen wrote: The Saab motor is the same for sludge Aero or non-Aero. You either want an 04 or newer or an earlier one that has had all the PCV updates and frequent oil changes with synthetic. An 06 9-3SC or $5k is going to have pretty high miles. You would want the 2l and no XWD. Easier to find a 9-5 for that money which is also a good car but more dated in looks. Seats will be better in the 9-5 vs a base 9-3.

This. The only reason everybody says Aeros are less likely to have sludge is because they came with synthetic oil from the factory, vs the standard 9-5 that had semi-syn. So it's marginally less likely I guess.

Would it be more cost effective to upgrade the seats in the Passat? By keeping the current car, you know what the issues are. Buying used will require another level of maintenance costs.

I have an 03 9-5 Aero sedan that I love. They are set up to be not too stiff, I think they are just about right for a DD.

The climate control problems have been overcome for the most part by the aftermarket. they sell an aluminium fix for the blend doors or there is also a way to fashion one from PVC (that is what I did on my 99 9-5). I had a 5 speed linear and it was a wonderful car. It requires a fair bit of maintainence but it was nothing major though. We have a 2010 9-3 now that replaced a 2004 9-3 and they seem lower maintainence but I find them a bit small ( I am 6-4 and 220) compaired to a 9-5. hope this helps.

Thanks for all the info. It sounds like the Saab is the opinion leader so far; I kinda lile the idea best as well.

About the sludge problem: is the surest way to tell if an engine's good to drop the pan and llook at the pickup screen? And is oil starvation an all-or-nothing deal? That is, is there a point at which a sludgy engine can be cleaned up and still be OK? And if the screen is dirty, is cleaning that and the pan sufficie t, or are there oil passageways higher in the engine that are likely clogged too? Do "engine flush" remedies work?

I guess I'm wondering what would disqualify a 9-5 from consideration, now that I know regular 9-5s are worth looking at as well as Aeros.

When we were looking for ours I took a wire hanger with me. Straighten it and then put a small loop on one end, kind of like the eye of a needle. Put the hanger down the dipstick tube eye first and scrape it on the bottom of the pan. If you get slimy crap on the end walk away or get a big chunk knocked off the price.

The Saab will have the best seats of the bunch.

Not very easy to drop the pan, unfortunately. What RBS said about a coat hanger.

Some people pull the cam cover if they are extra fussy/thorough in the check out process. I have heard of using a product call AutoRX to help clean up sludge. Don't know if it does more harm than good. I have heard of people taking a no issue car with a gunky oil pan and pickup, cleaning it and then running it for a long time afterward. Do the PCV update and frequent oil changes. If the car fails the coat hanger test and is otherwise a creampuff offer dirt money for it. You may get a decent amount of use out of it still.

I have always been intrigued by the Saab Viggen package which is in your price range. I think they have a closed diff.

Shaun wrote: I have always been intrigued by the Saab Viggen package which is in your price range. I think they have a closed diff.

Totally incorrect, no Saab ever came with factory LSD. (Closed diff? What?)

In reply to SlickDizzy:

closed. like in not open. torsen, a "tourque sensing" gear set, or a clutch pack that somehow or another keeps power from leaking out to the tire with no traction. I said "I think" they came with closed diffs. And right you are, they did not. I looked it up. I think they are an interesting car at the price point. What do you think?

Shaun wrote: In reply to SlickDizzy: closed. like in not open. torsen, a "tourque sensing" gear set, or a clutch pack that somehow or another keeps power from leaking out to the tire with no traction. I said "I think" they came with closed diffs. And right you are, they did not. I looked it up. I think they are an interesting car at the price point. What do you think?

Sorry, in a decade or so of doing this I've never heard the term "closed diff"...anyway, Viggen values don't seem to be tanking as hard as other Saabs, likely due to the limited run.

The only real substantial difference between a Viggen and regular 9-3 is the turbo itself and the seats; otherwise they have all the same flaws and foibles, and some extra ones (easily bent wheels, air dam is easy to scrape up, 1999s burn holes in pistons, etc). And like any 9-3 it will need a whole lot of chassis reinforcement if you don't want it to torque steer you off the road at WOT, though at least the solution exists (see genuinesaab.com for info).

Under $4k and I'm listening, otherwise a regular 9-3 could be made just as fast or faster for less.

I had a 1995 Saab 900S, which was a pretty nice car while also being an appalling pile of dog crap. For that reason, the NG900 and early 9-3s don't hold much appeal. As for Saabs, I'm a "classic" 900 guy who's realizing those old crates are pretty much all used up by now, and I actually really like 9-5s.

Thanks for the information, everybody. I'm now looking for a manual 9-5 without goop in the crankase!

conesare2seconds wrote: The Saab will have the best seats of the bunch.

Ever sat in a late '90's or early '00's Volvo? It'll make you change your mind.