School me on Saab. 1980s Saab 900s? 1990s Saab 9000T?

[sugarwood]

I don't hear much about these cars.

The 900 seemed to be the yuppie car back in the 80s and into the 90s.
What is their story? Which niche did they serve? Performance car? Volvo safety car? VW? Porsche? Jag?

Were they tanks or unreliable?

[Crowbob]

They were the same old Saab story.

[rwest]

Great cars that would just keep running- turbo was pretty fast. I would call them performance sedans.

[onewhippedpuppy]

The 1980s Saab 900 SPG is one of my favorite cars of the 1980s. They were quick stock and could be made into rockets with a few modifications. I had a 1993 9000 Aero and a 1997 900SE with the high output turbo. Both were incredibly practical hatchbacks, returned better than 30 MPG easily, and with a manual boost controller were scary fast on the highway. Super comfy seats in a high quality interior. FWD means torque steer, but they were also great in the snow. Very well made cars until the early 2000s when GM made them into another failed experiment in badge engineering, I sold my 9000 with 235k and the original turbo and never opened engine and transmission, it was still a great running car. Saab going under means that some original parts are hard to find, but there's still a great aftermarket for mechanical parts and several good forums to source used parts from. I really liked my Saabs, they were something different in a good way. Too bad GM ruined them.

[KFC911]

I thought the were speeled Sob for a reason

[Skytrooper]

I have a 2001 SE Turbo convertible. It is a very nice car, fun around town and great on the highway. I now have 100k on it and have only replaced the clutch. I wouldn't buy anything after 2001 though for reasons stated above (GM)

[Nickshu]

I owned 6 of them so I think I can comment here. I owned '86 9000T, '87 9000S, '91 9000CDT, '93 900T, '95 900SET, '07 9-3 SportCombi 25th anniv edition. Also my extended family has owned a '99 900SET Convertible, '02 900SET. Dad and Mom still have an '06 9-3 convertible

They were/are great cars. Mine always ran great, drove well, were very reliable as far as starting and driving, getting from point A to point B. Much like VW though many little things were constantly broken. This was not much of a problem for me because I could fix these things myself, and sort of enjoyed doing so. If you were paying a mechanic to fix little things yes these cars could nickel and dime you big time.

The turbos were a hoot to drive. Honestly I think my '86 9000T was one of the fastest cars I have ever owned, much faster than what the specs said. Turbo failures on Saabs is a myth. I never had one fail, drove all my Saab Turbos for over 150K miles, and two of them over 200K miles.

The classic 900's are tanks. The 9000's were a joint venture with Lancia and are a bit more tinny with crummy suspension IMO. Torque steer is horrible on all Saab's I owned. Turbo lag is really bad on the C900 and 9000s. It got better in later years with GM influence, but the driving feel also got more bland, IMO.

The cars all ran the Saab 2.0 or 2.3L engines until they were phased out in 2003 for the 2nd gen 9-3 line (referred to as the 9-3SS), which then went to a Saab modified GM Ecotec turbo engine or a Saab modified GM turbo V6. Some of the early NG900's (also sometimes called the GM900) and later 9000's had an Opel V6 that are rare as they sold very few of them. IMO the Ecotec engine sucked. The original Saab 4cyl turbo 2.0/2.3s were a great engine, very smooth and quiet, esp the 2.3L with counter-rotating balance shafts.

If I could have any Saab I would get a 1993 900 Turbo Commemorative edition 5-speed. Or if I could not find one of those I would get a 1991 900 Turbo SPG (Special Performance Group). If I wanted to go newer I would find a 2007 or 2008 9-3X (AWD), those are very rare though. Also the 9-3 Viggen (1999-02) are sweet too.

IMO the two reasons Saab failed as a company was 1.) Their failure to put out an AWD platform, if they had done so in the mid to late 1990's when Audi A4's were selling like hotcakes they would have killed it in the market. 2.) GM's lack of dedication to Saab and promoting the brand in Europe and the USA. They purposefully did not market the car or invest in the brand b/c they feared it would take away from Opel/Buick/Saturn. Since GM never really has had an AWD car platform if they would have developed that w/ Saab as their AWD line offering they would have been hugely successful, IMO.

When the brand was shut down GM did some things to make 100% sure Saab was dead and would stay dead. They kept control of the parts and dealer pipeline, as well as all patents and intellectual property after selling the brand to make sure the new owner of the company would find reviving the brand financially impossible. RIP Saab!

[Tobra]

Friend of mine had a 9000, that he used to call his 9,000,000. He said it was too fast to just be in the thousands. That thing was a beast. Too bad GM ran the company into the ground, drove a stake through its heart and set the carcass on fire.

[Norm K]

Originally Posted by Nickshu

If I wanted to go newer I would find a 2007 or 2008 9-3X (AWD), those are very rare though.

They're only rare if you want the Saab badge and body cladding (which, to be fair, looks waaaaaay better than the Subaru with which they share their underpinnings).

[Nickshu]

Originally Posted by Norm K

They're only rare if you want the Saab badge and body cladding (which, to be fair, looks waaaaaay better than the Subaru with which they share their underpinnings).

Norm you are Confusing the 9-2X with the 9-3X. The 9-2 was the Saabaru and the are NOT rare. The 9-3X was a Haldex AWD version of the 9-3, referred to as XWD.

The 9-3XWD was offered in 2008 only. They were offered in both Sports sedan and SportCombi. They can be identified by higher ride height, special wheels, and XWD badge on the back. I have only ever seen one of them on the road.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_XWD

[Norm K]

Originally Posted by Nickshu

Norm you are Confusing the 9-2X with the 9-3X. The 9-2 was the Saabaru and the are NOT rare. The 9-3X was a Haldex AWD version of the 9-3, referred to as XWD.

The 9-3XWD was offered in 2008 only:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_XWD

Ah so, thanks for the correction.

[beepbeep]

My 900S -90, had around 400k miles when this was recorded.

I sold it when chassis was too rusty. Guy who bought it moved the engine into new car and as far as I know, it is still running...

[speeder]

I owned a couple Saab 96s and a 900. I absolutely loved driving them but when it comes to cars in general, I like them quirky as hell as long as the engineering is good. Same reason I like 911s, exactly.

The weak point on the 900, (and 99 before them), was the transmission/transaxle. They would pretty much all fail expensively, just a meter of when. Turbo motors probably accelerated the issue but I never owned one. Drove plenty, though.

So Swedish, so weird...love those cars.

[Nickshu]

Originally Posted by beepbeep

My 900S -90, had around 400k miles when this was recorded.

I sold it when chassis was too rusty. Guy who bought it moved the engine into new car and as far as I know, it is still running...

Saab Turbos always seem like they are not that fast on paper because all anyone ever does is looks at 0-60mph times. From 30-100mph all my Saab turbos were crazy fast.

I remember an older Top Gear episode where Clarkson test drove a 9-5 and said it was one of, if not the, fastest rolling start acceleration sedans he had ever driven.

[Nostril Cheese]

I love Saab. Had a few of them. Fast, easy to tune.

You also cant do this with most cars

[onewhippedpuppy]

The Saab forums were full of stories about the stuff people had crammed into Saab hatchbacks, including refrigerators and washing machines.

[Otter74]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

What are that generation of 900 like to own these days, as 10+ year old cars? Durability, reliability, etc. Aside from the Volkswagen-like little stuff breaking. Though I've talked myself out of replacing my Japanese appliance with something not Japanese, on paper Saab hatchbacks seem perfect for what I want out of that car - super-practical hatchback, good fuel consumption, comfortable for long distances, nice size, etc. But I have no idea what the reality is like. I've always liked pre-GM Saabs the most, but I'll never buy one that old. GM era seems new enough...

[Nickshu]

I would want a classic 900, but unless you want to pay stupid money plan on doing a partial or full restoration on it if you want it to be anything more than a winter beater. Which will cost stupid money. LOL.

[Nostril Cheese]

OG900s are pretty bullet proof except for as Speeder says, the gearboxes are kinda made of glass. there's ways to beef them up, but it gets expensive quickly, usually when modding a turbo for power. Parts are starting to get a bit hard to find, but its not THAT bad. I'd be looking for an 900 SPG Turbo. Kinda like the 993 of the 99/900 series.

The NG900/9-3 is a very good car, with a few things that need to be addressed. You can buy them dirt cheap, spend a weekend sorting it out, then have a quick, fuel efficient hatchback that can fit an entire 911 engine and transmission. It tows pretty well too.

The 9-3 is basically an updated 900, with all the little problem areas fixed.

Torque-steer on these cars is horrible, but improved with some reinforcement to the steering rack/firewall connection.

I typically buy an NG900 every couple years since they are dirt cheap. Have 8 months of fun for little work.

[RANDY P]

There was this swedish guy (from Sweden) who used to come to the stereo shop I worked at as a kid, had TWO Saabs, both bad ass- a 900SPG and a similar one in a ragtop.

Yeah, I remember that SPG was quick.