Hi,

I'm considering buying an early 90's Saab (not sure which model yet)
with about 200,000kms of mileage and an automatic transmission.

1. I'd like to know if they are reliable at that age and mileage.
2. Are there any common problems to keep an eye out for?
3. What tends to break or require replacing at that age?
4. Is it common for Saabs of that era to have a driver's airbag?

Han.

On 21 Dec 2004 03:31:45 -0800, han_chung (AT) hotmail (DOT) com <han_chung (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Mileage is not high by any means. I had a '88 Saab 900 Turbo with
400,000 Kms when I traded it in, and it was still going strong -
original turbo, never touched the engine. Second clutch, though.
What engine does this car have? The 4-cyl is pretty bulletproof.
You bet.

Depends on your climate. If you get snow, rust might be a concern. Service
history is important (oil changes, etc). Make sure all the accessories work,
if not you can use that for price bargaining points.

Depends on the engine and model.

Almost certainly it will have a drivers airbag.

It'll help if you tell us what country, what model, and what engine.

Dave Hinz

<han_chung (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

The 4 cylinder cars are quite solid, avoid the V6 though. Also the automatic
transmissions are a weak spot on Saabs in general, at least the older ones.
I would assume it was a bit of an afterthought for the US market, the manual
gearboxes are excellent though and probably 90% of the 900 series cars you
see are manual.

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the tips! I haven't really settled on a particular model
yet. I'm in Australia so we don't get any snow here, but the
temperatures do get quite hot in summer (>100 degrees Fahrenheit). As
for the engine, I'd be going for a 4 cylinder with automatic
transmission.

The thing that worries me is that I don't see many early 90's Saabs on
the road in Sydney. There were a lot of them around when they first
came out though.

Han.

Hi James,

Is there a high mortality rate on Saabs with automatic transmissions?
My wife doesn't drive a manual, so I'm wondering if it's better to stay
away from automatic Saabs altogether.

Han.

<han_chung (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

They use ZF automatics which in my (and apparently many others) experience
are not the most dependable slushboxes out there. Some Volvos used a ZF box
which was a notorious achilies heel on them, I replaced one myself that was
shifting funny and beginning to slip with only about 100k on it and that was
the second transmission in that car.

Another thing you'll likely find (try driving one first, maybe it won't
bother you) is that the automatic is a poor match for the Saab 4 cylinder
engines, it doesn't like to let them rev into their power band and it saps
enough power that especially if you have the AC on you'll probably find the
car quite gutless. The turbo models are better, but couple turbo lag to
slushbox lag and it's excruciating when pulling out into traffic. Doesn't
make much difference on the highway but around town you'll sure notice it.

Note that my experience applies to the classic Saab 900's, I have very
little exposure to the post '93 GM-made Saabs so I don't know if the
transmission is any different in them, though even with the newer ones the
vast majority I see on the road have manual gearboxes, not sure if this is
due to the automatics failing and causing the cars to be scrapped or due to
the manuals selling better when new.

Thanks for the very useful insight! I guess in terms of performance,
I'm not really fussed as the car will be used mainly as the second car.
I'm more after the safety features and what I had perceived as
European reliability, but the automatic transmission sounds like a bit
of a worry!

Speaking of Volvos, that's another car I'm looking at. You mentioned
the ZF boxes were on the Volvos as well - are they common on autos
circa 1993?

Sorry to get a bit off topic!

Han.

<han_chung (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

The ZF 4HP22 4 speed automatic was used in some 740 and 760 models (but none
of the turbos) in the mid 80's, by '93 they would all have the generally
very dependable Aisin-Warner transmissions, the AW-70 or AW-71. You can tell
easily because a car with a ZF will have 1-2-3-D on the shifter, and a car
with the AW will have 1-2-D as well as a button on the side to lock out the
overdrive. I don't know what transmission the newer FWD cars use but I
haven't heard too many negative things about them other than the '93 850
which was the first year of that model.

han_chung wrote:

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the tips! I haven't really settled on a particular model
yet. I'm in Australia so we don't get any snow here, but the
temperatures do get quite hot in summer (>100 degrees Fahrenheit). As
for the engine, I'd be going for a 4 cylinder with automatic
transmission.

There are still quite a few around.
Important things in Sydney (& Aus generally):
*Do change the oil religiously at or before the recommended interval (lots
of people halve it) *Do find out the correct brand and grade of oil and
stick to it *Do get to know SaabServe at North Parramatta if you're within
cooee of there *Do get any prospective purchase thoroughly checked out by a
dealer or a Saab specialist (doesn't cost all that much for some peace of
mind) *Don't buy any Saab without a spotless & verifiable service history
(unless you're like me and you're offered a good C900 turbo unregistered
for $400!) *Don't use all the performance on stinking hot or high humidity
days - especially with an auto. Longterm they sometimes spit the dummy!
*Don't buy a V6 GN (heavy on brakes and regular cambelt changes pricey
*Don't rush into a purchase because it looks immaculate

Lots of people (including me) prefer the C900 to the GM Saabs,
particularly for the way they look, drive and handle. With either car, I
personally prefer the manual. I've never had any problems beyond clutch
rebuilds with 99s and 900s. Some of the autos however ... Enjoy whichever
one you get; even our disaster purchase 12 years ago was wonderful when it
all decided to work properly. The others have been pretty good generally!
Cheers

han_chung wrote:

Sorry - should have read all your posts before answering the first one!
C900s rated higher on most crash testing than the 94 on 900s. Be aware too
that you're looking at a car from a very low volume manufacturer, so
reliability was probably never near Toyota/Honda sort of level. Mind you,
ten years on, most potenital probalmes should have surfaced apart from
things wearing out. Again, cheers