A 2002 Saab 9-5 Aero is in my garage for some small fixes, and that gives me the chance to do some test runs! and you can join me! #saab #turbo Patreon: / seasidegarage
I have driven a big part of the saab lineup and own a 1st release 9-5. i must say the 9000 is just amazing in its road handeling. My family had a 9000cse in my early childhood and my father always said its a "highway killer", and when i got myself one just some years ago, i say those words are true. I have always held the Saab brand high, the comfort and driving experience is unmatched. The engines do never stop leaking oil and the turbos die after 160000km, but damn do i love everytime i use the 1,2 bars mine have. There is something about a "modern" car with the turbolag of the older generations that just puts a smile on my face :). Sorry for the long rant! I love the 900 series you got and would love to see the V4 on the channel someday :P. Have a nice evening!
What a nice car. Saab is one of those few brands, in my opinion, that managed to make modern cars while maintaining their soul, most likely because they ignored GMs commands. Sorry for the cheesy reference. Great fix and great video as always!
Yes! Liking this channel more and more! First a 900, now a 9-5. Holy self a 2004 9-5 Aero wagon in the UK last summer. £1150. I love it. Thanks for the video.
It's a lovely car. Personally, I'm a Volvo S60 T5 man (or V70, for the estate version ). Had one for 10 years and it was brilliant. Got 7.2l / 100km on a run across Spain once
Top Gear did a tribute to SAAB upon its demise - its on YT broken up into a few 5 min segments. Basically you are right they always over engineered things at a cost to themselves and when they were part of GM and platform sharing it became hilarious. A designer from GM flies into Sweden gets into a SAAB and notices the sat nav was not from GM as agreed. SAAB had spent money developing their own. Then when he looked further loads of stuff that was supposed to be GM parts bin wasn't on the car or had been "improved" by SAAB at cost lol - sadly they were their own worst enemy but they did make lovely over engineered cars . My neighbour over the road is a SAAB nut - in the 25 years I have lived here he has always had one. Currently has an 2008 9-5 which he cherishes. He gets a company car but keeps the SAAB and all family trips are taken not paid for by the company in the brand new CUPRA SUV but in the trusty Trolhattan warrior.
Saab's own 4 cylinder engine is legendary and probably reached it's peak in the 9000. The standard internals can withstand 400bhp. The engine was downgraded in the 9-5 (GM cost-cutting?), but will still handle 300bhp in standard form; and that is achievable just by fitting a bigger diameter exhaust downpipe and re-mapping the ecu! Alot of Saabs have donated their engines to car projects! Also, they do tend to leak oil! Have you tried putting the auto box into sport mode? Not only does it make the box change up at higher revs, but it also shortens the throttle travel, which makes for an even more entertaining drive! I always keep mine in sport! The biggest problem with the 9-5 is rust in the rear subframe mounting points and rear inner arches, especially on the estate. It would be advisable to remove the rear inner arch liners, on your friend's car, to check for this. I've had three 9-5s badly fail their MOTs with this problem. Values of 9-5s mean that repairs are often uneconomic and many otherwise good cars have had to be scrapped.
@@jonathanjenkins9583 My neighbour has a 9-3 mate - its pampered and lives in a heated garage - been snowing here this week = he won't even open the garage door lol - it has zero rust anywhere
@@jonathanjenkins9583Part of the reason for the engine changes was to meet emissions and economy target, but you’re right. The B204 and B234 engines were incredible. I had a remap on my 2.3T 9000 and it was scary. My 9-5 is nice, but it’s not the same. It’s probably as fast but there’s something missing.
My 1989 9000 was my favourite car. Such a sad story that GM wanted them to make the 'last' 9-5 a Vectra with a Saab badge. Gutted they went bust. Truly gutted.
Oh man! My favourite estate car too. I would say that because that's exactly what I drive every day. Mine is a 2003 model and I have fitted the more desirable shark tooth bumper from a 2005 car. Also the engine has had about 50 more horses crammed into it for extra giggles. I know what you mean about the build quality and longevity of these cars. Mine has 220k miles and everything still works. Puts more modern and more expensive cars to shame. I do have oil leaks though.🙄
I had a 2006 9-5 Aero Auto saloon for a few years. Watching this, I realise how much I miss it! So good for long journeys, and so quick! :-) Shame they became really expensive to tax in the UK too. That and the heavy fuel consumption meant I got rid of it.
My father has gone through 2 95 estates. He still has one but due to a common problem with the oil sludging up the 2.3t threw a rod through the sump. And his old auto 2.3t had the same oiling problems which did end up spinning some bearings
I have a 2004 model Saab Aero wagon. I get 7.8L/100km on a trip, here in New Zealand, behaving myself, obviously it uses more fuel around town like going to the supermarket, or when I blitz other cars, lol. The yearly tax on it here in New Zealand is $112, low because of its safety..
Yes it is a such a HUGE loss not to have Saab anymore even if the price would have been out of reach for many, but wow didn't know the plant was under a Chinese name and were producing a while longer! wow!
Here in the UK, I like to visit my nearest and favourite car breakers to check on new arrivals. Mainly interested in MGs and Rovers and there are few there on recent visits. That is not the case with SAABs. I was amazed one recent visit how many were there. Six maybe seven. I stopped counting.Yes very surprising as these fine cars were never numerous on UK roads. I removed the new looking Turbocharger Actuator from one SAAB and was disappointed to see a small hole in the vacuum chamber which probably meant this car did not perform as it should. Close to the engine compartment bodywork, engine movement and vibration wore a small hole in the body of it. Engine mounts and bushes wear allowing harmful movement.
The thing about Saab is they were really focused on discreet styling and primary features. A Saab was first and foremost a well engineered car that made driving safe and enjoyable. Sure, they had some gizmos but they rarely were for the wow factor but for a genuine use case. The night panel feature was a bit ridiculous though.
I've had 4 93 Hatches and a later 93 saloon. The hatchbacks were definitely the most comfortable cars I've owned, mainly due to the seats. But I had to fit uprated brakes, suspension bushes and the rack brace to make the handling more acceptable. The 95 is nice but the suspension could be called "fragile". A driver training company I know only kept theirs for a few months before going back to a Mondeo. Their issue was the suspension couldn't cope with rigorous use.
Great channel and great video. I really don´t want to start a big debate and discussion here, because that is not what this channel is about. However, I always get SOOO tired when I hear from so many people - also here in the comment section to this video - that GM allegedly destroyed SAAB. That is very far from the truth. YES, GM should not have bought SAAB and put a lot of GM parts in the car and thereby have changed the characteristics of the brand. That being said: Why even sell to GM if that was allegedly such a bad idea? In addition: Why weren´t there at least 100 potential buyers for the SAAB company stocks if the company was in such a good shape? Why even sell the company if it was allegedly such a big money maker? Maybe the fact is that in the late 1990s and very early 2000s, SAAB´s sales numbers de facto "tanked". In addition competitors like the BMW 5-series, the Mercedes E-class and Audi A6 were just too big a competition for SAAB in the 9-5-segment - not the least in the perspective of the really MASSIVE costs there are to design and develop a new car model. Hence the conclusion should be: Was it a good idea of GM to purchase SAAB and to put a lot of GM parts in the car? No. Would SAAB have survived on their own? HELL no. Would ANY other car maker that had purchased SAAB, have been able to keep and maintain the characteristics of SAAB and to design and develop new parts merely for SAAB - without any "Economies of scale" - like Volkswagen does by using the same parts in SKODA, VW, Audi and Seat?? Even MORE hell nooo! Even though I honestly really love SAAB´s - there just is *WAYYYYY* to much romanticism about this topic and about the SAAB-brand, however many people don´t seem to have ANY insight in economics and / or why SAAB was struggling so heavily in the 1990s, and their sales went down the drain and the car division was purchased by GM SAAB de facto destroyed themselves - or at least they got too small in a changing car environment, where it would cost several billion Swedish Kronor to design and develop a new model - and SAAB just could not do that or finance that any longer. That is the truth.
I was curious how much this car cost new in Denmark in 2002. A quick search yielded DKK 690k for the base model! So let's estimate maybe EUR 110k/ USD 120k for the Aero. Ouch. I grew up in Denmark. As a car enthusiast, one of the major factors that I decided to leave the country was the insane car taxes. I remember in 1977 my parents were scrambling to buy 2 new cars because the tax (before VAT!) was going up to 180%.
The real issue with this engines are the pistonrings, they are to tiny, not Saab-ish at all but to meet the emissions of that time by less friction. That's why the 9000 don't have this problems.
Wow! What a beautiful views at Seaside! The Saab is cool too! It's a really great family car worth considering! Well, In my case the styling of 240 won ;). What a shame GM killed Saab...
Not sure if it's this one or another model, but due to being based on the Vectra, there was a structural issue with where I think the brake servo or power steering stuff mounted on to the bulkhead, the metal was insufficient structurally and over time the heavy parts caused fracturing around the mounting points, resulting in those parts basically falling off, not something you want in a car really... :S
Dont know about that, i got a 1999 9-5 V6 3.0 which has clocked over 234000 kms, a 2005 9-5 2.0 ecosomething that has clocked over 225 000 and a 1998 9-3 that pushed over 360 000 km and none of them ever had any issues with power steering or brake servo fastenings. Definitely notice a lower build quality in the -05, more rust, more squeaking and rattling than in its older siblings. If there is something that fails on saabs, especially 9-3´s its blowing the head gasket.
Wish ya did more moped stuff. 250hp? My sisters 2004 series 3 Chrysler Dream Cruiser was a 2.4 liter turbo 4 banger, and was only 220. Hmmmm. It was pretty fast, for what it is. I could make it scream. Partly, because they come with small, low profile, hard, and slick tires. At 30mph on a summer day in Philly, I could briefly spin tires at 30mph, on any hard level surface. My dad was no longer a die maker at GM, when GM took over Saab, and ruined Saab's styling. We talked about my dad, and his dad's profession, right?
Those old Saabs are nice to drive but good lord badly designed have you seen how they fitted the suspension ? its basically backwards compared to a normal car lol , Dougie Rankin of the youtube channel once driven forever Smitten bought a 9-5 Turbo for £1000 and he had to rebuild the whole engine due to oil burning from a leaky turbo , very fast once it was fixed though
