Even Google knows our first question!
Keith writes:
Sajeev – I’ve gotta get rid of 1 of my 4 family of cars – the family consists of a 2011 Civic LX (for the kids), 2009 Taurus X (for the wife) – and the two on the chopping block – 2006 Saab 9-5 Sport Combi (with 154,000 miles) verses 2006 Saturn Vue V6 (with 131,000 miles). I enjoy different aspect of each of these cars and I’m torn over which one should go.
Here are the pros and cons of each:
2006 Saab
Pros –
· Premium feel and build quality (real wood dash, heated leather seats, sunroof, etc.)
· Above average acceleration (especially in “Sport” mode)
· Handles the curves well
· Nice sound system
· Station wagon utility
· Makes a good impression
Cons –
· Drinks high octane fuel (19 mpg city/hwy)
· Requires full synthetic oil
· Has some minor interior and exterior age spots
· Dinky side view mirrors (big is beautiful)
· After thought cup holders
· Former “wanker” car (they switched to Audi since Saab’s demise)
· Constant fear of a high dollar repair2006 Saturn
Pros –
· I LOVE the Honda 3.5 liter V6
· SUV utility (good for runs to the garden center and the dump)
· Good sound system (user installed)
· Rides tall in the saddle
· Beautifully big mirrors
· Decent cup holders and console storage
· Did I mention the 250 hp V6?
Cons –
· Basic interior (cloth seats, hard plastic dashboard and console, no sunroof)
· Noisy at highway speeds
· The brakes SUCK
· Doesn’t impress anyoneFinally the financials –
Saab – Bought it last year for $4900.00 with 133k miles and I’ve got about $3k (including taxes and title) in the car. Present value is about $3900 and dropping fast.
Saturn – Purchased 2 ½ years ago for $7000.00 with 83k miles on the clock. Upkeep has been minimal, about $1k, and the current value is about $5000 and holding steady.Personally I’m thinking that the Saab needs to go… but I’m not sure.
Sajeev answers:
Personally I’m thinking that the Saab obviously needs to go.
Mostly because I agree with your Pros/Cons.
If the brakes suck on the Saturn, do a brake job with aftermarket aggressive pads (either ceramic or semi metallic) and maybe these rotors are higher quality. We can’t possibly take the undesirable GM fit/finish/public perception problems out of the equation, but let’s be real: cars under $5000 have a tough time impressing most onlookers conditioned to the latest and greatest products. Especially since most folks don’t give a shit about station wagons.
Yes, the Vue lacks the “Euro wagonista” swagger. It will never have Saab grade leather/wood and Saab driving dynamics without imprudent levels of customization. But the odds of needing repairs that’ll be 50% of it’s (superior) value is less likely. Which kinda beats it all.
Off to you, Best and Brightest.
Send your queries to [email protected]
Are Saabs really that bad? I have been secretly lusting for a late model 9-5 Aero wagon for road trip and stuff hauling duty, and with prices dropping so hard, but parts still being available, I figured one could be a good experiment.
I’m disappointed by that gas mileage though… 19 MPG??? My 350Z can do better than that. I was hoping Saabs could break 30 MPG highway, I guess that dream is deferred.
Not sure what he’s talking about–our 2010 Sportcombi gets around 21 city, but closer to 33 on the highway (2.0 liter with auto). Regular gas is OK to use in these vehicles too. And while it is 4 years newer and with a bit less mileage, it’s been around enough real estate (trips west as far as Indiana, and numerous trips up/down the I-95 corridor from northern Maine to SC), and it’s been bar none the most reliable vehicle we’ve ever owned–essentially no repairs since we bought it other than maintenance items.
So yeah, I disagree with Sajeev, though I have no hostility toward a Vue, or a decision to keep it instead.
Unless you’re one of the lucky few, I’m guessing your SportCombi is a 9-3 rather than the 9-5 this article is about. Probably makes a difference when comparing MPG.
Yea, two different beasts.
The 9-3 came with a version of GM’s ecotec 4-cyl family in 2.0t or 2.0T guise, which can be a pretty efficient & reliable engine for the time and power output. I have one in my 9-3 and its given me no trouble at all with almost 150k miles on it, around 25 mpg city & 30 mpg highway in the summer.
The 9-5 has a 2.3 turbo engine that can trace its roots back to the triumph slant-4 engine, although the version used in the 2000’s has been thoroughly worked over many times. That being said, its still an older basic architecture and not quite as efficient, and is used in a heavier vehicle. 19 mpg sounds a bit low unless its almost all city driving tho
Yup, my bad–I was going by the pics instead, which are of the 9-3. But–we had a 2004 9-5 Combi up until it was run over(!) by a cement truck earlier this year, and with the base 2.3 LP turbo it didn’t do much different on the gas, low 20s in town and 30+ was not a problem on the open road. That car had 177k miles and was still running great when we lost it. And we liked the larger space it had.
That does seem oddly poor mileage for a 9-5. You may want to look at that; something might be out of tune. 30mpg highway should be easily attainable, assuming you’re not on-boost all the time.
The 9-5 isn’t a bad car, but it’s not a great one, either. You’re talking a car that shares underpinnings with the Saturn L-Series. Saab’s engineers tried their best, but the 9-5 was almost fifteen years old at it’s end. The nice part about that “fifteen years” comment is that you can pretty readily get parts for it.
The Vue, though, would not be an improvement. Despite the Honda engine, the rest of the car is no great shakes. If you want a small crossover, get a RAV/4, CR-V or Escape/Tribute.
to clarify my note to Sajeev – the Saab get 19 mpg city and 27 mpg highway. The Saturn is about the same.
> Are Saabs really that bad?
SAABs are the best. 19 mpg is highly unusual, unless you are in Brooklyn. Also, get the manual transmission version, which is much better.
I completely disagree that SAAB has to go. The guy has already invested a lot of money in it, why sell it now? If you like it (premium feel, hello?) — keep it forever.
The Saab 93 Sportcombi pictured and the 95 talked about are two totally different cars. But have to be happy TTAC has apparently gotten to the bottom with what THREE?? Saab articles recently. That makes it ten? since day one? Well done, if hardly the “truth”.
Great word play in the headliner.
what he said
Won’t the Saab be worth much, much more as a parts donor in the next decade?
And isn’t that Vue one of the models with stability similar to that of a Suzuki Samurai?
However, even with these do not counterbalance the fact that the Saab is the vehicle that should be sacrificed.
Those 9-5s are pretty durable, especially the post-2003 MY cars where the PCV system had been sorted out. Earlier 9-5s suffered sludge in a bad way due to the system and manufacturer-recommended much-too-long OCI.
You’ll see lots of the 9-5s with the SAAB engine go well past 200K with basic maintenance and repairs to the model’s weak points (coolant bypass valve, serpentine belt, HVAC).
FWIW, the 9-5s and the 1999-2002 9-3s are bargain basement luxury sport buys that make good sense if you can handle a wrench. A 2002-2003 Aero 5-speed is a good drive that can be found for $2,500 in good-enough shape and provided that the engine/transmission doesn’t go prematurely, will only require $300-500 annually in junkyard/eBay parts to keep going.
You should keep the Saab. Here’s my reasoning, it’s already worthless and it’s a hard sell. The VUE will sell quickly and easily and you’ll get a good price for it. The Saab will take weeks to sell and you’ll spend all of your time fielding obnoxious low ball offers.
I came to the same conclusion.
I owned and drove a 2002 first-year Saturn Vue with the Opel 2.4 I4 and put 130,000 miles on it in 8 years. While I agree that the interior looks and ‘feels’ cheap, I also have to note that it didn’t break down, crack or suffer any other cheap-material age problems. I’ll also note that sunroof was patently available (I had one) and the thing was flat out reliable. It had only one major repair–a right-front strut–covered under warranty. The thing is, that Vue was still remarkably quick off the line despite the “tiny” engine. Of course, I did have the 5-speed sport transaxle under it.
So after 8 years of driving one, I disagree with most of the cons as it proved itself quite capable of handling for a driver who knows how to drive.
I had the 2002 first year Vue with stick and four. It was flat unreliable. In fairness though I think your experience may be far more normal than mine. We had a 2007 with Honda V6 that I think we should have kept. I remind myself continually to never again buy the first year of anything.
Our 2007 got high twenties for economy and was very strong. I used it and the 2002 to moonlight also as it would pull a trailer easily. I think if my 2002 had been a 2003 or 2004 I would still have it. Every time I took it for a repair (computer, clutch, transaxle) I was told it was a problem that was sorted out after the first couple years.
If the saturn is reliable I would keep it for sure.
It sounds like you like the Saab. Losing the Civic would net you enough more than $4,000 to pay the extra upkeep on the Saab for a long time.
Let the kids drive the 10 year old Saturn. If they don’t like it, let them get jobs and buy something that they do.
Or, sell the Saab, and take the Honda from the kids and give them the Saturn?
I’m not sure of the differences between the ’06 Saab and the ’02 that I owned (does it have the Saab 2.3 liter 4 or a GM-sourced 2 liter?) but that gas mileage strikes me as low. Mine would get a righteous 30-31 mpg on the highway and maybe 19 in exclusively city/suburban driving.
Certainly a much nicer and, with the possible exception of the engine, a higher quality car than the Vue, with better parts (see, brakes). The failure points in my Saab (which had fewer miles than the OP when I sold it to CarMax), were the automatic transmission and the main bearing oil seals in the engine. That and the fact that my daughter had managed to crunch the body in muliple places was the reason I didn’t keep the car; although, in retrospect it would have been more practical for me to have kept that car and sold my Z3.
If this car has a different engine and transmission and if it’s running fine now, I don’t see the problem in keeping it.
Either car with that much mileage is subject to potentially expensive repair items in the suspension (as a minimum, shocks) and probably is a candidate for a rebuild of the brake calipers (a DIY job).
AFAIC the only virtue of the Saturn is the Honda engine; and if it has a Honda tranny, I’m not even sure about that. (I don’t know how long it took Honda to get the V-6 tranny issues resolved; I have an ’08 Pilot with no apparent tranny issues after 100K miles.)
So, I respectfully dissent.
“I’m not sure of the differences between the ’06 Saab and the ’02 that I owned (does it have the Saab 2.3 liter 4 or a GM-sourced 2 liter?)”
It has the Saab 2.3L, not the Ecotec
“AFAIC the only virtue of the Saturn is the Honda engine; and if it has a Honda tranny, I’m not even sure about that. (I don’t know how long it took Honda to get the V-6 tranny issues resolved; I have an ’08 Pilot with no apparent tranny issues after 100K miles.)”
Honda sorted the 5AT after 2004. 98-02, with some stragglers, were the dark years.
MY98-99 used the 4spd auto, which was not affected. The H5 is listed through MY05 of Accord and MY06 of RSX. Oddly the H5 wiki page does not list Vue as a user of the transmission, yet the Vue page does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acura_TL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_H5_transmission
I also have an 08 Pilot about to turn 100k with no tranny issues. I did replace the 3rd and 4th gear pressure switches due to some harsher than normal shifts, but it cost $60 and an hour of my time to fix. I do change the tranny fluid every 15k and I did add a thermal bypass transmission cooler to be safe as I do some towing.
Why not list them both on Craig’s List and let the market decide?
I like the idea, but then he gets a stream of low-ball replies on both. Saabs have a following and can be sold to Saabistas, Vue to the general public I imagine.
A Vue will go to someone with an hourly wage job who is having a hard time fitting all the car seats in the back of the G6.
Update – Since I wrote this email I sold the Saturn on Craig’s List for $3800 and kept the Saab which my recent college grad son is now driving. I’ve switched to a gold 2011 Genesis the we got from my in-laws – nice highway cruising car that will do 30 mpg on the highway.
I’d like to add a correction on the Saab’s mileage – 19 city/26 highway
But doesn’t that leave you with four vehicles still?
I agree with keeping the Saab, it’s a unique car that will only become more so as no more vehicles are made with that badge.
Glad to hear that you resolved your problems in the most Jalop-way possible; Keep the Saab!
Just make sure that your new Grad knows he’s expected to pay for the pleasure of driving a quirky, nice car around; keep up the maintenance and don’t skimp at the pump!
–applause–
I would have done the same thing.
In a few years, you know there will be Saab fanatics.
I don’t see any Saturn fanatics coming. And, they’d probably want the “I Can’t Believe it’s not Corvette” roadster.
26 MPG isn’t too bad. My Audi A6 wagon gets about 26-28, but I run 87 octane. The few less MPGs is a small price to pay for the privilege of driving a nice car.
The graduate should be more than happy. In high school, I owned a 1995 LeSabre that I bought myself. I still have that car, and love it still. It’s not the car as much as it is what I went through to get it.
I’ve never understood the whole “Free Car” to a young person thing. That Buick is mine, and will be for a long, long time. The work I did to get it is worth more than any free Saab could ever be.
Tough call.
Vue: I’m hearing big mirrors, Honda motor, paid off, and you forgot to mention composite body panels (which are very nice in the snow belt), but in theory is something reliable fallen into beater grade status.
9-5: I’m hearing small mirrors (but good visibility?), drives great, looks impressive, bought for cash, but does not have the stone cold reliability you need out of a beater.
“I LOVE the Honda 3.5 liter V6”
You forgot to mention: “but starting in 2004, all six-cylinder Vues were equipped with Honda’s 250-horsepower (190 kW) J35A3 engine and a Honda transmission.”. Here’s the thing, with the Honda goodness you get two asterisks: timing belt (vs GM’s timing chains) and possibly the glass transmission. I believe this is the legendary Honda V6 5spd auto transmission which blows up usually early in the trans life but due to its design many TLs/Accords/Oddness have it replaced multiple times. I do not know about its use in Vues and I was under the impression Honda replaced the transmission completely sometime in 2005.
This is the transmission Wikipedia lists for the Vue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_H5_transmission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Vue
This site talks about 25K trans service in H5 equipped MY00 Oddys, but it does not specifically mention the known reliability issues.
http://etereman.com/blog/honda-automatic/proper-care-will-extend-the-life-of-the-h5-transmission-in-your-honda-odyssey
Question, has your trans ever been serviced?
If the answer is no, you’re at risk for issues in the Vue in the future, just as much as you’re at risk for Saab specific issues.
The Saab has/will become much like FWD Volvos of the previous period, its resale will sink until it hits 2K and they will be scooped up by techs, general enthusiasts, Saabistas, and idiots like me who love 2K “nice cars”. I say you have way too much in it given the mileage and I assume average at best condition.
My suggestion is to dump them both for a solid beater, *unless* you know you are up to date on the Vue’s maintenance- and even then I’d still dump it.
2006/=2000.
Unless the transmission was not being used in 2006 or was improved, it does matter. Wikipedia indicated the H5 was being used in the MY06 Vue, but Wikipedia is not the end all be all authority.
I own a 2008 9-3 Combi and we’re keeping it long term. It’s been surprisingly good to us relibility wise but more importantly i just went shopping with mrs who wants one of those overpriced small hatches on stilts. So we drove a $47K QX37 (same as EX35/37) and a X1.
I SWEAR, an dnot just me but the mrs too, the Saab is more refined! It’s insane because the 9-3 is such a HOPELESS chassis but either the GM engine is an absolute pearl or there’s shed load more noise suppression material in the Saab because engine noise is far, far, far less instrusive than the two $45K fancy pants cars crossovers.
In addition, whilst the infiniti has a massive 320HP, the Saab felt MUCH faster and responsive because peak torque comes at some 3,500RPM lower than the Nissan.
un-be-lievable.
After driving those two vehicles all i can fault the Saab for is it’s awful thumping ride.
I very much believe what you are claiming. In GM-logic, putting the proper level of -or better materials- into a hopeless brand like Saab made sense. Clearly though BMW and Infiniti are phoning it in comparatively, because in their logic, until you step up to a certain level you don’t matter as a customer (as much).
The EX is not a good product, and has a tenth of an inch more ground clearance than an M sedan. It is also overpriced, though $47 sounds like a VERY loaded model.
Nope. it’s Canada remember so list is like $36K but add delivery, PID, taxes, blah blah blah and mid level specs and you’re in the high 40’s.
To be fair,unless it’s a V6, or Saab came up with a new engines after ’99, they had that engine before GM took over (possibly even with more power and better mileage)
As for their upscale interior and materials, from what I’ve heard, Saab didn’t listen much to the orders they got from GM, and that was part of the reason GM tried to get rid of them….
9-3 has the 2.0T GM Ecotec engine (and 2.8l V6T), vs. ye olde descended from Triumph in George Washington’s axe manner 2.0 and 2.3 Saab motor in the 9-5. The Ecotec is quite refined, and really delivers both usable power and economy in 210hp trim. Just a very nice engine. My understanding is that Saab provided most of the engineering for that engine family. The Saab motor wasn’t bad, but it was OLD. And had major sludge issues until they got the PCV issues sorted out. In the early 9-5s, the V6t was the engine to have. Despite being a little odd, it was much more refined than the 4, immune from sludge, and very reliable as long as the timing belt was done on time. I had an ’00 wagon with that engine, it was a very nice car.
@PoleStarBlueCobalt
Ultimately, Saab Cars never turned a profit for either of its owners since day 1. MAYBE positive cash flow on the good years, but never much if any profit. Making small numbers of fairly ordinary family cars in Sweden is a road to ruin, and by the time they tried to go upmarket it was far too late, then GM starved them of money. The last 9-5 was a terrificish car, but it was at least 5 years too late. And 500lbs too heavy and $10K too expensive.
Saab changed the chassis so much that it can’t compare to what it started out as. They changed EVERYTHING, and started losing money in the name of building good cars.
Two orphans? Wow you could replace both with a 2005 Oldsmobile Bravada and get all the pros AND cons of both. lol Or perhaps a 2009 Mercury Mountaineer V8 AWD.
But yes given your priorities the SAAB needs to go. I’m sure you can find a SAAB enthusiast to give it a loving home.
I like those later Mountaineers, especially in black. They evoque a Range Roveryness.
The irony was that when I was shopping for a CUV/SUV the only true SUVs that I liked were too old or to rare or being hoarded by the original owners to be found in good condition on the used market. I made the right choice with my CUV but there are times I think about the 2005-2010 Mountaineer/Explorer V8 AWD or a Bravada/Saab 9X/Envoy (loaded).
Yeah I know I’ve got weird taste in vehicles.
HEY you took off Aviator from that list. I saw it in my email!
And I came here to say avoid the Aviator because of all the special sensors and bits on it – per Steve Lang.
I think I’d avoid the 9-7X for the same reason, though Alex Dykes got one – but he don’t work here no more either.
How’s about the loaded Bravada or Rainier. The Envoy is too commonly seen in poor knick driven by poor people.
Yeah they killed the Aviator before it could be on the final version of Ford’s “U2” platform. (Insert BONO joke here.)
I think getting the final updates to the platform would have made the Aviator much more awesome and less of an “also ran.”
My biggest problem with the GM spawn is the way the interiors age. They start to fall apart before they leave the lot, just like cars in the 70s started to rust before they left the transporter.
There isn’t that much unique mechanical bits on the Aviator compared to the Explorer/Mountaineer. The only significant one is the steering rack. Yes the engine is unique on that platform but it is the same as used in the Marauder and Mustang Mach 1 and has proven reliable.
I was in an 05 Trailblazer back in 06 or so, and even then it seemed god-awful.
As a WVU football fan I’d love to get a Mountaineer.
Did Ford ever correct the spark plug threading issue in later Mod motors?
@28, yes. Ad-infinitum, yes.
Good to know.
While the Vue may book well, at our dealership we end up giving them away because 1. They are ugly, 2. They are Saturns.
The Saabs we also end up giving away because everyone knows they are a repair waiting to happen.
With both vehicles not having much value and holding a low replacement cost, I’d just keep the one you like more (the Saab it seems). Honestly, who cares if a repair is higher than it’s market value? If you plan on enjoying the car for awhile, compared to buying a new vehicle, a new motor will still be saving you money and you’ll have one less huge repair to look forward to!
I see your thinking but depending on your strategy, you may care about making repairs in excess of the vehicle’s value. If I love my Saab and will keep it for a long time, sure. If my Saab is my only vehicle and I’m not financially comfortable, then spending too much on it becomes more of an issue.
This is really not the point though is it? All that matters is are the repairs more than the ongoing cost of a replacement vehicle (assuming you’re you’re not paying cash for replacement vehicle).
Yes and no because repairs costs can be unpredictable and ongoing. If you say, the cost of getting into this type of car new/new-used is X and my repairs are under X per year, then yes. But then again you could easily exceed this in a single major repair.
Get rid of the Saab while you still have fond memories of it. In the alternative, get rid of both the Saab and the Saturn and buy something you really want.
I’d probably dump both of these. Saab people want pristine Saab Combis – and yours isn’t and the miles are too high. And the Vue wasn’t really ever a great car anyway.
Just get a Flex or a newer Taurus X. I quite like the Taurus X in higher trims, and whenever the revamp was when it got those LED rear tail lamps. In the right colors they’re nearly stately looking.
We already have a Taurus X in the household. Its my wife’s daily driver.
I should have clarified, “another, newer Taurus X.”
You could own two. ;)
Pardon the pun, but in my view, you should keep the Vue. (and sell the Saab as quick as humanly possible) The repair costs on that Saab are known to be frequent and expensive…..
You’re not allowed to do those anymore. lol.
@Dusterdude
Known by who? All the happy ’06+ Saab owners I know would certainly disagree with that assessment. And my ’00 Saab wagon was bulletproof, as was my ’08.
Do YOU have personal experience, or is this the typical “my brother’s coworker’s cousin had a bad Saab” internet 3rd hand story?
My friend’s mom hates them because some mechanic told a story about someone. Now she hate them…Mine has been bulletproof. Every Saab 9000 ive driven has had 257k-302k. The only thing even wrong with them were the clutches (what do you expect, to have an original clutch at nearly 300k?)
But she drives a Toyota. boring, ugly, slow, and cheap. But reliable I guess.
My ’04 Aero convertible has been a typical European car in my experience. It only has <50k miles on it; one headlight failure and convertible top hydraulic failure, both covered under warranty; a never-worked-right passenger door power lock (I can lean over…); and another top piston failure ($1000) I paid for. Brakes, 2 sets of tires, and it needs it's 50k check up (+/- $1k). The roof leaks (it's been treated twice). Oh and the clutch return spring clips broke ($3 each IF YOU COULD GET THEM BUT YOU CAN'T).
That said, it's been a kick ass slot car on the weekends that still receives lots of compliments. I couldn't imagine depending on it as a daily driver.
Our Volvo S70, bought new, was a disaster at 70k. I loved that little tank, but it needed a complete ABS and air conditioning system replacement as well as a steering pump. We took a bath and got a Toyota.
My old Audi 5000 was gorgeous but dating her cost lots of $.
So as much as I love SAABS, keep your pockets deep, know a good mechanic, or turn a good wrench. I'm mechanically incompetent, but thankfully know a good mechanic….
My vote is keep the Saab. By ’06 these were ancient and very well sorted cars. They go a long, long time, I have multiple friends with 250K mile examples that still run like new.
I think folks look at the repairs vs. value equation all wrong. It is not what a repair costs relative to what you could sell the car for, that is irrelevant. It is what the repair costs vs. what it would take to replace the car. Sure, you could get another one that is worth what this one is worth, but it is going to have all the same issues, unless you get super lucky. Buying something else with a lot lower miles is much more expensive, and you could roll the dice badly and get something much worse. If the car is well-maintained, reliable, you enjoy it, keep it. Get rid of the car you don’t enjoy as much.
Maintain a Saab and it’ll go forever. The only problem-ish year for the 9-3 was 2003. First year of a brand new car. Even then maintained ones go 250,300k easy.
Normally I don’t read these, but I just pressed and read to tell you that the Saab is the WAY better choice. Keep the Saab, you won’t regret it.
What you WILL regret is selling it. you don’t know what you have until it’s gone.
We took THE Saab to the shop yesterday – paid $1200 +/- for new brakes, oil change, and misc fluid exchanges. Still needs a brake fluid flush and 2 new tires.
Dave M. Couldn’t agree more re. your comments on Saab’s