[sevenman]

I am on the lookout for a 9000 for my father.

For some reason he prefers the CD variant - he had 2 of these, one 2.0i and one 2.3FPT. He has also owned an early Turbo hatchback and an Aero.
All manual.

Which CD variant comes closest to being Aero-like?

Did they stop making CDs a while before the CS production halted?

Thanks for any advice

 

[wrighar]

I think the answer to this would be :

CDE 2.3FPT

Although it will have softer suspension.

I think that CD's stopped production 12 or 18 months before the CS.

Andrew

 

[carl.rose]

It'd be a CD Carlsson that was closest to an Aero, surely?

 

[carl.rose]

Oh and yes, CD sales stopped at least a year (possibly two) before CS - the 9-5 was a straight replacement for everything the CD could do, but until the 9-5 Aero and Estate arrived, the CS was the performance and the hatch option.

 

[wrighar]

Originally posted by Swapped...:
[qb]It'd be a CD Carlsson that was closest to an Aero, surely? [/qb][/b]

Doh!

Of course it was...

I was thinking latr 90's models.... (post 1992)

Andrew

 

[jeremyfrost]

Although, would a Carlsson be a 2.0 or a 2.3? I imagine the later CDE would make a better and more reliable daily drive?

 

[carl.rose]

I'm not sure you can make judgements about reliability until you look at specific cars and their history - I've seen non-performance models that have been run into the ground, and Carlssons and Aeros that have been loved and cherished - it's the same old story of used car buying.

 

[1989agoodvintage]

Finding a good CD Carlsson would be very difficult now, well kept examples are pricey, too pricey to be good value as a daily driver and cheap ones will just be money pits.

Personally I'd look out for a good Griffin, preferably a 3.0V6 with its less-stressed autobox. Another point to note; there seem to be more automatic late-model CD's than there are manuals.

 

[carl.rose]

A Griffin has to be considered - it's the most complete car of the CDs, and if the only thing against it in your terms is the autobox, that still leaves an awful lot in its favour.

 

[aeropilot]

Originally posted by Jason (Mr Torque Steer):
[qb]Personally I'd look out for a good Griffin, preferably a 3.0V6 with its less-stressed autobox. Another point to note; there seem to be more automatic late-model CD's than there are manuals. [/qb][/b]

Spot on, for a CD, my choice would be a Griffin. All the toys as standard....
Almost all, if not all, the 3.0V6's were auto's, as were a lot of 2.3FPT Griffin's, but a late 96/97 manual 2.3FPT Griffin with a few tweeks would be a good CD 'Aero' equivalent......

 

[jeremyfrost]

Originally posted by Swapped...:
[qb]I'm not sure you can make judgements about reliability until you look at specific cars and their history - I've seen non-performance models that have been run into the ground, and Carlssons and Aeros that have been loved and cherished - it's the same old story of used car buying. [/qb][/b]

From what I can gather, Aero's are more reliable than Carlsson's, so I think you can make that judgement. Same applies for later 2.3's. Carlsson's are quite a lot older and the Aero is effectively an evolution of it anyway. I have run mine with 280-290BHP over the last 30,000 miles with absolutely no engine or gearbox problems and I know plenty of people in the same position. I know someone who had a Carlsson (still has, but it is sitting in his garden) who used to break a gearbox every 6 months.

I'm sure the Griffin is fine if you want a nice lazy (for lazy, read slow) auto. However, if you want performance, then it has to be a 2.3t, possibly with an ecu remap.

 

[sevenman]

Thanks for all the comments.

It looks like the latest possible year 2.3 FPT CDE would be the most sensible option.

- Carlssons are good but a bit old/hard to find a well looked after one.

- He is after performance (and possibly Saabscene trackday fun). Therefore Trionic cars would be better.

- He likes turbos, so the Griffin loses out there, and autoboxes aren't really a great idea for a (probably maptun tuned) car which does trackdays.

- It isn't a main driving car, he has a boring German diesel for that sort of thing |

Maybe a 9-5, but that would be breaking with tradition...

 

[aeropilot]

Originally posted by Sevenman:
[qb]- He likes turbos, so the Griffin loses out there, and autoboxes aren't really a great idea for a (probably maptun tuned) car which does trackdays.
[/qb][/b]

Other than waiting for a manual one why would the Griffin loose out if likes turbos...????

Granted, most are autos, but IIRC a manual 'box was a no cost option, and they are about. I nearly bought a 2.3FPT Griffin with a manual 'box, just before I found the 9000 Aero.

 

[markcanderson]

Originally posted by aeropilot:
[qb] QUOTE

Originally posted by Sevenman:
[qb] - He likes turbos, so the Griffin loses out there, and autoboxes aren't really a great idea for a (probably maptun tuned) car which does trackdays.
[/qb][/b]

Other than waiting for a manual one why would the Griffin loose out if likes turbos...????

Granted, most are autos, but IIRC a manual 'box was a no cost option, and they are about. I nearly bought a 2.3FPT Griffin with a manual 'box, just before I found the 9000 Aero. [/qb][/b][/quote]Cos I guess he wants a 9000 newer than a '92 with a turbo? Aren't all 9000 Griffin's auto? and wasn't the last 2.3 Turbo 9000 Griffin the '92? After that weren't they V6 NA ?

 

[microcat36]

The Griffin did not get the V6 until it was face lifted in late 1994 and then only for 2 years when they reverted to a 200bhp 2.3 ftp, as for being slow, my 3.0 v6 can out run a auto 2.3 ftp cse, is smoother, quieter, and a better cruiser with longer gearing, as at 75mph it is only doing 2500rpm and will go to 50 in 1st, 90 in 2nd, 130 in 3rd.

 

[1989agoodvintage]

From what I can gather, Aero's are more reliable than Carlsson's[/b]

That's probably down to age and the dreadful the early TCS system!

 

[jeremyfrost]

Indeed.

I'm surprised that the 3.0 auto is faster than the 2.3hpt? I guess it must be limiting the boost to protect the box.

 

[mikeloadsasaabs]

Originally posted by Sevenman:
[qb]- He is after performance (and possibly Saabscene trackday fun). Therefore Trionic cars would be better.

- He likes turbos, so the Griffin loses out there, and autoboxes aren't really a great idea for a (probably maptun tuned) car which does trackdays.

[/qb][/b]

I like the sound of your father!

Mind you, I've tried to be a good father to my 17-year old son - except for a couple of years of looking after the pennies when I was driving an old Renault, he's only been driven in various Saabs nad mostly turbos. Now he's learning to drive, I'll get him into a nice, big, safe 9000 asap.

 

[microcat36]

In all the test I have read on the 9000 auto's, the 200bhp turbo does not do well, as the auto seams to accentuate the turbo lag and is very on/off in its power and pulled a lot lower gearing as well, about 110 in 3rd compared to 130 in the V6, whereas the V6 power is always on tap.
Test figures at the time were 7.8 to 60 for the 2.3 and 7.3 for the V6, and 0-100 of 21sec for the 2.3 and 19.6 for the V6.

 

[Blackstealth]

Originally posted by microcat36:
[qb]the 200bhp turbo does not do well, as the auto seams to accentuate the turbo lag and is very on/off in its power[/qb][/b]

I've found with my 2.3T Griffin (MY97) I do have to give the pedal a bit of a squeeze to get it going, there's no real immediate power - although if I boot it it's more than happy to play once it's kicked down a gear.