Saabscene Saab Forum - Saab Technical Information Resource banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just looking at 9000's for sale the other day. Realised I would never, ever, ever consider the saloon CD version. reson for my prejudice is that I don't see the point in having such a big car if you can't load the odd fridge or 6 foot fence post into it.
I relise that not every one will share my view. Makes me wonder if CD owners are that bit more suave & debonaire and less likely to be seen loading old , discarded furniture from skips into the back of their 9000. ( maybe I should get a Volva 240 estate) As long as there's space for golf clubs and a wicker picnic hamper they are happy.
Am I right?
Can we split into different camps right now.
Divisively,
Wulbert
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,895 Posts
Originally posted by wulbert:
[qb]I relise that not every one will share my view. Makes me wonder if CD owners are that bit more suave & debonaire and less likely to be seen loading old , discarded furniture from skips into the back of their 9000.[/qb][/b]
LOL, I wouldn't class myself as suave or debonaire. The only reason I bought a CD was because I got a good deal, If I could've afforded to be chosey I would have gone for a CS Aero. The onlt advanatge the CD has over the CS is a slightly "more sorted" rear end as there's less bodyshell flex. Although oddly enough, they never did an Aero version of the CD, so maybe I'm talking crud and it's just my own personal perception.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,935 Posts
As Jason says, the advantage of the CD is the stiffer rear end: no hatch with a gaping hole. For that same reason the old 2 door 900 is the body shape of choice from a stiffness point of view out of the C900s. Of course you can still stiffen up the back end of the CS model (as Mark E has done). Personally I prefer the look of the CS and 3/5 door C900s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Originally posted by Sevenman:
[qb]My CS Aero has lovely seats, but the fact the rears don't fold flat is very annoying at times    :rolleyes:  [/qb][/b]
and one thing that I miss from my old cavalier is a gate that opens behind the rear arm rest for putting fishing rods, long bits of wood, etc, through.

I have a cs and I got it originally because I liked the looks, the
, and the boot space with seats down...although, as said above, they only go half way down
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
My old '86 900 was a saloon. I had wanted a hatch but strangely all the hatches I looked at were much more tatty than booted equivalents. Perhaps this was down to stiffer shell , less flex & loosening of interior or maybe that hatch owners are more likely to have weans & dogs in their cars. ( both well known sources of chaos & grime)Wul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
The pre 94' CD WAS a better looking model than the
CS fronted CD and they had more boot space (503 ltr) as opposed to the CS/E (448 ltr) which adds up to qute a bit of beer !!.
As for the rear seats on my present CSE that dont fold flat,i'm glad other people find it a "constraint" sometimes. Also the CD went round the corners better than my CS (but then so did my 91' Hatch ).
G.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
253 Posts
I always liked the CD, but as soon as I owned a CS I changed my mind, still liked the CD, but now prefer the CS. I'd say CS as I prefer the look, mind you I did just see a really nice CD Griffin which looked awesome
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,245 Posts
For me the CS looks better,but the back seats not folding right down is a pain in the .....neck.I used to like the C900 for space.[/b]
Yes the CS looks better. When I had a CD I once took the rear seat back out so that I could get a mattress in. I don't think it would be a big job to fit rear seats from a CS into a CD so that they folded down like they did on the old booted 99 and 90.
I also liked the C900s for space though the old shape 9000 is pretty good. The CS suffers from the inward projection of the rear wheel arches which I believe that was in the interests of stiffening the floor pan.
I once got a single bed into a 3 door 99 and got the hatch shut by removing the spare wheel cover so that the legs at one the bed sat in the spare wheel well, I then put the spare wheel below the bed at the front. Bet you couldn't do that with a CS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Both our 9000s are CS. The 2.0i was bought on price/spec/condition/availability (the old CC died uneconomically), and a CD (or any 4 passenger-door c900/gm900) would have been just as welcome.

I always rather liked the CD Carlsson - a red one that lived locally had the imposing appearance of somehow looking even bigger than it really was, but there's something wonderfully off-kilter about the rear styling of the CS that no other car (Saab or otherwise) can replicate.

[sighs]

Carl
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,277 Posts
Originally posted by Mark in Ireland:
[qb]
You need a CD Carlsson to change your mind!! [/qb]
Hey, I'm not the Saabscene heavy! Strong arm tactics aren't my style. Oh, sorry, you mean you need to 'own' a CD Carly
.

Back to the subject. Loved my CD Carlsson, bet you couldn't guess could you. But a growing family, and the onward roll of time, meant an upgrade of car and change of bodyshell to a CS Aero was inevitable.
The CD in black with the bodykit was awesome and had real presence, the Aero (the green one at the top of the page) just doesn't compete in those terms, much more of a 'Q' car, even with the Azev wheels.

Nick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
Color does make a big difference. I just got my 91 CD painted "grenada black pearl", it was formerly "chipping clear coat green". Anyway I'm afraid the CS still has got the cosmetic edge on the CD.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top