-
I'm actually considering a 9-3 now after swearing (repeatedly) I'd never buy a saab again, how it was just to be able to say I'd once owned one.
russmeyer-
Unless you need the diesel (get 1.9 150 manual only, auto is horrific), the 1.8 and 2.0 turbo petrols are GM saab's bread and butter, all have sludging and PCV issues but easy and cheaply kept on top of when you know that you have to. Have had several 2.0 and 2.3 turbo in the family and all been flawless (aside PCV clean out and keeping track with superseded parts every 40-60k). Had a modified 2.0 B205 that was running around 265bhp (230lb.ft on abbot racing parts + map done by either them or 2S) but on 65-70mph motorway cruise control would get mid to high 40's, with a record of 46.5mpg over a whole tank, normally put in between 34 and 36mpg though which I could thoroughly live with for the power/reliabilty/usability/very low cost of ownership of that engine. Had 170k on it before bulkead of car was too badly fatigued (so many cracks!!!) to be safely repaired.
2.3 can get into the 300/340bhp territory without interals AFAIK, but even in standard tune are significantly heavier on fuel no matter what you do to them.
BrickMan
The 9-5 were so old before they face lifted them, then they made them a bit daft and put them out for another 2-3 years. Tbh after having both the 9-3 ss is a far better car to drive, be in, use daily, work on, fuel usage and surprisingly space! 95 has slightly more around the driver, but real world usable boot space and back seat space is better in the 93ss I'm sure of it.
Also how the 2.2 vauxhall diesel was put I those cars at all let alone still available in 2007 was a mystery to me. The fiat group 1.9 cdti was superior in every way.