Used Saab 9-3 SC or Volvo V50 T5

[Matoonia]

Hi guys,

 

Any swedish experts here can advise on these 2 models

 

1. Volvo V50 T5 - Asking $63,800, Reg Dec 2005

http://www.sgcarmart.com/used_cars/info.ph...925&DL=1354

 

2. Saab 9-3 SC - Asking $62,000, Reg Mar 06

http://www.sgcarmart.com/used_cars/info.ph...725&DL=1000

 

Both these cars are very similar, around same age, depreciation also around the same. I have listed some concerns here, any Swedish car fans can further advise?

 

1. Based on selling price, Volvo depreciation @ $8,500 and Saab @ $8,300. Volvo road tax higher.

2. Performance wise Volvo better than stock Saab??

3. Fuel consumption? - not too sure on this

4. Maintenance - Saab, now owned by Spyker, and Volvo, Geely. How's the maintenance of a 4 year old unit for both makes. I will think that Volvo being more common, maintenance should be better than Saab? How about availability of parts.

 

TIA

[Subarugt]

Hi guys,

 

Any swedish experts here can advise on these 2 models

 

1. Volvo V50 T5 - Asking $63,800, Reg Dec 2005

http://www.sgcarmart.com/used_cars/info.ph...925&DL=1354

 

2. Saab 9-3 SC - Asking $62,000, Reg Mar 06

http://www.sgcarmart.com/used_cars/info.ph...725&DL=1000

 

Both these cars are very similar, around same age, depreciation also around the same. I have listed some concerns here, any Swedish car fans can further advise?

 

1. Based on selling price, Volvo depreciation @ $8,500 and Saab @ $8,300. Volvo road tax higher.

2. Performance wise Volvo better than stock Saab??

3. Fuel consumption? - not too sure on this

4. Maintenance - Saab, now owned by Spyker, and Volvo, Geely. How's the maintenance of a 4 year old unit for both makes. I will think that Volvo being more common, maintenance should be better than Saab? How about availability of parts.

 

TIA

 

performance wise u cant compare base on this as V50 T5 is higher end and more bhp than 93 2.0t unless the 93 is a troll or sero version or it has be chipped up. but i feel saab more lifely to drive... more perky....

 

fuel comsumption depends on yr foot... it is ard 8-10km/l depending on urban dring etc...

maintenance... as long both got full service record will be ok... no need to worry abt getting parts....

[Soya]

Hi guys,

 

Any swedish experts here can advise on these 2 models

 

1. Volvo V50 T5 - Asking $63,800, Reg Dec 2005

http://www.sgcarmart.com/used_cars/info.ph...925&DL=1354

 

2. Saab 9-3 SC - Asking $62,000, Reg Mar 06

http://www.sgcarmart.com/used_cars/info.ph...725&DL=1000

 

Both these cars are very similar, around same age, depreciation also around the same. I have listed some concerns here, any Swedish car fans can further advise?

 

1. Based on selling price, Volvo depreciation @ $8,500 and Saab @ $8,300. Volvo road tax higher.

2. Performance wise Volvo better than stock Saab??

3. Fuel consumption? - not too sure on this

4. Maintenance - Saab, now owned by Spyker, and Volvo, Geely. How's the maintenance of a 4 year old unit for both makes. I will think that Volvo being more common, maintenance should be better than Saab? How about availability of parts.

 

TIA

 

The T5's performance is definitely better. But the dealer's $$ markup on the T5 is quite exorbitant - they prob took it it between 40-45k max. The depreciation shld be ard $7k/yr.

 

 

 

[Roadhogger]

Hi Owners of V50 T5. How much KM /litre are you getting from the 2006 version?

[Blackwall_books]

2nd hand saab 93 vs jaguar x-type. which is better bet? budget ard SGD65K, looking for advice

[Chickenbackside]

Owned a Saab 93 for 4 years.

 

1) It's a very reliable car

2) Servicing can be cheap if you use specialist workshops, even servicing at Transeurokars is pretty reasonable

3) Certain parts like engine mounts can be expensive (5x the price of my Merc mounts)

4) More fun to drive than a V50, even when comparing a 2.0t to a T5. I drove a T5 rental in Europe for a month so I know what it's like.

5) Interior is fragile and tends to melt. You have to press buttons gingerly and lightly to prevent them from wearing out

 

Overall, an enjoyable car to own. No problems with reliability whatsover. Parts can be expensive but the same can be said of Volvos.

 

[Proton_neutron]

Owned a Saab 93 for 4 years.

 

1) It's a very reliable car

2) Servicing can be cheap if you use specialist workshops, even servicing at Transeurokars is pretty reasonable

3) Certain parts like engine mounts can be expensive (5x the price of my Merc mounts)

4) More fun to drive than a V50, even when comparing a 2.0t to a T5. I drove a T5 rental in Europe for a month so I know what it's like.

5) Interior is fragile and tends to melt. You have to press buttons gingerly and lightly to prevent them from wearing out

 

Overall, an enjoyable car to own. No problems with reliability whatsover. Parts can be expensive but the same can be said of Volvos.

 

 

 

It's really amazing how long this current 9-3 has been in our market =) I really do appreciate such long product range lifespan=)

 

Now though, the V50 in this comparison should be replaced with the V60 1.6T 180bhp instead =)

 

 

[Ichiban84]

was toying btw the two but settled for the later

 

no regrets.

maybe because the previous owner did a BSR stage one tune.

 

considering to get the 9-3 2.8TS next

[elecan]

was toying btw the two but settled for the later

 

no regrets.

maybe because the previous owner did a BSR stage one tune.

 

considering to get the 9-3 2.8TS next

 

You can easily squeeze out 300 bhp from the 2.8TS with just some minor mods :)

[Ichiban84]

yea hence the dilemma

 

for wagons

saab 9-3 2.8TS

vs

v70R

vs

xc70 2.5T (abit different league)

 

 

[Hamburger]

Power wise I put aside....

 

In terms of a beauty, it has to be a Saab hands down.