New Car Advice

[FrankB]

The problem with re-engining the SAAB is that once you've spent that much you'll feel obligated to fix whatever goes next like the A/C or the tranny, and so on until you've got more in it than a new car.

As for buying used vs new I agree, buy used. But these days if you keep your eyes open and do the math, there are often lease deals on new cars that if you add up the payments, amount to less than what the same car would depreciate if you bought it and sold it after the same number of months. They're subsidized by the manufacturers as a way to get you back in 2-4 years for another new car rather than in 6-7 years if you bought it.

 

[sphughes]

It is a Turbo and I have heard similar from a few folks. I have been religious about changing the oil and using the recommended synthetic oil. Really find myself disappointed.

You are so correct about the gremlins showing up. My electronic displays often show me different looks for no apparent reason and within the last month, my alarm fires off whenever it pleases with the 'service alarm' message accompanying the sound effects. *** is my typical comment.

-Scott

 

[Doc4]

Well, now that we've heard your saab story (sorry, couldn't resist) ...

I know nothing about saabs, but from some of the other comments you may have reached that point of no return ...

 

[duna]

Saab... strange great cars (at least in the Mediterranean). A very good friend has one. The car's locks stubbornly sometimes refuses to open when he presses the button on the key. So he went to the local dealer. First diagnose: You are in a heavily polluted electromagnetic environment. Unbelievable. He maintained himself polite and explained volvos and volks around were fine, in the same environment. Next idea: Probably you skipped some mandatory dealer service in the past. He exibited the carnet, full of prescribed stamps and datas and so on. Finally they gave up and checked the IT system, and here it was: the whole lot of keys was defective...
Dealers...

 

[bmwe28m5]

It is a Turbo and I have heard similar from a few folks. I have been religious about changing the oil and using the recommended synthetic oil. Really find myself disappointed.

You are so correct about the gremlins showing up. My electronic displays often show me different looks for no apparent reason and within the last month, my alarm fires off whenever it pleases with the 'service alarm' message accompanying the sound effects. *** is my typical comment.

-Scott

The problem isnt with the oil, but with how Saab designed the exhaust manifold, the oil jacketing, all sorts of stuff. Synthetic is the only way to roll, but if you have a turbo just grilling that oil at 500F+, the oil is going to break down into sludge. Normal engine oil temps are under 300F, with an optimal temp around 200 (varies with the engine). The use of an oil cooled turbo and good heat shielding would help the 95, but the design was just bad. It might not be whats going on with your 95, but it is a cause with a lot of the 95 engine failures.

 

[Buzz]

Yes but domestics have better dependability than German cars (as of lately, according to statistics). The first 3 cars I owned were all VW's. I drive a Honda now. I'll never buy another VW, much less a German car ever again.

sphughes --- for the love of God, don't buy a VW Passat.

Hear me now. Thank me later.

I had a '98 Passat wagon. 2.8l, all wheel drive.

Bought in November, 2001. Thought I was making a shrewd financial decision by buying a 3 year old car and avoiding all that nasty, new car depreciation.

I admit that it was a fun car to drive, but it was by far, the worst car I've ever owned in terms of reliability. Something expensive screwed up every six months. At every repair, I deluded myself by saying, "Well, that was expensive, but at least that is out of the way now and I can look forward to years of trouble free driving." Wrong, wrong, wrong.

After suffering with it for 2 years, I traded it off on a boring Toyota. The only place in town that was fun to drive the Toyota was when I passed the VW dealership!

Disclaimer: I'm sure I had a lemon and all VWs aren't like this. Some probbably run for hundreds of miles and maybe even weeeks at a time without a significant repair. I'm just not willing to play financial Russian roulette again with VW. BTW-- we're now an all Honda family.

 

[FriscoSoxFan]

I LOVE my 2003 Passat 1.8T. It has 51K miles on it and I'm the original owner.

Lots of fun to drive, looks great, and people think it is a lot more expensive than it is.

The only problems I've had are with the window regulator pins in the back ($1.17 in parts if you know how to fix it yourself) and the brakes don't last that long (about 25k miles, $100 in parts if you know what you are doing)

For routine maintenance work, I think they are pretty easy to work on and I'm not a mechanic by any stretch of the imagination (Except for the %&*$ air filter which requires an act of congress to get at).

Make sure to change your timing belt at about 70k miles, use VW 502 approved synthetic oils, and don't believe what they say about "lifetime fluids" and you should be good for a long time.

Its a shame that people don't want to learn how to maintain thier own car anymore. I'm not saying that you have to do the work on your own, but you should at least know what, when,why, and how things should be done.

 

[Lynchmeister]

Yeah, it seems like VW can be a mixed bag. I bought my Jetta 1.8T despite a lot of negative press on the internet. Why, you ask? Because I was driving a hand me down Chevrolet Lumina and I had wanted a VW Jetta with the new (now old) body style that was launched in '99 (I think) for a long time. Sometimes I tend to put my wants before my needs.

I've been relatively fortunate in that I haven't had too many costly repairs, but I'd be lying if I said there weren't any. The majority were covered under warranty, otherwise...

My next car? Definitely not a Jetta. What were the VW big wigs thinking with that new body style?!?!?

 

[Legato]

To be honest, you dont want to keep the Saab. Saabs are unreliable, quirky and cost a lot for what you get. Plus you are past the 100k point, and thats dangerous territory for a Saab. Electronic gremlins are the next big problem.

What he said.

To be honest, I love to drive European makes, but I hate to maintain them (and this from a guy who still loves Alfa Romeos with a passion). Parts expense and availability, particularly on electrical components that seem to conk out with some regularity, are real killers.

As a result, I'd recommend a Japanese make. And, as several other posters have noted, the best value for $$$ is buying a used car. Personally, I always buy from private parties.

If you don't want to pay the premium associated with a Honda or Toyota, consider a less well-known brand like a Mitsubishi or Suzuki. In particular, Mitsubishis have (IMHO) good build quality and low maintenance costs. But their residual value drops like a stone once they are driven off the show room floor, which is great news for used car shoppers.

Example: I just bought my sister-in-law a 2000 Mitsubishi Mirage (think Honda Civic) with 29,000 miles on the odometer, new brakes and new tires for $4,000. I changed the plugs, coolant, oil, PCV valve, air, fuel and oil filters, and bled the brakes for less than $100. That car is going to provide good, reliable, low-cost service for years.

Of course, once you get beyond the idea of "car as appliance" (after all, they're all boxes with four wheels), all bets are off, and you need to go with whatever fuels your passion . . . .

Good luck with your search. -- Joe

 

[Rufus]

I usually buy new cars, but never one that is in the first year of production, preferring one that is about half way through the model cycle. My objective is to drive the car for at least 10 years or 100,000 miles. Last year I scrapped my 14 year old Toyota Camry V6 LE with 186,000 miles on the clock, but only because the block cracked due to an improperly installed radiator by a non-Toyota shop. I currently own a 2000 Lexus RX300 with 70,000 miles on the clock and a relatively new (2004) Lexus IS 300; no problems with either and the service is fantastic, but you pay for it in the purchase price. My 3 adult children all own Hondas: 2 civics and 1 Odyssey; and they swear by them. Bottom line, you can't go wrong with Toyota and Honda products. I like the styling and the handling of VWs, but I think their initial build quality and long term reliability are suspect and no match for Toyota and Honda.

 

[ratcheer]

I blew the engine on my Saab Friday night and while I wait word on what the replacement engine will cost me, I am contemplating my options. I am leaning towards buying a VW Passat because with the other engine, I will be shelling out some cabbage that might be better spent towards a new vehicle, but I am open to suggestions. The dealers are offering generous pricing on 07's to make room for the 08's coming next month. Anyone wanting to throw their $.02 out here, please do.

-Scott

I wanted a VW Passat very much when I bought my last car. But both the consumer magazines' and the car magazines' reviews were always quite negative. So, like you, I bought a Saab.

I have loved my Saab as a car, but it has has tons of minor problems. So, I could hardly recommend buying another one of those, either.

The best cars are fairly obviously Toyota and Honda products. These include their other brands such as Acura and Lexus, etc. But it sounds like you are somewhat like me and prefer something a little more out of the ordinary.

So, I don't know what to recommend. But I do recommend against a Passat.

Tim

 

[Buzz]

The best cars are fairly obviously Toyota and Honda products. These include their other brands such as Acura and Lexus, etc. But it sounds like you are somewhat like me and prefer something a little more out of the ordinary.

I shopped Acura and Lexus before my last purchase.

I noticed that many recommend premium grade fuel for those brands. This may not be true for all models, but just the ones I was considering.

Whether you really use premium in those cars is up to you, but many do recommend it.

 

[bmwe28m5]

I shopped Acura and Lexus before my last purchase.

I noticed that many recommend premium grade fuel for those brands. This may not be true for all models, but just the ones I was considering.

Whether you really use premium in those cars is up to you, but many do recommend it.

CA, arguably Toyota/Lexus' single largest market, is dominated by 91 AKI gasoline. While the premium octane for CA, it is actually a mid-grade gasoline for the market (altitude). The engines have anti-knock sensors and some have moved to ion sensors (Lexus) to detect detonation problems, mostly caused by lower octane. So it is not a big problem, just advances or retards the timing in accordance with what the fuel and cylinder conditions are. Besides, the difference between premium and mid usually is $0.10 to 0.30 and if you are looking at a luxury market car, but the decision hinges upon premium gas, you probably cant afford it anyways notwithstanding gas prices.

If you have a turbo, you must run premium.

You can get 94 AKI and 98 AKI at some Sunocos in CA. 98AKI runs about $7.69/gal last time I checked a few months ago.

 

[Lynchmeister]

CA, arguably Toyota/Lexus' single largest market, is dominated by 91 AKI gasoline. While the premium octane for CA, it is actually a mid-grade gasoline for the market (altitude). The engines have anti-knock sensors and some have moved to ion sensors (Lexus) to detect detonation problems, mostly caused by lower octane. So it is not a big problem, just advances or retards the timing in accordance with what the fuel and cylinder conditions are. Besides, the difference between premium and mid usually is $0.10 to 0.30 and if you are looking at a luxury market car, but the decision hinges upon premium gas, you probably cant afford it anyways notwithstanding gas prices.

If you have a turbo, you must run premium.

You can get 94 AKI and 98 AKI at some Sunocos in CA. 98AKI runs about $7.69/gal last time I checked a few months ago.

Glad you mentioned this as I own a turbo charged vehicle (VW Jetta 1.8T) and it was suggested to me at the time of purchase that I use premium fuel. I did run a tank or two of 87 octane, but the car's performance suffered notably...not to mention the havoc I could have wreaked on the engine timing. Here's a brief description (as I understand it) of why:

A turbo charged engine has a ceramic turbine that is spun by the exhaust caused by the engine's combustion. The higher the RPMs, the more exhaust, the faster the turbo spins.

This spinning turbine essentially shoots more air into the combustion chamber than that which would be possible in a normal engine, resulting in in a highly pressurized air/fuel mixture. More air=more fuel=more power.

Now for the difference in fuel grades. When lower grade fuels containing lower levels of octane are used, the likelihood of misfires and engine knock greatly increases. Since turbo engines are under such high pressure, it's very easy for the ambient heat of the combustion chamber in conjunction with the very high pressure to prematurely ignite before the spark plug fires, hence a misfire.

 

[bmwe28m5]

Well yeah, pretty much. Turbocharging adds some complexity to engine design and DME design. It also increases engine dimesions, which is one practical problem that has faced designers, the most interesting of which were the aircraft engine designers of WWII. Going with a two stage supercharger was easier, the two stages gave proper boost at low and high altitude, the superchargers were small and could be mounted without changing the dimensions of the front of the aircraft, etc etc. Not to mention the levels of boost could be out of control, producing sick amounts of hp, thanks to 150 octane gasoline.

Basically octane rating is a measure of a compounds resistance to exploding. Lower the rating, the easier it will detonate, and vice versa.

Your synopsis of the turbo is actually more like a supercharger which has a rising rate of boost as rpms rise. A turbo has an idle boost speed, but once rpms rise, usually 500rpm to 1000rpm off of idle speed (the spool lag), the turbo is operating at full boost throughout the rest of the rpm range. A biturbo setup can minimize this lag as a smaller impeller will move quicker with less energy and thus move the compressor quicker etc. Turbos operate at rpms of 20,000+ and engine temps get well above 300F.

With high boost pressures, intercoolers are imperative. Many use alcohol and or water injection to keep cylinder temps down. Dumping more fuel also cools down the engine. When you use a turbo, you basically increase the displacement of the engine and increase the compression. Both require higher octane ratings.

When you use high octane fuels, you can achieve anything with a turbo. In the turbocharger era of Formula One, BMW used a 1.4L Inline 4 engine which produced 1500hp with full boost. The block was pulled from high mileage 2002s. Of course the fuel used was so high in octane, other teams remarked that BMWs pit had a dense haze which smelled like acetone.

Its not a misfire, which is a different phenomenon involving a mis-timed engine management system, whether it be a simple carburetor and distributor spark system or a piezioelectric injector, high voltage spark coils, and complex engine parameter mapping. If it sparks at the wrong time, it is a misfire. Predetonation and pre-ignition are caused by fuel, air, heat and compression parameters which are out of whack. One example is a common problem with old superchargers is dieseling, which is when the engine keeps running on a fuel and air supply (easy to do with carburetors) the engine is shut off. High heat and low octane fuel plus compression just keeps the engine running until the fuel is gone. Another example is a sharp surface in the cylinder, which is a problem because it becomes a local area of extremely high temperatures and can cause detonation.

Sorry for the ramblings, I sort of rattled this off in a few minutes, so CYA for mistakes. This is a passion for me, and just talking about it is something pleasurable for me.

BTW, 1.8T engine can be wound up to put some serious hp. The Audi 1.8T engine is the same thing and those belt down 300hp at the crank no problem with some mods.

 

[Buzz]

Besides, the difference between premium and mid usually is $0.10 to 0.30 and if you are looking at a luxury market car, but the decision hinges upon premium gas, you probably cant afford it anyways notwithstanding gas prices.

It is perfectly reasonable to cross shop a new Honda/Toyota versus a one or two year old Acura/Lexus.

The higher ownership costs of the used luxury car should be understood when making the decision. You'll pay more for service, parts, insurance and fuel (if you follow the manufacturer's recommendation).

On my last purhcase, I could have afforded an Acura but decided on a Honda. I didn't want the higher costs of the Acura.

 

[bmwe28m5]

It is perfectly reasonable to cross shop a new Honda/Toyota versus a one or two year old Acura/Lexus.

The higher ownership costs of the used luxury car should be understood when making the decision. You'll pay more for service, parts, insurance and fuel (if you follow the manufacturer's recommendation).

On my last purhcase, I could have afforded an Acura but decided on a Honda. I didn't want the higher costs of the Acura.

This is sort of the hybrid paradox. Switching to a newer, more fuel efficient car would be far more costly than driving one of my cars which gets about 15.3mpg average and requires premium fuel. Of course, you want an informed decision, as you dont want to run 85 AKI on that new turbo Audi and jack up a $13,000 engine because you didnt know what octane to use. But to have the decision hinge upon fuel, is somewhat improvident. Not saying this is what happened in your case, but merely saying it happens to a lot of people these days, particularly in lease situations. This is particularly the case in CA.

 

[Lynchmeister]

Well yeah, pretty much. Turbocharging adds some complexity to engine design and DME design. It also increases engine dimesions, which is one practical problem that has faced designers, the most interesting of which were the aircraft engine designers of WWII. Going with a two stage supercharger was easier, the two stages gave proper boost at low and high altitude, the superchargers were small and could be mounted without changing the dimensions of the front of the aircraft, etc etc. Not to mention the levels of boost could be out of control, producing sick amounts of hp, thanks to 150 octane gasoline.

Basically octane rating is a measure of a compounds resistance to exploding. Lower the rating, the easier it will detonate, and vice versa.

Your synopsis of the turbo is actually more like a supercharger which has a rising rate of boost as rpms rise. A turbo has an idle boost speed, but once rpms rise, usually 500rpm to 1000rpm off of idle speed (the spool lag), the turbo is operating at full boost throughout the rest of the rpm range. A biturbo setup can minimize this lag as a smaller impeller will move quicker with less energy and thus move the compressor quicker etc. Turbos operate at rpms of 20,000+ and engine temps get well above 300F.

With high boost pressures, intercoolers are imperative. Many use alcohol and or water injection to keep cylinder temps down. Dumping more fuel also cools down the engine. When you use a turbo, you basically increase the displacement of the engine and increase the compression. Both require higher octane ratings.

When you use high octane fuels, you can achieve anything with a turbo. In the turbocharger era of Formula One, BMW used a 1.4L Inline 4 engine which produced 1500hp with full boost. The block was pulled from high mileage 2002s. Of course the fuel used was so high in octane, other teams remarked that BMWs pit had a dense haze which smelled like acetone.

Its not a misfire, which is a different phenomenon involving a mis-timed engine management system, whether it be a simple carburetor and distributor spark system or a piezioelectric injector, high voltage spark coils, and complex engine parameter mapping. If it sparks at the wrong time, it is a misfire. Predetonation and pre-ignition are caused by fuel, air, heat and compression parameters which are out of whack. One example is a common problem with old superchargers is dieseling, which is when the engine keeps running on a fuel and air supply (easy to do with carburetors) the engine is shut off. High heat and low octane fuel plus compression just keeps the engine running until the fuel is gone. Another example is a sharp surface in the cylinder, which is a problem because it becomes a local area of extremely high temperatures and can cause detonation.

Sorry for the ramblings, I sort of rattled this off in a few minutes, so CYA for mistakes. This is a passion for me, and just talking about it is something pleasurable for me.

BTW, 1.8T engine can be wound up to put some serious hp. The Audi 1.8T engine is the same thing and those belt down 300hp at the crank no problem with some mods.

Nice post! It has definitely improved my understanding of the car I drive and love.

 

[bmwe28m5]

One small nugget:

The fuel used in WWII aircraft was so heavily leaded to get that 150+ octane rating, the cowlings near the exhaust manifolds had to be replaced at low hours of operation. This is because the amount of lead deposited upon the cowling from the exhaust added so much weight. The panels were removed, the lead ground down, and painted if not left naked aluminum.

Lead deposits in the fuel system were a small problem, but the engines ran at such high loads and rpms that they were sort of self cleaning, and eventually were torn down before any problems occured as a matter of course.

 

[Multum in parvo]

I think you should go for a new one