S60 /318i /Saab93 /A4
-
Hi all,
I'm new to this forum and after just 2 days of reading diff treads oredi like it not less.
Pls share your views on these makes - S60 /318i /Saab93 /A4
Thanks in advance! -
Both the 318i and A4 are at the end of tis life cycle. A new model is definitely planned, probably to be launched in 2005/6.
As for the S60, an interim facelifted model is planned for 2005 as well.
The 93 is the youngest of the lot. So it will look "fresh" for many more years than the present other models.
Price wise (base models), from lowest to highest, I think it will look something like this: 93, S60, A4, 318i.
In terms of value for money, the 93 delivers. Just compare the list of standard features and you will know what I mean.
The 93 and S60 have the turbo power advantage over the normally aspirated A4 and 318i. The transmission in the A4 is CVT, 93 is Sentronic, and S60, 318i is Automatic. If you like the choice of both automatic and "manual", it comes standard only on the 93.
It is better for you to test drive all 4 models and make a choice based on your own value system.
I love my 93.
-
Welcome level107!
Personally I think they are all good cars, each has strengths in different areas (politically correct statement!)
I must confess to only having driven the 9-3 although I've 'sat' in the rest, so can't really give an objective comparison of the driving experience. But by all accounts the BMW is tops in handling but it should be closely followed by the 9-3. Unfortunately there are just so many BMWs around and the 318i is still less powerful than the stock 9-3.
In terms of build quality and classiness, I think gotta hand it to Audi. The standard 2.0l A4 is a bit underpowered though, should consider the 1.8T although more expensive.
I bought my 9-3 because apart from the good handling and exclusivity, it also offered the most bang for the buck. The others each had something or other missing eg. steering mounted audio controls, auto climate control, cruise control, rear aircon vents, rear door pockets, folding rear seats, turbo (ahem!). But with the 9-3 I could get all these and still pay less than the rest! -
Not forgeting NCAP 5 star safety rating for the 93SS, and the Swedes' traditional focus on safety. SEs for some of the other marques (exception:VW) could not answer my questions on ISOFIX/Latch childseat systems. The rear seat fold down was a big plus too.
I agree with comments on A4 build quality being tops but the CVT in the 2.0 was a bit "sluggish" for me. My friend who owns a 1-year old A4 2.0 is perfectly happy though. Guess if you want a performance A4, you'll have to go for the 1.8T. If I had to choose between A4 2.0 and the VW Passat 1.8T (same price range), I'd choose the Passat, though it's due for model replacement next year.
For the 3-series, it better be a 6-cylinder engine (320 and above) for the fun factor, but otherwise it's a good (if too common) car. It's also not very roomy at the back. Going to be end of life in 2005/6. Good resale value compared to Saabs :-) BTW, apparently the fuel consumption for the 318 valvetronic is very good.
The S60 would be closest in terms of pricing and features as the 93SS (basic model also a LPT). My friend has a early build (2001?), and has given him no ends to workshop visits. To me the interior is a bit cramped compared to the 93 although the car looks large from outside.
Among the cars, I think 93SS and A4 would "age" quite well because of their simple design lines. I certainly hope so, as I intend to keep my 93SS for a long time... :-) -
Hi guys,
Thanks for sharing.
How is the FC like for the 93 and the other if you also know? FC is major factor to me as I have no transport reimbursment package from my Co.
Rear legroom also an important factor, which one the best?
Are the services at Saab's distributor good? Servicing cost high? -
out of the 4 cars here, i have been a passenger in a street race in an S60 T5 b4, and I was pretty impressed with it, esp bearing in mind that its a FWD car with 250bhp... so out of the 4 cars here, my pick will be the S60.
-
The fuel comsumption actually gets better with time and use. Also, your driving patterns play an important role. Highway better than city driving, as you know. I used to get as bad as 6.45km/L at 6706 on the odometer. With my latest fillup, I got 10.11km/L at 8718 on the odometer.
Another thing that helps, I think, is the power. If you have more power upfront (like a turbo, or something special), you can very quickly get up to your desired speed (especially on the highway), then maintain "cruising altitude" all the way to your destination! This driving method is the best for minimising fuel consumption.
Not sure if using a freer flowing air filter helps, but my inprovement came about rather recently, after making some changes.
By the way, I don't get any subsidy from my company for fuel usage either. However, I do get a whole lot of thrills when the turbo whines, the air intake swooshes, and the butt dyno says "all systems GO, ready for takeoff"!
-
My stock 93SS's FC is around 7.8-8.0l/100km for highway and about 11.2-11.5l/100km for city. Somewhere in between for combined. Using Mobil RON98. Anyone using RON95 ? Tempted to downgrade as been doing lots of miles lately.
-
Lots of owners in the US using RON91 without any problems. In fact, some of them report even better fuel economy.
-
My FC average is about 11.5l/100km with about 75% highway driving, not very conservative driving style. Managed to do about 8l/100km on the N-S highway.
Any of you guys measured your actual FC against the SID yet? My actual seems to be about 1l/100km more than the SID reading.
With regard to Volvos, I like the styling but noticed that the big shoulders translate into damn thick side panels which eat into the interior space. The sloping rear screen also affects the rear passenger headroom. Having said that, will certainly not turn down a chance to have a go in a T5 or even an S60R.