33 responses so far ↓

• 1 Andy Rupert // May 7, 2008 at 11:44 pm

  I agree with Swade. Test drive the V6. I’d hate to purchase a car and then find out the upgrade would have been more to my liking.

• 2 triple // May 7, 2008 at 11:47 pm

  eh. You can always upgrade the 2.0 if you “outgrow” the power. I’d take it any day over the V6.

• 3 matteo // May 7, 2008 at 11:54 pm

  I’ve never driven the v6, however I have driven an older Aero that had the 2.0T and WHOA! what an engine. I agree with Triple, upgrade it later if you must, but it really is such a sweet combination, that I think you will really enjoy it for as long as you own the car. I also love that the Turbo 4 it’s very Saab and it strikes me as a “proper” Saab engine.

• 4 NJ_Nick // May 8, 2008 at 12:27 am

  I will chime in with the others and say that you MUST take the test-drive in the Aero as well.

  The 2.0T and Aero have a very different feel to them IMHO. The Aero feels more like a sports car and handles much sharper. But the ride is less comfortable, something that you may notice on more “bumpy” roads. Also the V6 is not that great as fuel economy goes. Still you might be an Aero-convert once you get behind the wheel…I never thought I needed an Aero until I tried one…

• 5 zippy // May 8, 2008 at 12:30 am

  Test drive both - and if you are buying an automatic shame on you - but remember with gas in the US headed to a ghastly (NOT) $4/gallon for the ‘cheap stuff’ the Aero is gonna cost way more to run. You could always boost the power of the 2.0T with a chip and Im sure you would still get better mileage than an Aero. Whatever you end up with I am sure you will have fun with it. What colour you thinking of?

• 6 joemama // May 8, 2008 at 12:30 am

  2.0T. Save on gas. It’s only going up, not down.

• 7 CWilson // May 8, 2008 at 12:44 am

  Without a doubt drive them both back-to-back if you can. If you can’t tell a major difference, go with the 2.0T. Remember, it’s not just the engine difference, you also get upgraded seats, suspension, body trim, wheels, etc. so factor that in as well. As a 2004 Aero (2.0T) owner, I still look longingly at the V6 Aero.

  Also during the test drives, be aware that the motors respond differently. The V6 is so smooth that it doesn’t really _feel_ like it’s much faster when in reality it is. In the 2.0T, you definitely get the turbo rush so you have this sensation that the car is faster. It’s kind of deceptive.

  I would definitely go with the V6 but that’s just me. I’m not concerned about the minor fuel difference between the two, I am willing to forfeit a couple of MPG to gain the additional power and features the V6 gives you. In order to save some money up front, you could get a V6 Aero the is a year older than the 2.0T you are looking at - that way they should be somewhat similar in price.

• 8 Adrian // May 8, 2008 at 12:45 am

  Thanks for feedback so far. Zippy I absolutely hate automatics fyi I think it is very funny that in america we like sporty cars or more high end cars and then buy an automatic. Seems very counterintuitive to the whole point of enjoying driving.

  Although I have not been back to dealer since test drive through the web I have seen 2 saabs on their lot I am interested in.

  2.0T Nocturne Blue Metallic with parchment.
  packages, cold, moon, premium, 17″ wheels, better audio. 6sp manual.

  or

  Aero: Snow Silver Metallic, black interior
  Packages, Nav, Cold, Leather, Touring, 6sp manual.

  Basically those are the 2 I am considering because those are the manual transmission models of 2.0T or aero they have on the lot.

• 9 Tedjs // May 8, 2008 at 12:48 am

  I drove both cars and the V6 and Aero package just shined. It really is what sold me on the car. The V6 is simply a monster on the freeway and part throttle passing is so much fun.

  Fuel economy with the 2.0T would be a few MPG better, but nothing to really get excited about. The Aero package is considerably more money as well, but worth it in my opinion. I waited until August of last year to buy my car as the rebates kept going up, so that was a definite consideration as well.

  If you drive the V6 I bet you will want it.

• 10 dan // May 8, 2008 at 12:50 am

  Drive both, and buy what you want.
  *note…i must plug my 9-5 Aero yet again*
  I am SO glad i didnt compromise on my choice, sure the lesser engine vehicles were well in my price range, but I held out until the perfect 9-5 Aero I could afford was available. that car still makes me smile. Buy what makes you happier.

• 11 metrognome // May 8, 2008 at 12:51 am

  Three words: Five-dollar gas.

• 12 Adrian // May 8, 2008 at 12:52 am

  Also as I am deciding can someone please update me on the gas mileage they actually are getting.

  The 2008 2.0T supposedly gets 19/29 and the aero gets 16/24….. on the website.. Any aero drivers can you tell me what gas mileage you actually get?

• 13 matteo // May 8, 2008 at 1:18 am

  CWilson makes a great point.
  I do love the Turbo 4, but the upgrades (seats, wheels, etc) slipped my mind. They are a major contributor to the car. Let us know how the test drives go and what you decide!

• 14 MarkoA // May 8, 2008 at 1:51 am

  I don´t know what market Adrian is shopping at, but I´m assuming it´s US, right? In that case it might be more difficult to make a decision. Reasons cheap gas, cheap V6 compared to other markets and no possibility to get sports seats with 2.0T.

  But as a diehard Saabfan, I´d go with 2.0T. It´s a bit lighter (not as front heavy as V6) thus better cornering and less understeer. They have almost similar performance on a paper and 2.0T feels very fast and nimble because of some lag and turbo-kick if you floor it.
  In our market it´s possbile to buy Vector version of 2.0T, so it has the seats from Aero and if you select Vector sport, you´d get sports suspension too. Actually the only difference between Aero and 2.0T Vector sport are front/rear bumpers, steering wheel and brakes (am I missing something here?).

  I´ve driven both and I agree, V6 is magnificent to drive. It´s very smooth, sounds good and moves 9-3 fast. But consumption is higher, a lot higher in a “real world” conditions. Especially if you´d select automatic.

  Some markets have Hirsch option, to get 240bhp or 252bhp out of 2.0T. It would make quite a huge difference.

• 15 Sam // May 8, 2008 at 4:16 am

  What do I think? I think that if Adrian has to ask a bunch of people on an Internet blog about which model to buy, he needs a decisiveness injection more than he needs a new car.

  Drive them both and then pick the one you like better. See, that wasn’t hard.

• 16 MarkoA // May 8, 2008 at 4:20 am

  Sam, what do you think, will he make decision by the comments here or what he likes abuot the car himself?

  At least I like to read what other people think. Sometimes someone might give a view of detail you haven´t thought about before.

• 17 1985 Gripen // May 8, 2008 at 4:27 am

  I heard from my Saab indie mechanic that he was talking with the mechanic at the local Saab dealer and the dealer’s mechanic told my indie mechanic to avoid the V6 at all costs.

  This dealer mechanic has had to replace the head gasket on TWO V6 engines already and the problem is that in order to do so the engine has to be pulled from the car entirely.

  The V6 engine is wedged-into the 9-3’s undersized engine bay, making it impossible to do some mechanical work on it should it be needed without pulling the engine entirely out of the car.

  Both the engines the mechanic had worked on were still under warranty (I don’t know if that’s a good thing that the owner didn’t have to pay for the repairs, or a bad thing that the car was in need of a new head gasket before the warranty even ran out), but he said that V6 owners are in for some SERIOUS repair costs if they need work done on their engine after the warranty runs-out.

  That’s just another thing to consider in the 2.0T vs. 2.8T debate. Beware and have some foresight to avoid very costly cost-of-ownership issues in the future.

• 18 MarkoA // May 8, 2008 at 4:50 am

  1985Gripen, that´s really interesting and also very unpleasant info.

  Sam, see what I mean. Details may come up

• 19 Mark // May 8, 2008 at 5:02 am

  I’ve a 2003 SS 2.0T Aero (here in the UK Aeros are available with 1.9TTiD, 2.0T and 2.8T). No mechanical issues at all. It is bags of fun and will do 42 MPG fully loaded if I’m careful (typically 38 MPG) and 28 MPG around town. I doubt you can get anyway near that with the 2.8T.

• 20 John F // May 8, 2008 at 6:11 am

  Any chance you can still track down an Anniversary edition? I have a 2.0T- plenty of power for me, but I really like the Aero seats. The Anniversary package gives you the best of both worlds.

• 21 Alex // May 8, 2008 at 6:25 am

  It would have been nice if GM saw fit to let Saab have the 240hp version of the 2.0T that they gave Opel for the Astra.

  That engine would have made the 03-05 9-3 Aero a great follow-on to the Viggen.

• 22 saab9x // May 8, 2008 at 7:05 am

  it was 1985 gripen’s (earlier and same) sage advice–about the dramatically increased shop labor associated with having to work on the v6 rather than on a 4cyl., due to the lack of room (to work) in the 9-3’s tiny engine bay– that steered me to the 2.0 engine, since i tend to keep a car long past the warranty’s expiration date (and even, to some, past the informal, “best-used-by” date). (pardon the long sentence.)

  so, the pivotal issue for me was estimating how long will i keep the car.

  hopefully, i can keep the ‘08 for at least 10 years, so most likely the bulk of maintenance issues will be on my “dime,” an out-of-pocket expense, something i try to minimize whenever possible.

  i even mentioned this issue two weeks ago to the dealer’s mechanic (while we were waiting in the parts department). he raised an eyebrow, shook his head sideways, and said the v6 is “a pretty tight fit.” then he smiled and said there’s plenty of room, however, (to work) in the 2.0t.

  the performance difference would be negligible to me, and as others have mentioned, the 4cyl engine can be upgraded to put out more (horse)power. also, as far as getting better “goodies” with the v6, i was mollified (thus, “game over”) by my 4cyl ‘08 coming with 17″ wheels–standard with the v6–instead of the stock 16’s.

  whatever your decision, luck!

• 23 Tedjs // May 8, 2008 at 8:09 am

  Interesting take on the V6 from Gripen. I keep in contact with three local Saab dealers - Shaker Saab, Classic Saab and Dave Towell Saab in the Cleveland area and only one of them has been into a single V6 for any major engine repairs (oil consumption due to the incorrect ring installation).

  That engine uses a multi-layer steel head gasket which is really a good design, so I wonder if some of the cars were overheated for one reason or another. I know there is an updated coolant reservoir for the V6 due to leaking/cracking but I have been keeping an eye on that on my car.

  We used to drop V6 engines out of the bottom of mini-vans at the Chevy dealer I was at to do head gaskets etc. and it is actually easier than working on them in the car. Cadillac guys do that with NorthStar V8 engines all the time as well – and they are good at it.

  I guess it just ‘looks’ worse if it is your car being taken apart although it is nice if it never gets to that.

• 24 No.9 // May 8, 2008 at 8:20 am

  My dealer says his V6 Aero is a serious gas guzzler, even when he is being polite with it (15 l/100 km). Oil is going to reach $200/barrel quicker than you can say shit. Unfortunately, it’s the only way to curve the insanity…

• 25 Peter // May 8, 2008 at 10:07 am

  Both engines are fantastic, have timing chains instead of timing belts, and have no glaring weaknesses on the service side. The 2.0T has been as close to bulletproof since 2003 as an engine can be. The model year 2006 Aeros did have issues with coolant tanks needing to be replaced as they sit right next to the turbo. Possibly those in Phoenix or Yuma should avoid the Aero because of this.

  I drive a 6-speed Aero Combi as a daily driver and my MPG hovers between 19 and 21. I top out at 27 on the freeway. Mine has the BSR reflash but the miles per gallon is exactly the same as it was in stock tune. I drive mostly in city, and only 10000 miles a year.

  My girlfriend’s 2.0T sport sedan is also a 6-speed, but it is still stock. She drives 20000 miles a year and she averages 27 mpg, but has achieved 35 mpg on longer freeway jaunts.

  Good luck with your new Saab, Adrian!

• 26 Mike C // May 8, 2008 at 11:18 am

  Adrian: I have the 2004 2.OT vert. Purchased cpo and so far love it, bullet proof to date.. One problem: It’s so quick and smooth, its difficult to drive slow. 75mph, 85mph feels like 55 mph. Very quick and very fun to drive, Saab is like no other. I had an 02 vert 9-3SE. Night and day in every way. So what ever Saab you get, remember: Safety, “Right Size” turbo fun and exclusivity. YOU CAN’T GO WRONG WITH THE SAAB.

• 27 Mikial // May 8, 2008 at 2:10 pm

  I am lucky enought to own one of each — specifically a 2004 2.0T ‘vert and a 2007 Aero SS.

  I love the 2.0T, but really do believe that the Aero is worth the additional money. In real life driving conditions the gas milage difference is negligible.

  The performance on the Aero is much better. The power is constant and just THERE whenever it is needed. Beyond that the car handles noticibly better and breaks in a much shorter distance.

  If the Aero Academy is still being offerred, head to Georgia and you can really push the Aero to the limit and see what it is made of. The 2.0 - which I love - just does not compare.

  - M

• 28 GA // May 8, 2008 at 2:14 pm

  I’ve had two 9000s with the 4-cylinder non-turbo (I think 125 hp?). I wouldn’t call either of them underpowered - still great on highway, etc - but given the weight, the lack of turbo could be felt occasionally.

  Now using a 9-3 ‘vert with the 2.0t, and the engine is very strong, quick and smooth. Mileage seems good. The turbo needs to be driven a bit differently to find the band where the turbo kicks in when power is needed; in practice, downshift a bit more/earlier than you might with some other engines. This is not a problem with the excellent manual tranny (and fun!).

  Can’t imagine the need for the V6 unless you were hauling a Combifull of cement.

• 29 1985 Gripen // May 8, 2008 at 2:20 pm

  Regarding cost-of-ownership comparing the 2.0T to the 2.8T when it comes to fuel economy:

  there are many factors, but assuming you drive 15,000 miles (24,140 km) per-year and regular unleaded gasoline sells for $3.82/U.S. gal (the current U.S. average price of a U.S. gallon of regular unleaded is $3.62 and I believe the average for premium unleaded, which both these models allegedly require according to the EPA website, is $0.20 more per-gallon)…

  Cost to drive 2.0T 25 miles (40 km): $4.15
  Cost to drive 2.8T 25 miles (40 km): $5.03

  Fuel cost per year 2.0T: $2,491
  Fuel cost per year 2.8T: $3,016

  Range per tank 2.0T: 339 miles (546 km)
  Range per tank 2.8T: 280 miles (451 km)

  Annual petroleum consumption 2.0T: 14.9 barrels
  Annual petroleum consumption 2.8T: 18 barrels

  Annual tons of CO2 emitted 2.0T: 8 (7,257 kg)
  Annual tons of CO2 emitted 2.8T: 9.6 (8,709 kg)

  U.S. EPA claimed mileage (city/highway/combined mpg)
  2.0T: 19/29/23 (12.37/8.11/10.22 l/100km)
  2.8T: 16/26/19 (14.7/9.04/12.37 l/100km)

  These numbers are from the U.S. EPA’s website (fueleconomy.gov) and are based on manual transmission-equipped 9-3 sedans. Of course, the EPA’s estimates are highly controversial, but I think they are at least uniform across all vehicles.

• 30 Dave E // May 8, 2008 at 5:59 pm

  I have a 2006 Aero 2.8 V6 with 6 spd manual. Request for real world mileage in Canada:
  Best observed on a 600+ km highway trip - 39.5 mpg (imperial).
  Regularly - 34-35 mpg highway
  28-30 mpg regularly in mixed use
  City - this is where the V6 lets you down.. 20-21 mpg
  All these are imperial gallons of course, 4.5 litres per gallon, as opposed to 3.8 litre US gallons.
  If you are doing a great deal of city driving, the 2.0t is the more frugal option. The power in the V6 is constantly on tap no matter what gear you are in. If you are up for the 2.0t, look for the anniversary edition, you get all the Aero goodies, minus the V6. I’ve driven both in manuals… the difference in operating costs is negligible over the long run.

• 31 Kaz // May 8, 2008 at 8:35 pm

  Having lived with both engines for some time, my preference lays firmly with the V6. It has a more refined power delivery and a MUCH better exhaust note. As long as you can afford the difference at the pumps (and lets face it, petrol is almost free in the States compared to the UK, £1.15 a litre, yes, a litre!! Which works out to $2.30 a litre!! Which works out to over $10 a gallon!!!!!!).

  The 2.0T can get a little coarse at high revs, but it is a FAB engine, love it to bits. The V6 is more fun though, and is more useable across the rev range. The 2.0T is a teensy bit quicker to change direction due to the lighter weight over the front wheels, but apart from that (and fuel economy) all other advantages are with the V6. The fact it sounds totally awesome seals it

• 32 Abs // May 9, 2008 at 4:47 pm

  I definetly Agree with John F. My 07 93 SS 2.0T AE is the best option for my money. You get the (fast) look of the Aero and the fuel economy of the 2.0T. The feel of the Aero Seats (especially with special stiching and emboosed Saab logo) is almost worth the extra cost.

  Keep in mind you loose the nice dual exhaust and bi-xenon headlights if that matters to you.

  btw, my 2.0 gets about 30.1 mpg highway. Not sure about city, not much of a city driver.

• 33 Teddy // May 15, 2008 at 1:39 am

  I agree with Alex, it’d be nice if GM gave the 2.0T the same direct injection 260hp engine that the Chevy Cobalt SS, Saturn Sky Red Line, Chevy HHR SS, and Pontiac Solstice GXP have… I bet the newer direct injection technology on this new-er iteration of the Ecotec wouldn’t hurt mileage too much.

Leave a Comment