I got an email from one of our Aussie Saabers, Bill, who’s come across a 900i in someone’s shed that he might be able to acquire at a good price. Bill lives on a rural property and is thinking of getting the car for his daughter, who’s about to get her driver’s licence and might have some long distances to cover.
The story goes as follows:
Yesterday as I arrived to work at a farm house, I drove past the shed at the back of the house and there was a 1992 900i sedan in the shed. It was covered in dust with broken head lights, grille & indicators. A closer inspection indicated that that was all the damage done and the car itself was in very good order – Inside and out.
The car was bought by the lady’s father, who has since passed away. Her father was the second owner.
Checking the books, it has done a head gasket and clutch 130k & 110k. It’s got a 2.1 litre motor and I’ve been told there were a lot of problems with this model. Do you know what they are?
According to the service book the car has always had a SAAB dealer do the servicing with no major problems apart from the clutch and head gasket, both of which were fixed by a dealer.
I’m hoping to do a swap, exchanging the car for my work. I haven’t driven the car yet. It has been in the shed for the last 10 months and rego has run out.
If you can pass on any tips I would be very grateful . I’m hoping to get this car for my daughter, who is about to get her P’s (that is, her ‘P’rovisional licence)
So……
To be honest, I haven’t heard much about the engine at all. The few people I have come across with one in the past have always seemed happy with it and have commented that it pulls pretty well for a non-turbo four. If it’s alright for them, it’s probably alright for Bill’s young lass.
So, have any of you had a 2.1? And if so, what was it like? Any issues? Anything to be wary of?
Bill’s waiting!
–
Not sure what Bill is asking exactly, apart from wanting some reassurance.
The 2.1 was hardly any different to the 2.0, just a slightly longer stroke and a slightly modified head. There were some initial problems with coolant reacting with the head and gasket, but these were resolved by Saab pretty early in the piece. If it’s had the head gasket done properly with an Elring gasket, there shouldn’t be a problem. Being a non-turbo it should be pretty long lived.
Cheers,
DB
I had one for several years and had no issues with the engine at all. It was still running beautifully at 230K+ when I opted to move on to a newer Saab (after a blown gear box). I miss that car!
Oh yes, I should say that mine was a 900S with the normally aspirated 2.1l engine, but I’m assuming this was the same engine as the 900i?
As far as I’ve seen, the 2.1 is pretty bulletproof. I would argue against it pulling in any fashion, as I can outrun an automatic 2.1 to 60 feet (that’s literally outrun, on foot). But if the body isn’t rusted and the interior is in good condition, I’d say go for it. Of course that’s without knowing what his current car is.
I’ve driven both the 2.0 NA and the 2.1. I’d take the 2.1. Slightly gruntier and it being one of the later cars, it would have nice things such as ABS (although those later seats are awful).
I have heard about some head gasket issues but like Drew B mentioned, once that’s fixed, they can’t be killed. That said, my extended family has 2 1993 2.1′s. One has had the head gasket work done, the other hasn’t. Both are pushing 200k miles.
My understanding is that it’s a slightly rare engine and a lot of tuners like to cannibalize them for the head which lowers the compression if used on the turbo engines, allowing for more boost.
Owned one for a year or so… No problems at all.
The old man who owned the car before me had own it for 7 years, changing the generator and the cooler was all he ever did apart from serviceing!
Go for it, great car!
I have the 1993 900 2.1i, just passed 180000km, with very few problems. Only the Harmonic damper, water pump and the right hand uv joint. The grease lubricant boot was obviously never checked, and apparently, because the exhaust manifold is so close, it eventually melted the grease right out of the joint. This is something others should be aware of.
I look after my car, and replace the hydraulic, and radiator fluids every two years. Oil is changed at between 6 and 10 thousand km. The result is that it still drives like a new car. So far, no other problems.
I think it is a great car, but you will have to check all the hydraulics for rust (anti lock system?) The lights will have to be replaced, so that could be $500. Replace all fluids before running.
I’ve got a 2.1 900S, and it’s at 175,000 miles on the original head gasket. It runs like new and doesn’t burn a drop of oil between changes. Of all the things that have broken down and worn out on the car, the motor has never been one of them.
If I remember correctly, the 2.1 in the USA jumped the power up to 140 hp. So, it ought to have a little more oomph.
Thanks for your information on the 2.1 motor
The quote to fix the damage is $800 so I’ll se what I can negotiate with the owner.
I’ll try and get some photos of the car on Monday when I go back to finish the job.
A closer inspection of the car yesterday and it looks in very good order for its age.
Mine 1993 900S is at 230,000 miles and still running strong. I agree with the sentiment about it pulling strong for a non-turbo four cylinder, definitely.
I have owned two 2.1 c900s. Both of them being 1991s and both having nicely over 200,000 miles on them with no major work done. Although on my current one, the head gasket started leaking the other day so I am going to need to do that.. but other than that, in the 3 years or so that I have owned it, all that has been done to it is just the normal maintenance, the ignition coil, and the hall sensor. I would say thats not too bad for a car with 215,000 miles on it that gets ran quite hard on most days. My previous one had about 265,000 miles on it when I sold it, and it still ran great!
We’ve got two non turbo 1993 900i 2.1s in the family, both going strong, with no dramas. Very nice to drive, in many ways nicer than our ’98 ng900.
A SAAB 900 2,1 was the first car and SAAB I owned. I liked it a lot, but returned it to the dealer because of several fault which the dealer had hidden from me and he didn´t want to fix. All none of the faults where typical for this engine, but leaking seal between clutch and engine, serious rust (well hidden), and some other things I don´t remember.
But loved the car and engine, mine had ABS and driver side airbag (around 90-92 model??). I remember that the engine pulled realy well (I had a manuell and not automatic. I would have liked to se someone run away from that one), not quite like a turbo but not far away. Remember one time pulling it fra approx. 30km/h to 170km/h in forth gear, just had to se how low and high I could get it in fourth. Ahh what stupid and fun things one could dream up when one was younger
I think mechanically it is okay, but I found the 2.1 somewhat dissapointing when it was released. I was in the UK on a 12 month working holiday at the time and Saab unveiled a range of Light Pressure Turbo 900s, including an LPT 900 Aero. These were basically designed to replace the 8 valve turbo lineup. Anyway I wanted to have a drive of one when I got back to Australia only to find that we only received an NA 2.1 instead. The 2.1 was also fitted to the somewhat infamous 900i Aero, probably the only “Aero” not to be turbocharged.
From what I’ve heard the 2.1 is fine and performs a little better than the 2.0 but is not in the same league as the LPT. I’m told we got the 2.1 because the LPT was in high demand in Europe and also it was thought at the time, that insurance companies here would charge the same for an LPT as a regular Turbo model.
Also Bill the fuel injection system was changed between the 2.0 NA/turbo (B202) engine and the 2.1 DOCH NA ((B212) engine. My Saab mechanic has encouraged me to go for the earlier engine (90-92) rather then 93 mod 2.1 as in his opinion the B202 was better. I am currently in the market for a 100% GM free convertible and have been researching the differences. There is quite a good summary on Wikipedia re these two engines, but from my personal experience in Norway the 2.1 N/A that my father drove to >300 000 km did not have any major issues. I would just get the fuel injection system checked/cleaned. Good luck. Can you give Swade some photos? I sure will if I get this Convertible!! (inspecting two in Sydney this weekend to we’ll see!!!)
If the quote to fix it is $800 dollars, you better a) pay almost nothing for it, b) want it really badly, c) the rest of it is REALLY nice, d) be able to fix some stuff yourself or get a friend to help you or e) some combination of the above.
Otherwise, hunt on.
Had one of these for a while in the 80s. Great car -non turbo. But it was a manual. The auto will be troublesome as the box runs hot.Worth diddly squat- so pay zero for it. Door and inner wings rust and it is not that strong- which is why Saab beefed it up into the 9000 mk2.
Lance: It’s a 900 not a 9000. The NA 2.1 came out on some markets instead of the LPT 900 range which you got in the UK. I was living and working in Bath, UK for about a year at the time and quite liked the LPT models only to find that Oz, like the US only got an NA 2.1. I think the 2.1 came out for MY1991. I still have the UK and the Oz brochures somewhere.
One more vote against worry here. As said above, the 2.1 and 2.0 16-valve were virtually identical. Should be no problems.
i got a 1993 900i Aero (2.1L) sitting in the driveway
155k kms and still going strong
just had it converted to dual fuel, and lost none of its character
Laugh- I got the wrong car!
Blame the Aussies- I am currently in Aus- must be the sun- which we English are not used too..
Oops sorry folks. and me a Saab nut…Embarrasingly funny- not
Okay, I got this reply for a Danish mate of mine. His wife has a 2.1L and he drives a c900 Aero (together I think they had 8 c900 - including mine…) I translated it from Danish (yes, it is an official language!) so there might be a few errors.
It was written by Nicolai from the Danish Saab Community “Saab Klub Denmark SKD” – http://www.saabklubdanmark.dk
Here is the reply:
“Apparently the c900 2.1L engine is a “love it or hate it” of design / construction. The advantages are that its pulls (more torque) than a 2.0 without having to compromise with fuel economy. It preforms as a quite larger engine than the standard 128HK evenwith only 12bhp more.
The rumour has it that the engine has problems with the head gasket, suffers from piston noise, chain issues and that the construction was a mistake from Saab as the engine was only available from 1990-1993.
Edwins from SKD (Saab Klub Danmark http://www.saabklubdanmark) had the engine blowup in his 2.1L recently (Bearing in the engine block – do not know what it is called so here is the Danish term “Pejleleje”).
BUT there are no problems with the headgasket – same as the og900; BUT it does make pistonnoise as a diesel for the first 10 minutes when its cold (Denmark has the same climate as London and Hamburg) which means nothing for driving or reliability. The chain has obvious problems. I had mine replaced after only 140.000km – it sounded like shaking a cookie jar filled with rusted nails (I guess that is the same noise from a Porsche 911 engine LOL!). The chain on my T16 (Aero or SPG) has done 300.000km and has NO chain noise what so ever. I talked to the garage about it and it appears to be because of a bad production of chains.
So plenty of rumours with little reality in them. If you look at the 2.1L in Denmark, they have covered more kilometers than the 2.0L – in the range of 330-375.000km. But the rumors will always make it a bit of a “underdog” in the Saab community – which makes it a bit more fun to own one.
In terms of tuning – there is potential, but it needs harder? camshaft etc. It is normally more expensive to tune a non-turbo and you might not get more than 165hk out of it – so on that account you are better of with a T16 (Aero or SPG).”
Your SaabMate is welcome to write directly to Nicolai or post on SKD.
Best regards
Jacob Lanng
saabforlife@googlemail.com