# Audi A4 or Saab 9-3 (or C-Max)



## john m (10 Oct 2006)

Just wondering what the general feeling (especially owners that do high mileage) on an A4 Tdi or a Saab 9-3 Diesel? I am looking at buying a 2003-2004 diesel car and these are high on the “other halves” list because she likes the look of them but I need to know about reliability, running costs and general living with the car issues. She also likes the Focus C-Max and could get a new one of these for the price of a used A4 / 9-3, would this be a good option? We don’t have kids yet so the extra room in the C-Max is not really a priority, are they as dependable (reliable) as the others?

Thanks.


----------



## tosullivan (10 Oct 2006)

I was thinking about the A4 TDi recently but the cost of the timing belt change put me off (about €1500). Other than that they are very reliable. I have 2 friends that have the AVANT (2003 & 2004), both 1.9TDI.


----------



## RS2K (10 Oct 2006)

I had 2 C-Max TDCI's are both were excellent. Good to drive, as practical as it gets, 100% reliable, and light on fuel. Make sure you get the 110bhp engine.

I'm sure an A4 or Saab would be good too btw.


----------



## tosullivan (10 Oct 2006)

RS2K said:


> I had 2 C-Max TDCI's are both were excellent. Good to drive, as practical as it gets, 100% reliable, and light on fuel. Make sure you get the 110bhp engine.
> 
> I'm sure an A4 or Saab would be good too btw.


How is the driving position of the C-Max?  Looking at pics of them, it looks quite high up, or is it deceiving from their pictures?  I prefer not to have the high driving position of many of the MPV's out there.

What size was the diesel engine you had?  Are they 5 or 7 seat?


----------



## ely (10 Oct 2006)

I have owned an Audi A4 and 2 vw passat tdi's. The cost of changing a timing belt is circa €750- € 850 and is only required every 60,000 miles. I don't know where the price of €1500 comes from.

Both are good buys. I find the vw passats more comfortable over long journeys.


----------



## john m (10 Oct 2006)

I drove all of them and the C-Max and A4 would be the better drives. The C-Max is not that high compared to other MPV, my only fear came from a reliability survey in the UK which hammered the C-Max. Is the 1.6L tdci engine available in 2 power outputs?


----------



## smcgiff (10 Oct 2006)

ely said:


> I have owned an Audi A4 and 2 vw passat tdi's. The cost of changing a timing belt is circa €750- € 850 and is only required every 60,000 miles. I don't know where the price of €1500 comes from.
> 
> Both are good buys. I find the vw passats more comfortable over long journeys.


 
Was charged €850 two years ago by Audi to change TB. Bought a 93 2.0t (petrol) 6 months ago and haven't regretted changing from the Audi. Can't comment about the diesel though.


----------



## RS2K (10 Oct 2006)

tosullivan said:


> How is the driving position of the C-Max? Looking at pics of them, it looks quite high up, or is it deceiving from their pictures? I prefer not to have the high driving position of many of the MPV's out there.
> 
> What size was the diesel engine you had?  Are they 5 or 7 seat?



Yes it's a little higher than a saloon or hatch Focus. It still handles well (for what it is). It gives a more commanding view of the road. Kids enjoy seeing more too. 

I had 1.6 TDCI's. 

All C-Max are 5 seaters.


----------



## RS2K (10 Oct 2006)

john m said:


> I drove all of them and the C-Max and A4 would be the better drives. The C-Max is not that high compared to other MPV, my only fear came from a reliability survey in the UK which hammered the C-Max. Is the 1.6L tdci engine available in 2 power outputs?



Don't know why I'm defending here but the C-Max is well regarded by J.D. Power, Honest John and Parkers.

Yes the engine comes in 90 and 110bhp forms. The latter is the one to go for.


----------



## john m (10 Oct 2006)

The C-Max review I was talking about was one that was quoted in the tabloids recently, to be honest the JD Power one is much more realistic and it does paint a better picture of the C-Max. I only drove the 1.6L petrol but I also drove the new Focus 4 door zetec and the C-Max was much more to my taste. The Audi was nice too but I found the Saab the coldest, less likeable of the 3 but still an excellent car. I imagine the diesel suits the C-Max even better than the petrol, as it’s a more relaxed engine.


----------



## tosullivan (10 Oct 2006)

ely said:


> I have owned an Audi A4 and 2 vw passat tdi's. The cost of changing a timing belt is circa €750- € 850 and is only required every 60,000 miles. I don't know where the price of €1500 comes from.
> quote]
> got it from another website....are they main dealer prices?


----------



## Frank (10 Oct 2006)

I have a passat tdi and test drove a sab 93 2.0t for a day,

The fuel consumption was terrible compared to what I am used to.

The lack of low end torque was upsetting. I found I had to change down from 5th a few times as compared to barely moving out of 6th in the passat.

Didn't seem any great shakes to me.

I would go Audi TDI


----------



## olddog (10 Oct 2006)

Frank said:


> I have a passat tdi and test drove a sab 93 2.0t for a day,
> 
> The fuel consumption was terrible compared to what I am used to.
> 
> ...



Probably better with the "1.9" TID ( 150PS ....ex Fiat )

Anyway isnt that Saab a Vectra with knobs on ?


----------



## smcgiff (10 Oct 2006)

Frank said:


> I have a passat tdi and test drove a sab 93 2.0t for a day,
> 
> The fuel consumption was terrible compared to what I am used to.
> 
> ...


 
Frank,

You're correct when it comes to the fuel economy, but when it comes to the engines there's no comparison. You must have been driving the SAAB in reverse. Low end Torque in the 2.0t especially compared to a Passat TDI? No way on this earth. My previous car was an Audi 1.8t and the 93 blows it away.

The one thing you can't fault a SAAB on is its engine performance, sadly you pay for it with fuel economy, but it's something I'll gladly live with. Life's too short!

Buy the TDI by all means, but don't kid yourself into thinking it's a better performing car.

http://www.topgear.com/drives/D9/B7/


----------



## apple1 (11 Oct 2006)

Am on my second 9-3TiD.  As your wife has advised, its a good looking motor.  Performance wise, I'd choose the 150 BHP model.  Had the 12o previously & the 150 is much more enjoyable.  The 17" alloys on the Vector add to the look.  I find the 04 A4 rather dull.


----------



## paddyd (13 Oct 2006)

Frank said:


> I have a passat tdi and test drove a sab 93 2.0t for a day,
> 
> The fuel consumption was terrible compared to what I am used to.
> 
> ...


 
As far as Turbo's are concerned, Saab have it nailed. Always have had, going back years. There is power all over the range, as many seem to comment here. Naturally you pay with the consumption.

The individual buys the Saab (million miles from 'a vectra with knobs on', as someone commented above, its just the GM chassis, which they adapt). All the others buy German.

Best value is the 03 Vector model. 45-48k new. can be picked up for €20k. vector has everything as standard (everything you would need anyway  ).


----------



## smcgiff (13 Oct 2006)

Doesn't come with parachute to aid breaking paddyd, just as well there's good brakes. 

I've been wondering how Frank could (sorry Frank) have got it so wrong, then I thought back to the first time I drove the 9-3 2.0t.

Being the first real sports car I'd driven I wasn't used to the sound of such a powerful engine. The sound, for which some buy the car, is totally different to a non-sports car, and one would tend to upshift at such a sound in a "normal" car. The thing is to trust the car and let it go and don't up shift. 

It took me a while to get used to it and I was driving an automatic which changed the gears for me! God only knows how long it would have taken me to get used to it if it were a manual, where I could have interfered.

It's the only thing I can think of to explain how a 9-3 could be compared badly to a Audi, especially the diesel.


----------



## RS2K (15 Oct 2006)

I wouldn't class a 9-3 2.0T as a sports car. 

It's more a warm junior executive saloon.


----------



## smcgiff (15 Oct 2006)

RS2K said:


> I wouldn't class a 9-3 2.0T as a sports car.





RS2K said:


> It's more a warm junior executive saloon.


 
If a 0-60 in 7.4 seconds and an even more impressive mid range accelaration is your idea of warm, what with a max speed limited at the max 155mph I'd hate to see what you think of as hot.

If the the SAAB 93 Sports Saloon 2.0T what with its Sports Suspension is not a sports car then there's quite a few manufacturer's that need to drop the word from their descriptions.

There's obviously faster cars than the SAAB 93 2.0T, the SAAB 2.8T for starters, but compared to the vast majority of cars on the road it's and F16.


----------



## RS2K (16 Oct 2006)

I looked at the Saab website and the 2.0 T details are:

Displacement: 1,988 dm3.

EEC rating: 129 kW (175 hp) at 5500 r/min.
Recommended fuel: 95 octane (min. 91).
Top speed: 140 mph ; auto. 137 mph . 0 to 60 mph: 8.0 sec; auto. 9.2 sec.

That's warm enough but not hot. There are much quicker cars available.


----------



## smcgiff (16 Oct 2006)

RS2K said:


> I looked at the Saab website and the 2.0 T details are:
> 
> Displacement: 1,988 dm3.
> 
> ...


 
The 2.0t is as you described above.

But the 2.0T is as I described further above. You did mention the 2.0T! 

But, even referring to the 2.0t, there are much quicker cars, just not a lot of them on Irish roads.


----------



## RS2K (16 Oct 2006)

I understand. The capital T means the tweaked version.

Yes that has quite impressive performance.

p.s. My car is quicker


----------



## Gabriel (16 Oct 2006)

0 - 60 in 8 seconds is quick...but it's not sports car quick. The Saab is an executive saloon with some grunt. 

I don't class my own car as a sports car even though it's about a second faster than that


----------



## RS2K (16 Oct 2006)

Agreed. They call the 1.8 9-3 a sports saloon too. 122bhp. A veritable slug.


----------



## smcgiff (16 Oct 2006)

Congrats lads,

But it's all subjective.


Gabriel said:


> I don't class my own car as a sports car even though it's about a second faster than that


 
*Mental note*  get 2.8T next time!

Btw, don't be shy. What Garda patrol's dream are ye driving? 

RS2k - is yours an audi - an RS?


----------



## smcgiff (16 Oct 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_sedan

Looks like ye're right. The 93 is a Sports Saloon rather than a Sports car, which usually means a two seater going by a fairly strict definition. But a RS4 is classified as a sports saloon even though it would be quicker than some sports cars.

Which leaves me to say that a sports saloon is still a different animal to a normal saloon, which could leave an inexperienced (to the model) not getting the most out of it.


----------



## Gabriel (16 Oct 2006)

smcgiff said:


> Btw, don't be shy. What Garda patrol's dream are ye driving?



BMW 325 Ci...after much searching and bad experience with dodgy dealers 

Yet to be pulled over by the guards but I reckon I might be able to outrun them


----------



## smcgiff (16 Oct 2006)

Nice one Gabriel,

Faster than the 2.0t, but not as quick as the 2.0T.

Not been pulled over by An Gardai for nearly 4 years, but I think that's got a lot more to do with a far less presence on the roads by the Gardai.

Did a bit of looking up on the CI and didn't realise it had three seats in the back, which is necessary for me at the mo, and would have considered it. Not so sure about the exterior styling though, but I imgagine that should be changing soonish.


----------



## RS2K (16 Oct 2006)

smcgiff said:


> Congrats lads,
> 
> But it's all subjective.
> 
> ...



Agreed. Very subjective at the limit. I'm driving a Ford Focus ST.


----------



## smcgiff (17 Oct 2006)

RS2K said:


> Agreed. Very subjective at the limit. I'm driving a Ford Focus ST.


 
A lorra lorra car for the money, I'd have to get the 2.8T to beat you, and it'd probably be twice the price and only just about faster.

Btw, you're not Shane Lynch in disguise?


----------



## RS2K (17 Oct 2006)

smcgiff said:


> A lorra lorra car for the money, I'd have to get the 2.8T to beat you, and it'd probably be twice the price and only just about faster.
> 
> Btw, you're not Shane Lynch in disguise?



Er no. The differences are quite marked


----------



## Gabriel (17 Oct 2006)

smcgiff said:


> Nice one Gabriel,
> 
> Faster than the 2.0t, but not as quick as the 2.0T.
> 
> ...




What's the 0-60 of the 2.0T? 325 is 7.1 secs as far as I know. 
Not that I'm trying to turn this into a mine is bigger than yours contest 

Yep...three seats in the back are useful but not so important to me. Grand for kids although the guy I bought from was getting rid of it as it was a pain putting the child seat in as no back doors.
I've got a '01 version so no dodgy styling


----------



## smcgiff (17 Oct 2006)

*ahem* meant to say 2.8T 6.5s (2.0T is 7.5s).

Afaik, the 325 ci is 7.0s!

See, I’d put up with the strain of putting kid’s into the back seat for the right car, besides that’s why the wife has her own car!


----------



## Gabriel (17 Oct 2006)

smcgiff said:


> *ahem* meant to say 2.8T 6.5s (2.0T is 7.5s).
> 
> Afaik, the 325 ci is 7.0s!



Yes...maybe it is 7. I read 7.1 somewhere...doesn't really matter though...it's fast


----------

