nrf@whuxlm.UUCP (Fildes N R) (02/07/85)
Saab owners seem fanatical about the 'quality' of their cars. but can anyone point to some hard data on relative reliability maintenance cost of these compared to other makes? I would sure like to see something 'real' before I plunk down so much cash for a car. Neal <all cars are cans of worms> Fildes
jackh@zehntel.UUCP (jack hagerty) (02/07/85)
> Saab owners seem fanatical about the 'quality' of their cars. but can > anyone point to some hard data on relative reliability maintenance cost > of these compared to other makes? I would sure like to see something > 'real' before I plunk down so much cash for a car. > Two references: Every April, Consumer Reports' annual auto issue rates Saab as a "best buy" (or whatever) indicated by printing the name in color. They admit, however, to not having tested one since 1982. I don't know if they've tested one since last April; I don't subscribe to CR but sneek peeks at my parents' copies whenever I need to buy something. In the middle of last year (May? June? July?) Road & Track published an Owners' Survey for the Saab 900 and Turbo (making the distinction between the two types of Saab buyers). The consensus was that the owners were very pleased overall but found that the day-to-day reliability was not as good as, say, Toyota or other Japaneese brands. On the other hand longevity was much better with the cars still running well long after your basic Nipponese product had been recycled into Kelvinators. One surprising result was that the Turbo models seemd to have somewhat better reliability than the basic 900 dispite being driven harder. Better assembly at the factory? Better quality components? Or are the base 900 owners just pickier? I side with the latter. -- Jack Hagerty, Zehntel Automation Systems ...!ihnp4!zehntel!jackh
kurtk@tektronix.UUCP (Kurt Krueger) (02/13/85)
Consumer reports reliabilty reports are based on user surveys. Their car issue does indeed rate the Saab as a good car. They always indicate when they last did a full test on a car for the purpose of reference, but the reliability data is as current as possible. I take exception to the statement that because a lot of old Saabs are still running indicates that they have better longevity than, for instance, a Toyota. Most any car can be made to run for umpteen hundred thousand miles if the owner wants to pour enough money into it. The situation arises that the 10 year old Saab (or Porsche, or Benz) has enough value that it is worth it to rebuild the engine whereas the Toyota that was originally purchased for $2500 has depreciated to near zero. Therefore the fancy expensive car gets fixed and the poor Toyota becomes a Kelvinator. I should add that the Saab must have at least reasonble longevity or there wouldn't be that many around still.
dmm@brunix.UUCP (David Margolis) (02/17/85)
> Saab owners seem fanatical about the 'quality' of their cars. but can > anyone point to some hard data on relative reliability maintenance cost > of these compared to other makes? I would sure like to see something > 'real' before I plunk down so much cash for a car. As a Saab owner of several years and three cars, I am an example of one who has a very high opinion of their quality. However, this opinion does not come from maintenance cost figures but rather from engineering design. I think that Saabs are among the safest cars on the road. They handle extremely well in emergency situations, I can attest to more than one incident where I have been able to avoid a serious accident that I would not have been able to avoid in any other car I have owned. My Saabs have always been reliable in that they have only stranded me once, when the tranny finally died on my 72 99 after 172,000 miles. They do not need constant adjustment attention, and they resist rusting better than any other cars I see around New England. On the other hand they have parts that break like all cars and they are very expensive to replace. If you are looking for cars that won't cost you much to run buy a Toyota. If you want a solid car that is addictive to drive, comfortable, and *safe*, then it will cost you more for parts and maintenance if it is a Saab.
2141smh@aluxe.UUCP (henning) (02/19/85)
> As a Saab owner of several years and three cars, I am an example of ... > On the other hand they have parts that break like all cars and they are > very expensive to replace. I have owned 6 Volvos with the following record: 1967 122 120,000 miles, no problems 1968 145 120,000 miles, no problems 1971 1800 120,000 miles, no problems 1974 145 120,000 miles, replaced auto trans seals, valve job, and cam(soft) 1979 245 70,000 miles, replaced engine seals (after using SLC-50) 1981 245 70,000 miles, replaced engine seals (after using SLC-50) No other repairs except brake pads, points, plugs, filters, tires, batteries and other parts that are routinely replaced. No fuel pumps, injectors, rings, brake parts, etc. ever failed.
jlw@ariel.UUCP (J.WOOD) (02/21/85)
Our 1982 Volvo Turbo Wagon has been quite expensive to keep going. The car has 46k miles on it and so far we have lost: 1. Main oil seals. 2. Water pump. 3. Rear window shattered (went off like a gunshot when I had the demister on in a cold drizzling rain) 4. Electrical gremlins. (blows the power window fuse occasionally) 5. Overdrive relay ($45 part) 6. Tailgate bits keep loosening. (both the rear window wiper and the whole bloody lock mechnaism) 7. Some bozo bent our power antenna ($70part + $30 installation) 8. Oil change + filter every 3750 miles or so. Cost of repairs seems to be quite high, but our dealership is total yuppie. Joseph L. Wood, III AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel (201) 834-3759 ariel!jlw
jlw@ariel.UUCP (J.WOOD) (02/21/85)
I forgot one thing from my list of repairs for our 1982 Volvo Turbo
Wagon:
9. The thing just eats brake pads and rotors. (turned at 15k, 30k,
and replaced at 45k).
Joseph L. Wood, III
AT&T Information Systems
Laboratories, Holmdel
(201) 834-3759
ariel!jlwfowler@uw-beaver (Rob Fowler) (02/21/85)
An friend's brother runs an excellent repair shop in a large Eastern city. They specialize in Volvos, a couple of other makes, and build racing engines. The last I heard the brother was making an unusually large amount of money. The reason? Apparently the trubochargers that Volvo uses are not particularly reliable. He discovered that he was replacing so many turbos that it became reasonable for him to order replacements in quantity directly from the manufacturer rather than from the Volvo parts organization. He resells them to other repair shops as well as to customers. When this story was related to me the point was not the unreliability Volvo turbos per se, rather the appropriateness of turbo technology for ordinary street machines. I'd be interested in hearing about turbo reliability problems of all kinds. Other that that, friends who have had Volvos have uniformly gotten extraordinary use from them. The only problems that I know of were problems in starting in really cold damp climates and these were solved with shower caps over the air filters to keep moisture out. -- Rob Fowler
jlw@ariel.UUCP (J.WOOD) (02/23/85)
This time my response is in regards to the reliability of Volvo turbos specifically. See my two previous articles for comments about other reliability issues with our 1982 Volvo Turbo Wagon. I said that I change the oil at 3750 mile intervals. This is based on Volvo's direct recommendation. We do it religiously. I feel that this issue is a place where the dealer was slightly underhanded. He didn't mention this little requirement until after he had our check safely in his hands. I received one mail message regarding my 3750 mile figure from an owner of another brand of turbocharged car who used 5000 miles as his criterion. The reason to change the oil so often on a turbocharged car is that the turbo is lubricated with engine oil. A turbo spins anywhere from 60krpm to 120krpm. This is fast, sports fans. Any dirt or combustion blow by will gall the bearings and zap your turbo. Also the thing gets awfully hot. Manu- facturers recommend that you idle you engine for anywhere from 10 seconds to a full minute before cutting off in order to draw off heat in the oil (its other important function) and in order not to have the oil pressure disappear when the turbo is spinning at high rpms. This last is also why for Volvo at least they recommend that the car be started with the foot off the accelerator pedal. Then you will not be asking for a big spin up of the turbo before oil pressure reaches it. The bottom line is that although we've had problems with this car, we have had no troubles with the turbo or other engine parts except the oil seals which were replaced under extended warranty. Joseph L. Wood, III AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel (201) 834-3759 <ariel!>titania!jlw