# when did saab change to vauxhall?



## flawless1987 (May 3, 2011)

i had a 2003 saab 93 before but an accident happened where a golf slid into the side of it  and now im looking about another one.

i know saab 93 engines are actually vauxhall engines, so when was the switch? and would it be better to go for a saab when they had the older engines or would it be better to go for the on with the vaux engine?

i had a 2.2 tid and didnt mind the engine.. any advice on buying another one would be great..

thanks again everyone on this site for helping me out over the past 6 months or so.. greatly appreciated :wave:


----------



## tomah (Sep 17, 2010)

I can't tell you when the switch came precisely (probably available on wikipedia), but personally, I'd avoid the GM diesels.

The fuel system and DMF _will_ give you issues sooner or later, and give you eye-watering repair bills. I know most diesels have problems, but honestly, Vauxhall failure rate has to be one of the highest.

Furthermore, it's not only the engine, if I remember correctly, the 93 chassis is the same as the Vectra, which is a bad thing.

Don't know much about petrol Saab's. They seem to be decent enough.


----------



## Dixondmn (Oct 12, 2007)

its seems wikipedia quotes both 1989 and 1990, so it was some time between those dates.

All i know is my father in laws 1.9 Diesel 9-3 needed a new clutch at 30k. no clear reason why though.

Since then though its been perfect.


----------



## Captain Pugwash (Mar 23, 2011)

from what I found it was around 2003

The newly close relationship yielded its first product in 2003's all-new 9-3. The new model, marketed as a sport sedan, dropped Saab's iconic hatchback in favor of a more conventional four-door approach. The model shared a platform and components with the Vectra 

but was they not Triumph engines before that ..or was that the real early ones


----------



## james_death (Aug 9, 2010)

I think the big thing with the vectra chassis saabs was the bulk head splitting.


----------



## johnnyguitar (Mar 24, 2010)

flawless1987 said:


> i had a 2003 saab 93 before but an accident happened where a golf slid into the side of it  and now im looking about another one.
> 
> i know saab 93 engines are actually vauxhall engines, so when was the switch? and would it be better to go for a saab when they had the older engines or would it be better to go for the on with the vaux engine?
> 
> ...


That 2.2 is a GM engine isn't it? As found in the pre common rail Signum and Vec C if I am not mistaken.


----------



## johnnyguitar (Mar 24, 2010)

Captain Pugwash said:


> from what I found it was around 200
> 
> but was they not Triumph engines before that ..or was that the real early ones


the H engines were redesigned B engines that were based on Triumph slant 4s.


----------



## Mike-93 (May 16, 2010)

the new generation of 9-3's started to be sold from 2003. They share the same GM chassis as the Vectra. I believe they all share the same engines, and that the 2.2 diesels were more reliable than the 1.9's. Honest John is a good site and will give you all the info you will need.

the previous generation of 9-3 engines did indeed have their origins in the Triumph Dolomite.

You'd be best steering away from the MY03 cars, as this was the launch year and there were a few gremlins... as there often are on release year cars. Easiest way to tell is the headlight washers, if they are the 'pop-up' style then its an 03, if they are the 'fixed' then they are 2004+

I've got a 03 2.0t Vector (mid range petrol engine, 175bhp  ) with just under 120k on the clock, I've had to replace the ECU and some suspension parts, but other than that its been great  let us know what you get!

Mike


----------



## Steve M (Nov 5, 2011)

The 1.9 is actually a Fiat engine originally, and is shared by saab,opel etc

dual mass flywheel issues are common to most deisels, not just gm's.

The inlet issues mentioned are resolved on 2007+ cars I think, but checking with saab would be able to confirm. They redesigned the swirl flaps which are the bits that wear out over time.

The 2.2 is also GM, and I think the previous shape 9-3 or 9-5, can't remember, shares it's chassis with the previous Vectra also.


----------



## cdti_sri (Jul 17, 2006)

As stated above the 1.9 is actually a fiat unit and a very strong engine at that. 150 being not only reliable but also highly tunable. Typing dmf failure into google will back up the fact there aren't nearly as many as people would have you believe ford and VAG cars are mentioned long before fiat engined cars. 

Most problems with the 1.9 are DMFs or swirl flaps but these can be had fairly cheaply by researching before buying parts and finding a reliable mechanic or doing it yourself and avoiding main dealers. 

I ran a 1.9 150 astra for 57K and never had an ounce of trouble and that was with a tuning box and a very heavy right foot.


----------



## wanna veccy (May 7, 2009)

i can't believe that ppl still pull the vectra chassis as a bad one malarky, Mr clarkson i'm affraid felt the need to big up any ford and destroy the rep of any vx when he drove the vxr,due to the fact he was after a gt40 at the time. i know that btcc cars are modified heavely but why would anyone in there right mind use a vectra if they were so bad?


----------



## tommyzooom (Aug 15, 2009)

I'd steer clear of any saab pre 1962


----------



## tomah (Sep 17, 2010)

cdti_sri said:


> As stated above the 1.9 is actually a fiat unit and a very strong engine at that. 150 being not only reliable but also highly tunable. Typing dmf failure into google will back up the fact there aren't nearly as many as people would have you believe ford and VAG cars are mentioned long before fiat engined cars.
> 
> Most problems with the 1.9 are DMFs or swirl flaps but these can be had fairly cheaply by researching before buying parts and finding a reliable mechanic or doing it yourself and avoiding main dealers.
> 
> I ran a 1.9 150 astra for 57K and never had an ounce of trouble and that was with a tuning box and a very heavy right foot.


Was that 57k from new?

The 150 is anything but reliable once you get to 70k+. I put 20k miles on one I bought with 67k. Half the time I owned it the stupid thing would go in and out of limp mode. It was, without doubt, the most frustrating thing I've ever owned.

If the car is for short journeys, or has spent its life before you get it doing short journeys (which I think was the case with mine), then you heighten the likelihood of needing to replace your inlet manifold, swirl actuator, egr valve, etc. And none of that is cheap.

The fact that you can't buy a car and drive it whatever way you want, in my opinion, makes diesels like this unfit for purpose. They do not come with warnings, 'do not buy if using primarily for short journeys', but they should.

I'm driving petrol now, and I enjoy the reliability I've experienced since ditching the Vectra.



wanna veccy said:


> i can't believe that ppl still pull the vectra chassis as a bad one malarky, Mr clarkson i'm affraid felt the need to big up any ford and destroy the rep of any vx when he drove the vxr,due to the fact he was after a gt40 at the time. i know that btcc cars are modified heavely but why would anyone in there right mind use a vectra if they were so bad?


I owned an SRi Vectra with lowered suspension, etc. I'm not a big racing driver, so I'm not going to be as sensitive to handling flaws as some might be.

When I got rid of the Vectra, I bought a 2002 Accord Executive to get me by for a while, and I could not believe how much better it handled. It was night and day better. Even though the Vectra sat much, much lower, the Accord felt much safer and more agile in corners.

But that's just my non-expert opinion. And to be fair to the OP, Saab might have been able to improve on the chassis, I don't know.


----------



## cdti_sri (Jul 17, 2006)

Yep 57K from new, and I know the new owner who now has it on 78K and the only thing she has replaced was a sidelight bulb.


----------



## zaphod (May 7, 2007)

First GM engined cars was the 9000 V6 from 1995 and the 900V6 around the same time. The 1994 GM (there's a clue) 900 was also influence - having some Vauxhall switchgear. The build time for the 9000 influenced by GM from around 1994 was cut, also using switchgear and parts from the bin - all the nice touches went.

Not unusual for Saab to use bits and bobs from elsewhere - the 96V4 lump was from the German Ford Taurus. 

To say that some Saab engines are Vauxhall units is not entirely true. Engine management is pure Saab, much better for it, power and economy, and this gives a clue as to why GM presently are being such awkward people over Saab's sale at present - this and other technology.

The Saab 9-3 chassis working is far superior over the Vauxhall attempt, IMHO. I have owned two Cavaliers in the past, as well as my present 9-3SS aero.

The bulkhead split applies to convertibles - GM900's and Classic 9-3's (1998 -2002) only - another GM influenced fault.

Scania saved Saab, so did GM, but the difference is that GM subsequently raped, starved and pillaged, and left it for dead.


HTH


----------



## Teddy (Dec 15, 2007)

Wasn't the first real GM SAAB the 900 from 1994 ish? Built on the Cavalier platform. I believe SAAB have not made any money for GM since that date!


----------



## zaphod (May 7, 2007)

Basically, as I understand it, profits Saab made went back to GM pot, with little in return, as regards research and development, as well as autonomy.


----------

