My new Saab

Chris1712 · 22 Mar 2010 at 18:33

iaind said:
But I actually did

Guess it depends on your driving really. On a run of motorway/A roads you probably would, but in town no chance. My cars combined is 36mpg, but I rarely get above 26. But I never sit on a motorway for more than an hour, and only ~once a month!

iaind · 22 Mar 2010 at 18:36

My post where I mentioned 36mpg was a direct comparison with the old car on a 3 hour motorway run. Mostly sitting around 75, but with a couple of foot down "wheeeeeee" incidents when coming out of 50mph contraflows

NickK · 22 Mar 2010 at 18:40

I decided against an aero when I replicated a problem with their engine management system where you accelerate hard from cold then take the foot off the accelerator. The engine management system then cuts the engine leaving you with no power steering.

MarkDavis · 22 Mar 2010 at 20:37

iaind said:
But I actually did

You must have been slipstreaming Fox, who in turn, must have been slipstreaming a Polish lorry driver with cruise control engaged at 55mph.

Von Smallhausen said:
I was interested in the 2.2 diesel in black but after reading the associated problems with them I bottled out.

That's the old GM diesel which horrendeous. The 1.9 TiD *cough* Alfa Romeo version is better and more powerful.

[TW]Fox · 22 Mar 2010 at 20:42

iaind said:
But I actually did

Dont waste your time, he refuses to beleive anyone can get half decent economy on the Motorway. Presumably he's one of those who sits in the outside lane doing 90, slamming his brakes on when somebody pulls out and then nailing it again when they move out of the way wondering why his 323i only does 29mpg.

iaind · 22 Mar 2010 at 20:58

[TW]Fox;16210521 said:
Dont waste your time, he refuses to beleive anyone can get half decent economy on the Motorway. Presumably he's one of those who sits in the outside lane doing 90, slamming his brakes on when somebody pulls out and then nailing it again when they move out of the way wondering why his 323i only does 29mpg.

Seems to be - guessing he has no direct experience of these cars anyway. The dealer brimmed the tank, I reset the computer when I left and I brimmed it again when I got back to exeter - the computer said 36.8 and the figures from the pump figure equated to 36.2mpg.

One of the reasons these appealed is they're remarkably efficient for the power they give - plenty other owners averaging in the 30s with combined use. As I said originally, the Mondeo returned 48mpg on the way up and my average in daily use was just above 40 - so that says something about my use and driving style

[TW]Fox · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:03

I dont really think 35mpg from a 4 pot is 'remarkably efficient' though?

Nick1881 · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:04

Don't know why people are surprised about 36mpg, my 9-5 Aero with the 2.3 engine would return 36mpg too, in my 05 plate I managed 42mpg after cruising 100 miles at 70mph.

iaind · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:08

[TW]Fox;16210683 said:
I dont really think 35mpg from a 4 pot is 'remarkably efficient' though?

For a 210bhp 4 pot, it's pretty good I'd say

Nick1881 said:
Don't know why people are surprised about 36mpg, my 9-5 Aero with the 2.3 engine would return 36mpg too, in my 05 plate I managed 42mpg after cruising 100 miles at 70mph.

I wasn't at all surprised, I have no doubt it could crack 40 if I didnt stop 3 times on the way and play with some full throttle fun

Nick1881 · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:09

iaind said:
For a 210bhp 4 pot, it's pretty good I'd say

I would too.

Biohazard · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:12

depends on how its driven, but yes more power = more spent fuel.

i half sort of agree its good. lol

nice from the outside and its a shame they never redesigned that dash but good car none the less. I always felt it bad taste to drive anything other than gentlemanly in them though

paradigm · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:13

iaind said:
For a 210bhp 4 pot, it's pretty good I'd say

Seems about on-par with what I could get out of my LCR when I was trying to be economical (well actually I managed a 40.1MPG round trip a once, but that was very hard to acheive). And it's a 250~ BHP 4-pot.

Biohazard · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:14

^tis quite good! 40/250

iaind · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:16

Biohazard said:
depends on how its driven, but yes more power = more spent fuel.

i half sort of agree its good. lol

nice from the outside and its a shame they never redesigned that dash but good car none the less. I always felt it bad taste to drive anything other than gentlemanly in them though

The 2007 facelift changed things a bit, made it a bit less quirky...

http://z.about.com/d/cars/1/0/K/j/gm_07saab93_interior.jpg

paradigm said:
Seems about on-par with what I could get out of my LCR when I was trying to be economical (well actually I managed a 40.1MPG round trip a once, but that was very hard to acheive). And it's a 250~ BHP 4-pot.

I suppose I was thinking more in comparison to other 200ish bhp cars, a lot of which have more than 4 cylinders and are much less economical.

Did rover416i not average something stupid like 15mpg in his 620ti? Much older engine though

[FnG]magnolia · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:17

The interior is ugly as sin but I'm a big fans of its exterior looks. I also really like the alloys. Nice purchase and not overly common either.

Hades · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:18

Loving that to be honest. Only reason I've not bought one in the past is depreciation. But I like them precisely because most people wouldn't.

iaind · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:18

Hades said:
Loving that to be honest. Only reason I've not bought one in the past is depreciation. But I like them precisely because most people wouldn't.

Ditto

Depreciation is why it made such a good buy this time too

[TW]Fox · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:20

iaind said:
I suppose I was thinking more in comparison to other 200ish bhp cars, a lot of which have more than 4 cylinders and are much less economical.

I cannot think of many similar cars with 6 cylinder engines which are 'much less economical'. The obvious comparator here is something like a 325i which is easily capable of 36mpg on a Motorway run with a few squirts of the loud pedal here and there.

I'd assume the equivilent C Class is equally capable in this regard.

Dont get me wrong, 36mpg from a 2.0 Turbo is not exactly to be complained about, but I think its more 'par for the course' for this class of car rather than 'omgwow'.

Too many people think all petrol cars do 10mpg and the only way to get remotely decent economy is to buy a diesel.

MarkDavis · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:22

iaind said:
The dealer brimmed the tank, I reset the computer when I left and I brimmed it again when I got back to exeter - the computer said 36.8 and the figures from the pump figure equated to 36.2mpg.

Take it through town.

[TW]Fox · 22 Mar 2010 at 21:24

MarkDavis said:
Take it through town.

What will that prove? I think he knows as well as you do that, in town, he's going to be seeing low 20's at best. But then he never claimed anything otherwise in that regard, but I'll take your relocation of the goalposts as confirmation you've run out of things to say about the point in hand.