2002 SAAB 9-5 ARC 2.0 LPT


Good all round


Crankshaft position sensor at 178,000 miles.

Head gasket changed once.

Sludge needed removing twice. But I do not change oil more regularly than once every 12,000 miles.

Coolant valve failed.

Clock has failed completely. Many pixels lost on SID.

General Comments:

Reliability good. Still on the original exhaust and clutch at 178,000 miles/8 years. Original battery lasted 170,000 miles/8 years.

If serviced at experienced authorized dealer at recommended intervals, the car seems to last pretty well.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 22nd July, 2010

2002 SAAB 9-5 HOT Aero 2.3 turbo


Boringly Brilliant


Fuel pump failure at 66K miles.

Battery replacement at 70K miles.

General Comments:

The Saab 95 HOT Aero is best described as boringly brilliant. It's comfortable, fast and safe. It will happily drive up and down the motorways all day long. This is the cars big plus point - it really is a competent motorway machine.

High Output Turbo gives genuine 150+MPH performance. The 95 doesn't feel as "GM" as the 93, which is also another plus point.

The Harmon Kardon stereo is superb - must be one of the best OEM car hi'fi's on the market.

Very comfortable electric leather seats. Light steering, clutch and gearshift. Heated front AND rear seats. Lovely car to drive.

Estate looks better than the saloon - esp in black.

The downsides?... well it's not a drivers car; the handling is not that great, which is a shame as the suspension is certainly on the firm side.

If you are looking for a competent fast comfortable motorway car, that's a little more individual than a 5 Series, it's worth taking a look.

If you're looking for all of the above, or perhaps want a genuine drivers car, this may not be the car for you. Don't get me wrong, this is a rapid machine... it just lacks high quality handling, probably in favour of comfortable high speed motorway work.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 21st June, 2008

2002 SAAB 9-5 Arc Estate 2.2 diesel


A very good buy (if you can tolerate one or two initial let-downs.)


Engine Hose disconnected at 400 miles (car had to be towed)

Clutch partially failed at 20000 miles (car still drivable - just)

Vanity mirror cover fell off at 25000 miles.

Tyres (even replacements) fail to hold pressure terribly well and need checking regularly.

SAAB radio/cassette/cd works very well, but quality of sound is barely adequate.

General Comments:

This is my 3rd SAAB now, and is generally very good.

Although the 'small' diesel, it is more than powerful enough in town and on motorway.

However, from a standing start, 1st gear runs out of legs and a shift to 2nd is required almost immediately. Quite irritating.

Otherwise very tractable and easy to get along with.

Handling is good (for a large estate) and the car will happily go round corners at a pace.

The car coped with a trip to France, with four adults, full boot and a loaded roof box with no trouble at all. Quite impressive, to be honest.

For a large car, fuel consumption is absurdly good at low speed (e.g. steady 40 or 50 mph) and constantly delivers 40mpg+, tank after tank.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 10th November, 2004

2002 SAAB 9-5 Arc Estate 3.0TiD


Excellent performance, economy, comfort and good image


Had a few minor niggles, but nothing serious.

The clock LCD readout worked intermittently

Brake servo had a slight whistle

Front indicators leaked water

All problems fixed without quibble by our local dealer.

General Comments:

3.0 TiD V6 is an excellent engine. Latest software upgrade has made it even better by improving low down response.

Fuel consumption averages over 42 mpg

Acceleration awesome through the gears, especially 3rd / 4th

Extremely comfortable leather seats standard on this model

Bought it as an ex-demonstrator with 11k miles on the clock to replace an unreliable Golf Estate. Needed a big estate to carry growing family. This is an excellent wagon for the purpose, especially as I do about 20k miles per year.

Minor niggles are the notchy gearbox and that the handling is not as good as a rear drive car.

Would not buy one new since 1st year depreciation is steep.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 4th December, 2003

21st Apr 2005, 15:57

Update - now reached 46000 miles with very few problems. Minor niggles sorted by dealer without quibble. Fuel consumption 38 - 48 (yes really 48) mpg.

Comfort second to none. Awesome 3-4-5 gear acceleration.

8th May 2007, 14:14

I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that a Saab 9-5 turbo or not would get near 50 mpg. You must be kidding me, the average rating is about 18-20.

10th May 2007, 04:26

Four words for the poster above:


12th Jul 2007, 07:18

Originator here:


Over 65000 miles that I owned the car it averaged 43 mpg with a worst of 38 and a best of 52 achieved a couple of times.

Finally sold the car because I got generally dissatisfied with the creaks & groans from the old Vectra based suspension and because of worries about the longevity of the engine. Early 3.0tids (2002-4) have a known manufacturing fault that they occasionally drop a wet liner writing the engine off and that is £7,000 at dealer prices or £3,500 from an independent if you can find an engine. The car was worth £6,000.

It was a great long distance cruiser, but sadly let down by indifferent small parts and build quality (suspension bushes, dampers, rusting wheel nuts etc). I loved the car for the 3.5 years I owned it, but I now have a Honda.

25th Nov 2007, 16:46

Also UK MPG > US miles MPG.

48 UK MPG = 39.9 US MPG.