1996 SAAB 900 Complaints

THIS CAR HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT A NIGHTMARE. IT HAS REQUIRED THREE TOWS FROM JUNE 2001 TO FEBRUARY 2002. THE MOST EXPENSIVE FAILURE OCCURRED THE DAY AFTER I HAD TAKEN THE CAR TO A LOCAL DEALER FOR A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE (INTERNATIONAL MOTORS, FALLS CHURCH, VA), AND THE TRANSMISSION AND CLUTCH FAILED BECAUSE THERE WAS A TRANSMISSION FLUID LEAK THAT WAS NOT CAUGHT BY THEIR MECHANICS. I HAVE CONTACTED SAAB CORPORATE BY LETTER IN DECEMBER 2001 ABOUT MY MULTIPLE PROBLEMS WITH THIS CAR. THEIR RESPONSE BY TELEPHONE WAS THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THAT THEY COULD DO. *AK

WHILE TRAVELING 60MPH TRANSMISSION BECAME LOCKED IN GEAR. WAS NOT ABLE TO SHIFT INTO ANOTHER GEAR. HAD REMAINED IN 4TH GEAR UNTIL ABLE TO SHIFT. TOOK VEHICLE TO SERVICE STATION, AND MECHANIC COULD NOT LOCATE ANY PROBLEMS. TAKING VEHICLE TO DEALERSHIP.*AK

TIMING CHAIN HAS TO BE REPLACED AFTER 75,000 MILES. VEHICLE WAS MAKING A LOUD WARNING NOISE. SAAB DEALER FOUND PROBLEM AFTER DOING A ROUTINE SERVICE CHECK. ALTHOUGH THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN FOUND, DEALER HAS NEVER DONE REPAIRS. *AK

SAAB CARS USA REFUSES TO PAY FOR A MANUFACTURER DEFECT. I HAVE HAD THE CLUTCH PLATE EXAMINED BY SPECIALISTS AND THEY ALL THINK THIS IS AN OBVIOUS MANUFACTURER DEFECT. MOST EXPERTS HAVE NEVER SEEN A CLUTCH PLATE SPLIT IN HALF LIKE THIS. THE DEBRIS FROM THE CLUTCH DISINTEGRATING BLEW INTO THE TRANSMISSION HOUSING CAUSING A HOLE. THE EXTENDED WARRANTY COMPANY REFUSES TO PAY FOR THE TRANSMISSION BECAUSE IT WAS CAUSED BY THE CLUTCH EXPLODING. I SENT PHOTOS TO SAAB AND THREE SEPARATE LETTERS REQUESTING THEY FIX THIS PROBLEM TO NO AVAIL. I HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THESE FACTS.*AK

AFTER A 30 MINUTES OF DRIVING VEHICLE WAS PARKED IN A PARKING LOT. SMOKE WAS NOTICED COMING FROM UNDERNEATH THE HOOD AREA BEFORE A FIRE STARTED. FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS ON SITE TO PUT OUT FIRE. SAAB HAS BEEN CONTACTED.*AK VEHICLE TRAVELING, CHECK THE ENGINE LIGHT APPEARED AND STAYED ON THE CAUSE WAS DETERMINED TO BE A SENSOR. THE VEHICLE SLIPS WHILE IN GEAR AND BEFORE GOING INTO GEAR DUE TO LOSS OF FLUID BY LTHE LEAKING TRANSMISSION. *YH

VEHICLE EXPERIENCED CLUTCH PROBLEM AND A TRANSMISSION FAILURE, CONSUMER WANTS REIMBURSEMENT. (ATTORNEY FOR CLIENT) *SLC

SAFETY ALERT COMES ON AND NEEDS DEALER SERVICE IF BATTERY DISCONNECTED. CANNOT TELL IF AIRBAG WORKS - REQUIRES DEALER SERVICE TO CORRECT EACH TIME. *AK

WHILE DRIVING ABOUT 55 MPH, THE ELECTRIC SEAT ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE STARTED MOVING TO THE REAR. THIS HAPPENED FIVE TIMES BEFORE DRIVER ARRIVED AT HOME, AND WAS CAUSING THE DRIVER'S FEET TO BE PULLED AWAY FROM THE PEDALS. *ML

VEHICLE DOES NOT START FIRST THING IN MORNING. WOULD JERK AFTER STARTING, FOR 1/2 HOUR. THE ENGINE CHECK LIGHT COMES ON AFTER THE JERKING MOTION. STAYED ON UNTIL VEHICLE PUT IN THE GARAGE, THEN WENT OFF. CAME BACK ON 2 DAYS LATER. *AK

THE COMPLAINT HERE IS THAT A PROVIDED SAFETY DEVICE, THE SEAT BELTS, HAVE INADEQUATE WEBBING LENGTH TO ACCOMODATE LARGER OCCUPANTS. I HAVE CONTACTED SAAB'S CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER AND WAS ADVISED THAT WHILE SEAT BELT EXTENDERS WERE AVAILABLE FOR THIS MODEL, THE COST WOULD BE $250 EACH. WE CONSIDER THAT COST-PROHIBITIVE TO ENABLE USE OF A MANDITORY SAFETY DEVICE. WE HAVE PURCHASED OTHER NEW AND USED VEHICLES FOR MORE THAN THE LAST DECADE SUCH AS FROM GM AND SEAT BELT EXTENDERS WERE READILY AVAILABLE AT ZERO COST. I CAN ENTERTAIN PURCHASING THESE EXTENDERS FOR A REASONABLE AMOUNT, SUCH AS $50/EACH, BUT $250/EACH IS OUTRAGEOUS AND QUITE FRANKLY SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY AS THE BELT WEBBING IS QUITE SHORT TO BEGIN WITH. SAAB'S POSITION AS OF THIS AFTERNOON IS THEY WILL OFFER $100 OFF ON A PAIR OF THESE BELTS. STILL, $400 OUT OF POCKET TO ENABLE A MANDITORY-TO-USE-BY-STATE-AND-FEDERAL-LAW SAFETY FEATURE IN A CAR IS ABSURD. SAAB'S STATEMENT WAS WE SUGGEST YOU TRY OUT THE CAR BEFORE YOU BUY, AND THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS SHOULD TELL US NOT TO BUY. THAT MISSES THE WHOLE POINT OF WHY THESE SAFETY BELTS WERE REQUIRED IN THE FIRST PLACE. I AM NOW GOING THROUGH A LOCAL REFERENCE OBTAINED FROM THE NATIONAL MOBILITY EQUIPMENT CENTER (THANKS NHTSA FOR SUGGESTING IT!) AND THEY ARE LOOKING AT ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS WHICH ARE EXPECTED TO BE LESS IN COST. BUT THE POINT HERE IS WHY ARE VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS ALLOWED TO DENY CUSTOMERS THE EFFECTIVE USE OF MANDITORY SAFETY ITEMS BECAUSE OF EXORBITANT EXTRA PRICING, SUCH AS SEAT BELT EXTENDERS AT $250/EACH WHEN THE PROBLEM COULD BE AVOIDED SIMPLY BE LENGTHING THE SEAT BELT WEBBING IN THE FIRST PLACE, AT A LIKELY COST OF LESS THAN $10? I THINK THAT AS A SAFETY ISSUE IF NOTHING ELSE, VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS MUST PROVIDE, AT REASONBLE COST, WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE USE OF MANDITORY LAWFULLY-REQUIRED SAFETY FEATURES IF THE "STANDARD" IS NOT COMPREHENSIVE TO COVER CUSTOMERS. *AK