Don't mess with Saab!

[markcanderson]

The fact that the variable compression engine sits gathering dust in the Saab Museum indicates it will never become a production engine.

General Motors (Saab's parent company) have killed it off in favour of now using bastardised General Motors (Opel) engines for Saabs...

[ChrisG]

the thought of the latest 9-3 Aero had crossed my mind, chipped, a real sleeper, and do I love sleepers [img]images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] but the thought of only 2wd won through, probably.

[Dippy]

Talking of GM, there was a review of the new Holden thingy on TV last night. 5.7 litre V8 for £28K sounds good, but the 0-60 was only about 6.5 seconds. And think of the fuel bill!

Then they said there was a tuned version with 440bhp which would do 0-60 in about 4 seconds. Sounds better, but the price tag was £70K! [img]images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Like Ford, GM have got a long way to go before persuading us to buy their cars.

[Carps]

You forgot to mention that it looked like a sack of s#ite (IMO).

[Gareth]

You forgot to mention that it looked like a sack of s#ite (IMO).

But did sound nice and looked a hoot to drive round a track [img]images/graemlins/clap.gif[/img]

[Golich]

Aye they were having an absolute blast on the runway with it. You'd never keep the beast in rear tyres [img]images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[SaabTuner]

That's the same engine that's in my best friend's dad's Camaro. Thanks to HUGE tires his stock SLP Camaro does 0-60 in 4.9 seconds. But from a moving start my Saab keeps right with it. Not terribly impressive, now take the new Holden thingy and take into account that it's taking 6.4 seconds (Saab again does 6.5 with FWD) and I start to get a little suspicious.

I know I sound like a raving Saab lunatic here. [img]images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] But I really was dissapointed by the power of that engine. It's nowhere near 330 ... probably more like 260-280. Still would be a lot of fun, and for the record that Camaro I spoke of got about 18 mpg. Not great, but I've seen much worse.

Cheers,
Adrian W

[SaabTuner]

Just got some dyno results for my stock MY2002 Saab Viggen.

206-211-213 horses for runs 1,2, and 3

The first run (lowest hp) yielded the best torque because I started the run at a low RPM.

First Run: 251 wheel lb ft and 206 wheel hp

Certainly not bad performance wise for a stock car in any measure. [img]images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Cheers,
Adrian W

[daddyjohal]

i don't think anyone has ever doubted the performance of Saab engines, it's just the handling that lets them down. But i'm sure the new 'Saabaru' will change that. If it handles anything like an Impreza but with Saab quality, i'll be buying one.

[SaabTuner]

Or the transmissions.

The old "Classic" 900's from the 80's and early 90's had awesome handling, and good engines, but if you got too much power from them your 3rd gear toasted. [img]images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Guess there's always something aye?

I just wish the new Subaraab had a Saab engine. I'm not particularly fond of the EJ20. (No offence to Scooby guys.)

Yours,
Adrian

[daddyjohal]

what's wrong with the Subaru engine? A totally reliable 300bhp from 2litres not enough?? A gorgeous flat four exhaust note, loads of power and torque. And the one thing most people completely overlook is the fact that the engine makes all the diference to the handling of the car. Put a Saab engine in an Impreza chassis with a Saab body kit and you'll have an average car. The Boxer engine in the Subaru gives a very low centre of gravity and horizontal symmetry which gives even standard WRXs great handling. What Saab can bring to this car is superb build quality, great interiors and excellent ergonomics. Leave the performance side of things to Subaru.

[SaabTuner]

If you want to know what's wrong with the Subaru engine here's the start:

It's not a totally reliable 300 hp engine. Certainly not on pump gas. Unfortunately I live in California, where even the new EJ25 STi has trouble running 14.7 psi on our pump gas without detonating. I've seen guys with the older version of my motor from 1993 running 29 psi on pump gas and a completely stock shortblock.

You're right about the great low center of gravity. I have nothing against boxer motors, or Subarus in general. Just not fond of their turbo motors. Kevin Yankton has a 1993 Saab 9000 2.3L turbo, that with stock turbo, block, and head was running 268 whp, and 373 wheel lb ft. That's about 29 psi on 9.3:1 compression and 91 octane on a completely stock longblock!!

I've seen some impressive numbers out of Subaru's and I'm not going to tell anyone to rip out the EJ20 and dump a Saab motor in. BUT I would like to see Saab have a hand in the performance of that motor. If they could make the EJ20 perform like the B235R and B234R that car would be a MASTERPIECE. THAT would be the car I would buy. That, and if they put the STi trans in it. [img]images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] The stock WRX version I hear is a real dog in comparison.

Cheers,
Adrian

[daddyjohal]

Can't comment on the USA mate, but here in the UK, Subarus are sold with 300bhp and 300lbft as STOCK cars from official dealers with full 3year warranties and are incredibly reliable. There are very few problems with engines or transmissions. Over here, Suabru are always streets ahead of Saab in relaibilty and customer satisfaction surveys, and in fact they won the JD Power survey a souple of times with the Impreza being an overall winning car. Maybe a problem with the fuel you guys have out there?

The other issue we have over here is the quality and type of roads we have over here. Many roads have poor quality surfaces and often challenging cambers and corners etc. From my experience of the states, your roads seem to be much easier to drive on ie. better surfaces, wider and flatter. This is probably why you find a high power Saab with FWD so usable out there, along with the fact that we have totally sh#t weather here. High power FWD cars on our roads with our weather are a waste of time. I'm sure it's different for you with all that sunshine.

[SaabTuner]

I have nothing against a good handling AWD car, I just wish Saab could get the smoothness, power, and reliability from that Subaru engine that they got from their own engines.

Saab has been mass producing turbo engines for a very very long time, and I just think they could bring a lot to the table when developing an engine.

I might be biased though, the last Subaru I drove had horrible turbo lag, no power below 3,500 rpm, and got less than 20 mpg. I just don't want this WRX/Subaraab to be too much like that last one. [img]images/graemlins/soapbox.gif[/img] When they start co-developing the engine and chassis then give me a call. (yes Saab makes good chassis, the current Saab cars are GM chassis, not Saab, look at the older 900's, great handing cars especially for FWD, and even more so for a chassis designed in the early 70's)

[img]images/graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

Anyway, yes our gas sucks here. [img]images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] But soon your gas will be the same as ours. New regulations going into effect through Europe before 2006. Hope you like 91 octane. [img]images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Cheers,
Adrian W

[ChrisG]

ugh...............what new 91 octane fuel by 2006 ??????