The 9-3 1.8t is in fact a 2.0litre. It’s all in the tuning. The 9-3 2.0t is a 175hp/265Nm engine. The 1.8t is the exact same hardware, detuned.

Therefore using ethanol basically takes the 1.8t off it’s leash.

The estimation is that ethanol can cause up to a 34% decrease in fuel economy as compared to gasoline. But that’s if one was running E100. E85 is still 15% gasoline. So the worst-case estimation for E85 mileage “hit” would be 27%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethanol#Fuel_Economy

But short of getting these in the real world and running them solely off of E85, we just won’t know.

This is one of many reasons why I’m a proponent of (ethanol’s sister biofuel) biobutanol. The mileage “hit” of pure biobutanol is only about 10% as compared to gasoline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biobutanol#Properties_of_common_fuels

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/12/30/biobutanol-the-other-white-meat/

At first it didn’t seem so to me, as I thought the BioPower 9-5 offered a lot more power than a BioPower 1.8-liter 9-3 would. However, learning that the BioPower 9-5 2.0-liter only puts out 5 bhp more than the BioPower 9-3 1.8 liter, I can see where there might be quite a sales hit.

Also, the 9-5 is almost 200 lbs heavier.

It’s odd that SAAB would make this decision, given how it seems like the only 9-5 models selling in any numbers worldwide are in Sweden (where a whole 80% of all 9-5 sales are of the BioPower variety). I guess SAAB figures more sales is good sales, no matter what SAAB product people are buying.

Is E85 mileage really that bad? Never heard of that before…