Nevermind the V-8, what would you build?
With all of the recent debate here at TS about V8 engines in Saabs (cars, that is), I thought that I would open the comments about engines in general, and what you see as the ‘right’ place to spend the Saab power plant development resources in the near future.
Keep in mind that the new 9-5 and the upcoming 9-1 may be radically different cars and have very different engine requirements.
We all, of course, have our favorites. Mine happens to be the B202 2.0 Liter 16-valve 4-cylinder turbocharged and intercooled engine in the later classic 900 line up. The exhaust note is truly unique, and the engine seems to come alive at speed. And, it does this without the very un-PC stigma that the larger displacement engines have.
But I’m aiming for comments that would pave the way for future Saab engine technology.
I’ve gone on record here as an ethanol skeptic. I really think that E85 has two fatal flaws for adoption here in the US: infrastructure to distribute the fuel does not exist and would have to be built at great economic and environmental cost, and that it is still basically the same basic internal combustion technology and doesn’t gain efficiency as a result. So, of course, I don’t think that Biopower will be a long-term solution.
On the other hand, the plug-in hybrid, despite it’s scandalous history, works for me. In spades. I happen to live in an area of the world with amazingly low electricity rates — only one or two regions of the United States have lower electricity costs. Additionally, electricity that is generated in my local area has very low air emissions on average — hydroelectric and nuclear power make up the majority, and the largest coal-fired plants all have state-of-the-art emissions controls in place. Finally, a 30- or 40-mile (50- or 65-kilometer) range for electric-only operation would be perfect for most of my local driving. I may need to add fuel only once every couple of months if I had a good plug-in hybrid.
With as little fuel as I would need with a plug-in hybrid, it seems a little silly to even attempt to optimize the combustion process, but if I had my way, the power generating engine in my plug-in hybrid would ideally be a turbocharged biodiesel engine. Again, I could take full advantage of what is available to me locally; soybean and corn oils are abundant here. No need for a belching refinery to create the fuel or distill it into alcohol, no need to expend energy transporting the product halfway across the world and, most importantly, no need to develop a great distribution network for the fuel. It already exists. As an added benefit, it’s non-toxic and completely safe to handle. Emissions would still need to be controlled, but the great news is that the particulate emissions from biodiesel are not volatile petrochemical byproducts nor are they toxic.
So, for me, the ideal Saab power plant would be a turbocharged biodiesel plug-in hybrid. If I could get about 30 miles on the electric charge before the diesel started up, my mileage would be in the neighborhood of 150 miles per gallon of soybean oil plus about US$90-US$140 per month in electricity (a VERY rough estimate on my part). That’s a winner for me. It’s a HUGE cost savings and is VERY environmentally friendly.
So, what’s your take? Comments await! Extra credit for answers that are concise.
More from this category
- Thursday Snippets - BioPower Aero edition
- Wednesday Snippets
- Aussie Saab 9-3 BioPower delivered!
- Is BioPower sustainable?
More from this author
- Cadillac HUMMER Saab consolidation comes to the Music City
- The end of the world as we know it, part II
- A single EnG snippet that just won’t wait
- Turbocharging — one more reason to like autumn
Subscribe to this author
Recent Comments
- Johan on News on Saab and GM Powertrain
- fred@dzlsabe.com on GM and Chrysler sitting in a tree?
- ctm on GM and Chrysler sitting in a tree?
- 99GL on Cadillac HUMMER Saab consolidation comes to the Music City
- Kroum on GM and Chrysler sitting in a tree?
- eggsngrits on Cadillac HUMMER Saab consolidation comes to the Music City
- 1985 Gripen on Cadillac HUMMER Saab consolidation comes to the Music City
- mo on GM and Chrysler sitting in a tree?
- Erunas on Weekend Snippets
- blackturbo on Saab Pride Book - call for entries!
I agree. That’s exactly what I was thinking.
Ethanol just seems to be an excuse for GM to push more SUVs here in America. Those flex fuel Suburbans and Tahoes make me sick. There are no ethanol stations around here yet the muppets buy them and pretend like they’re saving the planet.
eggs: specifically what kind of biodiesel plug-in hybrid would you advocate, series or parallel?
Personally I really like the idea behind the diesel E-Flex (but don’t like the execution in the case of the hideous Opel Flextreme, complete with lame gimmicky Segways), if it were to run B100.
But I’m really most excited about straight EV. I know the battery technology isn’t there yet, but I’m willing to sacrifice in the short term. I really don’t need a car with over a 150 mile range before needing to be recharged. Sure, it’d be nice if they come up with some fast-charge technology, but I think EV is where it’s at.
This may sound anti-environment, however, given the fact that saab at one point was touting the fact that its cars actually clean the air in the more polluted cities, I would like to see a high performance extension of the b235r in to a six cylinder turbo charged bmw killer. xwd b335r anyone?
I have to admit, I’m a motor-head and a speed demon. With college coming to an end and my military career taking off in the next couple years, I need a car that can get around the US (maybe other countries) and entertain the wild side I have.
So, I guess a strong 3.2l 6 cylinder (V or I, whichever has the best power/efficiency ratio) with all the technology jazz (DI, cylinder deact, vvt, etc). It’ll definitely need to be twin-twinscroll turbocharged and intercooled. XWD /w ELSD, sport suspension, 6 speed manual with a strong hydraulic clutch and a variable mapped chip for the engine and ride characteristics (3 modes: Cruise, Performance, and Afterburner… playing off the aviation geekiness
). Give me a HUD, dvd map thingy, a kick-ass sound system and ipod integration. Top it off with a dual sport exhaust that’s soft and comforting at low rpms and deep n’ throaty at higher rpms. Maybe a butter fly valve leading into two different mufflers.
sounds like a beautiful car to me.
Id like to see a ’smoking’ turbodiesel engine much like the BMW335d with 280bhp+ and 450ftlb of torque that still manages to get 38mpg imperial in the combined cycle.
Talonderiel, love the thought of that ‘afterburner’ mode.
I think future Saabs should also have HUD and standard XWD with elsd. All engines should be turbocharged - forever!
lol thanx, zippy. I think cars should have variable performance/ride set-ups; especially for people like me.
For the most part, around town, the high performance isn’t needed and efficiency could be maximized. This would be the primary drive map. For Saab it would be the “Performance” setting… as aviation this is generally your middle of the road power setting
Then at highway speeds, the car could detect the over-sufficient levels of power and further reduce it’s mapping to just the necessary levels needed to maintain. This would be the “Cruise” mode.. thusly saving fuel and making the ride amazingly soft too
Finally, the reason for conserving so much energy… and for those looking for some sporty fun. There is the “performance” mode, as soo many other manufactures use, to push the car’s mapping and ride characteristics to the max. Just like throwing on the afterburners in a F-14 tomcat (9-3), FA-18E Super Hornet (9-1) or the SR-71 Blackbird (9-5)…. do the hick-maneuver and let the g’s add up!!
o boy. these sound really sexy… just seem to be more probable from volvo or bmw
btw my fav engine is the b234r.
Yesterday I mailed Swade a interview with the head of the Swedish truck company Scania’s R&D department (former sister company to Saab). Scania has been using ethanol in diesel (!!) engines for more than 20 years now. The interesting part is that they get almost the same efficiency with ethanol compared to diesel (43 % compared to 44%) with an ethanol consumption of 6 L/10 km instead of 13 L/10 km that is the consumption of the thirstiest Saab E85 cars today. The ethanol diesels are running on E95 (95 % ethanol, 5 % ignition enhancement).
The first car company using this technique in cars would be unique and way ahead of normal E85 cars.
9-1: Just shove the old B235R in there and give it XWD/eLSD. Hell yeah.
9-3: Series/parallel plug-in hybrid twin turbo intercooled 3.0l I6, BioPower (for running your choice of fuel), with a (slightly smaller) BioDiesel variant (I don’t know much about BioDiesel, can those engines run regular diesel too? I would assume so).
9-5: Same thing, with a 3.6l I6.
9-4x: FlexFuel engine from the Tahoe, just to piss off MagX. :p
Of course, those were just what would be the top-of-the-line engines, if I went into all the smaller variants, I’d be here all night.
Personally, Saab shouldn’t even consider the far future of their engines until they can get their current V6 to suck less.
their current v6 sucks?
No, but the 2.8L in the Aero could probably be tuned for better fuel economy than approxmately 19/26, on the 2007 EPA standards.
I’d actually like to see fuel economy go up for the 2.0T as well, but 30 MPG highway (07 standards) is pretty good for a luxury car, so I’ll just leave it alone.
Yes, current V6 sucks. At least petrol, big time!
I´d put my money on the Saab Variable Compression engine.
http://www.saab.com/main/GLOBAL/en/vepsilon/index.html
This engine was test driven at finnish magazine Tekniikan Maailma few years ago, and the comments were positive. They told that this engine was supposed to be seen on next gen 9-5 after some years. GM ruined the idea being too expensive to develop.
I know it´s totally stupid to dream about this engine, but now for example Merc got their DiesOtto engine with variable compression and amazing results, I truly hate to know that Saab had their version of VC years ago. And, according papers, was very close to get into production. Doh!
I must take Zippy’s side on this. A decent V6 or V8 turbo diesel that should nowadays be capable of averaging 40+mpg. It should have a 7 speed auto and XWD.
The most important thing for a 9-5 or bigger is that it should be smooth and silent on anything up to 85 Mph and then have am “afterburner” feel from there on up.
I do over 30,000 miles a year and most of my journeys average 250 miles so I want comfort, fuel efficiency and fun…that is all not too much to ask in the 21st Century.
I’m more of a purist when it comes to driving and do not really care for all that environmental mumbo jumbo.
I used to drive around in my mom’s Saab 9-3 Aero (250hp V6).
I was very impressed and it also took me a while to adjust to the weird characteristics of engine where it had so much power in the 1500 - 3000rpm area then lack that feel of power after 3000rpm.
And then I got my own BMW 323i with an Inline 6 engine.
I must say the smoothness and the growl of the I6, which loves to rev, is just amazing although it lacks the low-end torque Saab has in abundance.
I’ve never been a fan of turbo.
although, Saab’s turbo V6 has a twin scroll turbocharger that reduces lag, it just isn’t the same as a naturally aspirated engine.
Also, the power climb seemed to be more consistent in the BMW’s I6.
Now, I don’t mean to offend anybody on this board but I don’t think I’ll be going back to a Saab. I suppose the philosophy of Saab and BMW is just different and I prefer one philosophy over the other.
With that in mind, I would like to see a Saab with a smooth I6 or even a boxer engine that barks like a porsche or subaru does (also for better center of gravity).
However, I do realize that would completely go against the Saab philosophy and would kill the “Saabiness” in Saabs which make them so unique and different from other manufacturers
I can’t beleive GM killed the SVC engine, this sounds truely awesome and would have put Saab years ahead of the competition just like the turbo units.
Imaging that engine with Twin scroll turbo, 300bHP from a 1.6!
Curse GM for their shortsightness.
Hey, maybe Saab should go the flat-6 route.
I read Nigel Park’s comment and missed the word “diesel” and thought he said any V6 or V8 should get 40+…which is just crazy talk.
gripen629, you’ve deeply offended me. :p
I said the V6 sucks because it gets horrible horrible mileage for a V6. The old CTS-V got almost the same mileage, and it had a 400hp Corvette V8! It barely edges out the current Corvette! They should just turbocharge either CTS engine. Maybe the 263hp base CTS engine for the 9-3 and the 304hp DI one for the 9-5.
By the way…the 2008 CTS is MT COTY. Take that, Caddy naysayers!
The more I read about the SVC, the more I think it’s a bloody crime to cancel this project.
It’s efficent yet very powerful, a typical Saab way of thinking.
i found this article at Channel 4 Cars that gives a very good detailed description of how it works, and test drive reports.
http://www.channel4.com/4car/ft/feature/feature/1878/1
This would have won Engine of the year award so eaily. Imaging a 9-1 powered by a 1.8 or 2.0 version of this engine - 1.8 fuel consumption with 3 liter performance. And will meet EU and US emission rules for the future. A flat 6 version can power the new 9-3 and 9-5’s.
The bean counters at GM must have been the cause of it’s death. Curse you.
More info on SVC:
http://www.sae.org/automag/techbriefs_05-00/03.htm
I read that article, Ying, and it does sound pretty impressive. It also sounds like it would be prone to malfunctions unless significant development cash was tossed at it. In 2000, I don’t think Saab had that kind of cash, and GM definitely didn’t want to give it that kind of cash. Maybe if Saab makes a little more money, they’ll look back into this thing, because it really does look like the ICE engine of the future.
Then again…a Saab with a supercharger? A Saabuar? Maybe a leaping griffin would make a good hood ornament. :p
(I associate superchargers with Jags, and I’m not totally sure why).
Well, to stay ahead of the game, money has to be spent. nothing ventured nothing gained. Now the competitors starts to look/ have this tech, Saab will have to play catch up again.
But a Turbo IS a form of supercharger
I associate Mercs with Super charger - and Messerschmitt .
I know turbos and supers are basically the same thing, but Saab has always used turbos, and it’s a little weird to think of one with a supercharger.
I probably think of Jaguar when I think of superchargers because their top-of-the-line engines are pretty much all supercharged.
Sure, money has to be spent, I understand that, and GM and Saab understand it, too. But you have to remember that Saab’s dev costs were through the roof in the era that this engine showed up in, and GM needed to pull on the reins a bit so the company didn’t bankrupt itself (and wound GM in the process). Now that Saab is a little more frugal, it’s definitely time to look into this technology again.
Right after they bring up the interior materials quality :p
The Saab SVC concept discussed above seems obsolete now. Maybe a good decision by GM. Take that GM haters!
However, Saab has several recent patents on variable compression engines where, instead of moving a monohead up and down with a complicated and heavy arrangement like in the one above, they move the crankshaft up and down. The first design had a problem wherein it would not work with a standard automatic transmission. They now have a patent issued just May this year that solves that. So keep the faith, we may see it yet. I’ve uploaded a pdf of the most recent patent 7,213,545 to my website. Or you can go to uspto_dot_gov to get the text.
I liked my gasoline engine just fine until the recent hike in fuel prices. So, if I had the opportunity I’d purchase an engine that runs on both compressed air and gasoline such as The Air Car.
Andy, how many mpg are you getting in that Jag? Bet you miss that Saab just a little.
About the air car. I don’t have facts at my disposal, but that doesn’t stop me from doubting whether it’s a viable solution vs. pure EV. There have to be great heat losses when compressing that air. I think it would be more efficient to just charge batteries. But, of course, eliminating batteries is good environmentally also. Time will tell.
Here’s what I want Saab to build: a 1.5l (or so) turbo four with direct injection and HCCI that puts-out at least as much power and torque as the 2.0T.
This kind of engine would get the same mileage as a diesel 1.5 at steady throttle and the power of a 3.5l six at full throttle.
As far as I know, Saab is already working on this, so it’s not really pie in the sky.
Ted,
The Jag’s getting about 19 mpg in between home and work. On the road I’ve gotten as high as 26 mpg. But the cost of premium is about $3.30 per gallon right now. That’s not as high as Europe, but it sure makes me think of getting something more economical.
To be honest, the Turbo didn’t get that much better mileage. During the winter it got down to 18 mpg at times but as high as 29 mpg on the highway. Unfortunately, I use my cars in town more often than the highway. So, I’m about where I started.
Good thing I didn’t buy an XJS V-12, eh?
I want a 500cc scooter engine that gets 75 mpg, and produces 450HP. I’d like 500 lb-ft from idle to redline (9000 rpm?)
*wakeup*
Oh, yeah, what was I talking about?
I think the SVC was in keeping with the Saab way. Saab led the charge of high performance, efficient engines in the 80’s with the turbo-fours. I think that the 2.3l b234r and then b235r engines are the best 4 cylinder engines around, and I get 30 mpg on highway trips in my 9000 Aero. Not to bad for a car that’s as fast as it is.
I’d like to see Saab selling cars which out-perform their contemporaries and get better mileage. If that means a “smart” 6 or 8 with all the gee-whizzery you can stuff under the hood (DI, cylinder deactivation, VVT, VC(?), multi-fuel (E85 with monitoring to allow higher boost for 300 HP, like that 9-5 monster), etc.) then I say go for it.
One other thing I think they should produce is this: A car with one of their standard engines with a bigger alternator and battery bank which powers a motor located in the rear axle. The brakes (at least in the rear) should be regenerative units to collect some of that lost energy. Maybe even make it with a plug so you could top-off the batteries when you park it at night. (Has anything like this been done? ;o)
That being said, I’ll replace my 9000 Aero with a ‘02-’05 9-5 Aero wagon with a manual transmission as my next car. I am open to other options too, but right now, that’s my thought.
And, for gripen629, and the others who read his post, a BMW 6 cylinder is one of the most smooth and drivable engines I’ve ever driven. Just like so many of us real Saab nuts long for the c900, I long for the BMW e30 (1984-1991 3-series) just as much as I do the c900. I do think that BMW has a much larger image than Saab, but there are a bunch of motor heads out there who drive BMWs because they design and build amazing automobiles over there in Bavaria. The thing I dis-liked most about my BMWs when I drove them: The attention and assumptions that went with the blue and white propeller. People assumed that I had spent $30,000-$40,000 for the car when I had spent $4,000 on it (used, of course). (I was called a “spoiled punk” by someone who’d just explained to me that his stereo cost about $5,000. The look of flabbergastedness upon his face when I told him my whole car cost less than his stereo was priceless though.)
Alright, I’m back to work. Good discussion here.
~P ‘93 9000 Aero, 89K, 5spd.
I’m sure Saab’s engineers aren’t at a loss for what they’d like to produce, they’re just limited by funds. Both R&D development and how much they can sell the cars for.
I work for a company (not an automobile company though) which engineers machines. They used to just make the best machine they possibly can and then set a price where they can sell the machine for more than it cost to produce and sold it. Those were the good ole days.
Now with the inferior quality, but less expensive competition from China they’re forced to engineer the products more cheaply. They cut corners everywhere they can. So what you get in the end isn’t the best possible product, it’s the cheapest possible product. They even make a version for sale in China without safety covers to be able to sell it for less!
So, my point being I’m sure that the problem isn’t a lack of imagination on the part of Saab engineers, it’s money.
Say they were to fully-develop what seems like an awesome revolutionary engine technology in the SVC or if they were to produce the Saab hybrid. How much can they expect to sell the vehicle for. How much would people be willing to pay for it?
History is littered with cars that flopped not because they weren’t good cars, but because they were overpriced.
The selling price of a classic Saab 900 Turbo in the early 90s was so high that it impacted sales and I think forced GM’s decision to start positioning Saab as a “premium” marque to justify the price premium.
For me it would be a plug in hybrid with Saab’s supercharged, variable compression engine, also capable of running on ethanol. What happened to Saab’s SVC engine?? Saab developed and tested that concept for 10 years just prior to the Borg takover. Here’s a refresher on the original SVC concept taken from a March 2000 release:
“The SVC concept reduces the fuel consumption of a conventional engine by up to 30 percent while at the same time providing impressive performance. The five-cylinder SVC engine developed by Saab has a displacement of 1.6 liters and is as fuel-efficient under normal conditions as a conventional 1 .6-liter engine, but can deliver power comparable to a highly tuned 3.0-liter engine when needed. The carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are reduced proportionately to the fuel consumption, while the CO, HC and NOx emissions will enable the SVC englne to meet all current and proposed future emissions regulations. The unique feature of the SVC engine and the key to its high efficiency is that the engine has a variable compression ratio. The fixed compression ratio of a conventional engine is a compromise between a wide variety of operating conditions: stop and go city traffic, highway motoring at constant speed, or high-speed freeway driving. The compression ratio of the SVC engine is continually adjusted to provide the optimum value for varying driving conditions.”
A small, ethanol, direct injection, bi-turbo, tranversal straight-six… O:)
I know 6 cilinders are more complex and less space effective than 4, but if it is small, maybe it could be mounted transversally (even if I’m OK with a longitudinal layout)… It would be a smooth jewel: there’s no balanced engine architecture like a straight-6! …and quircky enough! O:)
Then they could make a small V12 out of 2 of those, for the Aero X… OK, I went too far.
Tiego - Haha, after all the debate the idea of a V8 caused here…if Saab tried to put a V12 in something, I think half the readership of TS would actually begin thirsting for Steve Shannon and Jan-Ake Jonsson’s blood.
Gripen - What your company used to do is what BMW does now, and what your company does now is what Saab does now…GM said, you’re going to sell the car for X, now go engineer the best darn car you can and we’ll give you all cookies! and now we have less-than-stellar interior materials and we had reliability problems and on and on.
The problem is that, at this point, any new tech Saab develops has to be offset by cut costs (or sunk costs) somewhere else, because they sure as hell can’t raise the price of the cars any more.
So all these great new engines that they could possibly be putting in their cars in the future had better be cheap to develop and manufacture.
Motor Trend’s current wags are idiots.
If they can tackle the oil- and the fuel-consumption i would like to see wankel/rotary-engines. They are compact and lighter, smaller in cc., have less moving parts, no up-& down pistons etc. . So smoother and less vibrations. Double turbo’s are fine if they can give some extra hp’s and Nm’s in the lower rpm’s, where there is a certain shortage in the Mazda renesis. And it’s fine by me if they put E-diesel in the tank or whatever. As long it can be purchased somewhere and doesn’t harm the environment.
If GM will badge these cars SAAB, and they look like the 9X, and GM doesn’t drain the technology, setup and the overal design towards other GM-brands, it sounds brilliant.
Jeff: it looks like you got my point without my being satisfied with my own expression of it: companies now engineer products to a price point they can be sold at. They’re given a selling price target first and then are tasked to design to that price.
MarkS.: if you want to know what happened literally to the SVC engine (the actual prototype which had been installed in a 9⁵, of which photos are available in the archive somewhere here at TS) it was last used to figure the ideal compression ratio for the BioPower100 concept.
If you’re asking what happened to the project itself, I hear that they were having problems with the longevity of the seal they couldn’t overcome, and then they changed the design as saabyurk mentions above. There’s no telling how many engineers or how much funding the project is currently receiving, but I would guess it’s not substantial.
It seems to me that Saab must use GM global engine resources from other GM divisions (such as ECOTEC from Opel or the V6 from Holden) rather than spend resources designing their own homegrown design.
Note that the SVC came out and won all those engineering awards at the same time GM took full ownership of Saab in 2000? I’m sure most of the development of the SVC and SCC systems occurred before GM took-over completely and forced their global engines on Saab.
I wouldn’t fret too much about this if Saab were being given GM’s top-of-the-line engine technology like Cadillac gets, but they’re not.
One additional thing about BMW-Saab is light years ahead of them in terms of safety engineering, so BMW could be doing a much better job in this area. Saab’s engineering efforts have been focused on structural systems, where many automakers just stick airbags all over the place and refer to this as “safety engineering”. An airbag (not to mention a “better quality” plastic knob) is of no value in a severe accident if you get a motor mount through your neck.
Thanks 1985 Gripen, that’s interesting to note! Also, with regard to GM’s current “Ecotec” design-it seems that many aspects of Saab engine design have been used by GM since the takover in 2000 for use in the new architecture, and is now being further developed for use in other GM brands all over the world (combined with contributions from Lotus, etc). GM’s previous “Quad-4″ was a horrible engine, and was replaced after 2000 with technologies developed by Saab all through the late ’80’s and ’90’s (Direct ignition, counter-rotating balance shafts, turbo, etc etc). I wonder if GM will be using Saab’s in-house developed Trionic system (if not already)? And if so, what will they re-name it? If that happens, watch MT give GM an award for “innovation”.
MarkS.: the 9³ Aero V6 uses the Saab Trionic 8 system though the engine is a Holden design. I understand from comments by someone who frequents this ‘blog that the reason Saab hasn’t yet been successful in BioPower-izing the V6 is due to its lack of D.I. (as in “direct ignition”, not “direct injection”) cassette. Apparently Trionic needs the D.I. to control the process for BioPower.
Why they haven’t been able to adapt a D.I. cassette for the Holden V6 is beyond me, but I’m not a design engineer.
The theoretical engine in the Aero-X was supposedly an ethanol-powered variant of the Holden V6 which output 400 bhp. But as far as I know no such engine exists in “the real world”.
The BioPower Beast 9⁵ concept was equipped with the standard Saab B235 2290cc inline-4 engine running on E85 and it output 310 bhp (135 hp/l) & 440Nm.
The BioPower 100 9⁵ Combi concept was equipped with the Saab B205 1985cc inline-4 engine running on E100 and it output 300 bhp (151 hp/l) & 400Nm.
Too bad the last of the “Saab” (I know, they’re all descendants which evolved from the Saab H-engine, which started-out as a Triumph design…) engines can be found in the 2009 Saab 9⁵ (or whenever the current-gen 9⁵ is to be phased-out).
I can only hope after that Saab gets to choose from the best engines GM offers, which currently look to me to be the ones found in the Cadillac CTS (both diesel and gasoline). I think that GM’s HCCI is still too far off from fruition to hope for anytime soon.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it here, saab needs a “halo” car to drive home the brand image and draw people into the dealerships to buy 9-3’s and 9-5’s. This “halo” car could be a bunch of different things.
My personal feeling is that the car to do this would be some sort of aero-X derivative. Build it as a 3-door hatch/fastback to help illustrate the unique saab take on things. As to what platform to build it on, follow the route that alfa romeo chose for the brera and build it on a shortened, stiffened epsilon II derivative. Offer it with the 2.8 v6 as the base engine in the US or the 260 hp ecotec for europe, and build a top-end model using a turbocharged 3.6 DI v6. Make XWD standard with a more balanced torque split, keep the weight down, and you could have a real winner on your hands that’s not just another RWD coupe.
Barring something radical like that, push the 9-3’s and 9-5’s to make more power and get on the covers of magazines. An Epsilon II 9-3 with a turbo DI 3.6 engine would be a great M3/S4/C63 fighter, and likewise if you could justify the engineering costs, a 9-5 with a turbo northstar as the halo model would be sweet.
One thing is certain though, at least in the US saab needs to have an all-turbo, all flex-fuel lineup. Offer labeled biopower models in the US that use ethanol tunes to make the power of the aeros with smaller engines like the DI turbo ecotec in a car with the same handling, etc, it would be a great way to make a statement that you can be green and still have fun.
I forgot to add, drag SVC out of the closet and make it work, this is an important way that saab can once again show itself to be an innovator, especially if mercedes is serious about it’s new “diesotto” engine.
Don’t know if anyone has put this up, but Ithink they should get out the SVC (the variabl compression engine with 5 cylinders) and add the plugin hybrid conspt to it. I don’t normally buy new cars, but this would be a must for me
WOW, VARIABLE COMPRESSION?! THAT’S REALLY COOL I WONDER WHY NO ONE HAS MENTIONED IT YET.
@1985 Gripen
“Too bad the last of the “Saab” (I know, they’re all descendants which evolved from the Saab H-engine, which started-out as a Triumph design…) engines can be found in the 2009 Saab 9⁵ (or whenever the current-gen 9⁵ is to be phased-out).”
Sorry, but the Saab H-engine and its descendats has reached end of the line long ago.
If you look at the H-engine and its descendants you see that it is actually half a v8, i.e. a v8 with only one of the cylinder banks. That is the cylinder bank leans 45 degrees compared to the housing of the crackshaft.
The 2,3L engine was developed in the 80s and introduced in the 9000 model. If you look at it you see that it is in fact straight inline design only it is mounted in a slanted position in the car. In the 90s Saab developed a downsized version wich then became the 2,0L engine.
In the early 00s the 2,0L engine was replaced by a new 2L engine based on a GM 2L engine.