Saab 9-4x Engine specs posted in comments
A commenter called Saablover has posted some Saab 9-4x engine specs in comments. I should say, at this point, that I’m not aware of who Saablover is, and that I don’t recall any Djup Strupe info coming from Saablover prior to this.
That said, this information is quite consistent with other info I’ve received recently. The info is as follows:
- 3000 V6 260hp 350Nm
2800 Turbo V6 300hp 400Nm
2.0 Tid 190hp 400Nm
2.9 v6 Tid 250hp 550Nm
Two of these - the gasoline engines - are ones that I’ve heard about specifically in recent times and I can tell you that all the numbers match what I’ve heard.
The 2.9 diesel is one we’ve heard of previously, but the 2.0 TiD engine mentioned there seems to be something new and a little different. Saab’s current four cylinder diesels are 1.9 litres. I haven’t heard anything about that previously.
-
More from this category
- AMS score 9-4x spypics
- Saab 9-4x concept VS Saab 9-4x
- Friday Snippets
- AMS forecast Saab 9-3x in Paris, 2008
More from this author
- The Great TS Pacific Northwest Meetup - Details!
- Quite possibly the best 2008 Saab 9-3 road test report - ever.
- Saab Owners Convention - wrapping it up with Steve Shannon and the best collection of photos you’ll see
- 25% off two T-shirts during August
Subscribe to this author
Recent Comments
- SaabLance on Quite possibly the best 2008 Saab 9-3 road test report - ever.
- SaabLance on Quite possibly the best 2008 Saab 9-3 road test report - ever.
- Kroum on Quite possibly the best 2008 Saab 9-3 road test report - ever.
- Ying on Quite possibly the best 2008 Saab 9-3 road test report - ever.
- Ned on Quite possibly the best 2008 Saab 9-3 road test report - ever.
- SaabLance on Quite possibly the best 2008 Saab 9-3 road test report - ever.
- ELBOBO on The Great TS Pacific Northwest Meetup - Details!
- Paul Guinnessy on Quite possibly the best 2008 Saab 9-3 road test report - ever.
- Rogan on The Great TS Pacific Northwest Meetup - Details!
- Ryan McLean on The Great TS Pacific Northwest Meetup - Details!
My guess is that at least 50% of all 9-4X sold in Europe gonna be diesels.
At least that many, ctm. If the only gasoline engines are sixes, then I’d say more than 50% is pretty safe.
Yes, these days a gasoline six in Europe sounds like a suicide. Otherwise the specs look ok, perhaps the gasoline sixes are too close to each other and I miss a gasoline/ethanol (turbo)four of, say, 200-220 hp.
No high output turbo 4 cylinders?
seems an odd choice for saab seeing as that’s their mainstay of the stable. between 200-260bhp seems like a reasonable figure from either the 2l or 2.3l, this could add another aspect of power, between the two diesels. Also is the 2.8T the same as the current V6? It would also be odd if it wasn’t. And surely the 3l V6 making less output than the 2.8l doesnt make much sense either…… o well we’ll soon see
engines new 9-5
2.0T 190hp + 220 hp
2.0T Biopower 190-220 hp
2.8T V6 260 hp
2.0 Tid 160 hp + 190 hp
2.9 Tid V6 XWD AT 250 hp
the 2.0 TID with 190HP will be correct by the way - the same engine comes with the New Opel Insigina. Otherwise, the Diesel prices are well above average in the last couple of weeks - actually Diesel is at the same price we have for Super 95 - - so a 2.0T and hggh output 2.3T will be even more important in the future if Saab is going to reduce their CO2 slip / mileage through direct injection etc.
As a very likely 9-4x buyer in 2010 (my current leased Saab 9-3 expires then) I have to say that the NA 2.8V6 does not sound too tempting. It would be a bit sad if only the V6 turbo will be the only available turbo engine in this range. The way this is looking I will probably get the oiler but who knows when that will reach Australia shores? Any clues on that anyone?
The list is definitely missing the entry-level ~150hp gasoline model… It would be to suicide not to have one as all the competitors have one too.
There does seem to be a mild trend towards capacity and away from turbos. Is this a fair comment? If so, is this the US market influence?
hmmm pt it does seem that way. hopefully this isn’t the way saab is going because this goes away from its fundimental values- such as turbocharging as you mentioned and their current tagline of “responsible performance”, increasing volume in the engines and not turbocharging is not the way, I can see saab going in the future.
Creating more “normal” engines such as 3l V6s and diesels of around the same way could be a non-saab way to go, as its not the past and the history of saab. I think that if GM take saab too far this way we’ll end up with a swedish Audi, which could be good for getting customers in the short term, however in the longterm with concerns about fuel economy and the environment and mentioned lots of times by Swade in this blog, is the fact that Saab are already at the forefront of turbocharging.
If GM take Saab too far down the road of engines with higher outputs, it could be because of the “US” factor or corperate decisions to make Saab cheaper to run, but in the long term it could kill Saab.
I don’t know who Saablover is, maybe he/she could either comment here and give us some more information on themselves or on how they have come to get the information, or tell Swade privately so he can vouch for the information. But the info for the 9-5 engines seems reasonable to me, but I would think thart the 9-4x would have a small turbo engine as has been said here previously.
Hopefully all this has made sense, I may have said that I’m probably the youngest reader of this blog, so if i’m way off tell me.
3,0l V6 doesn’t make sence. Why not use the 2,8T with 260hp? Better milage, more torque. There will be BioPower for 9-4X.
Does GM currently have an NA 3L V6 in any of their products? I wonder what engine family it’s from. Is it just a bored out 2.8L HF V6 (that was used in the old CTS) or something different?
The 2.9 diesel is one we’ve heard of previously, but the 2.0 TiD engine mentioned there seems to be something new and a little different. Saab’s current four cylinder diesels are 1.9 litres. I haven’t heard anything about that previously.
It seems logical that, as the Insignia already made the change, Saab too changes from the FIAT based diesels to the VM Motori designed diesels, currently built by GMDAT.
more about this engine family: http://www.vmmotori.it/en/01/00/01/dettaglio.jsp?id=8
ProGolf - The closest engine is in the Opel Antara, 3.2L V6 224HP & 219ft-lbs tq.
GM’s HFV6 engine block was designed to be expandable from 2.8L to 4.0L. In order to achieve 260HP for only 3.0L, I bet they added direct injection. This could be Saab’s own version.
If the 9-4X does indeed receive it’s own variation of the HFV6, would the 9-4X be more Saab-ish?
@NineTwoX: There’s no way that engine would be saab-exclusive. It’ll probably also debut with the 9-4x’s sister vehicle: the Caddy BRX. Hell, the BRX’s existence is probably why this engine (theoretically) exists. An NA V6 fits Caddy’s personality very well. The BRX probably has the HF 3.6 with DI at the high-end rather than the Sabb’s turbo.
Cadillac already has both the LP7 and the LLT. Adding a 3rd V6 to the lineup wouldn’t make much sense. Perhaps Cadillac is replacing the LP7 in the base model CTS with this new 3.0L engine?
@NineTwoX: What’s the LP7? If you meant the LY7, then maybe this is the replacement for it.. perhaps making the CTS engine choice all direct-injected.
Sorry, I did mean the LY7.
The 3.0L V6 seems out of characteristic for the BRX since the Provoq was showcased as a plug-in-hybrid vehicle. However, the 9-4X was showcased as a 2.0L bio-powered vehicle and look where it possibly might end up.
As long as the new 3.0L engine stays in GM’s luxury segment and not wind up in their Vue/GM/Pontiac/Chevy equivalents, then I would be satisfied.
LY7 is the correct RPO code (regular production option for building the car if you do not know what that means) for the port injected 3.6L V6 engine. GM uses it in a lot of vehicles now that are sold in here.
The LLT is the direct injected version of the 3.6L V6 that is used in Cadillac CTS and STS. We should see this engine bolted in the new two-mode hybrid Saturn VUE this fall here in the United States.
Cadillac had a 2.8L normally aspirated version of the high feature V6 in the CTS a few years ago - although dealers found most buyers opted for the higher output unit. Recent gas price changes may encourage some customers to consider a smaller displacement engine.
The 2.8L version used in the 9-3 is not completely identical to the 3.6L version. One of the most significant differences is the cylinder heads are cast out of 356T-6 aluminum which has superior heat dissipation characteristics and has better resistance to distortion then the 319 cast aluminum used in the 3.6L variant. Throw in an oil cooler for good measure as well – and the 2.8L does call for a higher quality engine oil over the 3.6L version – something I still cannot get a straight answer on from some friends at GM.
Both engines are now managed by a Bosch ME9 controller, which has some really innovative diagnostic capabilities in terms of allowing the technician to analyze airflow deviation data – critical for proper fuel calculation. The first time I saw this was in a Saab Trionic system so that is now making its way into more vehicles. Kind of cool to see GM using Saab technology throughout the brand – although I would agree we do not want to see GM pick Saab dry.
One of the ironies here is that Acura and VW are both offering turbo 4’s in their competitive SUV’s (RDX and Tiguan).
This means that GM is getting out of the small turbocharged engine game at exactly the same time that their strongest competition is seeing the light.
I wonder how many sales Saab will lose because the competition offers similar performance and better fuel economy (using technology pioneered by Saab)? It boggles the mind…
Hopefully this new 3L engine is a DI engine and will get equal or better fuel economy than the current 3.5/3.6L offered in GM’s variants.
Now, I wonder what kind of transmission choices we’ll get.
Bernard - The RDX is rated at 17mpg city and 22mpg hwy. The current Saturn Vue with the LY7 gets 16mpg city and 22mph hwy. I don’t see any significant difference between the two.
I love the looks of all RDX, Vue, or Tiguan , but just can’t see getting rid of my Pathfinder to lose cargo room and offroad-ability for about the same MPG.
If carrying cargo is priority 1, the compact ute’s are lacking. If style is #1, then that makes up for it. if MPG is #1, dead tie. I dunno. When the RAV4 can get mid 20’s all day long with a NA V6, somethings not quite right. If the 9-4 doesn’t compare to those #’s, it won’t be on my list.
The Rav4’s V6 engine is a 3.5L engine with direct injection and VVT-i but only has a 5spd automatic.
If the 9-4X does come with a 3.0L engine that has direct injection, CVVT, and a 6 spd, imo, it should offer similiar (or slightly better) fuel economy to the Rav4.
There is talk about a non-turbo V6, but the quoted output for the 3.0 liter doesn’t match with a non-turbo. There is no bread and butter non-turbo with more than 100 Nm/liter. And the best standard production engines come to 85 hp/liter. So either this non-turbo 3.0l V6 would have something around 225 - 250 hp and 285 Nm or with 260 hp/350 Nm it would be a lpt.
If we look at the LLT, 304HP & 274ft-lb tq from a 3.6L. This engine offers ~84hp/L and ~102Nm/L.
Albert is right, even the Caddy 3.6DI engine offers only 370Nm of torque. The VW 3.2DI offers 320Nm. Would have to be something incredibly special to offer 350Nm from 3l.