Saab 9-4x out testing again
My mates from CarAdvice.com.au have picked up some more photos of that Saab 9-4x testing in Michigan. Click on through to see the full shots. The car is rather heavily clad and you can’t make out much, but when has that ever stopped us?
The costume on this one is slightly different. It looks like the one that was covering a recent sighting of Cadillac’s sibling to this vehicle, the BRX. Makes sense as they’re on the same architecture, I suppose.
The first point of interest is at the rear. Those twin tailpipes are giving away a little more than just looks. The good news is that they’ve kept a fair bit of the concept car’s positioning and shape. It’s not merely two milkshake straws peeking out the back there.
The other news that I can pass on, for the first time, is that the initial offering for the 9-4x in some markets will comprise a base level car with a normally aspirated V6, whilst the Aero will have a turbocharged V6 similar to that in the Saab 9-3.
The NA unit will provide power in the mid-200hp range, whilst the Aero is tipped to come in at very close to 300hp. The base model will be a 2WD car whilst the Aero will have XWD as standard.
The concept car, of course, featured a theoretical four cylinder unit, turbocharged and running using Saab’s BioPower setup. This was as much an E85-driven marketing exercise as anything else, given the Coskata announcement that they made at the same time. You might recall that the Hummer concept unveiled at the same time also ran on ethanol. Whether this drivetrain actually sees the light of day in what will be a pretty heavy vehicle remains to be seen.
Of course, there’s also the diesel engine that’s coming from VM Motori. That will be the big seller in Europe.
The other point of interest from the photos as seen at CarAdvice is the wheels they’re running. They almost look like turbines, don’t they? Eggs will be pleased 
-
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
- Automotive Rites of Passage
- Friday Snippets (well, it’ll be Saturday when you read them)
- Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- Thursday Snippets - rumours of my demise have been greatly exaggerated, for now…
Subscribe to this author
Recent Comments
- Kroum on Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- Beren Erchamion on Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- Ryan M on Automotive Rites of Passage
- aeronaut on Automotive Rites of Passage
- zippy on EnG Weekend Snippets
- Andy Rupert on Automotive Rites of Passage
- eggsngrits on In defence of the Pontiac Aztek, and other Snippety things
- eggsngrits on Automotive Rites of Passage
- SaabLance on Edmunds provide puzzling Saab Turbo X road test
- Jeff on Friday Snippets (well, it’ll be Saturday when you read them)
2WD is a strange choice I think, but then again, we are talking about Saab here.
Ageed Mag-X, pretty feeble to buy a SUV with 2-WD, worries me that is going to be what we call in Nor’n Ireland, a ‘hairdresser’s’ car - a bit of a barbie jeep?
2wd is a good idea. In OZ both Holden and Ford sell a 2wd of there SUV’s which outsell the 4wd versions. As many people who buy them here will never take them off road, and only buy them for the high driving position and the load capacity, so the do not want to pay more for systems they will not use.
There are a ton of 2WD SUVs in America too, but they are RWD. With SAAB it will definitely be FWD, which is just weird.
Does BMW, Lexus, or Merc produce a 2wd verion of thier SUV´and CUV´s? If thats not the case.. Why should Saab? Would Cadillac do a BRX (Provoq) with 2wd?
One can put it in another way: why should Saab do everything BMW, Lexus, or Merc do
I guess that 90% of SUV buyers never buy a SUV because they need the limited “off-road” capabilities. They buy it because of the things Trent noted (high driving position, load capacity),the feeling of a safe vehicle, because it’s the latest fashion. It’s like asking the question why Audi or Merc build combis with sloping rear, when a a boxy shape (like an old Volvo) is more roomy and practical - which IS the main idea behind a combi.
It’s not so unusual, some soft-SUV’s come in FWD/2WD, for instance Lexus RX and Honda CR-V.
As most SUV users never go off-road of pull a trailer, it does make sense (lower price, lower weight, better fuel economy).
I´m not shure.. But I don´t think any producer of SUV´s or CUV´s offer a 2wd variant in Sweden.. Don´t know why.. Guess the think that the would not sell.
It would be a VERY dumb move for Saab not to offer a 4 cyl. version.
Specially in the US with gas prices the way they are.
No 4 = no sale
A 2wd SUV makes some sense if you consider that most people who buy SUV’s do so for the extra height and not for 4wd. Even in snow, ground clearance is much more important than 4wd.
A non-turbo 6 cylinder base engine makes no sense at all. GM is just trying as hard as they can to take any brand value out of Saab.
Why would the average customer buy a Saab gas-guzzling SUV if they can get a Buick or a Saturn with the same engine for less?
Saab customers are not as stupid as GM believes, and I see this as the beginning of the end for Saab in North America. If the one locally made Saab flops (and it will if it’s just a gas-guzzling tarted-up version of it’s GM cousins), there will be no reason to sell the European models.
Go back just a few short years and you can see that GM used the same recipe with Isuzu: Take a brand that has great character and loyal customers, make it sell tarted-up GMC’s, close up shop after a few years.
GM needs to come to its senses before it’s too late. If the executive in charge of this boneheaded decision is reading this, consider the following: do you want to be the guy who turns Saab into GM’s Audi, or would you rather be the guy who turns it into the next Isuzu?
Volvo sells a ship
tload of 2WD XC90 as does Lexus RX so I would rather say it makes alot of sense to sell 9-4X as both 2/4WD……easy, General - SW
I guess the 2WD variation is more fitting of a CUV than a SUV, which is perhaps what Saab was going after?
Or perhaps Saab/GM realizes that SUV sales are down in NA and producing another gas-guzzling SUV is not a wise business plan for Saab?
I think the V6 engine is what people expect in a SUV/CUV, especially when majority of the 9-4X’s competitors come with a V6 (Infiniti EX35, Lexus RX350, BMW X3, Benz R350, etc…). Anything less, and you’d run into
the same situation as the Turbo X (only 280HP…?).
It makes sense to offer the 9-4X with FWD - as it has been stated already, lots of CUVs on the market come in with a 2WD option, and or many potential buyers AWD will make no difference.
I wonder which NA V6 the 9-4X is getting? Mid-200HP is indicative of the current LY7. Perhaps the engine found in the base model CTS - 263HP/253 ft-lbs (196KW/343N-m)? IMO, hardly a bad choice for the base engine.
Altough a little old, there is the 4-cyl tried and true 210hp turbo engine used in some versions of the current 9-3 Aero. Also, I guess there will be some similary spec’ed engine in the new 9-5. That and FWD will probably give excellent milage. As noted, there is absolutely nothing strange with doing the same FWD/XWD trick as Volvo.
The more I think of it, the less appealing the 9-4X will be to me. If the LY7 with the 6spd automatic is going to be the base engine, the 9-4X will be a pig on gas.
I’m really, really hoping that this base NA V6 will be a smaller version of the direct-injection 3.6 from the CTS. That engine combined with 2wd efficiency would be able to produce some respectable fuel mileage, at least equal to what a ~250hp turbo 4 would average on regular gasoline.
IF and only IF “nearly 300hp” for the turbo 6 means that it’s going to be making 290-300hp, this could mean that GM has finally decided to let Saab pick some fruit from the direct injection tree. A 10-15hp increase from the Turbo X’s power would make sense if they slapped some DI heads on the 2.8t, and 250hp sounds about right for a ~3.0 liter NA DI V6.
But then again this is GM we’re talking about so the 9-4x is going to come with a fuel-sucking LY7 while the Aero gets the same old gas-thirsty port-injection 2.8T from the 9-3 Aero/Turbo X.
This of course would make absolutely perfect sense with gas in the US trying it’s best to break $5 a gallon while the SUV bubble finally looks like it’s primed burst.
Saab should definately include the XWD system on this vehicle, it’s suppose to be the car that pushes this new technology into peoples driveways. How can it if u are offering a 2wd version of it. On top of that a front wheel drive set-up to boot. Saab should also think of beating BMW to the punch by bringing out a smaller displacement TT 4 banger for this car. If Saab is heralding their heritage of turbo charging why would u include a vehicle without it then. To be honest, all of Saab’s next-gen models should have smaller engine turbo or twin turbo set-ups. It would be very impressive considering direct injection would give some extra horses on top also. Saab pioneered turbo charging now it’s time to take it to the next level.
Well, horsepower isn’t everything. A NA 3-liter V6 with 250 hp will have a limited torque on low revs, and a 6 cylinder engine will be about 1-2 liter/100km extra in fuel consumption compared to a 4 cylinder turbo charged engine if everything else is equal. At this time, when low fuel consumption is becoming more important, why should Saab, which probably is the leading manufaturer on turbo charging standard gasoline cars, drop this compeditive edge?
Why not the Direct Injection 2.0 Twin-scroll Turbo Ecotech from the SolsticeGXP/Sky Redline? 260hp/260ft lb sounds perfect to me! That engine should be in every SAAB across the entire range.
Alex, the 2.8L V6 is not an ‘old gas thirsty engine’. I got an average 25 mpg on a recent road trip with mine and that was with some aggressive driving as well as some city. I generally average 22 to 23mpg with it which is well above the EPA combined estimate.
At any rate it is modern, sophisticated and efficient engine. Direct injection is good technology, but it is not the answer to everything. It is certainly not the answer to $5.00 a gallon gasoline.
You probably complained about the power output and handling of your Big Wheel as a kid….
DI engines typically have better fuel-economy than port injected engines. In addition to better fuel economy, they offer more power.
IMO, Saab should be embracing new technology and not be slinging GM’s older engines.
Tedjs - I think Alex meant that a SUV with the 2.8L turbo would be ~1000+ lbs more than a 9-3 aero. The fuel economy would be significantly worse than your car.
If Saab puts a 6 banger in the 9-4, you will basically get the same sales as the 9-7x.
Yes, of course it will be more “Swedish,” but it will still remain a expensive gas-guzzler.
Mileage Per Gallon is the new Horsepower.
As NineTwoX said, DI isn’t about performance at all, it’s about gas mileage. Direct injection allows you to inject fuel into the engine diesel-style, after the intake port has closed and when the piston is almost at TDC.
What does that all mean? It means that you can A: run incredibly lean a/f ratios that would make a port-injection engine knock itself to pieces, and B: it allows you to push more boost through an engine with a given static compression ratio.
Let’s compare the port-injected 210hp 2.0 HOT engine from the 03-05 9-3 Aero with the 200hp 2.0T FSI engine from the Jetta GLI. The Saab weighs in at 3250 lbs while the VW weighs in at 3350. Both engines push ~1 bar of boost, but the Saab has to use a static compression ratio of ~8.5-9:1 while the VW uses a SCR of 10.5:1. What does this all mean? While the heavier VW gets 25/32 EPA city/highway mpg’s the lighter Saab gets 20/28. That’s almost a 25% improvement over the Saab, and that’s why Saab can’t afford to not have direct injection in each and every one of their cars.
And as an epilogue for the performance-lovers (myself included), the most powerful variant of the port-injected Saab 2.0 HOT Ecotec was the 240hp version sold in the Astra VXR. The most powerful version of the VAG FSI engine is the 265 hp engine in the Audi S3.
Direct injection engines are superior to port injection engines no matter how you look at them, and it’s inexcusable that Saabs are still all port-injection when GM has direct injection versions of both the Ecotec 4 and the High-Feature V6 in their engine lineup.
And for Tedjis, the 250hp, fwd (more efficient drivetrain), 3400 lb, 6.5 second 0-60 2007 9-3 Aero averaged 17/28 city/highway. By comparison, the 300hp, rwd (less efficient), 3600 lb, 4.9 second 0-60 2007 BMW 335i manages 20/29 city/highway.
So how does a more powerful, heavier, faster car with increased drivetrain losses get better EPA numbers than the Saab? The BMW has a direct-injection engine while the Saab is port injection. It really makes THAT much of a difference.
Just so everyone knows, I’m about to blacklist Alex’s IP. This is the first time I’ve had to do this and I feel bad about doing so, but feel that I have no choice.
Alex was asked last week to refrain from commenting completely. He’s responded with a few ‘nice’ comments and seems to be back to his old ways today. I don’t have the time, temperament or the inclination to enter into discussions with Alex every time he gets into a bout of unfounded absolutism.
Trying to deliver a ‘facial’ to someone that I have a very high regard and respect for isn’t the way to get along here.
I hope I don’t ever have to do this again.
Alex, guess you didn’t get that memo, eh?
You storm into the discussion with a typically cynical, GM-bashing post. It really pisses me off. Everything Saab does is wrong, and even more so when GM is behind it. You just assume so. No matter what you’re trying to say, you’re predictable and as of late largely ignorable, too.
And there lies the problem. It’s called loss of credibility. When own opinion is shaped by perception rather than fact, you really are better of keeping it to yourself.
Nowhere in the original post was there any mention of Saab putting in a 10 year old engine into the 9-4X - your subsequent assumptions led to this line of thought. How do you know Saab is not planning a DI V6 for the base 9-4X?
Oh, but you don’t - of course! Just another excuse to come in here and vent and rant and feel important. Well, guess what buddy - this is not an AA meeting.
As Swade observed, your attitude is extremely negative and it has nothing to do with criticism, it is just negativism for the sake of it.
And just for the record, Tedjs has waaaaay more credibility than you do, based purely on his actual contributions to this website (random bashing not contending).
I also like your constructive, intelligent posts - as rare as they are.
As Alex no longer has a right of reply, can I suggest we keep any further comments on the post at hand, rather than him personally. Cheers - SW
Alex, those are great statistics and I appreciate the technical lesson on direct injection but my point stands: the 2.8L V6 is hardly an invalid powertrain choice simply because it does not have direct injection in current form as you referred to it in your most recent diatribe.
It may not be the right choice for the 9-4x, but none of us are 100% sure what is going to end up in that vehicle now, are we?
At any rate after spending a few days last week with a group of 26 Saab owners at the Aero Academy, I can tell you they all loved the V6 powered Aero 9-3’s (those that were not 9-5 owners at least) and nobody was losing their lunch because direct injection and a few MPG improvement was not yet on the menu. And as many of them were discussing their next Saab purchase, the rest of us were swarming over the Turbo X that was at the event – even with that old technology under the hood.
Unfortunately for all automakersm energy prices are rising faster than the technology can be introduced to counter with them.
And it’s quickly been forgotten that the V6 in the Saab 9-3 was a top 10 placegetter in Wards Autos Engine of the year awards just a couple of years ago.
engines for the 9-4 X
3000 V6 260 Hp 350 Nm
2800 T 300 Hp 400 Nm
20 Tid 190 Hp 400 Nm
29 v6 Tid 250 Hp 550 Nm
I don’t know of any new 3.0L GM engines.
The current Chevrolet Malibu gets the LP7 (3.6L 252HP). The Cadillac CTS gets both the LP7(3.6L 263HP) and LLT(3.6L 304HP). Even the Opel Anatra has a 3.2L Alloytec V6 (224HP). All are part of GM`s high feature V6 engine family.
GM’s high feature V6 block is expandable from 2.8L-4.0L displacement. Perhaps this is Saab`s own variation. It must also be using direct injection as 260HP is typical of only the 3.6L+ LP7.
Would Saab fan`s feel better about a NA engine in the 9-4X knowing that it`s Saab`s own and not an on-the-shelf GM engine.
Tedjs - I think the 2.8T at 300hp could be an excellent choice for the 9-4X Aero. Definitly better than a V8 or a larger displacement V6.