53 responses so far ↓

• 1 turbin // Aug 12, 2008 at 11:49 am

  Golf GT 1.4l Twincharger, 125kW/240Nm…

  BTW: article does not state that the 2.8 will be turbo.

• 2 Kroum // Aug 12, 2008 at 11:50 am

  That just makes no sense unless they slap two high pressure turbos on an all-new direct injection 1.6, and have it output more than 200 bhp. Then you could say it’s the choice for efficiency-oriented consumers who still want a large and comfortable premium sedan but are not prepared to pay the price for fuel.

  Overall, fairly mixed news about the upcoming Saab engines. I was told from credible sources the 9-5 Aero will have a range-topping engine putting out 350-380 bhp, and now Channel 4 - usually credible - reports a 1.6 liter? Meanwhile some in-the-know post significantly smaller numbers with the 2.8T making less than the current 9-3 Aero XWD.

  Dazed and confused I am.

• 3 1985 Gripen // Aug 12, 2008 at 12:05 pm

  Maybe the 1.6-liter engine will only be available in the Swedish Domestic Market, much like the 1.8i 9-3 is only available in select markets (only Sweden?). The BioPower aspect of the engine could be taken advantage of due to the widespread availability of ethanol in Sweden.

  I’d be VERY surprised if anything smaller than a V6 is available in the next-gen 9-5 in the U.S. Part of the reason the 9-5 sold so poorly (even when it was new it wasn’t exactly selling like hotcakes in the U.S.) was because it didn’t have a V6 whereas its competitors’ cars did. Bob Sinclair mentioned at last year’s S.O.C. Round Table that people wouldn’t even walk into a Saab dealership due to the lack of a V6 offering. It was a deal-breaker.

  The Cadillac CTS is going to get a direct-injected 2.8-liter V6? The current-gen base model CTS comes with a 3.6-liter V6 with variable valve timing. Is Cadillac also planning to “rightsize”? Where’s the differentiation between GM’s premium brands going?

  And I know it’s been hashed over and over here, but I don’t like those engine numbers. I mean, why won’t the 2.8T V6 output as much horsepower as the Turbo X or 9-3 XWD Aero (280 bhp)? Especially if it gets direct injection? I thought the next-gen 9-5 was going to come standard with XWD? There’s no FWD power limitation anymore if that’s the case. Same with the 2.0T. The 9-3 w/ the port-injected 2.0T is now outputting 255 bhp. Why would (an assumedly direct-injected) 2.0T 9-5 yield only 220 hp?

  These numbers just don’t make sense to me.

• 4 zippy // Aug 12, 2008 at 12:08 pm

  You never know, it could well work with two turbos and it would be highly fuel efficient - just like my new baby which I still think is the best looking midsize sport sedan out there! I am getting 28mp Imperial g around town and I drove 294 miles on 8.8 US gallons of fuel which I equate to 40mpg per Imperial gallon at an average speed of 70mph which is astounding considering she will do better if I drove like a granny. Whenever anyone got in my way a slight tickle of the gas pedal send me flying forward like I had just been severely kicked up the backside. All accompanied by a big smile on my face! I LOVE my ‘new’ Saab!!!

  I am really looking forward to seeing the new 9-5!

• 5 Swade // Aug 12, 2008 at 12:21 pm

  With regards to this:

  the 9-5 will get a 2.8 litre turbo V6 that’s similar to what’ll be in the Cadillac CTS (direct injection? If so, then yay!)

  The Caddy reference is theirs, as is the engine size. The direct injection bit has a question mark, which is merely me writing in hope.

  I assumed the turbo inclusion, and if it hasn’t got a turbo then it’s all absolutely screwed anyway from a purists point of view. I’m sure a normally aspirated V6 would find a market, but then a Saab just becomes another GM car, a body they wrapped around a generic engine.

  There is no reason, none at all, why any future Saabs should come without a turbo. I’m already feeling down on the base 9-4x in the US because of this, and the car hasn”t even been seen yet.

• 6 turbin // Aug 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm

  Hi Swade, you’re right to assume turbo with that 260hp rating, their Caddy reference is rubbish as that NA 2.8 is way lower at 211.

  Please note that a 260hp 2.8T would be correct and in-line with a FWD vehicle. I’m sure that the 9-5 will be offered with both, not everybody wants or is prepared to pay for XWD.

  For sure there will be a higher spec. engine with XWD but why let the cat out of the bag this early?

  Again, regarding a 1.6l engine (in light of the VW 1.4l), why not?

• 7 Swade // Aug 12, 2008 at 1:11 pm

  Turbin, the 1.6 is obviously do-able, but is it right? Would you want one?

  A 1.4 is fine in a Golf and a 1.6T might even pull this large car up a hill, but are people here in Australia going to pay over $50,000 for a car that will fit four or five people plus gear with a 1.6 under the bonnet? How hard is that engine going to be working and what sort of driving experience is that going to deliver?

  The 9-3 is the car for this engine IMHO.

• 8 turbin // Aug 12, 2008 at 1:34 pm

  I wouldn’t but Mr Exec in Euroland with a mini-donk tax break might.

  This is a world car and will spec differently in many markets.

  The Insignia 1.8 (including driver) comes in at 1503kg. That’s about the weight of my combi and it has 110kw/240Nm. It drives fine with four adults and luggage. Substitute the VW 1.4 in and it would theoretically drive better. Not ideal but acceptable as a bottom of the range.

  BTW: I’ll email you some stuff on the Insignia.

• 9 2-don // Aug 12, 2008 at 1:44 pm

  I will be concerned for the 9-5 if they don’t offer (as an option) a 300+bhp engine for it. People who are going to spend that kind of money are going to want to be able to brag about their horses. Everyone else will be happy with 260 I know I would!

• 10 Swade // Aug 12, 2008 at 1:45 pm

  Well, Mr Exec in Euroland is welcome to it. He can put a thin coat of oil on it and shove it up Gordon Brown’s clacker, too. Personally, whatever engine I’m getting, I want it to be fun. A small engine in a small car is fun. This just sounds like hard work to me and not like a configuration I’d like to see.

  I guess they said “base engine” in the report and Saab do get around 50% of their business from fleet sales in the UK. It’s hardly inspiring, though.

  I’ll keep my skeptics hat on until Djup Strupe tells me to take it off. If it arrives and is marketed a-la their Airflow model in the UK then I’ll give it the ignorance it deserves and keep my eye on the cars that fans of the brand will want to buy.

• 11 Saabluster // Aug 12, 2008 at 1:50 pm

  This is my first comment on here but I have been at this site nearly everyday since it was up. I can’t believe nobody has thought of the obvious. The variable compression engine. With the need to “right size” I think GM may finally decided that it is this technologies time. I do seem to remember a comment in the not too distant past that they had filled for another patent on the idea. Just a thought.

  How wonderful that would be…….but I’m afraid GM’s eroded my faith a little too much to hope for that. - SW

• 12 NineTwoX // Aug 12, 2008 at 1:58 pm

  If we look at the 2.0T ecotec, it develops about 130HP/L. Using that figure for the 1.6T, it would work out to about 208HP. This is inline with the current 2.0T offered in the 9-3. Give it a 7K+ redline, a 6pd, and a broad tq curve and the engine might pass as acceptable (but not suited for a car this large).

• 13 turbin // Aug 12, 2008 at 2:58 pm

  Just how ‘large’ will the 9-5 be?

• 14 Bruce // Aug 12, 2008 at 2:59 pm

  Those Ecotec engines are stronger than the numbers indicate. Our “other” car is a 2001 Saturn L200 with the 2.2 FI Ecotec. It’s listed as 132hp and pulls strongly even at 197,000 km. It lacks the extra breath over 70mph (110 kph) of our 9-5 (double the power with 0.1 extra liters and a much older iron block), but it clearly has more potential. I agree that 1.6 is small, but there is no reason 200 hp would not be possible in a TT version. Maybe it could even be part of a mild hybrid set-up? . . . and scrap the ethanol until they can make in quantity it from garbage, wood shavings, ect.

• 15 Smoke_Jaguar4 // Aug 12, 2008 at 3:09 pm

  1.6T? Maybe it’s a rotary design???

• 16 Z! // Aug 12, 2008 at 4:36 pm

  I think it will be the SVC 1.6T (Saab Variable Compression),
  it can produce 225HP, 305Nm and it was designed for the old 9-5 in 2000

• 17 progolf // Aug 12, 2008 at 4:45 pm

  A bigger sized 9-5 doesn’t mean that it has to be heavier! The 2.0t engine in the current 9-3 is tuned to 150 hp, a new high tech 1,6t will have no problems to match this, perhaps with a slightly lower Nm, but the engine will be lighter, use less gaz, have lower emissions, so the whole package will be more efficient. Give it BioPower and off you fly! GM is developing 4 cyls from 1,4L (perhaps even lower) to 2,0L, some even with BioPower. USA will succumb to 4 cyls, eventually. When they do, SAAB will be there with the best of the bunch!

• 18 Rescuekid // Aug 12, 2008 at 4:53 pm

  Hi,

  I wouldn’t be surprised by a 1.6 Turbo in a 9-5. The VW-Group recently launched the Skoda Superb, comparable in size with the 9-5 with a 1.4 TSI engine putting out 125 bhp! 0-100kph in 10,5 sec., top speed of 201kph, fuelconsumption 6.8l/100km. The performance is almost identical to my father’s 2002 9-5 2.0t with 150bhp. Such cars are very cheap on taxes in Europe.

  So if this 1.6 can bring 150-200 bhp and good low end torque I would choose it instead of the 2.0 Tid if I was to make the sensible choice.

  Regards.

• 19 rayman146 // Aug 12, 2008 at 5:05 pm

  If this is correct, they will probably bring the OPC engine used in the Corsa. It has an output of ca. 195HP and would be bought by a lot of potential clients in Germany at least. As they heard over and over how good the 1.4 TSi versions seem to be in VW or smaller Audis. The Passats top selling engine is currently the 1.4 TSi with 122 HP - not that much for a car of its size [4,77m]. If you can get up to 200HP in a 1.6T 9-5 the perception of getting an upgraded car might be in the minds… but it’s Saab take to move’em that far

• 20 swade // Aug 12, 2008 at 5:06 pm

  Saabluster,

  I’ve just had a peek through the archives and the last relevant Saab story i can find on the SVC engine was back in 2006, where Green Car Congress reported that a spokesman for the company (not identified) said that the technology was not a priority, but was still being looked at.

  It’d be nice…..

• 21 Moosexs // Aug 12, 2008 at 5:19 pm

  1.6t in Opel Insignia is rated 180bhp
  In current 9-5 lineup 2.0t produces 150bhp
  Audi A6 2.0TFSI has 170bhp
  BMW 520i has 170bhp
  Volkswagen Passat 1.4 TSI has 122bhp

  Having that 180hp 1.6t engine in the new 9-5 would offer (at least in Europe) great price/performance-ratio!

• 22 Jon // Aug 12, 2008 at 5:55 pm

  I would like it to be the SVC engine for many reasons but I doubt it will be. The SVC engine was shown in 2000.

  Alot has changed in Saab since then

• 23 Tobias // Aug 12, 2008 at 5:59 pm

  I agree maybe it is the SVC? As i rember the technology was working great but the engine didn’t meet the standards in noice and smoothness. The trubble was kind of hard to resolve but with more cash maybe?

  Also I agree that a smalle engine will probably sell in Europe, we have a lot of people here that by a Saab because of the sizem, safety and design. Not because of the handling and power, the want it to be as cheap as posible to own.

• 24 Saabluster // Aug 12, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  Well Swade I’m not known for my memory…But if I remember correctly it was not an official news story. It seems it was just one of the forum members on saabcentral that found out looking at online records of patents issued. Either way thats a very interesting piece you dug up. If they were still looking at it in 06 you know they are either still looking at it or have revisited it. Here is some evidence GM is revisiting some “old” technology. http://www.physorg.com/news137649222.html
  Here is what it says next to the picture “In this July 31, 2008 photo released by General Motors, a ten-year-old prototype of General Motors thermoelectric generator, which converts exhaust heat into electricity, is shown on a tail pipe in Warren, Mich.”
  This also makes me feel better in that GM has not only pushed Saabs innovation to the side, they have ignored their own innovation. They just released the picture of their 10 year old concept! If they had been still developing it all these years there would be no need to give out photos of 10 year old technology.

• 25 dsa // Aug 12, 2008 at 6:12 pm

  Swade,

  In Belgium, you pay an every year taxe depending on your engine size.

  1.4 => 204.60 euro
  1.6 => 243.67 euro
  1.8 => 282.35 euro
  2.0 => 366.43 euro
  2.8 => 702.50 euro
  4.2 => 1,888.39 euro
  5.3 => 2,376.79 euro

  In addition, the day you buy the car (new or not!), you pay a special taxe based on both power and size:

  between 71 and 85 KW => 123.00 euro
  between 86 and 100 KW => 495.00 euro
  between 101 and 110 KW => 867.00 euro
  between 111 and 120 KW => 1,239.00 euro
  between 121 and 155 KW => 2,478.00 euro
  more than 155 KW => 4,957.00 euro

  In addition, depending on the CO2, you have to pay taxes up to 1,000 euro the day you buy the car (depending on the region in Belgium), for CO2 efficient cars you get money back.

  Finally, gaz is between 1.3 and 1.6 euro per liter (depends if you have diesel or super) so even if small fuel efficient engines look strange in your country, in Europe it really makes sense. For example, my car only needs 3.8 l/100km which is about 61.9 US MPG and is very common in Europe.

  Cheers.

• 26 rayman146 // Aug 12, 2008 at 7:01 pm

  Jep, Exactly Moosexs… then it will be almost certain, that they consider the “lower spec” 180HP engine, when already in use in an Insignia - this engine has the potential to be the best buy value wise!

• 27 bamo // Aug 12, 2008 at 7:06 pm

  It would make sense in Europe (and Holland where a live), because of our taxes and fuelprices (and taxes for that). Volkswagen has already developed 1.4 L engines for their (and Skoda) range of models, including the Passat. They have 125 -150- 170 horsepower versions, which are not poor on performance.

  That’s why i have choosen to drive in the future this engine within a Skoda Superb (2009 model) and this car in bigger than a 9-5, but has less costs for owning a 9-5 in Holland. Less taxes because of the lower emissions, less fluel and the showroomprice is less because of a tax advantage. None of the current Saab models has these advantages. Currently i drive my last kilometers in a 9-3 SS.

• 28 lance // Aug 12, 2008 at 8:20 pm

  Maybe this is not the euro Crapiola model you all seem to think it is.

  In the ‘old days’ the lack of a V6 was a killer for Saab in the USA - apparently.

  OK that was then - what about now with gas at $4 a gallon +, just maybe, now, the market can take a blown 1.6 super -efficient engine in a big car - providing the have worked the cooling system out properly, becasue this engine is going to run hot - any car or aircraft engine that is ‘pushed’ to its design limits will run hot.

  And you have to wonder about the effect of altitude on the compression ratio? As soon as that 1.6 gets above 5,000 feet it is going to run out of puff.

  And VW have officially said that the new sporty Scirocco will be available with a supercharged 1.4 - 1.4 is a sports coupe- weird the ‘old’ ways but acceptable now perhaps?

  Swades is right about the 1.6 in OZ. A 1.6 new model 9-5 loaded with beer, fishing tackle, and four big blokes is not going to run interstate is it…

  In closing, is not the Saab ethos based on turbocharing small, 4 cylinder ultra efficient engines?
  having aid that, it does stink of Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, tax busting euro drone that will run at 45mpg at 60 mph/120kph on a crowded motorway/autobahn - and be good for nothing else. Oops , no, now I am agreeing with you lot, which contradicts my post.. Must be the Saab psychosis…

  Oh and go visit http://www.sasaab/com - an amazing holiday in venue in Kenya - with a lovely name.

• 29 Tobias // Aug 12, 2008 at 9:45 pm

  One aspect in Eu is the upcoming regulation for Carbonoxid emissions. Onte thought that is floatin around is that a certain percentage of a car companys sold cars most have emission belovs a certain number. So far they havent included E85 so at the moment Saab is way of in clearing that regulation. Maybe this is a way?

• 30 Pekko // Aug 12, 2008 at 9:56 pm

  even 9-x concept engine is excellent baseengine for new 9-5:
  “1.4-liter BioPower turbo engine generates a substantial 200 hp/147 kW on E85 and an even more impressive 280 Nm”

  Lot more power and torque than current 2.0t 150hp/240nm even more power than 2.0t with orginal saab tuning kit 185hp/280nm.

• 31 J // Aug 12, 2008 at 9:57 pm

  Hard to believe a 1.6 can reach the heights of a 2.0!

  Unless it’s TWIN-turbo, perhaps!

  

• 32 Bernard // Aug 12, 2008 at 10:20 pm

  A modern direct-injected 1.6 turbo could easily outperform Saab’s current 2.0T, so why not?

  I think that this is a step in the right direction, and the same engine should be offered in the 9-3 as soon as it is available.

  I don’t know why Saab fans are so conservative. Isn’t Saab the company that released a 2.0 turbo that could go head-to-head with BMW and Merc’s 2.8’s? That was 30 years ago… I doubt that most of the people here were old enough to drive back then!

• 33 Adam // Aug 12, 2008 at 10:41 pm

  Are we sure it’s a 1.6 gasoline? The torque of a 1.6TTiD would seem to make more sense when you’re talking about moving a heavy car.
  I also like Smoke_Jaguar4’s idea.

• 34 Adebisi // Aug 12, 2008 at 10:49 pm

  I personally would like to see R6 (they are working SO smooth without vibrations etc.) with small liters or even V12 engines.
  I dream for something like 2.3T R6

• 35 OLW // Aug 12, 2008 at 11:25 pm

  Dear all,
  Let me draw your attention to issue #12/2008 of the Swedish Auto Motor & Sport. In it, you´ll find a very interesting interview with some of the most important and influential Saab managers around, one of them being Knut Simonsson, Marketing Director. When the questions deal with the new 9-5, Simonsson gives the following response when ams claims that Lotus is developing a turbocharged 1,6 litre engine: “of course the new 9-5 can be equipped with a 1,6 litre engine”. Straight from the horse´s mouth!

• 36 albert // Aug 12, 2008 at 11:52 pm

  Well, the idea of putting the 1.6 turbo in the new 9-5 is not that stupid. I strongly believe we will see it happen. Maybe not immediately, but it won’t take long.
  Why?
  At this moment GM Europe produces the following engines (among others):
  - a 1.6 non turbo with 115 hp
  - a 1.6 Turbo in three power stages, 150 and 192 in the Corsa and 180 hp in the Astra.
  - a 1.8 (mk3) non-turbo with 122 hp in the Saab 9-3
  - a 1.8 (mk4) non-turbo with 140 hp in Astra, Zafira, Vectra and Insignia.
  - various 2.0 liter turbo’s ranging from 150 to 240 hp for Saab and Opel.
  - a 2.2 direct injection with 155 hp for the Vectra.
  At this moment we see that the new Insignia steps from a 1.8/140 hp to a 2.0/220 hp. This is a huge gap in the European market. So you should expect an engine to fill this gap. The 180 hp 1.6 liter could do this perfectly. The only drawback at this moment is that the torque is only rated at 230 Nm. For a heavy car that the Insignia is, that is not much. So maybe we have to wait for a direct injection version of this engine?
  We’ll wait and see….

• 37 Pär Brandt // Aug 13, 2008 at 12:35 am

  Swade,

  As you know, I did an interview with Kjell AC Bergström - head of GM Powertrain Sweden - during the Detroit show. He said that the new “right-size-E85″ engines are developed right now and will end up in a lot of different GM-cars. But they are not ready for the 9-5 launch, it will have to wait for the next generation 9-3 (2001-2012).
  He did not go into exact figures but from what I know we can expect volume from 1,4-1,6, turbocharge, high compression ratio (better for E85), direct injection and horsepower in the neighbourhood of 200 hp. Lots of torq, low down, so the engines feel “big” and powerful. I also expect that the engines will have a higher hp with E85, just like the current BioPower-engines.

  As a lot of other readers have said here: It makes sense, in Europe. Especially if you can buy cheaper E85.

  The story, in Swedish, is here:
  http://www.automotorsport.se/news/14659/etanol-%E4r-ett-dr%F6mbr%E4nsle/

  Cheers,

  Pär

• 38 aeronaut // Aug 13, 2008 at 12:59 am

  a 1.6T in the new 9-5? no thanks. i’ll be sticking with the 2.3T in my aero for a while yet i guess.

• 39 Tompa // Aug 13, 2008 at 2:04 am

  This is the sad truth.. Saab will be getting the exact same engines as Opel/Vauxhall/Some Saturns/Some Holdens.
  Saab needs to be a brand that has options like the rivals M´s, RS´s, AMG´s etc.. But they will not. Saab will fade into oblivion in ten years time if GM continues this way.. (No reason to get a Saab if Opel/Saturn/Vauxhall/Holden has the same feel and performance) And why the H has not Saab looked into turbo charging the Ecotec 2,2l?? It´s direct injected, chaindriven etc..

  A 1,6T 9-5 is not on my shopinglist either, but it might just be right with a hybrid option. Let the Hybrid electric-engine work as it did in the 9-3 BiopowerHybrid Concept Convertible… Letting the electrical engine support the gasoline engine while accelerating. THAT would be on my shopinglist.
  NG 9-5 1,6T= Maybe, but not ideal.. NG 9-5 1,6T (E85) Hybrid= Wohaaa!

• 40 1985 Gripen // Aug 13, 2008 at 3:17 am

  I’m just surprised that a larger (and therefore likely heavier) car would have the engine outputs of the current 9-3. This is supposed to be Saab’s flagship and therefore will be priced higher. To make the car attractive it should best the 9-3 in just about every category, including engine output, IMHO.

  As for the Cadillac reference, I was confused because the CTS now has a 3.6-liter V6 as its base engine. The CTS used to have a 2.8-liter V6 but apparently Cadillac decided that this normally-aspirated 210 hp base engine wasn’t good enough for Cadillac and phased it out in 2008. Coincidentally, 210 hp is the same output as Saab’s 9-3 2.0T. The 2007 CTS with 2.8-liter V6 weighs only 29 pounds more than the 9-3 2.0T.

  lance: yes, but I really don’t think that fuel prices are much of a concern for people who are buying a $45K+ car in the U.S. It’s different in Europe as it appears a lot of Saabs are company fleet cars and I’m sure due to the tax systems there the smaller the engine and less CO2 output the more financial sense it makes. In the U.S. there is no such tax system. Here if you buy a $45K+ “luxury” car with a 200 horsepower 1.6-liter engine you’re going to get laughed away from the watercooler. Saabs are looked-at as “status” cars here, it’s just that they’re the “alternative” status car. If you don’t want to be part of the BMW/Audi crowd and want to be different you get a Saab.

  Swade: I could be wrong, but I think the story saabluster was referring-to regarding the SVC was after 2006. saabyurk, in a comment to a post in November 2007 titled “Never mind the V-8…” mentioned that Saab filed for a new patent for SVC early last year, which moved the crankshaft up and down. He uploaded the patent to his website and provided a link.

  Here’s a great TS post on SVC, which includes a pic of the SVC prototype in a 9-5 mule.

  I would be absolutely ecstatic if this did turn out to be the production debut of the SVC engine. It would make all kinds of sense to debut this engine in the flagship of Saab’s lineup. It would be the epitome of the concept of “rightsizing”. That said, I don’t see it happening. I’m too jaded and cynical at this point.

  If there is indeed to be a 1.6-liter 9-5 offering and it’s not SVC, I have to believe it’s only going to be available in select markets (those primarily in Europe where taxation is based on engine displacement or CO2 output and where Saabs are commonly fleet cars and where it never really gets all that hot and the elevation is low and where ethanol is bountiful. I’m thinking Sweden…) like the 1.8i 9-3. Seriously, in what markets is the 1.8i sold?!?!

• 41 Ken H // Aug 13, 2008 at 3:18 am

  Tompa, you remember the Ford V4 engine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Taunus_V4_engine
  Saab is no stranger to using other engines, and it does not really matter if they manage to get something special out of them.

• 42 Tompa // Aug 13, 2008 at 5:21 am

  Ken, Saab is no longer the likes of the Ford V4. (Or the Triumph 4 for that matter) Saab has moved on. Saab has gone from family saloon to exclusive saloon. Saab is now a player in the higher divisions amongst such rivals as Audi and Lexus. Saab should NOT be having ALL the same engines as it´s subcousines.. Saab MUST have the most powerful and hot engines. Opel and Vauxhall are bellow and should stay there. Let them have their 1,2´s and 1,6´s but Saab should not! I will strongly HATE GM i they out a lesser engine in a 9-5 than in a Insignia. If they doo, I will abandon NEW Saabs.

  And Ken… I´m 37 years old and I´m swedish.. I know the history of Saab thanx

• 43 saabluster // Aug 13, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  Thanks 1985 Gripen. That sounds like exactly what I was thinking. And within the time-frame I was thinking. I really think there is a good chance it will be the SVC engine. Why else would they still be filling for new patents? With this last wave of fuel price increases I really think GM has done some soul searching and rethought the “path”. I’m ever the optimist though. Don’t lose faith Swade.

• 44 Markac // Aug 13, 2008 at 8:30 pm

  Swade, I think a 1.6T would be okay in the next “lighter, slightly smaller and more chuckable” 9-3,
  but I’m not sure it’s appropriate for the current one. Not sure I’d really fancy a current 9-3 combi with that engine and certainly not with XWD!

• 45 Saaboy // Aug 13, 2008 at 10:29 pm

  Before anything else, SVC would be SICK! Who knows, maybe there was something else goin on at Saab these past few years also? Anyways…

  Everyone that’s complaining about having a ‘little’ ‘1.6′ liter engine in a big ‘flagship’ 9-5… whats the big deal? Its not gonna be the top of the line engine choice, but its gonna be an excellent choice for a lot of european markets! I have no doubt its gonna have decent torque and such…

  And yes, I love my 2.3T aero engine.

• 46 WooDz // Aug 14, 2008 at 1:53 am

  Tompa: I think you are becoming a bit too fanatical about Saab.
  Volkswagen and Audi do a very good job in sharing engines
  Some will buy the Passat over an A4 because essentially it is the same car but many still buy Audi for the name, extra quality and prestige.

  .

• 47 Bernard // Aug 14, 2008 at 2:25 am

  In related news, the 2009 Audi A6 will have a 2.0 125 kW (170 hp) base gasoline engine, so there’s no reason to think that Saab won’t be competitive with a 1.6 if they can match the torque and power. The 2.3T would get 180 hp if scaled-down to 1.6, and that’s without direct injection.

• 48 NJ_Nick // Aug 14, 2008 at 2:38 am

  They can put a lawn mover engine in the base model for all I care. But if SAAB does not have a NG 9-5 Aero that measure up to the top performing engines of the competition (i.e. BMW 5-series and Audi A6), I will be forced to go and cry on the shoulders of a Caddie-dealer. Brrrr…..

• 49 saabluster // Aug 14, 2008 at 2:42 am

  I cannot believe what I’m hearing from Saab folks here. Without any knowledge of just how much power the 1.6 would have they are dismissing it offhand. How long have we complained about people who court other brands dismissing Saab when they hear it has a 4 cylinder without ever driving them. I don’t care if they put a .6 liter in a Saab as long as it has the power we need. Doing more with less. Its the Saab way. In more way than one. Where have the real Saab fans gone.

• 50 Joel // Aug 14, 2008 at 6:07 pm

  I think the ideal Saab small engine would be the 1.6 SVC inline 5, but also with a small turbo bolted on. Twincharged, that thing would HAUL! Plus it would still get great gas mileage, not take up too much space, and that extra cylinder would make it even more torquey!! BUILD IT, SAAB!

• 51 albert // Aug 14, 2008 at 9:52 pm

  As long as Mercedes-Benz is doing good business with the base E-Class equipped with a 1.8 liter supercharger engine with an output of 184 hp/ 250 Nm, then why could Saab not sell a good 1.6 with DI-turbo-VVT etc. in a 9-5??

• 52 Adrian // Aug 15, 2008 at 4:31 am

  As has been said - VW’s TFSI. CO2 is king in europe these days, and that means diesel - but diesel running costs are now getting towards the same as those of petrol. Add in the well-known issues common rail diesels have with mis-fuelling (chuck petrol in, wave good-bye to a couple of grand for injection pumps etc) and failing dual-mass flywheels (needed to smooth them out) - and the peakiness of the rev range, and there’s going to be a kick towards petrol if they can get the CO2 towards the same level.

  Not only are higher-CO2 cars much more expensive to tax over here, but the UK’s company car tax rules say that cars with high CO2 can’t be written-down in the accounts anywhere near as quickly as they’ll actually depreciate.

  The lowest-CO2 9-5 is currently enough above that threshold that there’s no way massaging can get it under. Only 1.9TiD (not TTiD) manual-box 9-3s come in under. The Passat TFSI is under that limit. If they can sneak the forthcoming 9-5 under that limit, fan-bloody-tastic…

• 53 Kelek0o // Aug 15, 2008 at 7:39 am

  Hey if it gets the job done. Will the new 9-5 Aero really receive XWD and a turbocharged V6 that puts out 350hp? I hope so. I’ve read that on a few other websites…