Djup Strupe and the Saab 9-3
This is an interesting one and I’m intrugued for a couple of reasons.
I got an email today from a person who created an email account under the name Djup Strupe. When I get other Saab insider information, I generally have an idea of that person’s position and therefore their credibility as a source. I generally write my article in a way that describes my level of caution about the material.
In this instance, with the email coming in the name of Djup Strupe, I have no idea who it is. It could be a genuine Djup Strupe or it could be someone knowing that I use the name Djup Strupe for inside sources and trying to fool me.
That’s the first piece of intrigue. Djup Strupe, who are you?
Now, on to the contents of the email. Here’s what Djup Strupe had to say:
Heard from some reliable sources that there is talk, (or already even determined?) that there will be no v6 in the 9-3. Low volume and emissions being the reason. Originaly planed to be updated to the v6 today in the insignia. Now, its scratched. Is this the last year you can order a v6 in the small Saab?
So that’s it.
Low volume: Around 70% of Saab’s sales in the US are 9-3s and of these, around 70% or more are 2.0Ts. That’s low volume for you.
Emissions: This is something I don’t know so much about, but naturally, it’s a concern in this ever greening world.
The bigger picture for me is what impact that might have on Saab’s image.
Saab only got the V6 in 2006 and it’s something that people had been asking for for some time. Bob Sinclair himsled said it was something they were clamouring for since the late 1980s. Now that Saab have got a (superb) V6, it’s regarded more as being underpowered (mostly by people who don’t have one or haven’t driven it) than it is as one of Wards’ top 10 engines of 2006.
Can they afford to lose that option in what is their best and biggest selling vehicle right now?
Well, maybe in 2009 they can.
The new Saab 9-5 will come eventually, and it’ll be bigger and I’d donate a kidney to my neighbors cat if it didn’t come with a V6 option. With the majority of Saab sales being turbocharged fours, would they still need the V6 in that line, or would they be better off concentrating that option in the 9-5?
It’s an intriguing thought.
Unfortunately, given that I don’t know this Djup Strupe at all, I can’t give you any idea as to the credence you can place on this info.
-
More from this category
- Saab rumours abound….
- Update on Euro Delivery Program for US market
- “Saab is working according to plan”
- US dealers flogging courtesy cars as things get….touchy
More from this author
- Saab Hybrid spotted in Netherlands!
- Wednesday Snippets II
- Wednesday Snippets
- Saab Barn Find (sort of) - for sale!
Subscribe to this author
Recent Comments
- Robin M on Saab Hybrid spotted in Netherlands!
- MarkoA on Saab rumours abound….
- Ken H on Wednesday Snippets
- Talonderiel on Wednesday Snippets II
- Joel on Aero-X in alt colors
- MitchbSC on Wednesday Snippets II
- me on Wednesday Snippets II
- tom on Wednesday Snippets II
- Jeff on Wednesday Snippets II
- swade on Wednesday Snippets II
My initial thought is that the lack of a “halo” within the product line could relegate the 9-3 to middle-tier status as a European sporting sedan. We all hope that Saab can make the case as a leading car, but if it’s a mid-model, that’s that.
This thing with a trend towards smaller engines is for real now. I read the other week some statistics about Sweden. Something like the demand for new cars with engines smaller than 90 bhp were up like 40% and demand for engines with more than 150 bhp were done in a big way. And that’s in Sweden were gas prices don’t have the same traumatic effect as in the US. I know about the high-end and halo effect and so on with a V6, but they need to be able to sell the cars. Mercedes and Volvo are down something like 50% this year in Sweden in private sales! They have made up for most of it through people buying cars as company cars instead. But for how long? The buyers are currently voting with their feet in a big way and I guess the auto industry will look completely different in 5 years time.
Well the 2.0T with DI produces 260HP…so the 9-3 should start using that engine.
I heard the same rumour. Apparently the delta II-platform isn’t fit/made for v6 engines. As the 9-3 is downsizing in size to astra level, the motorisation follows. In volume, not in HP.
As Charles also indicated : the new 4 cylinder 2.0 turbo produces 260HP with a much better fuel economy then the present v6 2.8l. So why bother ?
I think it is a good decision. Anyhow, a “real Saab” comes with a 4 cylinder turbo.
The next 9-5 will come with 6 cylinder engines however so those who want to spill petrol, can still buy a saab ;-).
I don’t see the V6 going anywhere. Many people in the US will absolutely not consider a four cylinder.
I find it hard to believe that the V6 option would just go away – especially with XWD now an option on the 9-3, but you never know with GM. The 2.0T is a spirited performer in the 9-3, but the V6 with its signature growl and effortless ability to get the vehicle up to speed make it the option to have. It makes the 9-3 feel like a much more upscale vehicle and given the price point of the AERO model – a V6 is mandatory.
Mag-X,
Probably so, but what if there are 50 times more people that will *not* consider anything bigger than a four cylinder? Saab need products that finds a new and bigger audience.
This is not the first time that Saab has dropped the V6.
Every few years, Saab US gets the idea that they need a V6 in order to move some metal. The bastard child eventually shows-up at huge engineering expense, the sales impact is minimal, and the V6 gets quietly dropped with a quiet mutter of “nevermind” from the US brass.
The only remaining impact of the NG900 and 9-5 V6’s are appalling residuals and wasted R&D resources.
Saab can and should offer the 260hp DI four in the Aero, and spend some money homologating their Biopower engines in the US. We’ve been talking about the latter for years now, and it’s becoming embarrassing for GM to claim to be focused on biofuels when they won’t sell their best biofuel platform in their biggest market.
V6’s are for Buicks, Mercs and minivans. As has been established before, nobody cross-shops those with Saab anyways.
If GM can throw a 260 horsepower Ecotec in the Cobalt, then they should be able to throw together a 300+hp version for the NG9-3. Remember that the Ecotec block can go up to ~2.4 liters, so they could even bring back the iconic Saab 2.3 displacement number for this engine. My issue with the V6 was that they chose it to do a job that a good 4 could have done just as well (and still does in the 9-5).
That, to me is what Saab is all about, making more power with fewer cylinders, so I’ll have absolutely no problem with the next-gen 9-3 Aero if it has a 300+ hp turbo 4. Hell Saab could do something REALLY groundbreaking and throw together a twin sequential turbo setup like the TTID so that this new engine could make 300+hp with 2 liters but still drive like the old V6 did. In a lighter, more responsive car than then current SS, Saab could have it’s first true M3 killer.
I heard that 9-3 2.0T in NA from January 2009 onward is going to be flex-fuel. Has anyone else heard this?
Well, your Djup Strupe is not saying that Saab will drop the V6 in the actual version of the 9-3.
And I think you should look in the posts about the new 9-3. The V6 has been discussed there. I am sure that the V6 will not fit into the engine bay of a car based on the global premium component architecture (or whatever name they give it).
However a 2.0 liter DI can be pushed to at least 300 hp, so who cares? And for those who care: look at ovloV. They made a 5-cil version. Based on the 2.0 DI, that should be good for 325 - 375 hp!
And let it be known that I have no problem with V6’s in Saabs, I just think that they ought to be used for jobs that the turbo 4’s simply can’t do. Need a grunty engine with no turbo lag and plenty of low-end torque for the 9-4X and NG9-5, then a ~280hp 2.8t would be perfect. Need a high-powered engine to go up against the V8’s that the competition has? A ~360+ hp 3.6T would be a perfect halo engine for the NG9-5. But when you need an athletic ~300hp engine to motivate the “Aero” model of your small sedan, there’s no reason why it has to be a port-injected 6 when GM has a direct-injected 4 that can do the job with less fuel and less displacement.
How much are kidneys worth on the “organ market” ?
The reality is that is SAAB wants to play with the big boys they need to have a V6 with 300+ bhp capability. We saw this with the launch of the Turbo-X. Even if this makes up only a small portion of the sales it should still be offered. If other companies can meet emissions requirements with a V6 then SAAB can too. Am I expecting too much from my favorite marquee?
I will buy a SAAB no matter what, but I really am bummed about the lack of hp. I know that SAAB could produce a high-end model with a 300 hp turbo 4 or a 300+ hp V6. This is certainly the case here in the US where hp does matter.
I constantly hear “your car is really fast…for only having 205 hp” (2002 9-3 SE). I have heard people say “that Turbo-X looks very interesting, but not enough hp”. Everyone can have their opinions as to whether or not it is silly, but it is the American consumer. The consumer can find other products, and they have proven that they are more than willing to so when you look at the sales figures.
I think the real problem with the V6 is that it is technologically behind other engines that have been out for a few years. That engine needed a twin turbo layout and direct injection to further improve power bandwidth and efficiency. I suspect the twin turbo probably never happened because of the engine layout and cooling. Its too bad direct injection wasn’t part of the picture as the engine could use more efficiency.
The present turbo layout can’t gain much HP most likely because the turbo cant breath any harder. Isn’t this engine boosting from only 1 bank of cylinders? Or is it some how being fed by both banks ? Never the less, It’s more optimized for midrange power missing what I consider powerful torque below 2000 RPM and sinking fast after 4500 RPM. Just look at the ratings of all the ECU updates (lots of torque, not much peak HP gain).
Dont get me wrong. I love what they have been able to do with the engine with all the compromises. But I think the competition has done it better. So to rectify a bit of short comings in the engine, I’ll be doing a BSR stage 1 for my Turbo X next spring. At the very least this will significantly widen the torque curve by 1000 RPM elevating it below 2000 RPM where I think it’s badly needed. In fact according to the BSR engine graph, at 1500 RPM it can generate more torque than the Turbo X’s peak around 2200.
This is my first 6cyl ever. I’ve driven turbo 4 SAAB’s for over 20 years. Only thing I miss is my 4cyl efficiency (even on a Abbott tuned 2.3T).
Yes the GM 260 HP turbo 4 is nice in power but I hear it’s not refined power. Coarse etc. From the specs on the GM web site, it has no low end torque (peak at 2500-5000).
Barry
Why would Saab want to “play with the big boys?”
I’m going to go ahead and assume that the “big boys” are BMW and Merc. Why would Saab want to play their game, on their field, by their rules, especially when it’s been established that Saab’s core constituency isn’t the least bit interested in what the repmobile crowd wants?
Saab’s best sales years were when they had product that was diametrically opposed to what the “big boys” had. Their worst sales years (and this year is undoubtedly one) are when they introduce “me-too” products that are neither fish nor fowl.
Take the Turbo-X (or any V6 Aero): it’s heavy, not quite as “fast” as the German top-line models, decidedly uneconomical, and totally dilutes the brand message. In short, its the very antithesis of the intelligent sports sedan, and yet it sits at the top of the Saab range.
For every single sale that the V6 brings in, Saab looses multiple sales because the average person no longer knows what Saab stands for. Saab reviews use to be about what made Saab different (turbo, front wheel drive, safety, ergonomics, handling, load capacity); Turbo-X reviews are all about how the car is “almost” German. No one is going to buy an “almost” car unless it is heavily discounted.
You can’t be an intelligent sports sedan if your top-line model is a brute with a hammer. You can’t be distinctive if your flagship is a wannabe. You can’t be efficient if your aspirational car is a gas guzzler.
Bernard:
Good points, but what I would like to make clear is that you can have both. You can depend on 50% - 75% of your sales through the right-size method. People who are going to buy these cars are going to do just that.
The lack of the headline-grabbing, dare I say, “numbers-driven” car prevents new converts from even looking at the brand. Look at how the press compares cars. They test the big German hammers against everyone else’s hammers. This is better publicity than a marketing campaingn can provide. Need proof? How are the big German hammers doing?
SAAB can be true to their constituency and look to attrack some of the ugly Americans who like their power. That would be me. I love my turbo 4. I am impressed with what it can do with what it works with. However, in the absence of a 300 HP high-end turbo 4 I am yearning for a V6 with lots of torque and power. America is SAABs biggest market and people won’t even look at the brand until it at least offers big power to complement its awesome XWD.
Does it make me less of a true SAABer since I want power from a Swedish powerplant instead of a German one? Unfortunately I do not think that the brand can afford such an attitude. That is how I see the reality.
You hit the problem with the Turbo X right on the head Bernard, it tried to run with the germans and beat them at their own game, but because of a lack of funding it failed miserably and it’s just about the only limited-edition European performance car I know of that’s going to have unsold units at the end of it’s model year. That takes some serious skill.
I’m not saying that Saab needs to give up the performance game, if anything I think they need to pursue that market much more aggressively, but I think they need to focus more on “responsible performance”. Now when I say “responsible performance”, I don’t mean “build cars that fall way short of the competition and then try to make excuses for them by saying they’re ‘responsible’” which seems to be Saab’s M.O. for the 00’s. I mean build cars that can beat the “bigger, heavier, more powerful” German cars, but with methods that are totally in line with Saab’s design ethics.
Take the C900 Aero/SPG for example and compare it to the 325IS, it’s German competition. The C900 Aero/SPG made more power than the 325IS, except that instead of a 2.5 liter inline-6, the Saab used a more fuel efficient 2.0L Turbo 4. Thanks to the generous torque curve of the C900 Turbo, the SPG was actually more in the performance class of the E30 M3, at least in a straight line and from a roll. Handling-wise the C900 was also among the best of it’s day, FWD, RWD, or AWD thanks to it’s innovative mechanicals. On top of it all, it offered a level of utility and practicality that none of it’s German competition could match. Most importantly, this was reflected in strong sales for the C900.
Saab needs to get back to it’s roots and remind us about what it stood for not just through stupid styling exercises like the Aero-X and the 9-3 facelift, it needs to do so by building cars that are different right down to their mechanical roots. Some might say that this is now more difficult thanks to platform sharing, but look at Saabs like the 9000 and the 9-5, which upheld all of Saab’s uniqueness while being built on shared platforms, and more importantly were still able to reach parity with the Germans while still following Saab’s design ethos.
So I think that Saab does need a car that can run with the M3 and the RS4, I just don’t think it needs to be a big, heavy car powered by a V6 or a V8. The STI and Evo proved that you can get sub-5 second 0-60 times and M3-beating handling done with a ~300hp turbo 4 and a FWD-based compact car platform, now let’s see Saab run with that idea. What would be more Saab-like than a new lightweight, downsized 5-door hatchback 9-3 Aero, with a 320hp twin-sequential turbo 4 and and XWD that can run with the M3 and thoroughly thrash the 335i while being priced in the mid-40’s?
3 new SAAB-models to be introduced in 2009.
According to an interview the norwegian newspaper Dagens Næringsliv (Norwegian Business Daily) have done with CEO Petter Smedby in GM Norway, SAAB wil introduce three NEW models on the norwegian market in 2009.
Two of them must be the all new 9-5 and the new model-line 9-4X. And I would guess the thired would be 9-3X, or could we hope for 9-1?
Rune
3 new SAAB-models to be introduced in 2009.
According to an interview the norwegian newspaper Dagens Næringsliv - http://www.dn.no (Norwegian Business Daily) have done with CEO Petter Smedby from GM Norway concerning the new Opel Insignia, he mention that SAAB wil introduce three NEW models on the norwegian market in 2009.
Two of them must be the all new 9-5 and the new model-line 9-4X. And I would guess the thired would be 9-3X, or could we hope for 9-1?
Rune
I agree that Saab should focus on making the 4cyl engine their staple once again.
After all look at BMW announcing now that they plan on investing heavily on 4cyl
technology for a new engine. Saab could re-establish the bulk of their line-up with a varied
option between a 2.0T and a 2.0TT as the aero model. You better believe that BMW’s
4cyl engine will have specs off the charts for such a small engine and I would hate to see
that as an avenue Saab could have explored first!
*IF* Saab replaces the LP9 (2.8L turbo V6) with the LNF (2.0L DI turbo-4), this would make a lot of sense.
First, the V6 is a very low volume, Saab specific design. This means it’s relatively expensive for parts and support. Saab needs to reduces costs where it can, so this is a very attractive place to start.
Second, this may reduce production costs by simplifying the assembly line and specialized equipment needed for the V6
Third, the LP9 and the LNF have almost identical performance profiles (HP and torque). The LNF, however, weighs less. This is good for performance and fuel economy, especially considering the competition (BMW, Audi, etc…). The LNF appears to have room for more output, or a displacement increase to replace the Turbo-X engine.
Prediction: Saab drops the 9-3 V6, introduces the LNF as the H.O. engine for the Aero and keeps the current 4-cylinder (LK9) for the entry-level model. A 2.2L version is released for the Viggen/Turbo-X line.
Alex,
I would buy the high performance turbo 4 that you speak of in your comments. My main point is that performance should be on par or better than the competition rather than sub-par. Yes, this would be reserved for the high end and most expensive models.
When SAAB was at it’s peak it was not only due to the fact that it had right-sized engines. SAAB was at it’s peak because it’s right-sized 2.0 and 2.3 engines could produce more hp than much bigger V6s that came from Germany. One has to take excellent performance (in relation to peers) into account when considering what people love about SAAB. Performance and Responsibility.
310-320hp and the 9-3 Aero would be more powerful than any of it’s V6 competition. That could easily be pulled off with a 2.2-2.4 liter I-4 using DI and twin sequential turbos, and Saab could build that engine for about what a TTiD mill costs. Hell, if Saab wanted to REALLY push the “responsible performance” angle, they could give these 2.4TT-equipped 9-3 Aeros something like the Manettino dials on Ferraris that let the driver switch between power and suspension settings. Starting there, Saab could have an “economy” setting that locks out the second turbo and lets the car drive like a fuel-sipping 200hp LPT model, with the big turbo only used in “sport” or “track” modes.
Very interesting debate about whether Saab should have a V6 in the 9-3 lineup. I tend to think Saab should offer the V6 in the U.S. market, and I’ve been very impressed by the current 2.8 turbo. I wish it were more efficient, but with direct injection and perhaps slightly less displacement and a little more boost, maybe it could get there.
But, when I looked into this, I found it’s not so bad as is. I considered the cars Alex mentioned — Subaru WRX (incl. STi) and Mitsubishi EVO — precisely because they illustrate the possibilities of four cylinder high performance. But take a look at their EPA numbers: they’re real close to the 9-3 Aero. In fact, even the thirsty Turbo X beats the EVO on the highway. So, all that extra performance hurts efficiency, despite the smaller displacement four cylinder format. I’d take the extra refinement of the Saab V6 any day.
Even so, I agree Saab should push the performance/efficiency envelope with high-power turbo fours. That is Saab’s tradition, and the marque should capitalize on it. But that doens’t mean it shouldn’t offer a V6 for those who want one in the 9-3, much as Saab did in the early days of the 9-5, when the SE with the V6 was luxury oriented and the performance crew got the 2.3 Turbo in the Aero.
From a cash stand point. Why drop a ton of cash designing a a 280 V4 when you already have the 280HP V6. We all know the last thing SAAB needs at this point is another cash sink whether or not it pays off in the end.
Perhaps they’ll simply take the current 9-5 4cyclinder for the Aero versions.
oops, posted too soon, I was going to say that going further with my “Manettino” analogy, the Saab performance settings could take advantage of how Haldex works and totally disable AWD in the economy mode. Imagine the marketing potential of that, a car that can go from being a fuel-sipping 200hp FWD commuter car to a 320hp M3-killing XWD screamer with the simple push of a button. It would be huge if done right.
isnt the idea of changing the platform also going to reduce to overall weight of the car? so hopefully a 300+bhp in a lighter car will make up for the lack of V6. The V6 isn’t a Saab trademark so i can’t really see why it should be in the 9-3, in the 9-5 its ok because thats a bigger car, and possibly the 9-4x but in the 9-3 does it really matter. 2.3l would do just fine
Ok. I have no idea what has already been said. But I’m going to say a little more.
Is the 2.8T not the 2.8 engine that the base CTS used before the 08 CTS? Now that no other car is using the 2.8 engine, and Saab is only using the 2.8T it makes sense to kill it off.
We know of a 3.0 engine being developed from the 3.6. This engine could find its way into a 9-5.
Also, since the 9-3 is basically staying the same size, or getting a little smaller, with the 2.0T that produces 260 the car still might be able to achieve awesome numbers.
Alex,
I would also buy this car that you speak of. I would have to save up for a while….but I would buy it.
Rune said:
“3 new SAAB-models to be introduced in 2009.
According to an interview the norwegian newspaper Dagens Næringsliv - http://www.dn.no (Norwegian Business Daily) have done with CEO Petter Smedby from GM Norway concerning the new Opel Insignia, he mention that SAAB wil introduce three NEW models on the norwegian market in 2009.
Two of them must be the all new 9-5 and the new model-line 9-4X. And I would guess the thired would be 9-3X, or could we hope for 9-1?”
Sometimes SAAB intentionally(?) muddies the word “model” when what really should be said is “version”. SAAB has two model lines globally, the 9-3 and the 9-5. For now I’m not counting the 9-7X. The 9-4X will be the third model, and the potential 9-1 the fourth.
If this interview is correct, I suspect two of the “models” to be the 9-5 sedan and sportcombi, and the third “model” to be the 9-4X. Unless previous rumour of the delayed launch of the 9-5 sportcombi is true, then maybe the third model could be the 9-3X.
The 9-5 SportCombi is definetely coming year later than the Sedan version.
Remember when Swade was reporting from the Saab Festival the term “responsible performance” was brought-up? I think that there may be infighting between GM and Saab and perhaps even within Saab itself about trying to “keep up” in the horsepower wars. I honestly believe this is why the Turbo-X “only” has 280 bhp. We all know that even the port-injected inline-4 2.3-liter engine in the current 9-5 can be tuned to output 300 bhp. Hirsch offers this tuning. To think that Saab can only get 280 bhp out of a 2.8-liter V6 is silly. It’s no longer a matter of applying too much power to the wheels since the advent of XWD like it was in FWD applications.
Is this Djup Strupe saying that the V6 will no longer be offered in the current iteration of the 9-3 or it won’t be available in the next-gen one? I mean, they just now figured-out what platform they want to build it on. I would be surprised if such engine decisions have been made this far in advance.
Ideally I think (and have thought for a while now) that the 9-3 should max-out with a high-output inline-4 and the 9-5 (and 9-4X) should be the only vehicles to offer a V6. The 9-5 is the flagship and an exclusive V6 engine gives yet another reason for a prospective buyer to “upgrade” to a 9-5. It’s absolutely ludicrous that Saab offers a V6 in the 9-3 but not the 9-5 and at a lower price point.
Lastly, the current 9-3 has its V6 wedged-into the engine bay and it barely fits. I feel this is going to cause owners some serious grief in years to come when those engines begin to require out-of-warranty repairs. I’ve heard from my Saab indie mechanic, who heard from the dealer mechanic, that the V6 is a pain as it has to be pulled out of the car for many repairs. While under warranty this isn’t a big deal, but when the miles (and years) start adding-up on these cars I think owners will get an unpleasant surprise.
Gripen said: “Ideally I think (and have thought for a while now) that the 9-3 should max-out with a high-output inline-4 and the 9-5 (and 9-4X) should be the only vehicles to offer a V6. The 9-5 is the flagship and an exclusive V6 engine gives yet another reason for a prospective buyer to “upgrade” to a 9-5. It’s absolutely ludicrous that Saab offers a V6 in the 9-3 but not the 9-5 and at a lower price point.”
Agree. 9-5 and 9-4X should have high-output V6s as flagship and upper-end models.
Interesting moves by Audi and Bimmer recently …. dropping big-displacement 8s and 10s in favor of smaller, turbocharged 6s and 8s:
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/News/Search-Results/Industry-News/Audi-S4-details/
http://www.motorauthority.com/report-new-bmw-m5-to-drop-v10-in-favor-of-turbo-v8.html
Smoke_Jaguar4: those are some very good and valid points, especially concerning reducing the overhead of having a Saab-specific engine. Another thing to point-out is that the V6 is shipped from Port Melbourne, Australia where it’s manufactured to Sweden where it’s put into the 9-3. I believe the D.I. Ecotec is manufactured in Kaiserslautern, Germany. That’s a much shorter trip.
Currently if I go to my local Saab dealer and buy a 9-3 Aero that engine started in Australia, traveled halfway around the world to Trollhattan, then the car was loaded on a ship and taken across the Atlantic, through the Panama Canal, and up the west coast of North America. That’s a long way to be shipping an engine.
The LP9 in the 9-4X is being shipped from Australia to Mexico where it’s assumedly then transferred to a train to be taken to GM’s assembly plant in land-locked Ramos Arizpe. This isn’t nearly as long a trip as the LP9 engine takes to Trollhattan, but it’s still pretty long. Haldex’s plant in Irapuato, Mexico manufactures the XWD system, so this is much more convenient for the 9-4X but not so much for the 9-3 and 9-5.
Ah, globalization. Taking advantage of low third world wages, lax environmental and safety regulations, and cheap oil.
In order to try kill of some speculations…
The V6 found in Saab 9-3 is a part of General Motors High Feature engine family, a family that is designed for displacemenets between 2.8 and 3.8 liters with either forced induction or natural aspiration aswell as port injection or direct injection. It is not Saab specific, the only thing Saab specific with that engine is the software and the plastic engine covers which says “Saab”. A single twin scroll mitsubishi heavy industries TD04 series turbo is fed by both banks. The engine is Saabs first to feature variable valve timing, a twin scroll turbocharger and an electronic charge air bypass valve. It’s currently the newest engine family offered in a Saab. All Saab V6 engines are assembled in Port Melbourne, Australia.
The Saab specific engine used in the current 9-5 will not be used in any future model. All engines for future production of the current 9-5 are already assembled and ready to be installed while the Södertälje-plant that made those engines have been sold off to Scania. This engine does also not fit in the current 9-3.
The four cylinder engine in the current 9-3 is based on the second generation family II engine (or L850). It’s an engine designed to be expandable between 1.8 to 2.4 liters using different bores and strokes. Like with the V6 the larger displacements are generally reserved for naturally aspiranted engines, and with family II only the 2.0 version is reinforced for forced induction. With the V6, only the 2.8 is currently reinforced for forced induction. One reason why the largest displacements are avoided with forced induction is that it leaves little cylinder wall thickness to handle the higher combustion pressures. 2.0 turbo engines that have been tuned generally run into problems when outputs are reaching 400 hp, but even lower output engines have suffered from related issues.
The 1.6T engine that may found it’s way into next 9-5 is “family I” based and the 1.4T found in the concepts 9-X and Air was “family 0″ based. Both these engines use cast iron blocks and don’t use balance shafts.
Volvo uses a five cylinder engine yes, but their engine has a rather small bore spacing, only 91 mm for use with 80-83 mm bores. That makes the engine quite short for a five cylinder engine. It may not be possible to expand the family II engine for an addition cylinder given that it has a larger bore spacing.
Saabs earlier V6 found in 9-5, ng900 and 9000 was based on Opels 54 degree V6, and engine known to be all but a stable platform for a forced induction engine. Before that engine Saab had actually made a V8 prototype using two of their inline fours. That V8 produced 300 hp without forced induction, but GM wanted them to use their V6 instead, unfortunatly.
The problem with the current V6 though is that it delivers a power output that could be delivered by a four cylinder engine. It is also in need of direct injection to decrease its fuel consumption. I would also like to see it with a variable displacement oil pump, an electric coolant pump and variable exhaust cam phasing. That should reduce its thirst a bit.
Sequantial turbocharging isn’t used anymore, the TTiD engine for instance uses two stage charging, and it have been rumored that Audi will be using two stage charging for their next high power five cylinder gasoline engine too, yes it would probably not take that long until we see two stage charging even for gasoline engines. An optional technology is variable nozzle turbines, something that is now used on gasoline engine by Porsche, made possible by a more heat resistant turbocharger (earlier VNT turbos was usually limited to turbine inlet temperatures of about 820 degC).
The emissions problems mentioned is probably the european 120 g CO2/km fleet average for 2012.
1985 Gripen: LNF is made in Spring Hill, USA, while Saabs current 2.0t and T are made in Kaiserslautern, Germany, along with for instance the supercharged LSJ engine (mostly used by U.S. brands).
By the way, if I remember correctly the V6 engine block is made in Mexico, so if you in the future buy a 9-4X 2.8t in Australia it may be possible that the engine block is shipped to Australia from Mexico, only to be shipped back again as a complete engine, and then back to Australia again as a complete car.
I’d agree that a V6 should be offered with the new 9-5 and as it is a bigger/heavier car than the 9-3, it should also be offered with a bigger version of the engine. Somewhere between 3.0 to 3.4 litres.
As to the next 9-3, I’m quite happy if it loses the V6. A high output 2.4 DI turbo 4 is far more ‘Saab’ than a Holden V6. The next 9-3 is supposed to be designed for better effiency across the board and to be honest, the V6 isn’t that efficient. Anyway it seems likely that the Delta II platform can’t accomodate a V6, so fitting one possibly isn’t an option.
Thanks Johan, yes the V6 block would have been made here in Melbourne except the prospective manufacturer collapsed spectacularly when the block casting plants construction costs blew out and the banks pulled the plug.
So an Aero or Turbo X here has a block that has gone Mexico-Melbourne-Trollhattan-Melbourne.
I’ve said before that I think Saab ought to keep the tooling for the H-engine around and I still stand by it. Like Johan said, the Ecotec has some issues reliably handling high levels of boost thanks to it’s economy-minded design and aluminum construction. Does the ecotec even have a closed-deck design or siamesed cylinder bores? Those things are crucial when you’re trying to make a high-boost engine reliable, and the H-engine is a strong closed-deck iron design.
This would be good for Saab because it would allow them to build a high-output turbo 4 without having to work around the Ecotec’s weaknesses. All the H-engine needs is a new head with direct injection and variable valve timing to bring it into the 21st century, and Saab will have a 4-cyl mill that will be able to easily and reliably put out 300+ horsepower.
Keeping an old engine around for high-power applications is nothing new to the automotive world. BMW did it with the almost 20 year old S38 in the E34 M5, an engine that could trace it’s heritage back to the M1 in the 70’s and they did it again when they kept the cast-iron block around for the E36 and E46 M3’s. Porsche has also done it with the 997 911 GT3, which has an engine that’s based off of the air-cooled mill from the decades old 962 engine. Furthermore, on a cheaper price point Mitsubishi kept the 80’s era 4G63 around for it’s Lancer Evolution models long after that engine left the rest of it’s product lineup. By those tokens I’d love to see Saab keep the H-engine around as a limited-run, hand built engine for their halo models.
The H-engine is legendary in tuning circles, and has a reputation for handling high amounts of power that rivals that of the 4G63, the 4AGE and the best of Honda’s products. Keeping an updated H-engine with a twin-stage turbo system and a new DI/VVT-equipped head wouldn’t be particularly expensive and would be a huge boon to the NG9-3 Aero’s performance reputation. At least that’s what I’d like to see.
Johan: you might have better information than I do, but from what I’ve read only the Ecotec engines destined for Saturn models are manufactured in Spring Hill, Tennessee (which is where Saturn is headquartered). So the LNF engines found in the Pontiac Solstice GXP, Chevy HHR, and Chevy Cobalt SS are manufactured in Tonawanda, New York? I would imagine the Opel GT (essentially a rebadged Saturn Sky Redline) engine is made in Spring Hill.
I guess if Saab were to start using the LNF they’d either need to begin importing them from the U.S. rather than Germany or begin producing them in Germany as well.
On an unrelated subject, GM now has cylinder deactivation technology built-into some of its engines. For example, the V6 engine in the Chevrolet Impala can “shut-down” three cylinders under light load and act as a three-cylinder engine, saving an estimated 5.5% to 7.5% in fuel. Is this something that only works in a pushrod engine for some reason, or could a future Saab engine use such technology? Can it work in an inline engine (like shutting-off one cylinder out of four), or only V engines?
I like that the LNF engine has VVT on both the intake and exhaust.
Not counting core engine technology Saab also developed a lot of fuel-saving ancillary devices such as an electrically-driven air conditioning compressor (developed for the hybrid concept) which take the load off of the engine and improve fuel economy slightly. I really want to see some innovative features in the 9-5. I’m going to be disappointed if it’s just a pretty shell with a nice interior. They really need to hit a home run with this car.
cylinder deactivation requires some fairly complex valve lifters that makes it much, much easier to implement in a pushrod engine. A DOHC engine would require twice as many complex hydraulic bits in a smaller head where space is at more of a premium. Direct injection gets you the same fuel savings and seems a bit cheaper to implement.
Good discussion guys, I sincerely hope that the Powers that be reads this thread.
My two cents would be to push for better fuel economy, any technology that improves the range of the Saab cars is positive. Unfortunately Saab, GM’s global premium brand, seems to get the smallest resources and is last to get access to new technologies. Better mileage now that is what the market wants most.
But, GM has effectively killed the Think-tank way of working that Saab used to posess in favor of the approved Detroit party line. Just look at that 9-3 Convertible Concept launched a few years ago. Truly innovative ways of working with hybrid technologies, and now? The only car built is collecting dust at the museum in Trollhättan.
I think Bernards post above sums things up perfectly.
I do know that we are no longer able to order the V6 engine in the 9-3 at the moment through the company scheme.
But with the TTid producing more torque, I’m wondering if it really matters? Mid range, the TTid is more than a match for the V6. I should be picking up my TTiD wagon in a few weeks time.
Isn’t the M3 V8 just there because they have the damned thing shelved and V8 is usable in the bigger (x) 5, (x) 6 & 7 series ? And to compete madly with audi (R) S series & AMG merc. In selling terms won’t be that important, which is much more the case with 1- & 3-series with 4 and 6 cilinders and where twinturbo’s do the power increase.
To be added on the Saab wish list: twin turbo on petrol cars (no need for a V6) and turbo pressure gauges on all turbo’s including the (T)TiD as a standard dash feature/gimmick.
All going hand in hand with improved structural strength and stiffness, lower weight, more torque & better fuel economy.
The Triumph (motorcycles) slogan would fit Saab:
GO YOUR OWN WAY !
But didn’t V6 appeared now and then on saabs, maybe lesser in volume compared with the 4 pot turbos ? 900 2nd gen, 9000, 9-5, and 9-3 2nd gen.
I think every market is looking at it from a different perspective, where buyers allways compare power with taxes to be paid etc. . I.e. 150 hp 1,9 Tid makes sense in Belgium while 175 hp doesn’t.
(starting from a possible unreliable djup, the thread makes sense when reading comments)
Correct, once over 163HP (and 136, 150 and 210), taxes rise significantly in Belgium.
Wilfried, kom jij misschien eveneens uit het Belgenland ?
1985 Gripen:
GM no longer produces any Saturns at Spring Hill, TN. It closed the plant in 2007 and reopened it this year to make Chevy crossovers.
@ van god los:
idd
Troll96: thanks for the info. So they produce the LNF engines for the Saturn Sky, Opel GT, Pontiac Solstice GXP, Chevy Cobalt SS, and Chevy HHR there? Maybe the wikipedia listing I got my info from is out-of-date when it states that only the Ecotec engines destined for Saturns are made in Spring Hill? Perhaps all the LNF engines are made there now?
This could very well explain why Saab’s 2-liter Ecotec isn’t the LNF. They’re all made in the States and for whatever reason GME/Saab doesn’t want to export them to Sweden like they do with the LP9 from Australia?
Seems to me they should start assembling some LNFs in Germany for the European market. Saab should be GM’s technology leader, seeing as it’s supposedly their “premium” brand. Why are there Pontiacs, Chevys, Opels, and Saturns out there with more advanced 2-liter Ecotec engines than Saab has?
Off topic: any of you live in southwest England? If you live in the vicinity of RAF Fairford keep an eye out for Swedish Air Force JAS 39 Gripen fighters on training exercises in your skies.
So… when Saab actually does rightsize, you guys aren’t happy?
From my point of view a V6 in a 9-3 is as far from rightsizing as you can get, and as close to “giving people who shouldn’t be Saab buyers in the first place what they want” as you can get.
The engineers at Saab never even wanted a 6 cylinder engine in the old 9000, because 4 cylinders was enough to give the car all the power it needed. They were forced by GM to put a V6 in, for marketing reasons.
Is that the Saab we want? Well, in that case the 9-7x is the best car Saab ever built.
I would like 300+ hp from a SAAB. I would prefer that it would come from a turbo 4. I think that the public (the people that pay for cars) would like the option of a V6, especially if SAAB cannot produce a factory turbo 4 capable of 300 hp.
I am not griping about right-sizing. Perhaps I am being too demanding asking SAAB to something that other companies have already done?
I have always thought that the V6 was the wrong thing for Saab. I might be an excellent engine but it simply belongs in a Buick instead. I know far too many under-educated car buyers that thing a V6 is better than a 4 and have nothing to base it on and do not have a driving pattern that justifies the V6.
I would not mourn the end of it in the 9-3. Give my that 9-3 2.0T with the X-drive thingy.