60 responses so far ↓

• 1 Jeff // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:15 am

  I second all your thoughts. I just hope that Saab will do a biturbo soon, I think that the advantages for low end torque are really heightened with that setup (which is probably why BMW’s new biturbo 6 keeps winning engine of the year from multiple outlets).

• 2 Swade // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:23 am

  Agreed, Jeff. A twin-turbo from Saab is probably overdue. The 9-5 may not have one at launch, but it’d be criminal if it didn’t come eventually.

• 3 Greg Abbott // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:25 am

  Regarding the wait for a high performance version of the 9-5, I agree — a well-done introduction is more important than getting every variant out the door at launch.

  The more interesting question is whether there will be a manual transmission option in the US.

  For some reason, luxury car makers put the stick shift in the base models, and go automatic-only (or manumatic, yuck) with the bigger motor. That is, to the extent they even offer a manual in the US anymore.

  I’ve always thought it should go the other way around. Let the base model/popular variant go all-automatic, and save the manual option for the high performance, low volume, high margin top model.

• 4 Greg Abbott // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:29 am

  One other critical item: what shall we call the next 9-5?

  The New Gen 9-5 (”ng9-5″)?
  9-5 SportsSedan (”9-5ss”)?

  And does the current 9-5 become the “classic 9-5″ or “c9-5″?

  Personally I like the idea that I’m driving a c9-5.

• 5 Ken H // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:35 am

  One thing is for sure, can’t beat the Germans in the “my gun is bigger than yours”. So I’m with Swade, put the power where it’s needed and let people learn about it. A simple ad can be a German sedan doing a dangerous and slow overtake, where the 9-5 whooshes past.

• 6 Kroum // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:42 am

  I disagree about the power figures. In this price range, for the North American market, you absolutely need your range-topper to be around 350 hp, does not matter if it “makes sense” or not.

  Below is just a quick selection of what the competition has on offer – mind you, these are all 2008-9 vehicles. A lot of them will have all-new models by 2011.

  Audi A6 3.2 – 255 hp / 243 lb-ft
  Audi A6 3.0T quattro – 300 hp / 310 lb-ft
  Audi A6 4.2 quattro – 350 hp / 325 lb-ft

  BMW 528i/xi – 230 hp / 200 lb-ft
  BMW 535xi – 300 hp / 300 lb-ft
  BMW 550i – 360 hp / 360 lb-ft

  Infiniti M35x – 303 hp / 268 lb-ft
  Infiniti M45x – 325 hp / 336 lb-ft

  Let’s remember that the original 9000 was advertised and hyped out as “the fastest sedan on the market”. So Saab should not prep us for a mediocre release – not with this live-saving model. Even if a bunch of Saab die-hards understand why the power figures are low, “responsible performance” et al. the market en masse will not – and hence fail.

• 7 2-don // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:56 am

  I’ve driven a Cadillac with the 3.6 engine and I must admit it doesn’t feel all that impressive. I really thought the cars were just heavy and not that fast. I would much rather have a 2.8 turbo than a big 3.6 without it. I’ve driven two CTS’ as loaners while dealers have worked on my SAAB. My opinion……

• 8 Swade // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:59 am

  Kroum,

  Read again – I said that in my mind they don’t ‘need’ anything north of 350. You’ve only listed one there that’s higher than that and most a quite a good deal lower, right around where the Saab should be, in my mind.

  I think if they top it out at 320 or thereabouts and let Hirsch take it further, that would be ideal.

  It’s useable power that matters.

• 9 ctm // Jan 31, 2009 at 9:00 am

  Well said, Swade.

• 10 Patrik // Jan 31, 2009 at 9:05 am

  I sure hope that they manage to get the emissions from the 1.6 liter engine under control. It would be really sweet to have a big car with a really downsized engine (but still enough power).

  The cars listed above have 6 or 8 cylinder engines. The thing with SAAB is efficent and overloaded 4 cylinder engines. The current 9-5 Aero enginge produces 250 hp and 270 lb-ft which is more than enough in any normal driving condition.

  Audi and BMW are also downsizing the engines even in their performance modells. The new Audi S4 have a 6 cylinder twin turbo 3.0 liter engine instead of the old 8 cylinder engine.

• 11 Alex // Jan 31, 2009 at 9:06 am

  Like Kroum said, the “responsible performance” is just a lame excuse from GM marketing department to justify meager sub-300hp halo cars and the like. Saab in it’s heyday couldn’t give a hoot about “responsible performance”, they just cared about plain-old performance.

  I disagree with that, Alex. Go back and look at the material at the time of the 99T. It was about performance, yes, but it was about getting the performance of a larger car from a smaller one. It was a response to the oil crisis in the 70s. And I’m going to have to go back to the books myself to see when Saab ever seriously considered a V8 for the 99 as per your next paragraph.

  Saab used to be a brand with mojo this was the company that was going to stick a V8 in the 99 until they decided to borrow that newfangled turbocharging idea from Porsche. Saab had that mojo when they unleashed the 9000 turbo, the fastest sedan on the market. They even had a bit of that mojo left in the 90’s when they unleashed the 9000 Aero, Viggen, and 9-5 Aero which were all among the fastest and most powerful 4-cylinder cars on the market at the time. Saab always tried to run with the big boys, they just did things a bit differently, and their high-output turbo engines just added to their mystique in the eyes of consumers.

  Likewise, they need that old mojo to show up on the options list of the NG9-5, even if the majority of buyers can’t afford it. Nobody remembers the many fuel efficient, responsible bottom-feeder c900’s and 9000 that were built, but we all remember the rare few SPG’s and Aeros, and things are no different today. Saab needs to once again be able to brag of building the fastest sedan in it’s class. They need a car that once again is worthy of the reverence of the automotive press the way the old ones were.

  They need that seemingly-unnecessary 350+hp halo car that once again can demolish everything on the market short of an M5. Nothing else will say “Saab is back” with anywhere near the same effect.

  EDIT: As to what I’d like to see as far as gas engines go, I’d like to see a ~180hp 1.6T, a ~240hp 2.0T, a ~300hp 2.8t, and a ~350hp 2.8/3.6TT. The performance benchmark for the NG9-5 Aero should be the XF supercharged AKA faster than your average teutonic V8 barge but slower than the M5/AMG models. It should be a car worthy of magazine covers and first-place comparison finishes.

• 12 Kroum // Jan 31, 2009 at 9:19 am

  Opps Swade, I read that as “definitely don’t agree that the Saab 9-5 needs 350hp to do well” – my bad.

  The ones I listed are select comparable series (A6 and 5′ers) and all the different engine variants on sale in Canada, top-of-the-range models excluded (e.g. M5, RS6, etc.).

  The best move for Saab would be to have a base engine with around 250 hp and an Aero version with 350 hp. I am speaking of North American markets here, Europe is an altogether different story. Of course, there is also room for a smaller ~220 hp engine for the NA market.

  Hirsch, IMO, should be positioned to seriously tune the cars and go head-to-head with AMG, M and S/RS. An in-house tuner for a sporting premium European brand should not be playing catch up with factory models.

  Saab can easily achieve that with DI and twin-turbos and there should be no concerns with gear boxes etc. on a brand new model.

• 13 Kroum // Jan 31, 2009 at 9:28 am

  Patrik, it does not matter how the performance is delivered, most paying customers in this price range just expect it (me included – I first got interested in Saabs because of the performance of their turbo engines, not because of how green they are – I’m not a tree-hugger, sorry). But if it is delieverd in a more fuel efficient form (e.g. a twin-turbo V6) then even better – it earns you bragging rights and standards-compliance.

  This is what Saab has stood for – responsible performance, yes, but emphasis on performance none-the-less. We can leave the emphasis on responsibility to ovloV, the Prius and the Volt.

• 14 gordon // Jan 31, 2009 at 9:29 am

  I agree with Alex, the original slant 4 Triumph engine was designed with a V8 option and both the 99 and 9000 almost got it. Leave the right size stuff to Ford’s ecoboost. I’m sure the 1.6 is lovely, maybe even with two turbos, but give us some aspirational models. Get the Opel monkey off her back and look over at Detroit.

  Cadillac has the Northstar supercharged LC3 4.4 liter 469HP V8. Start with that then have SAAB right size it with twin turbos and direct injection. Put it in the 9-5 and license it back to Cadillac. They will sell 50 a year in Europe, but it will be on every magazine cover in the world.

• 15 jchan2 // Jan 31, 2009 at 9:44 am

  For engines, why not have:
  3.0T- the new DI 3.0L V6 in the Caddy SRX and Saab 9-4X, but turbocharged and tuned for maybe… oh, 275 horsepower?

  a 3.6T- a twin-turbo 3.6L, the same GM 3.6 V6 used in so many other places (Lambda crossovers, CTS, etc) with… oh, 325 horsepower?

  Just tossin’ some ideas out there; I’m sure the engines decision has been made already somewhere by someone…

• 16 WooDz // Jan 31, 2009 at 10:37 am

  I’m going to get the 9-5 Aero out the way 1st.
  According to http://www.EVO.co.uk, the Insignia OPC due to be shown at the Geneva Motor Show will have a 2.8 V6 Bi-Turbo speculated at producing around 320hp.
  If SAAB are smart, they’ll buy the stock Insignia OPC engine and be done with it. Hirsch can boost the power to what ever the customer is prepared to pay (350hp+). Saab will save at least $1-200 million in not developing the engine further themselves.

  The Aero will not be SAAB bread and butter A small right-sized power unit is going to do that and it needs to tick al the right boxed for SAAB’s largest market; Western Europe. I fully understand that a 1.6, 180hp engine is probably not going to compute for North American markets but the fuel issue isn’t going away here and we are getting taxed hard for high CO2 emission vehicles. However; there is a problem, as stated above with this engine so just to make you aware of the competition I’ve complied a list

  SAAB 9-5 1.6Turbo (using data from OPEL.de for the Insignia
  Power: 180hp/230nm,
  fuel: 7.9l average
  CO2: 188g/km

  AUDI A6 – 2.0TFSI
  Power: 170hp/280nm,
  fuel: 7,5l average
  CO2: 174g/km

  Mercedes E-250cgi (1.8i)
  Power: 150hp/300nm,
  fuel: 7.3l average
  CO2: 174g/km

  BMW 520i – 2.0i
  Power: 170hp/210nm,
  fuel: 6,7l average
  CO2: 164g/km

  I’m amazed how Mercedes can get 300nm torque from a 1.8i, just shows you what a kompression charged engine can do. However; the real shocker is BMW who are leading the economy game in terms of usage and emissions. If SAAB are serious about being a ‘Green’ car company they need to pull their socks up fast. It would be an insult if we were to think that SAAB’s engineers are not aware of this and money saved on not pushing the envelope on the Aero would be far better used, right-sizing that 1.6

  Europe is SAAB’s largest market and beating the Germans is what is going to change peoples options. SAAB need to get this 9-5 absolutely spot on and as Swade puts it, the Swedes need to make every øre count by thinking smart, smart, smart.

• 17 Johan // Jan 31, 2009 at 11:33 am

  “I disagree with that, Alex. Go back and look at the material at the time of the 99T. It was about performance, yes, but it was about getting the performance of a larger car from a smaller one. It was a response to the oil crisis in the 70s. And I’m going to have to go back to the books myself to see when Saab ever seriously considered a V8 for the 99 as per your next paragraph.”

  Back in the days Saab wanted a larger and more powerful engine to be able to compete with the other manufacturers which already had such engines on their program. The problem was that Saab didn’t have the resources (read money) to develope such an engine, but what they did have was a lot of turbo experience within their company through Scania. Given that the turbo engine also was lighter and more fuel efficient than a larger engine option, it wasn’t such a bad deal. But obviously you can’t say you couldn’t afford to develope a larger engine in your marketing materials… Nor can you say that you doesn’t offer four wheel drive models or higher output engines just because you aren’t willing to take the chance with these models. I mean, Saab have had higher output engines aswell as four wheel drive since the first generation 900, the problem was, they never took the chance to produce them. So the question is, are they now willing to take the chance? It’s not like they have much to lose!

  “For engines, why not have:
  3.0T- the new DI 3.0L V6 in the Caddy SRX and Saab 9-4X, but turbocharged and tuned for maybe… oh, 275 horsepower?

  a 3.6T- a twin-turbo 3.6L, the same GM 3.6 V6 used in so many other places (Lambda crossovers, CTS, etc) with… oh, 325 horsepower?

  Just tossin’ some ideas out there; I’m sure the engines decision has been made already somewhere by someone…”

  All these engines are actually the ’same’ engine, but with some modifications. Larger displacement versions use crankshafts with a longer stroke, and larger bore pistons. Turbocharged engines use some reinforced parts, DI engines use different cylinder heads adapted for direct injection and so on. The question is what they can put into production? In principle it wouldn’t be hard to make a 400 hp V6 engine from all this.

• 18 Alex // Jan 31, 2009 at 12:04 pm

  And even after choosing the “rightsized” engine for the 99 Turbo, the mill they ended up with still put out more horsepower than the 2.3 liter M20 in the E31 323i(145 to 142).

  Remember that back in the late 70’s, the straight-six mill in the 323i was considered as big and overpowered as the V8 in the M3 is today. The only small BMW that was more powerful was the VERY limited-run 2002 turbo. So even with the rightsized engine, the 99 Turbo still beat it’s german rival in the horsepower game. The same thing applied in the 80’s when the 900 Turbo ran neck and neck with the 325i in the horsepower game and obliterated it in the torque wars. That was Saab’s old mojo in a nutshell, their ability to take on the germans and win, while keeping on their own design terms.

• 19 Kroum // Jan 31, 2009 at 12:16 pm

  Like Johan says, a lot of it is marketing. It’s a basic rule in marketing to dress up inconvenient truths. Like just a few years ago Saab insisted you don’t need AWD and then went on a marketing blitzkrieg about XWD.

  I am of course a huge fan of turbocharging myself and can hardly imagine driving an NA car full-time, however, a lot of it was done out of necessity at the time with readily-available technology from Scania.

  I believe, although not 100% certain, that placing the ignition key between the seats was originally done to save money from an engineering standpoint (I cannot go into details, sorry). Well, a nice side-effect was additional safety during crashes and with time this became a Saab symbol – so they stick with it.

  Likewise, BMW did not always build high-end performance-oriented sport sedans, but one successful model solidified their name as a performance luxury brand – so to this day they make the best out of it.

  My point is that at the end of the day we have to be realistic – a lot of good things come out of bad. Limited resources call for creative engineering. I don’t work for Saab, but I give them a hefty amount of money every month. So as a customer I believe I can lay out my “demands” – if Saab would like to retain me as a customer in the future, they’d need to offer a product that meets my needs.

• 20 wfg // Jan 31, 2009 at 5:25 pm

  @ Patrik
  Well said! I am also not that sure that having V6s with one or two turbos will make the new SAAB 9-5 more attractive. Did it work with the 9000? The current 9-5? Or even the current 9-3? Obviously not!
  In fact I do not see any realistic reason to give up the current 2.3 L, 4 cylinder Aero engine from the current 9-5 and to replace it with the V6 2.8 L of the current 9-3. It easily makes also 300 hp or even more (e.g. when using bioethanol) while it gasoline consumption is more than 2L/100 km less (in my own experience).
  Time has changed and small, high efficient turbos, like that Saab has developed, are just the perfect one to meet our needs today. Thus, I dream that Saab goes back to its roots in many aspects, like individuality, puristic styling, quality and, after all, be using the beautiful 2.3 L, 4 cylinder Aero engine from the current 9-5 that matches in its BSR version all comparable engines including the R or V6s of Mercedes, BMW and Alfa. Of course its my humbling opinion but it builds on almost 200.000 km driving in the city (25%), mountains (35%) and German highways (40%).

• 21 eli // Jan 31, 2009 at 5:27 pm

  people saab need go back to sweden,start from begining but with electric cars,there is future!!!!saab can do that!!!!!

• 22 Adrian // Jan 31, 2009 at 6:32 pm

  A twin-turbo? Other than the one that’s already available in the 9-3, y’mean…?

• 23 Swade // Jan 31, 2009 at 6:55 pm

  The V6 in the 9-3 is a ‘twin-scroll’ turbo setup, Adrian. It charges from both banks of the exhaust.

  The TTiD has a twin-turbo setup, with a small and large turbocharger.

  I think we’re talking here about a twin turbo for the gasoline engine, which Saab don’t currently have.

• 24 Pedrot16 // Jan 31, 2009 at 7:25 pm

  More spyshots

  http://www.autohoje.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75063&Itemid=54

• 25 Dan9-1 // Jan 31, 2009 at 7:38 pm

  Would a Quad-turbo be a possiblity? With a small and a large turbo for each of the banks.
  It would effect fuel economy hugely but would be an absolute hoot to drive.

• 26 Adrian // Jan 31, 2009 at 7:41 pm

  I was indeed thinking of the TTiD.

  As for a quad-turbo… Were you thinking of trying to fit anything else into the engine bay? Or just four turbos and the associated plumbing?

• 27 Dan9-1 // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:02 pm

  Adrian it would pretty much be a vacuum cleaner inside a car’s body. Wacky ideas is what comes with the innocence of youth It was meant as a joke anyway.

• 28 Bernard // Feb 1, 2009 at 1:07 am

  I find it very odd how many Saab fans want the brand to give up everything they stand for and start making me-too cars.

  It’s particularly strange right now, given that you can pick-up a barely used AMG or M sedan for peanuts (not a great year in the stock markets, apparently).

  Saab can copy every last detail of other brands’ cars, they still will not be “German enough.” Why bother? Even an M5 with a Saab sticker would be considered too Swedish by the auto pundits.

  I agree with wfg. Saab should sell a 2.3L 4 cylinder in the 300+hp, 400+Nm range.
  That’s almost twice the torque of the other brands at 2000 RPM, and much better fuel economy.

• 29 Johan // Feb 1, 2009 at 2:30 am

  wfg:

  GM’s 54 degree V6 engine that was availible in Saab 900, 9000 and 9-5 wasn’t a particulary good engine. It was weak and not indended for turbocharging, but GM had decided Saab should use that engine so…

  The V6 engine found in the current 9-3 is very different, it’s a modern design and it is indended for turbocharging, the only problem is that the version Saab uses produce a power output that could be achieved with a 2 litre turbo engine rather than +300 hp power outputs. That isn’t ‘rightsizing’. But using a displacement of say 3 liters and the same specific output as the ‘LNF’ Ecotec, it would have produced 400 hp on gasoline. That is ‘rightsizing’. With direct injection and dual cam phasing it would also have consumed less fuel than the current 280 hp V6.

  The 2 litre / 2.3 litre engine found in Saab 9-5 is outdated and there is really not any good reason to use it any more. It would require a huge investment to redesign it for future emission laws, fuel consumption and driveability demands. The grey iron block would have to be replaced with a hollow structure iron block, a compacted graphite iron block or an aluminum block for a lower weight and better NVH performance. The cylinder head would have to be redesigned to use roller finger followers, and adapted to be able to use variable cam phasing and direct injection. It would also have required a new variable displacement oil pump and a new electric coolant pump and thermostat. This is all things other GM engines have, or are already being developed for them. For Saab it’s much better if they spend that kind of money on developing the GM engines further.

  Bernard: No, that’s not almost twice the torque that other brands has at similar engine speeds. Volvos R engine for instance produced 305 hp and 400 Nm (1950-5100 rpm), and GM’s own LNF engine produces 350 Nm from just 2 liter displacement.

• 30 Bernard // Feb 1, 2009 at 2:49 am

  Johan,

  I meant almost twice the torque of non-turbo competitors. That’s only 15% more torque than the LNF, given that I based the number on scaling-up the LNF by 15% (2.3L vs. 2L).

  I do agree with you that this hypothetical 2.3 would need to be based on a new block.

  BTW, I’ve now driven the LNF in a Cobalt SS. It’s a very nice engine that would feel right at home in the current 9-3. It certainly deserves to be sold in a better car. The Cobalt SS handles great, but it has poor packaging and a cheap interior.

• 31 Adrian // Feb 1, 2009 at 2:56 am

  Surely the likely global sales figures ought to be considered, given Saab don’t have an unlimited development budget?

  A 300+bhp petrol engine, no matter what displacement or how many pistons or how aspirated is completely and utterly irrelevant – to the point it probably wouldn’t even be offered – to sales in the markets that make up roughly 75% of 9-3 and 9-5 sales. That development money could be FAR better used elsewhere, on packages that’d outsell it more than 5 to 1, maybe even as much as 10 to 1.

  If torque’s the be-all and end-all, then don’t forget that Saab have been selling a 400Nm engine in the current 9-3 for a year or more. Probably the major rival to the 9-5, the 5-series, can be had with 600Nm without even looking at the M5 or hugely thirsty v8s.

• 32 Alex // Feb 1, 2009 at 3:02 am

  It wouldn’t be giving up everything they stand for to make “me too” cars, it would be returning to their design roots. At the NG9-5’s size and price point, there are a few things that buyers just expect from a car. Things like quality, upscale-feeling interiors, responsive handling, and gobs of power (in the North American market). If you can’t offer those things in a large premium car like the NG9-5, you might as well not even bother trying in today’s market.

  That’s not a problem for Saab however, because they HAVE built cars that offered those things in the past, like this car:
  http://www.turbonines.com/emAlbum/albums/Production%20Cars/9000/1992-1998/CSE/015.jpg

  The 9000 was a perfect example of Saab keeping up with the germans and I hope that it’s served as the benchmark and inspiration for the NG9-5’s development. In it’s heyday the 9000 offered an interior that was on par with the E34 BMW and Audi 100/200 that it competed against, but with better leather and ergonomics not to mention all the extra space it hat. The 9000 also offered a range of engine choices from fuel-efficient NA engines to the turbo 4’s that made it the fastest car in it’s class short of an M5 or 500E, with good handling to boot. The result was a car that wowed the press and cemented Saab’s reputation as a true contender.

  At the same time, nobody here would argue that the 9000 was anything close to a “me too” car, and that in my opinion is what Saab is all about. The 9000 had everything it needed to beat the Germans at their own game, yet it still had everything that made it a quintessential Saab. It was a perfect example of Saab eating its cake and having it too.

  The only reason why I think the NG9-5’s halo engine should be a V6 is because all signs point to the NG9-5 weighing somewhere north of 4000 lbs. Along with the drivetrain losses from AWD, that’s simply too much for a 300hp I-4 to lug around with anything approaching a good fuel economy or a sporty driving experience. A good example of this is the Mazda CX-7 which returns dreadful fuel economy from it’s direct-injection turbo 4 compared to it’s V6-engined competitors because you basically need max boost anytime you want to get the car moving. The big-engine NG9-5’s need a V6 that provides ample off-boost and low-boost power for cruising and gentle acceleration along with the big boost for passing. The 9000 and c9-5 could get away with this from a 4-banger because they were much smaller and lighter cars, but since the NG9-5 will be a much bigger car than the current one, it’s engines will need to grow accordingly.

• 33 Alex // Feb 1, 2009 at 3:09 am

  Oh let me add that I DO think that Saab needs a 280-300hp turbo 4, but that engine should be the Aero engine for the next-gen 9-3.

  Like Johan said, a 350-400hp V6 would still be “rightsized” in the 9-5 where it would go up against the big V8’s of the competition. If GM will warranty the 2.0 liter LNF at 280hp and 330 ft-lbs, then there’s no reason why they can’t offer the same level of output from a V6. A 3.0 liter V6 making the same specific output numbers as the LNF would make 420hp. If that isn’t “rightsizing” I don’t know what is.

• 34 Johan // Feb 1, 2009 at 3:11 am

  Bernard,

  Most non-turbo competitors in this power class has much larger displacements and through that a high torque output. You usally don’t find that many naturally aspiranted 2.3 liter engines engines with more than 300 hp.

  Instead of redesigning the 2.3 liter engine Saab could probably make a reinforced block for the LNF engine, say a compacted graphite iron block, that allows the engine to be bored and stroked to a displacement of 2.3 liters or so. Add series sequential turbocharging, a variable displacement oil pump just like the future family 0 engine has, and an automatic start-stop function and you have a fuel efficient +300 hp +400 Nm engine without a big investment.

• 35 Johan // Feb 1, 2009 at 3:30 am

  Adrian,

  Engine development is done by GM Powertrain and the cost is shared between GM brands. Saab isn’t the only one that is in need of a higher output V6 engine. As it is right now, GM doesn’t have a replacement for its aging Premium V engine (probably most known as Northstar), which also isn’t offered in Cadillac CTS. This leaves a big ‘hole’ in for instance the CTS lineup with its 3.6 liter 304 hp engine and the 556 hp CTS-V. Wouldn’t a 400 hp V6 fit perfect in there? Not to mention, for future SRX and STS/DTS replacements which currently use Premium V. Add to that a lower ouput version for Opel OPC models.

• 36 Bruce // Feb 1, 2009 at 3:39 am

  There is already a normally aspirated 2.4 version of the Ecotec, one of the most common engines in North America, in basic Chevy Malibus, Pontiac G6s, Saturn Auras, Chevy Cobalts, and their variations. Previously (starting in 2000) they used a 2.2 version. These are super rugged engines (in 208000 km nothing has been fixed on ours but one injector). Has increasing the displacement up from 2.0 in the 9-3 (etc.) meant that the larger versions are not strong enough (wall thickness, etc.) to cope with turbos? There’s no doubt that the Ecotec series of 4s will be the only 4s in GM cars for years to come, but is 2.0 the largest that can take a T or TT?

  I think I recall that the factory that makes the 9-5’s 2.3 has been sold. That lovely indeed but unique engine is clearly not part of future models.

  This really illustrates how globally connected GM now is. The Ecotecs (if, again, I recall correctly) are essentially European Opel, wherever they are made or adapted, and the 2-8 and 3.6 are essentially Australian Holden. The great little diesels are from Fiat. From the USA, some giant 6s and 8s that mostly live in trucks and larger or high-performance smaller Cadillacs (I think putting any of these, e.g., a Northstar, in a FWD car would destroy its handling).

• 37 Adrian // Feb 1, 2009 at 3:54 am

  Isn’t that rather the point, though? Engine development might be done by GM PowerTrain currently, but in a couple of months…?

  Again, there’s emphasis on just one particular market alone with those examples. The US may be the single biggest market, sure, but don’t forget it’s been only around 25% of 9-3 and 9-5 production – and that’s likely to fall as the economic problems are hitting the US much harder than many European countries.

  Again – a fine example, albeit from the next class up… Jaguar may well only sell the v8 in the XJ in the US – but it’s the v6 & TDv6 which form the vast majority of sales elsewhere – Even then, most of the v8s (apart from the XJR) are the 3.5 rather than the 4.2. The (very late) arrival of the TDv6 caused BIG sales problems in most European markets. Even then, they don’t seem to feel the need to put the TDv8 into the XJ – it’s been very highly praised in the Range Rover, yet most sales are still the TDv6.

  Get the engines that’ll sell RIGHT, then worry about the halo stuff.

• 38 Eduard(Edusaab) // Feb 1, 2009 at 3:58 am

  In this unit you could see the double exhaust. Check the picture. It could be a V6.

  check the picture for the C pilar detail.

  http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4964/3492899761pk7.jpg

  regards

• 39 North Toronto Punter // Feb 1, 2009 at 4:59 am

  “Get the engines that’ll sell RIGHT, then worry about the halo stuff”.

  “The (very late) arrival of the TDv6 caused BIG sales problems in most European markets.”

  Adrian, I hope we’re not out to ape the fortunes of Jaguar — or use them as an exemplar (except to do the opposite!) –the XJ least of all!

  Jaguar’s problems with the XJ — the whole range — go well beyond the the paucity of diesel offerings or timing to market of various engines.

  Even the ballyhooed XF is experiencing middling sales after an initial spurt. I haven’t seen the figures but I suspect that goes for the UK as well as North America. [BTW: What a letdown the front end of that car is after such a stunning prototype, eh ].

  “Isn’t that rather the point, though? Engine development might be done by GM PowerTrain currently, but in a couple of months…?”.

  If Saab hasn’t settled on an engine supplier by now for a Fall Launch then it’s time to play Taps…

• 40 Johan // Feb 1, 2009 at 7:38 am

  “Isn’t that rather the point, though? Engine development might be done by GM PowerTrain currently, but in a couple of months…?”

  In a couple of months engine development will still be carried out by GM Powertrain. GM Powertrain Sweden will probably be transfered to Saab and be payed for the work they do for GM and Saab then pays GM Powertrain for their engines.

  “Has increasing the displacement up from 2.0 in the 9-3 (etc.) meant that the larger versions are not strong enough (wall thickness, etc.) to cope with turbos?”

  Yes, they are not strong enough to handle turbocharging. Turbocharged versions use a smaller bore, a reinforced cylinder head and reinforced internals (crankshaft, con-rods, pistons). These ecotec engines also have issues with their cast in grey iron liners which begin to flex at higher outputs (yes, even the small bore versions).

• 41 Thad // Feb 1, 2009 at 7:49 am

  Looking at current GM engines, I would think that there would be three engines in the US at least:

  2.0T with 260 HP (currently in Solstice GXP)
  2.8T with 280 HP (currently in 9-3 Aero)
  2.8TT with 320HP (to be in Insignia OPC)

  For Europe add in the smaller 1.6T engine as well as 4 and 6 cylinder TTID’s

• 42 Alex // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:09 am

  I think a lot of the XF’s sales problems have less to do with it’s engine selection (though the 300hp 4.0 V8 is a fine example of “wrongsizing”) and more to do with it’s price point.

  People expect it to be a valid 5-series fighter when they forget that it’s is closer to that of the much more upmarket E-class, at least in the US. It’s not supposed to be a high-volume product by any means, it’s no holds barred luxury car.

  Hopefully the NG9-5 will start at ~$35-40k and not have to deal with those problems.

• 43 zippy // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:15 am

  I think if Saab are to offer the 9-5 in North America they need a base model with something closer to 210bhp that would run at under US$40000 as well as a stonking TTid.

• 44 Alex // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:34 am

  I think the 2.0T can be that engine, the kind of peaky, high-boost power that the LNF makes in the Cobalt SS would be totally inappropriate in a 4000+ lb large luxury car. Slap a smaller, quicker-spooling turbo to the tune of ~230hp and you have a perfect base engine for the NG9-5 in the North American market.

• 45 Ascariss // Feb 1, 2009 at 10:04 am

  Hello everyone, the first image posted (not beside the 7 series one), is very close to the final car. The C pillar is almost identical to the final car, 95% i’d say. the rear lights are not like that unfortunately. The kink in the C pillar although present on the final car, is not as large as you in the image posted, it is more lower and much small in size. Part of the C pillr extends farther into the trunk area.

  The hood design is like on the new 9-4, but it is not a clamshell.

  I am sure you guys will like the car when you see it.

• 46 keeneyes // Feb 1, 2009 at 11:44 am

  With such encouraging words from Ascariss, I go scratching the surface some more.

  http://www.flickr.com/photos/34952621@N08/3242128875/

• 47 bk-aero // Feb 1, 2009 at 12:32 pm

  I made use of my moderate drawing skills to transform the test pictures into what might look like the production model.
  I’m sorry for the miserable quality but I think it’s enough for an impression. Just choose Free download:
  http://rapidshare.de/files/44428448/2010_Saab_9-5.jpg.html

  Doesn’t seem to work for me – SW

• 48 ELBOBO // Feb 1, 2009 at 3:00 pm

  Keeneyes, I have not seen the car but I have the feeling you are darn close. Good job

• 49 mo // Feb 1, 2009 at 3:42 pm

  bk aero, thats a really good drawing, hoping it looks like that.

• 50 Razvan // Feb 1, 2009 at 6:13 pm

  the link of bk-aero worked for me too, after following all steps required by rapid share.
  I like it, but seams to me to be close to the OG 9-3, at least front half of the car.

• 51 Eduard(Edusaab) // Feb 2, 2009 at 12:42 am

  I don’t like those Buick Lacrosse/Opel Insignia door mirrors, why don’t they use a more saabish and different door mirrors?? it doesn’t mach to the car.

• 52 Bernard // Feb 2, 2009 at 1:19 am

  Alex,

  The LNF isn’t peaky at all. It’s one of the torquiest engines this side of a diesel. It could be however that you find the throttle response peaky.

  Fly-by-wire engine management means that GM can give the engine almost any type of “feel.”

  I think they gave the Cobalt SS an extra kink in the response curve so that it feels more like a Civic Type R (which has one of the peakiest engines ever), or a big block Chevy with competition cams.

  Saab could give the same engine a totally different feel just by changing little bits of the ECU software.

• 53 Me // Feb 2, 2009 at 3:30 am

  @bk-aero:
  Hey, those backlight look like the C-class backlights. I can’t imagine SAAB usin such ugly backlights

• 54 Adrian // Feb 2, 2009 at 3:33 am

  Me – Can’t imagine Saab using such ugly lights? Haven’t you SEEN the current 9-3 saloon?

• 55 Me // Feb 2, 2009 at 3:45 am

  Well, sometimes designers run out of ideas
  I think on this facelift they invested all the money GM gave them on the front side, but wanted to do something to the rear part…
  You already know what happened.

• 56 Adrian // Feb 2, 2009 at 3:52 am

  Yeh, they forgot to put the colour in when they moulded ‘em, then slapped some gaffer tape on.

• 57 Alvaro // Feb 2, 2009 at 5:18 am

  Hi there!
  Very interesting topic.
  I think that Saab need to make things differently. What do I expect? an all aluminum 4 cylinder engine with displacements between 1.6 y 2.4L, direct injection, continuously variable valve timing on both cams, variable geometry turbo and all the experience in engine electronics that saab has. That way the engines can have a decent peak power output and a very wide torque curve. And I don’t think they need to design a new engine from scratch. Just use the global GM 4 cyl engine as a base.

• 58 Thyl Engelhardt // Feb 3, 2009 at 7:50 pm

  @eli:

  It is too early for electrical cars, though I concur that it might turn out to be the best option in the long run.

  -The batteries need to be improved vastly. Presently, a pure electrically driven car with performance and range specs similar to combustion engine cars would require a battery weighing several tones. This would in turn increase the power consumption to a ridiculous level.

  -Recharging still takes several hours. Now just think of a problem where a cars gets stuck in a situation where a detour is required, spoiling the “range planning” to an extend that it cannot reach the intended destination, and has to recharge. Boy! Instead of ten minutes for refilling, you will end up with an additional delay of – what?

  -Where is the electricity to come from? When switching all cars to electricity, according to a calculation I have done a while ago, power consumption would increase by more than 40 % (though much less actually than I had expected). This electricity must be produced by power plants which still need to be built (they need to be built even if they take the form of solar panels on homes).

• 59 Adrian // Feb 3, 2009 at 8:00 pm

  Thyl – even when fast-recharging does start to become feasible, through big fat high-current connections, there’s still the problem of having to upgrade the power delivery infrastructure.

  If you think about the number of cars that pass through one normal small suburban petrol station in a given day, then multiply that by the amount of power needed to provide 300 miles range in ten minutes, that’s some serious bits of wire between the power station and all those filling stations…

• 60 Phil // Feb 5, 2009 at 11:21 pm

  Actually news has it, that the 2010-2011 SAAB 9-5 Aero will have a TWIN TURBO V6 with. The power output is expected to be around 500 hp (373 kw). The car will also include the X-drive system as well as the ELSD differential. It was estimated that it would have a 0-100 km/h (0-62.5 mp/h) time of around 4.2 seconds.