Trollhattan Saab has changed!
The site you're viewing now is the original Trollhattan Saab weblog, though it's now an archive only and no new material is posted here. As of February 2009, all new material is posted at our new site - Saabs United.
Please join us at Saabs United and get your daily Saab fix from Saab sources all around the world.
I’m back home after picking up the Monte Carlo in Melbourne over the weekend.
A fuller report will be coming soon but let me just say here that I’m…… still…… very happy with the purchase. Over the moon, in fact.
——
You may remember the post I did here a few weeks ago on some guys on an ECU tuning forum doing some privateer work on Trionic 7 tuning, and getting engine management readouts to show up on a Saab’s SID.
I’ll keep the name anonymous just in case he desn’t want to be identified, but one of my Saab mates on the mainland had this done on the weekend. And he’s very pleased with the result. He took me for a drive in the car and I can see why, too.
The ECU was remapped with a tune customised to the hardware on his car. He’s now got around 15% more power and heaps more torque, plus he’s also got the ability to watch various bits of engine management info via his SID, stuff that your Saab technician normally sees via Tech 2.
The interesting readout that I saw whilst I was in the car was the Air Mass Meter readings. It shows two readings at once, one showing what the engine needs at whatever RPM the car is at, and one showing what it’s receiving. The two were constantly changing and it’s like you can watch the analysis and fulfilment of the car’s needs right there in front of you. Fascinating stuff.
These guys only recently unlocked Trionic 7 but they’ve had Trionic 5 figured out for a while, so it’s quite likely I’ll be making enquiries about this for the Monte Carlo.
——
We knew it was coming, it just hurts when it does.
The Cadillac SRX press material is now out. This is the vehicle that’s based on the same architecture as the Saab 9-4x, and the one that the media will refer to as being the basis for the 9-4x should it ever be released. I can see it now…..“The Saab 9-4x, which is based on the Cadillac SRX…..”
Remember what was said here at TS about engines for the 9-4x and in other posts prior to that, too? If this is anything to go by, then they were correct.
From Car and Driver:
Two engines will be offered in the 2010 SRX, both of which are smaller than the current base SRX engine, a 3.6-liter V-6. The standard motor will be GM’s new direct-injection 3.0-liter V-6, which puts out 260 hp and 221 lb-ft of torque and bests the output of the previous standard mill. Offered as an option will be a 2.8-liter turbocharged V-6 that produces 300 hp and 295 lb-ft of torque and nearly matches the 320 hp and 315 lb-ft afforded by the 4.6-liter Northstar V-8 in current SRXs. The turbo six, plucked from the Saab 9-3, is notable as the first turbocharged engine offered in any North American Cadillac.
Cadillac got the BLS out of Saab (which went well, ahem) and Saab got some better sound insulation. Now they’re taking an engine and turbo technology from Saab and we’ll just have to wait and see what Saab gets in return this time. Thicker carpets, perhaps?
——
Andy Rupert’s got a 2006 Saab Aero Convertible (that’s with the V6 and the button dash) for sale for under $20,000.
Talk about being a buyer’s market! Sheesh. That this was more than $40K just over two years ago.
——
If someone’s asking you about the Saab 9-3, or if you’re new to the car yourself, then click here for a good review of the car.
Positive stuff, indeed. Thanks WooDz!
–
20 responses so far ↓
1 ctm
// Jan 4, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Just to twist the knife a little more… Here are some snippets from the AMS news article about the SRX.
“Four-wheel drive is an option, and GM has chosen Swedish Haldex as supplier. It is also Saab that has overall responsibility for development of four-wheel drive within GM.” “Cadillac has opted to make eLSD standard, which gives it the same benefits as Saab 9-3 XWD Black Turbo.”
“The 3.0 liter V6 is ‘multifuel´, which means that it can be run on E85.”
“Cadillac is aiming for top marks in safety in coming tests, something they should do since Saab has been active in the development.”
2 Rune (the other one)
// Jan 5, 2009 at 1:01 am
Better sound insulation..?
How then are we supposed to hear the difference between driving on black ice vs normal road? Open the door while driving?
If I wanted an unsafe car, I would have bought an Audi.
3 Bernard
// Jan 5, 2009 at 1:03 am
Swade,
At least the 9-4 and SRX are using Saab technology, and not Trailblazer technology. What does Saab get out of this? How about a whole new product line, and the recognition within GM that they are at the leading edge for safety, performance and packaging?
Like it or not, the fact that Cadillac’s entry into the most profitable automotive segment (luxury CUV) is a Saab in disguise is a really big deal. The SRX (along with the Corvette, Volt and CTS) is a vehicle where GM is saying “this is the best we can do, and we think it’s the best in the world.”
It really is mind-boggling that Cadillac is letting “foreign technology” into a core platform, and it goes to show how far Saab has progressed within GM.
That being said, I question the engine choice. I hope that the 2.8T gets a significant upgrade (DI and VVT?). It may be a nice engine, but it uses 20% more fuel than the old 2.3T, for a similar output.
4 jchan2
// Jan 5, 2009 at 1:29 am
Does this mean that GM may keep Saab, given all the technology they like to err.. “borrow” from them?
I do quite like the look of the SRX, though… As much as I’d prefer the 9-4X, this doesn’t look all that bad. And underneath, its probably quite Saab-ish, too.
5 Tedjs
// Jan 5, 2009 at 1:51 am
A turbo V6 in a Cadillac – what has the world come to?
It will be interesting to see how well that powertrain is received by Cadillac’s core group of buyers (which would primarily be retired people). My friend’s father has a 2007 SRX and of course he ordered it with a V8 engine and just the idea of a turbo might make him nervous. The specifications popped up on the GM media sight last night, and it looks like the 2.8L is carried over into the SRX unchanged in terms of fuels system etc.
In the end, I am skeptical the Cadillac will attract younger and affluent buyer’s long term – even with that sort of technology. It is just seems much more appealing to the demographic of an Acura or Saab customer. And given Cadillac and Saab’s perceived lack of reliability – GM will continue to struggle to win over new customers and keep existing ones.
It will be interesting to hear GM’s turnaround plan should it be made public next month. The have a few bail-out dollars in their wallet right now, so lets see what they do with it.
6 Dan9-1
// Jan 5, 2009 at 3:04 am
It’s kind of annoying when some over at Jalopnik asked whether the 2.8t was a completely new engine, considering it was in the text saying it was a Saab engine, and that its been around for 4 or 5 years in the 9-3 and then in Turbo X, which got a fair bit of publicity.
Is it me or does it produce more power in the SRX? 280hp vs 300hp? Still no DI or twin turbo (the 2nd one just for kicks) which is disappointing.. maybe they’re saving it for the 9-5
7 Adam
// Jan 5, 2009 at 3:21 am
I’m quite annoyed that the 2.8T gets a horsepower number starting with 3, but we couldn’t get that for the Turbo-X!
8 albert
// Jan 5, 2009 at 3:58 am
@Adam: probably due to another gearbox capable of handling more torque.
9 Etienne Saabhuy
// Jan 5, 2009 at 5:25 am
have you seen the video presentation of the SRX ? very inspired by born from jets adv. indeed
http://gmtv.feedroom.com/?fr_chl=762575eed403cdbc2387676a4dd4ee5f09bbd5e7&rf=bm
10 Etienne Saabhuy
// Jan 5, 2009 at 5:27 am
You have to click right below : “2010 Cadillac SRX Crossover
Interior and Exterior Animation”
11 Tedjs
// Jan 5, 2009 at 6:07 am
@albert: Looks like they are using the same Aisin 6-speed auto, so the difference is probably in calibration. The entire drivetrain is mostly likely lifted right out of the 9-3.
This also might also have to do with no manual gearbox being offered in the SRX. An automatic can be better ‘managed’ through software to reduce torque during up and downshifts to protect the unit. I suspect this may have been done to protect the manual transmission (clutch) in the 9-3, although torque output remains consistent between combinations.
Exploring high RPM horsepower is not a very Cadillac thing to be doing, but the V8 always offered that so….
12 Bernard
// Jan 5, 2009 at 7:07 am
Horsepower is higher than the Turbo X, but torque is exactly the same (400 Nm). This suggests to me that Cadillac re-tuned the engine in order to hit the “magic” 300 hp number, but that the rest of the power curve is unchanged.
If that is the case, it’s purely a marketing thing. Car buyers don’t necessarily understand that the turbo has twice the torque of the non-turbo at low revs, so GM has to increase the max hp to close the deal.
I don’t think that many Cadillac drivers ever rev their engines to 5000+ rpm (or almost 7000 rpm for the non-turbo!), but they do appreciate maximum grunt at 1800 rpm.
13 riku1100s
// Jan 5, 2009 at 7:32 am
A small diiference like that could be explained by better engine room cooling, better flowing exhaust, or updates in engine/transmission/componentry.
+20 hp is rather marginal in a 300-or-so hp engine. (Which made it even more disappointing to leave the Turbo-x in the 2xx hp category). Imagewise it makes a huge difference.
14 Markac
// Jan 5, 2009 at 8:09 am
At the moment who would take an even money bet the that the 9-4x ever gets released? I think it’s too complicated to predict at the moment. Perhaps the Cadillac will be the only version although I’m pretty sure that if the 9-4x doesn’t factor in Saab’s future, it’ll be re-badged as a Buick or something. One thing for sure, it won’t be a Saturn.
I’m sure when GM waves goodbye to Saab it’ll try and keep everything it wants to keep including technology and personnel. Unfortunately I think it’s possible that Saab may not have access to some of it’s own technology when it is sold, because GM will then own that technology. I guess it all depends on whether Saab is old off in one hit or sold off in stages? It would be ironic, but someday Saab might have to license some of it’s own technology back from GM!
Keep us posted on the T5 stuff Swade. Hopefully I’ll be able to read my SID some time this year. It’ll be nice to have all the pixels back!
15 bk-aero
// Jan 5, 2009 at 8:33 am
Correct me if I’m mistaken but in the “Interior and Exterior Animation” you can clearly see a 3.6 badge on the back… Does this mean that there is a third engine (at least for some markets) or that there won’t be a 2.8T? This could be realistic given that the 3.6 DI offers 300 something hp in the CTS…
16 ctm
// Jan 5, 2009 at 8:51 am
Markac,
Good point about the technologies. It’s relatively easy to move production or a plant. The employee turnover (is that the right word?) is usually high in those kind of works. More important are reliable and cheap infrastructure and logistics.
What GM has created in Trollhättan is a big R&D center. That is a more risky business. Officially, I would guess it is a part of Saab Automobile but shared by the whole of GM. If the brand Saab are sold or scrapped, the R&D operations just lives on inside GM. But… Would GM want to have a R&D center located in a small town in Sweden far away from everything else, especially headquarters, brand centers, and plants? I guess they would want to move it to Germany, but I wonder how many of the engineers would want to make that move. GM would risk a serious brain drain with a move. But that could happen even if it stays in Trollhättan while the Saab brand is no longer a part of GM. Would all those engineers continue working for other GM brands, or do they work there because of the love of Saab and its history? A very important factor in R&D has proven to be the history of an operation, and the ability to attract the right people with the right dedication and skills. If it was easy to set up such operations, they would already have those in the US. But it is not, and it can’t be treated like a production plant. A bunch of key personnel leave and it can all go down the drain very quickly. Sure, GM has access to all Saab technologies now. But development is something that goes on all the time. They need new inventions every years from creative groups of researchers and engineers. I wonder how they gonna play that card if they are about to get rid of Saab as a brand.
17 Smoke_Jaguar4
// Jan 5, 2009 at 11:21 am
Can anyone with photoshop skillz graft a Dame Edna frontend and hockey-stick C-pillar onto the SRX?
18 ctm
// Jan 5, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Another thing to do is to photoshop an Opel front onto the 9-4X concept. That could be the true future of that car…
19 Tompa
// Jan 5, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Well hopefully a buyer will see what Saab has realy done over the years.. And not the red numbers. Hopefully they will see that GM is responsible for sucking out the goodies from Saab and lewving them with nothing in return… IF they would have invested in Saab, the Saab would have been successful, sold 200´+ units/year and would have had the NG9-5, the NG 9-3, a small car and the 9-4X.
20 Markac
// Jan 5, 2009 at 8:22 pm
ctm: And a Buick front for the US market!