Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans



  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,733
    Inline engines also have much less mechanical complexity. V engines are a design nightmare - angles and extra connecting rods and multiple camshafts and...

    That adds weight as well. And worsens efficiency. So as a result, you can make a smaller I-6 than a V6 and get the same results. So often, you can fit the I-6 in the car as well as a V6.

    But GM and Ford never really designed I-6 engines - at least not recently. So they trudge along with their overly complex V engines. BMW and Mercedes started out with inline engines and still use a lot of them.

    As for the weight, 3400lbs is just about what my 87 Buick Park Ave weighed. That's hideously bloated for such a small car. It should be closer to 2600lbs.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    You can get that with a Dinan mod for 2k.
  • sjaievesjaieve Posts: 252
    Might as well make room for this car in this segment. I havent seen what else it has to offer but it will slaughter a lot of the pseudo ELLPS. 295 pound feet of torque, pretty impressive.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    Edmunds Saab Turbo X write-up:

    Yes, it's a FWD-bias Haldex system - ie garbage.

    3800 lbs.

    And that legendary saab performance. Oh right, it's a saab...
  • sjaievesjaieve Posts: 252
    Gosh, you are merciless. I will read the article and see what edmunds says. I think its a fair attempt by SAAB though
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    GM does have on OHC truck I6 that was used on the mid-size SUVs. So GM has an inline six that is a recent design, but it was not design for cars. I think that the torque and power output of an engine is related to the size of the engine and an inline engine does not have more torque just because it is an inline.

    The 87 Park Avenue was bigger than the current 3-series which is just a heavy.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,353
    I disagree...even compared to the CTS, this car is low grade and should not be in ELLPS category, IMHO.

  • sjaievesjaieve Posts: 252
    I will respecfully widthdraw this candidate :blush:
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Posts: 1,230

    Just because two "contributors" don't like the car, it doesn't mean that we should NOT talk about the Saab here.

    AFAIC, the Saab is considered a competitor in this category, and so does just about every other automotive source that's out there. They may not like it, but it's out there, offering similar performance and items/features, for a similar price.
  • sjaievesjaieve Posts: 252
    It starts at 42k, there are only sending 600 to the US, is only available in black. If it were a mass car like everything else in ELLPS I would have happily proceeded with the argument but I cant just do that for the sake of it.

    I like the way you think though ;)
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Posts: 3,118
    Woot! The Bimmerphiles win again :P
  • r34r34 Posts: 178
    Actually Saab is not big. It may not have the good handling as the Bimmer's and it may not have good interior as the Audi's. However, it is a nice overall package. It gives you a taste of European car with an Accord price (after all incentives). It belongs to highway. The turbo is amazing. You can feel safe driving it with triple digits (like most European cars). You can drive some cars in triple digits but you will not feel safe because they were not built for autobahnn speed.

    I don't trust certain car reviews. People need to test drive the cars.
  • alltorquealltorque Posts: 535
    Inline engines also have much less mechanical complexity. V engines are a design nightmare - angles and extra connecting rods and multiple camshafts and...

    That adds weight as well. And worsens efficiency. So as a result, you can make a smaller I-6 than a V6 and get the same results. So often, you can fit the I-6 in the car as well as a V6.

    Forgive me for being pedantic but why would a V6 need more connecting rods than an I6 ? Also, don't forget that you make make a shorter, (in length and lose a little height), engine in V6 than of the same bore I6.............can see some benefits there. Of course Flat 6's are even better, albeit rather rare. Subaru and Porsche being the only ones that come to mind in current production.

    No particular preference for V or I - just like 6's in general and 5 cylinder diesels in particular, (yes, I know, it's my age :) ).
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Posts: 1,938
    Forgive me for being pedantic but why would a V6 need more connecting rods than an I6 ? ...

    It doesn't. Six cylinders are six cylinders. He was just spitting out parts trying feverishly to prove an I6 is better than a V6 without even considering what those parts are or what they do. :D
  • alltorquealltorque Posts: 535
    Ah, so it wasn't just an old Brit missing something, then. That's reassuring. :)

    My first car was a 1956 Vauxhall Velox - sort of U.K. take on an early-50's Chevy something; all rounded and nice. That had a 2262cc I6 that pumped out a mind-blowing 59bhp, (but a fair bit of torque), and was coupled to a 3M 'box. First was so low that you could use it for pulling up tree stumps. Even that amount of power could embarass the cross-ply tyres of the day. All black body, lots of chrome and a carnation pink & white interior, (2 x 3 seat benches), plus valve radio. You could definitely see the GM influence. Happy days. :shades:
  • louisweilouiswei Posts: 3,717
    I don't have any preference either, as long as a 6-banger gives me 300+ hp then I am good. I prefer NA but I'll take an almost-turbo-lag-less twin turbo 6 as well.
  • sjaievesjaieve Posts: 252
    I prefer 300+ horses with a nice price tag and a respectable 0-60 & 1/4 mile. All I need to know about the engine copmonents is there are reliable, nothing more
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,733
    I meant more parts in the connecting rods. I see it as having pultiple connecting rods since it has more than one part between the piston and the crankshaft.

    *** from wiki on 60 degree engines***
    However, more modern designs often use a 3-throw crankshaft with what are termed flying arms between the crankpins, which not only give the required 120° separation but also can be used for balancing purposes. Combined with a pair of heavy counterweights on the crankshaft ends, these can eliminate all but a modest secondary imbalance which can easily be damped out by the engine mounts
    So you don't have piston. rod. crankshaft. like in an inline engine. You have a bunch of intermediary parts kludged together to keep it from shaking itself apart.

    GM's 90 degree designs are even more complex and run even rougher, being designed off of V8 engines. Actually quite nasty, really. They tend to eat through engine mounts fairly regularly.

    The reason you don't see many I6s is because they usually won't fit in a FWD car due to there needing to be space for the CV joints and transmission as well. Thankfully it is making a comeback as makers are slowly realizing what a giant turd FWD technology is, especially in vehicles with over 200HP.
  • cdnpinheadcdnpinhead Forest Lakes, AZPosts: 3,237
    ". . .plus valve radio."

    I also remember tube (valve) radios in cars -- they took awhile to warm up and really could run down the battery if left on while the engine (with its generator) was shut down. Lots of things have improved tremendously in automobiles over the past 50 years, but many of them add weight.

    My '65 MGB was lots of fun to drive & own, with the knock-offs, wire wheels, the tightest steering I've ever had and shifter feel that was unequalled. Safe? Not really. Powerful? No. Radio quality? Awful. Still, a wonderful car.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    Ummm, I'm thinking that you've grossly misinterpreted what you quoted from Wikipedia. True, most V6 engines use a three throw crank with some form of an offset between paired connecting rods to achieve an even 120 degree firing interval, however, even the 60 degree engines that use flying arms (an arm that reaches between connecting rods and extends from the throw back through the axis of the crank and some distance beyond) have no more complicated connecting rod assemblies than an inline engine. FWIW, flying arms are cast into the crank itself, they don't move independently and other than a little machining to remove a small amount of metal in the balancing process, require no extra work during engine assembly.

    Actually, when looked at from a part count perspective, V6 crank shaft, crank bearing, and connecting rod assemblies (bearings included) are actually simpler than an I6. Why is that? Simple, your typical V6 only uses four main bearings with a single 2-cylinder offset throw in between each main pair, however, your typical I6 uses seven main bearings with each cylinder having its own throw situated between main pairs. In spite of this difference, I6 engines usually have a considerably lower parts count compared to a V6 of an otherwise similar design.

    Best Regards,
Sign In or Register to comment.