Howdy, Stranger!

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





Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!

The Future of Saab?

1323335373844

Comments

  • I think so yeah. The interiors still have a little bit of that swedish SAAB feel other then that SAAB is dead.
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Posts: 4,277
    The second-generation model was launched at the Detroit Auto Show in early 2003.

    All variants feature either a 1.8 L or 2.0 L straight-4 petrol engine derived from General Motors' Ecotec family, or a turbocharged 2.8 L High-Feature V6 (starting in 2006). There are two different versions of the turbo I4, with the amount of turbo boost determining the power output.


    http://wiki.saabo.com/index.php?title=Saab_9-3&redirect=no

    :confuse:
  • Hmh I thought it was its own unique engine too but I guess not. We have a Saab dealership but I really don't have that much interaction with them.
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Posts: 4,277
    No, that's cool. Everything I have ever read has stated it was "Derived" from the Ecotec. So maybe outside the Block, everything is all swede. What I do know is that the Turbos were once Mitsubishi units, but I don't know if that holds true anymore...

    And Merc mentioned the V6 being a GM unit as well. The 2.5l is listed as a "High Feature" V6 which is also a GM unit so I think he may be correct.

    But, yeah, Saab is toast. Even a buddy of mine here at work has said his 99' is his last (Bought a Jeep). I think abandoning the signature hatchback was the final nail in the Saab legacy's coffin. Although the 9-3 vert. is quite the looker. :shades:
  • dhanleydhanley Posts: 1,531
    Well, the 2.3L in the 9-5 is still the "old" saab engine. The 2.0L in the 9-3 is the new engine derived from the ecotec. Frankly, i like the new mill better.
  • dhanleydhanley Posts: 1,531
    > "the small 6 cylinder turbocharged engines simply don't
    > impress me nor should they to anyone."

    > News flash: Saab's purpose is not to impress you.

    I don't know where you're coming from, but saab's purpose *is* to impress me, and other buyers. Turboing can be impressive. However, when you put the turbo v6 next to the sixes available from the competition, it doesn't seem so impressive anymore.

    The thing is, someone who can pony up for a saab can afford a lot of other cars as well. I can see the hypothetical saab buyer hearing the turbo v6 spiel, then saying, "Well, ok, then why does the bigger TL have more HP, get better MPG, and hit sixty quicker? Why does saab boast about their vast turbo heritage but the new turbo BMW roasts it ( 0-60 in 4.8) , and gets 20/29 mpg?.

    Now, i'm not saying that saab sucks, or anything like that, just that i don't see the v6 moving a lot of metal despite all the attempted hoopla.
  • saablcpsaablcp Posts: 195
    Even though the 2.8L.Turbo V-6 failed to "impress"you,the editors at Wards Automotive who annually choose the 10 best engines currently in production apparently did not share your opinion.I suggest you take a look at what the Industry Professionals had to say.
  • w9cww9cw Posts: 888
    merc1 wrote: "Well I'm a Benz man myself, but isn't the Saab inline 4 just a GM Ecotec with different heads?"

    No, and yet, yes - bear with me on this one! The basic SAAB Inline 4 design began it's life as a Triumph-designed and manufactured 1.7 Liter SOHC unit from the Triumph Dolomite sedan. Later in 1971, displacement was enlarged to 1.85 Liters, but the engine was still made by Triumph in England. This was, of course, in the SAAB 99.

    Due to Triumph's quality control problems, and some inherent unique design idiosyncrasies, SAAB moved design and production of the engine to Sweden. This occurred in 1972 when SAAB bought Scania - a Swedish truck manufacturer. This new engine was called the B Engine, and was completely built by SAAB-Scania. Displacement increased from 1.85 to 2.0 Liters. The B Engine shared much from the original Triumph design, but was significantly redesigned and improved by SAAB-Scania. Plus, materials and quality control were substantially better than that provided by Triumph.

    In 1981, SAAB introduced the H Engine with the advent of the SAAB 900. However, it was also used in the SAAB 99 and SAAB 90. It is a slanted Inline 4. Originally still a SOHC 8-valve design, a DOHC 16-valve head was added in late 1984. All later variants and displacements of the SAAB-designed Inline 4 were/are based on the H Engine design.

    However, that being said, the current 9-5 is the sole user of SAAB's H Engine design and Swedish manufacturing. In 2003, the Epsilon 9-3 switched to the GM Ecotec engine. According to my SAAB sources and Wikipedia, the H Engine will most likely end its production run in 2008 when the current 9-5 is replaced. The end of an era!

    Wikipedia has an excellent synopsis of all SAAB engines, including the SAAB SVC (SAAB Variable Compression) engine which won design awards in 2000 and 2001, but GM killed the design and project.
  • Wikipedia has an excellent synopsis of all SAAB engines, including the SAAB SVC (SAAB Variable Compression) engine which won design awards in 2000 and 2001, but GM killed the design and project.

    Oh man I remember reading about the SVC motor and thinking that was about the coolest thing ever on an engine at the time. I had wondered what happened to it a few times but never looked into it.

    Doesn't surprise me that GM killed it though. I can imagine the conversation now...

    SAAB: We have developed this incredible Variable compression engine for use in our new small vehicles. This could revolutionize the IC world as more alternative/bio fuels become avaliable.

    GM: Why doesn't it have pushrods and how can we put that in an SUV??? :surprise: :sick:
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Posts: 4,277
    lol
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,994
    GM, is working on making a a smaller version of this engine
    a 2.8 "High Feature" V6 which will be expanded into more model line-ups so i read in this months issue of Motor Trend. :)

    Rocky
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Posts: 992
    So far i know that it has 255hp and is currently used in the Euro-only Cadillac Bls that is built on the 9-3's platform.

    -Cj :)
  • texasestexases Posts: 8,600
    IIRC, the last few C/D comparison reviews had Saab coming in near last. My other Saab story is that the only two people that I knew with Saab convertibles both had them bought back by the dealers because of unsolvable problems with the tops. So my new car $$ are going elsewhere...
  • dhanleydhanley Posts: 1,531
    Even though the 2.8L.Turbo V-6 failed to "impress"you, [ etc ]

    Instead of trying to imply that i don't know what i'm talking about, why don't you respond to my actual points concerning the engine? You know, like the power and mpg?
  • Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,994
    Pretty darn cool...... :)

    Rocky
  • The most impressive thing about SAAB, seriously and without sarcasm, is their resale. Because the MSRP is so high and they have to offer so many subsidized leases to move the iron, a used SAAB is a good deal. A very good deal. Where else can you get the same content, neat features, safety engineering, etc. for such a price?

    As an alternative, consider the pricing on a used BMW. Every 30 something self respecting yuppie has to have one and the resale is sky high. Not so with SAAB.
  • sidvsidv Posts: 64
    The 2.8t is a damn nice motor, extremely smooth and fairly flexible. Not ultimately as powerful as a 2.8 turbo could, or even should, be-but it's fine in a fairly light car like the 9-3.

    The 2.3T old school design is not an ecotech but the 2.0T is, albeit with extensive Saab-exclusive features. The 2.0T has a much smoother idle, especially when cold than the 2.3T and revs higher than the 2.3T but I've found the 2.3T to have a more muscular sound and much better torque across the rpm range and less turbo lag.

    Anyone who thinks a Saab motor is too small simply needs to drive one-unless you want really major power, there is more than enough in any recent Saab.
  • dhamiltondhamilton Posts: 875
    It's not that there's not enough power, It's that it comes on so high and in a non linear kind of way.

    The engine doesn't feel good with a manual[deal breaker for me] you have to get the automatic to feel somewhat less thrashy.

    Then, the steering is horrible. Excessive torque steer, and it's to thin and cheap feeling.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    Yeah that is what I remember too, but I Saab isn't on my A-list so I wasn't ready to argue the point. I didn't think it was a unique engine anymore.

    M
  • You know SAAB is fighting an up hill battle trying to market a four cylinder engine, however good, in this price segment and their 6 cylinder is underwhelming. But as I posted about a year or so ago, they could solve this problem quite easily by taking a page from the Audi playbook and strapping two turbos, one for each bank, onto the V6. They would then have an AERO that would compete with BMW, expecially in the snow belt. Developemnt time? How long would it take to get a couple of pallet loads of V6 engines shipped to someone like a Roush or ASC in Detroit? Add an engine oil cooler, some better rod bearings, and a few other tweaks and they would be done.

    SAAB pioneered the idea of the winter car. Then Volvo moved upscale and blew by them with an AWD system they buy off the shelf form Haldex. SAAB naturally can't find Haldex' phone number on their rolodex (hint: look under "Lipe Clutch") and so is stuck (pardon the pun) with FWD vehicles in a market segment that is moving to AWD.

    Think about the showroom traffic dealers would have if they could offer a twin turbo six cylinder AWD 9-5 wagon or sedan.

    Why GM's Bob Lutz, supposedly a real car guy, can't figure this out is amazing. I think he landed his jet fighter too many times with the wheels up.
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Posts: 4,277
    With a new 9-3 arriving in 2010 and a 9-5 (optimistically) proposed for 2008, along with two failed badge jobs, how much hope can we really hold for the survival of the Saab brand? Really, how much equity is really left in the nameplate? I think even Putz knows this, and is just milking it along, waiting to dump it on somebody else for any amount of cash. Heck, Toyota bought the stake in Fuji heavy Ind. a former GM affiliate and is teaming up with GM's old ally Isuzu to build a line of diesels. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Saab followed suit. I really wouldn't. :blush:
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,994
    I think thats a great idea. I think GM, should sell Saab to Toyota and the 9-3 can be a rebadged Yaris and the 9-5 can be a rebadged camry, oops Lexus already had dibs on that one. Okay how bout a rebadged Carolla. ? ;)

    Rocky
  • brightness04brightness04 Posts: 3,151
    It's not that there's not enough power, It's that it comes on so high and in a non linear kind of way

    I have no idea what Saab's you have been driving. All Saab's sold in the US (aside from 9-2x and 9-7x rebadge jobs) since circa 1998 are turbo-charged cars with peak torque below 2000rpm, compared to typical 4000rpm torque peak for normally aspirited engines. That's what make Saab's great cars to drive in cities and normal highway driving.
  • sidvsidv Posts: 64
    "Then, the steering is horrible. Excessive torque steer, and it's to (SIC) thin and cheap feeling."

    Don't know what you've been smoking but none of that is true recently in the least. Yes, the power is non-linear in the 2.0T but not the 2.3T which has a stellar torque curve.
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Posts: 992
    Saabs next model lineup should be:

    9-1 as a aveo twin with a saab designed interior,
    9-3 SAAB designed off the g-6/aura/malibu platform
    9-5 built off the Impala's platform
    9-7x being a Saab designed equinox with saabs engines
    9-9x being a lambda

    All odd numbers and a great lineup of vehicles! The aveo with a 2.0T engine = 0-60 in 5secs because of the lightweight!

    -Cj :)
  • georgekgeorgek Posts: 50
    "All variants feature either a 1.8 L or 2.0 L straight-4 petrol engine derived from General Motors' Ecotec family, or a turbocharged 2.8 L High-Feature V6 (starting in 2006). There are two different versions of the turbo I4, with the amount of turbo boost determining the power output."

    That's the 9-3, about which I know very little. The 2.3 HOT in the 9-5 is not a GM design, but the last of the SAAB fours derived from Triumph.
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    Saab's lineup could be:

    9-2 (using the Saturn Astra platform)
    9-3 (using the second generation Epsilon platform)
    9-4 (using the next generation Theta platform, or possibly a shortened version of Lambda)
    9-5 (using the second generation Epsilon platform)
    Sonnett (using the Kappa platform)

    I also think that Saturn and Saab could possibly work together, benefiting both companies. Saab's base models (like the 9-2)could be built in Spring Hill, avoiding higher labor costs at Trollhattan (and therefore creating a cheaper Saab). Niche models like the Sky/Sonnett could be built in Trollhattan, where better quality can be ensured. (maybe)

    Does anybody else think so?
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,726
    GM already announced that most production of Saabs would be (or has already been - this is old news now) moved out of Trollhattan, while they would move IN production of the Euro-Caddy BLS?

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    As far as I know, Trollhattan is still pumping out 9-3s and 9-5s. (along with the rebadged 9-3 Cadillac BLS)

    I remember hearing something about Trollhattan being an underutilized plant a while back, and I think it might make sense to build an Opel or two there, although if Saab added new models I wouldn't be surprised if GM decided to build them at Trollhattan.
Sign In or Register to comment.