 |
|
|
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:02:21 -0500 From: "Russell D. Ollie, Sr." <russell.ollienopsams.com> Subject: Re: 9-5 beats A6,E-Class,5-Series,S80,300M
I can't find figures for the 9000 Aero anymore but I have a recent issue of Car and Driver where they clock the S80 T6 (with automatic transmission) at a time of 6.5 seconds from 0-60. Is the 9000 Aero faster than this? Regarding the I6 engine, although it has been massaged quite nicely it is not a truly new engine. This is the same class of engine Volvo has been using for several years now. The engine was developed by Porsche several years ago as 'modular' 6 cylinder for the 900/s90 series cars. Volvo took a cylinder off for the 850/70 series cars and took another one off for the 40 series cars. It's been a great engine for Volvo but I think they did so well because they farmed out the initial engine design to Porsche. -rdo russell.ollienopsamnet 1998 S70 T5, 27k miles (for sale) Justin VanAbrahams wrote in message <36756BCC.4FDFnopsamnet>... >Radek =?iso-8859-2?Q?Hul=E1n?= wrote: >> >> Forgive me if I am wrong, but it is a common notion of all people >> I speak to that Volvo is the main inventor of new things >> and Saab just follows new features Volvo (with bigger R&D budget) >> has implemented. > >I think you are mistaken... Volvo has traditionally followed >Saab's innovation, not the other way around... > >Saab started using unitized body (unibody) construction >and front wheel drive platforms YEARS before Volvo did, >and until recently Volvo swore that FWD was inferior to >RWD, yet it's noteworthy almost their entire lineup is >FWD. > >Saab added a turbo to a passenger car four years before >it occured to Volvo, Although the BMW 2002 Turbo might >technically be the first, it was regarded as a failed >experiment due to unacceptable lag and questionable >performance. Not only that, but Saab's APC system from >'82 was light years beyond Volvo's very basic wastegate >management - and it wasn't until the mid '90s that >Volvo had anything to counter APC; and their system >came from Bosch! > >Saab implemented pyrotechnic seatbelt tensioners on the >'85 9000, and I don't believe Volvo even offers that >yet (though BMW added it two years ago). The Saab 9000 >also got ABS in '88 and SRS in '89 as standard, non-optional >features, something which you had to wait until the early >'90s to get on a Volvo. > >Saab added AHR (active head restraint) and Volvo >copied with an inferior variant to avoid patent >law. *No one* believes that Volvo's system, >which reclines the front seats, is anywhere near as >useful as Saab's, and I've even read some reviews on >it which question its safety in the first place. > >Finally, it wasn't until recently, with the T5R, that >Volvo had *any* engines worth looking at. The main >staple of their engines throughout the '80s has been >the 2.3l Turbo (originally from the 7-series, 1985) making >160hp. The Saab 16v Turbo, introduced the same year, >made tha same HP and more torque out of a smaller >displacement (2.0l vs. 2.3l). Better gas mileage >and more power? Inferior? I doubt it. I readily >acknowledge that the new inline turbo 6 is a powerful >engine, and arguably better than Saab's full pressure >2.3l four (225hp vs. 268hp) but it's worth noting >that the S80 is still slower to 60 than a 1998 >Saab 9000 Aero despite it's healthy hp advantage. > >I don't dislike Volvo - I think they make some great >cars. But they based the last 30 years of production >on their safety features and REALLY lagged behind in >technical innovation. The irony is that Folksam, >Sweden largest insurer, rates the Saab 9000 as the >safest car in Sweden, and not a Volvo. > >Please, play again... > >-Justin
