Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:23:06 GMT From: wjgreernopsameja.com Subject: Re: Turbo vs. V6
> Which is better? Responding to this from a general standpoint, the jury is always out. The benefits of the turbo engine are primarily the reduced weight (as another respondent mentioned), and, in general, a better mileage to horsepower ratio. During the 1980s, turbos first came into common use on sports-oriented cars in the US. My feeling is that they were used more as a marketing tool than a real preformance tool, though. It seems sensible to say that you should not turbocharge an engine that has not been optimized in other ways first. For instance, I think a turbocharges 8-valve 4- cylinder engine is a bad idea, but there were tons of those driving around. For these and any number of other reasons, turbos developed a terrible reliability reputation in this marketplace. In addition, insurers seem to place a premium upon policies for turbocharged cars, even when the power numbers are equivalent to a lower-premium non-turbo car. I think I remember reading a review of a Saab 900 a few years back where the guy said that he liked the car, but the insurance was higher than a Mustang GT would have been for him. Saab has now made a total commitment to turbocharging, and you cannot currently buy a new Saab without a turbo engine. Their warranty is excellent at 5 years/50K miles, which must be a statement towards the reliability of their current turbos. Personally I have always been a Saab fan, but have never purchased one because of some reliability concerns. At this point I can feel myself warming up though, and I believe I will probably lease a 9-3 as soon as my current lease is up. In the 1995 900, the V6 is definitely a General Motors engine. At 2.5L (I think), it sounds like a reincarnation of the V6 they put in countless midmarket cars through the years. I always thought it would be odd to have a GM V6 in a Saab. -WJG Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
