Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:37:49 -0700 From: sliderule <srnopsamhlink.net> Subject: Re: Four Cyl. Engine Design Questions
In article <3B4E662A.FF8CEDF1nopsamsafish.com>, johsnopsamsafish.com says... > > > SlideRule wrote: > > > > What are the design differences between the 2.0 and the 2.3 4 cyl > > Saab engines sold in the US? > > > > Are they the same engine block, just bored out? > > > > Same bore 90 mm. Different strokes 78 & 90 mm. > > > If they are different engines, then why does Saab market two > > engines with the same horsepower? > > > > Not the same horse power. Some say that the 2.0 is smoother, but > the 2.3 is stronger. In some markets there is a 2.0 tax barrier. > > > Is the 2.3 engine a significantly better design than the 2.0 > > engine? > > > > No, they are basically same engine. Since 1994 both have balancer > shafts. > > > How does Saab design and build these engines to support > > turbochargers? Are they the same design as they would be without > > the Turbos, or did Saab redesign valves, pistons, cranks, and so > > forth? > > > > Perhaps, but all Saab engines are now turbo charged. Power means > heat. Heat management is a major engineering problem in turbos. > > Johannes -- Thanks. It's too bad that Saab doesn't write a bit more about their design goals, and the steps they take to implement those goals. I guess I am still puzzled over the 2.0 and the 2.3 I4s. In the US, these engines both provide 185 horsepower in basic configuration. I wonder why Saab needs to build two such similar engines? Is one or the other also used for the Diesel, which is not available in the US? Is one engine able to provide much more horsepower, or perhaps is more robust? General Motors (and most other auto companies) did very little to adapt their engines to turbochargers ten years ago. GM also was criminally negligent marketing diesel V8s, not beefing up the engine design to withstand higher compression. Other companies here (Chrysler) have marketed good engines, but they've also put light duty I4s and V6s in their vans that wore out prematurely. Other companies do a great job. I've always liked the way Saabs run. They seem to be robust and brisk, and they seem to have the turbo thing down better than Chrysler, GM, Mazda Subaru, and other companies have. I would like to know what they did. sliderule
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
