Date: 18 Aug 2002 10:52:59 -0700 From: johsnopsamanytime.co.uk (Johannes H Andersen) Subject: Re: 2.3 or V-6 for 9-5 Wagon
"R.H." <r.hammelnopsam.ca> wrote in message news:<Kjx79.162871$f05.9116822nopsam1.calgary.shaw.ca>... > ...never, ever said the V6 was superior. But..... It gets good mileage, has > smooth, fluid power, excellent low end grunt, no annoying turbo whine, (yup > I said it annoying turbo whine!) excellent low revver on the highway, good > driveability in the city. > > Tuneability?...Not everyone wants to turn their Saab into a sports car with > expensive aftermarket crap. > > Longevity? doesn't a lower revving engine usually outlast a higher revving > one. Don't normally aspirated engines outlast forced induction engines? Saz who? Forced induction engines need less revs. Anyway, the Saab V6 is an 'assymetrical' turbo (forced induction), but it has less bhp (200) than the naturally aspirated Opel engine (210) it is derived from. That shows the emphasis for this engine. There are mag reports that it is nice and responsive to drive, but I can't see the point of it next to the 2.3 Aero: Better performance, better economy, much less CO2 emmision; CO2 is a tax incentive in the UK, not just saving the earth...
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
