Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 17:33:42 -0000 From: "DervMan" <dervmannopsamail.com> Subject: Re: Saab 93 Sports Saloon 2.2 Tid
"Johannes H Andersen" <johsnopsamsizefitterzzzz.com> wrote in message news:3E462A6F.13023AF7nopsamsizefitterzzzz.com... > > > DervMan wrote: > > > > "Rawnsley Charles" <charlie> wrote in message > > news:3e44ef3e$1_1nopsam.vo.lu... > > > Hi, > > > > > > Thinking of buying a Saab 93 Sports Saloon 2.2 Tid, however, looking at > > the > > > performance compared to an Audi A4 or a 320d BMW it looks a little on the > > > sluggish side. Anyone out there got one and can tell me if it's got any > > > poke? > > > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Interesting question! > > > > I'm guessing that you've looked and compared the 0 - 60 acceleration times? > > To be blunt, these mean little other than the "my car's faster than yours" > > argument, usually used by Citroen Saxo VTR drivers 'cos Citroen lengthened > > the VTR's gearing to hit 60 in second (and thus robbed the car of a decent > > response at low speed). > > > > What's more telling is the way the engine delivers it's performance, the > > gearing, the mid-range acceleration, and the power and torque to weight > > ratios of the bunch, but even this is only a base point: you need to drive > > the cars! > > > > However. > > > > The BMW has the highest output, and that 2.0 litre donk is a peach. It's > > more powerful than either the A4 TDI 130 and the 9-3, and - of greater > > significance - it has more torque. 328 Nm of the stuff. > > > > The A4 and the 9-3 are closely matched, with the A4 having a small advantage > > (130 PS, 284 Nm for the A4, 125 / 278 for the Saab). > > > > The BMW is the heaviest, the A4 the lightest. And on paper, the BMW is the > > quickest. But comparing the BMW and the A4, in a straight line, I found the > > A4 felt quicker. Which one would I have taken? Neither, actually, but > > that's a long story. I would have been more inclined to take the BMW rather > > than the Audi, but I'd not swap the Ka for it. > > > > I've not driven the current 9-3, and won't until the next colleague wants > > something in this class! My Datasheet reckons the 9-3 will be slightly > > slower than the other two, but it may not *feel* that way, and the datasheet > > cannot take into account gear ratios and suchlike. > > > > You need to drive all three cars back to back! > > I'm not much for diesels; my 9000 CSE 2.0 LPT will do over 40 mpg on motorway > driving if I don't drive like crazy. There's a lot more to it than just plumbing along at a constant speed on the motorway. Diesels don't run a richer fuel mixture when cold, so there's a saving here (note that many run the engine a little quicker, but this is to make it smoother - they don't need to in order to run, and it's simply effectively holding the "throttle" open rather than running a richer mixture). I've returned over 50 mpg from these size of cars, but their older cousins - the first generation Mondeo TD, for example, and our fleet's 406 and Laguna (indirect injection engines) would also return 47 - 53 mpg on a motorway run. That's 25% more efficient than their petrol brethern. > Anyway, the first I would look for in a > diesel is differences in noise and vibration since this is the main bugbear > and where I expect the technology is advancing. It's advancing across the whole spectrum, though. > I don't quite believe it > when people say that this problem has been completely eradicated. I can hear > diesel cars clattering when stopping at traffic lights; these are modern > diesel cars, not just the London taxis. You're making the mistake of what one sounds like from outside, compared to what it's like inside. > I often get worried that something > has got loose in my engine until I realise that it's caused by a diesel in > front of me. Heh! > I've read comparison tests between the three cars and the 2.2 > diesel Saab came last this respect. The previous generation Saab diesel didn't impress me in this respect, but given that I've not tried the new one, I can't comment on any improvement. Both the BMW and the Audi are very well catered for in this respect - indeed, in some respects, they're better than their whiny petrol equivalents. I don't know of many four pot petrol engines in the cooking models that sound exciting. That's usually reserved for sixes, eights, and above. -- The DervMan www.dervman.com
