Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:29:28 -0000 From: "Christian" <christianbnopsamail.com> Subject: Re: Stock BHP for 91-93 2.1L 900 "i"? WAS Re: I think the turbo is working.
"Lance Morgan" <alancemornopsamo.com> wrote in message news:2a52f3e9.0302050747.1a40f87nopsaming.google.com... > "Christian" <christianbnopsamail.com> wrote in message news:<aFE%9.12197$RZ.136951nopsamfep4-win.server.ntli.net>... > > "Paul Halliday" <pjghnopsamyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > >> After my first 900 turbo, > > the > > > injection was a real surprise - it can't quite keep up with a boosting > > 900, > > > but catches up pretty quick. > > > Paul > > > > Has your 900i had an engine transplant? > > > > No N/A 16V in '85, not in UK anyway. I found the 16v OK, more refined and > > slightly perkier than an 8v, but I had better low down torque with my 8v. > > Top speed wasn't much higher either. > > > > The gearing and aerodynamics of the 900 don't help as the same (130hp) motor > > in the 9000 could crack 120.. > > > > > > > > > > 1985 900i 16V > > > 1989 900 Turbo S > > > http://pjgh.go.dyndns.org/saab/index.html > > > > > Found one source that stated 103 kW, or 138 HP. But the US "S" is > rated at 140 HP, so that didn't seem right. > > Also thought I'd once seen the 91 "i" was a non-cat and rated at 150 > BHP (but I may be confusing it with a NA 2.3L 9000), and then maybe HP > went down in 92 & 93 w/the cat? > The 2.3 WAS 150hp, but I think the 2.1 was 138-140 tops. Maybe with some mild tuning... The 2.1 is reckoned to be a weak motor, eats headgaskets... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.431 / Virus Database: 242 - Release Date: 17/12/2002
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
