The banner above is an advertisment - if it asks you to download software, please ignore.
Site News - 3/26 M Car Covers (by State of Nine) | 12/12 Make Amazon Pay Saabnet!
Date: 15 Feb 2005 21:08:59 GMT
From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net>
Subject: Re: new saab motor for 9-3 series


On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:53:36 +0000, Colin Stamp <col.dustbinnospamp.plus.com> wrote: > On 15 Feb 2005 19:45:14 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> wrote: > >>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:42:38 +0000, Colin Stamp <col.dustbinnospamp.plus.com> wrote: > >> >>> Any six will still >>> be better than a four, >> >>Based on specifically what facts? The worst six in the world is better >>than the best 4 in the world, is what you're saying. > > Actually, I shouldn't have used the word "better". It should have been > "smoother". Also, of course, it's assuming a level playing-field. If > you find yourself having to trawl the third-world looking for a V6 > that's harsher than a high quality four, then I rest my case m'lud. You're the one who made the absolute statement that was a massive oversimplification, so please don't put the burdon of disproof on me for your statement. >>> and as the power goes up the difference gets >>> more marked. Up at 250BHP, a four is going to be getting decidedly >>> harsh. >> >>250BHP out of a 2.3L Saab I-4 isn't unusual at all. > > Nobody's saying that it's unusual, just harsher than the same power > from a six. Please define "harsher" in engineering (or just real) terms. >>Something to consider: >>Why is it that the aftermarket performance mods are _all_ for the I-4, >>none for the V-6? I would submit it is because the 4 is more tune-able >>and robust. > > More likely that it's more common and so that's where all the > aftermarket money is. Hard to say. > Robustness doesn't come into it. There's some > very flimsy engines with thriving aftermarket tuning businesses > attached to them. Yes, and Saab engines aren't among them. One would think that those who buy the V6 because it has more pistons, would be _more_ likely to demand performance upgrades - and yet, they're still not out there. >>> Now, if the 9-3 were RWD... Hmmm, that would be a nice car... >> >>Now, you're just pulling my leg. RWD is anti-everything that Saab >>is about. If you live in a climate with lots of snow, and you've >>driven both, you couldn't possibly make a statement like that. >> > I was thinking from a completely selfish point of view. We only get a > few days of snow per year in Milton Keynes, Oh, I am _so_ sorry. The Magic Roundabout is pretty interesting, though. > and when we do, driving on > the roads is impossible because of all the stationary traffic. In > normal conditions, big power and RWD is great fun. The biggest problem > my 9-3 has, is traction. My old Nissan 200SX had no-end less power but > was much quicker off the mark. I miss that. Well, different technologies for different needs. In my part of the USA, the side roads where I live won't be bare for about 2 months - hard packed snow/ice is the road surface. 2" snowfalls barely make mention in the news, let alone a disasterous traffic situation. >>IF the power goes up, putting a less reliable design in, isn't worth >>it to me. Maybe if you're a 3-years-and-out kind of owner, then >>that doesn't matter. But, since I can tune an I4 to much more >>power than the V6 offers, I think it's a null statement. And the >>dual balance-shaft design of the I4 is very vibration free. > Sure, if you're buying to tune, then buy the one you can get all the > tuning kit for. That isn't related to cylinder count, just where the > tuning companies think the money is. If you say so. Me, I see it as a sign of what's do-able or not. Saab tuning is enough of a niche market in the first place, after all. >>> if you want refinement. Straight sixes just aren't an >>> option in a 9-3, so if you want 6, it has to be a V6. >>BMW seems to be able to fit an I-6; GM doesn't because they >>have a handy V6 that they can cram into wherever it mostly fits. > BMWs all have RWD and hence longitudinal engines. I can see where > you're coming from, a straight six is no-doubt *possible*, but they'd > never sell enough to make the huge changes to the whole powertrain > worthwhile. Well, the c900's I4 was longitudinal, with the tranny below. Another 2 cylinders wouldn't add any _length_ to the powertrain, compared to the BMW I-6. It could be done. > You can't blame them for not doing something that's bound > to lose them shed-loads of money. The smoothness difference between a > straight and a V 6 is pretty marginal anyway. Can you quantify "smoothness" as used in this context, please? Have you actually _driven_ a dual balance-shaft Saab I4? Or, even a single balance-shaft Saab V4? Dave Hinz

Return to Main Index
StateOfNine.com
SaabClub.com
Jak Stoll Performance
M Car Covers
Ad Available

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2024 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Mission & Privacy Notice.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]