![]() |
Date: 15 Feb 2005 19:45:14 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> Subject: Re: new saab motor for 9-3 series
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:42:38 +0000, Colin Stamp <col.dustbinnospamp.plus.com> wrote: > On 15 Feb 2005 16:42:38 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> wrote: > >>At any given TDC, three pistons will be at the top. Two will be on >>one side, and a half-revolution of the crank later, they'll be on the >>other side. Vastly oversimplified, but it's a dynamic load on the >>engine that doesn't exist in a V4, V8, or an I-anything. > > I see what you mean about straight 6 vs. V6, but I thought we were > comparing the current four-pot against the new V6. yes. > 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. > 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. 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. > Saab does play the luxury card, after-all. >>> I'd always seen increasing the cylinder count as a perfectly sensible >>> way of increasing the displacement whilst keeping the cylinders >>> reasonably small. Going from straight to V does add a lot of >>> components though. There's plenty of straight sixes about, but they're >>> a bit long for most applications. >> >>I don't have any complaints or concerns about an I6. > > You would if you tried to fit it transversely in a 9-3. It might go in > a Humvee, but I pray I never see a Saab wide enough for a sideways > straight 6! There has been at least one, but it was a special case. Google for "saab monster" > 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. >>> If you want an engine over about 2.5 litres, your four-pot options are >>> virtually non-existant. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't have >>> anything to do with the number of pistons. It's all about the age-old >>> displacement vs. turbo debate... >> >>Well, sure, but if you want 6 pistons, arranging them in a V is a >>poor choice. I don't know of any V6 engine that has the reputation >>for longevity that, for instance, the Saab I-4 2.0 engine does. > > It's a compromise, like everything else, but it's worth it as the > power goes up, 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. > 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.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |