2003-2011 [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
![]() | [Main 93 Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
2.0t vs. 2.0T, smoothness, lugging, downshift vs coast Posted by Caarma [Email] ![]() ![]() ![]() |
So, I've been driving my parents 2004 9-3 Linear automatic while they are traveling and I am now sure of the fact that the 2.0 t is smoother than the 2.0 T on my 9-3 SC and others I have driven with that engine. I notice that the vibrations seem less coarse. It has better low end pull too, although that's hard to compare auto 2.0 t to manual 2.0 T. Fuel economy wise, I can't compare with the different transmissions, but I suspect the my manual 2.0 T is better in the city while the auto 2.0 t is better on the highway since it revs lower.
And then, going back to an earlier question I had on minimum rpms for the engine. If automatics can drive (with load) at 1,300 rpm at times, then I would assume that manuals should also get sufficient lubrication at that speed. Is there any reason that this isn't the case?
One last topic is the debate over downshifting to decel versus coasting in neutral to decel and the impact of each method on fuel economy. I consulted with our fuel economy guru at Detroit Diesel and he confirmed for me that it is better (for fuel economy) to coast in neutral than it is to downshift with rev-matching. I tend to believe the guy. Even though he works on heavy duty diesels, the principles are the same.
Atul
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |