[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
Hey Terry,
Sometimes I think you folks are theorizing too much. I mean, we can all feel the difference between a sloppy chassis and a tight one on the road, but can you really say you can fel the 3% difference in drivetrain losses between the chain driven layout on a c900 and the transverse 9000 set up?
As far as I'm concerned it's like this.
All Saabs are FWD and for good reasons (all-weather safety and ability without the added weight, complexity and drag of AWD nor its tendency to edgy on-limit behaviour).
Driving the front wheels means there's a limit to the amount of torque/power you can reasonably get away with. Therefore, for a sporting car FWD only makes sense in reasonably light and nimble packages that don't need huge power to shift them around nicely (see: MINI Cooper S). Limited slip diffs are non-starters for road use, IMO - the last thing I need is the steering wheel trying to break free when things go bumpy mid-corner or to hit the outside armco barrier the moment -both- wheels lose grip.
Fact: you can't shrink a 9000 down to less than 1,200 kgs without stripping the entire interior, like you can with a c900
Fact: you cannot shorten it's wheelbase without cutting the thing in half, welding it all back together and hoping your frienbly state inspector doesn't notice, nor can you expect it to grow double wishbones instead of those McPherson struts. If you could turn the whole driveline 180 degrees to make sure all of its weight is behind the axle line instead of in front of it, that would be nice, but until then there's a definite advantage in the longitudinal c900 set up where at least a part of the drivetrain weight (I'd guesstimate 1/4 to 1/3) sits behind the axle line. The only tangible benefit the 9000 chassis has is track width (the c900 could do with an extra inch or two - but OTOH from the driver's seat you don't want to have 'too much' car around you when navigating for instance Welsh B-roads at speed).
You will not be able to get away with deleting the front sway bar to maximize front end grip on a 9000 or newer like you can with a 900. With a proper alignment and the right suspension components, you won't feel the need for an LSD on a c900 with a well honed kind of power delivery (as opposed to nothing - ALL - OH SH*T - not going on anymore). Purity and consistency of steering response is more important to me than all-out traction.
You can put any kind of engine management system in a c900 (see Damien's T5 and Vince's SDS). You can put in an LSD if you're so inclined. But you cannot change the basic physical properties of the different platforms. A 9000 is a bigger, more unwieldy car, period.
Yeah, T5 is a far superior system to LH 2.2 - but most of the advantages that are not within the programming itself are in terms of economy and emissions. Those were not design goals for Saabine, as she's an '85 and we did not even have catalytic converters back then. As long as I can get a solid 12-12.5:1 all across the range and good part-throttle driveability everywhere, I'm happy with whatever system. Even if it were carbs.
Right now, I have the option of custom reprogramming the LH system or setting it up close to stock, and do WOT maps from a certain boost/rpm level using a secondary injection system.
I thought about T5, but no one outside of Sweden can do custom programming - and Damien had to chuck his Crower G6-spec cams (the same as mine) because T5 couldn't adapt where LH 2.2 can. However, I need more agressive cams to shift the torque curve somewhat up the rev range and get peak power at 6.5K or so (FWD, trans with limited torque capacity and all. That, and the 57-tooth hamster wheel I had that I could bolt to the back of the crank pulley added aover 500 grams of rotating weight to the crank assembly.
For performance, the important thing is to have full 3D control over ignition, and this is achieved with my stand alone DI system just as well as with full-house T5 or stand alone systems.
What if I sunk all that money into a 9K Aero? Well, I'd have to spend about 15K for a decent one to start with, and be happy to find one with manual trans. But more importantly, I would have ended up with a very fast motorway cruiser - for which I don't have real use here. And if I did, I could just as well buy an M5 or so.
What I wanted was something approaching the crushing cross-country ability of the best Scooby/Evo derivatives, but with the agility and accessability of a good FWD hot hatch (Peugeot 306 GTI-6, Cooper S, Integra Type-R) and a certain degree of rawness, but packaged into something infinitely cooler than that (I don't know about the US, but Evo's et al have definitely nerdy image over here and they're very much 'flavour of the week' except for a select few icons like the Impreza P1. I can't afford to change may car every year or so because there's a new version that does everything better and that all my mates will buy leaving me with a forgotten hero). I don't particularly care about refinement or creature comforts, but I do care about practicality and a reasonably stealthy profile. I'm building my car for me, not to impress the guys in the pub.
As you may know, I've driven most of the 'hot' performance cars here. Because of this, I've got a pretty good benchmark for all the aspects of what makes a 'driver's car'. From that perspective, I think most of us on this forum focus too much on outright power and grip. Given our cars are somewhat older and therfore weigh less than later designs, and everything with a turbo bolted on can be persuaded to give significantly more torque and power than provided ex-factory, getting favourable power/weight and torque/weight ratio is in fact the least of our problems. The fact that you can achieve large power gains with Trionic easier than with earlier engine management systems is nice, but almost trivial as well (especially given that every full pressure turbo'ed 900/9-3 is already overpowering its chassis by some margin, factory-stock).
But if you ever drove an M3, or anything with a purpose-built 'performance' engine, you'll find the power DELIVERY and the RESPONSE of our Saabs is not exactly sporty. And where the old 900 emitted a very distinctive and satisfying rumble and the gruff engine not of the Viggen put a smile on your face whenever you turned the key, modern versions (especially the Opel-derived units) sound as anodyne as a kitchen appliance). If my design goal was something like "280 hp", period, yes, buying something with a B234/235 in it and swapping ECU's as well as a periphal component or two would be a lot easier. But making a Saab turbo engine respond more eager, rev quicker and higher, and tailoring its response so that you don't get a wad of midrange torque making the fronts scrabble for grip in any gear, after which nothing really happens further up the rev range, will always involve use of the 'classic' tuning/racing techniques (weighting, balancing, lightening, porting...). And when you then put your engine back together, you'll find there's no 'off the shelf' ECU upgrade to match anyways, Trionic or not. Move to Sweden or your AWOL.
So, no real advantage for the later cars there.
Thus, you go looking for the best overall platform. 9-3SS is out - if I had that kind of money laying around I'd buy a slightly used sports car. 9-5 weighs a whopping 400 kgs more than a c900. End of story. Rest - see above.
That's Project Saabine for you. It has four doors, a roof and a big boot, but it's a far different beast from a 9000 or 9-5. You wouldn't replace your electric windows with manual cranks, tear out the A/C or delete the cruise control from one of those. Because it would mean you would compromise the things those cars are good at (effortless speed at long distances) without really gaining anything. But with a c900 it makes sense. It's a far more basic, 'immediate' and involving experience anyways. The car weighs *exactly* the same as a Cooper S, and like it turns in period. You're not going to achieve that with an Aero or Viggen, and most people won't want to. For 99% of Saab drivers, Trionic tuning, maybe with some bolt ons to go with it, are a perfect solution because all they want is the 'mechanical comfort' of effortless power. In short, they want a faster Saab. But I want a *more sporting* Saab - something to involve and thrill on a different level, and for that the c900 is still the most viable starting point. Look, if you will, at the likes of Saabotage, SAABOTR and Saabine as the Evo RS Sprint's of the Saab world. They're not necessarily the most powerful or outright fastest, but each of them is having a go at being the most tightly focussed, hardcore driver's car a mere Saab can become.
posted by 82.169.6...
, Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:06:00
, Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:44:56
, Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:01:01
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.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
