Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:31:27 -0700 From: Spuds Velvet <velveetanopsamse.com> Subject: Re: Engine noise 9.5 engines
In article <3AEBBE13.E64DABD2nopsamsafish.com>, johsnopsamsafish.com says... > > > Spuds Velvet wrote: > > > > In article <1kkG6.1111$Mz.76576nopsam1.cableinet.net>, > > stan.stannopsameinet.co.uk says... > > > Can any one please explain why the 3.0L lpt V6 engine is much noisier than > > > the 2.3L 4 cylinder engine? > > > > > -- > > > > Saab Fours have a rotating balancer bar that evens out vibration > > and incidentally cancels out some vibration noise. The turbo > > housing also sits on top of the engine, and it absorbs more > > noise. > > > > 1. The turbo sits on the side of the engine, there is no space > for it on the top. The turbo does not prevent or reduce mechanical > vibrations of the engine, although the turbo might absorb some > exhaust noise. > > 2. My 1993 saab 9K has a 2.0 LPT without balancer shafts. However, > the engine runs so smoothly that you can hardly tell it has only > 4 cyl. I have driven/owned other 4 cyl cars, but this engine is in a > different class of smoothness. It makes me wonder if the introduction > of balancer shafts for the 2.0 in 1994 was partly motivated by > marketing reasons? The larger 2.3 might benefit more from > balancer shafts. > > > The new Saab six is designed to manufacture inexpensively so it > > can be used in economy cars. Saturn uses this engine in the US. > > For instance, if you want to save $12,000 dollars on a good > > wagon, you can buy the Saturn V6 at $23.5K instead of the Saab at > > $36K. They are the same size. > > > > The engine sends a bit more unharnessed power through the engine > > block than it might if Opel had wanted to spend another couple > > dozen Marks on its manufacture. The engine, therefore, is not > > designed to dampen vibration. The thin wall engine block actually > > broadcasts it. The engine itself generates more undampened > > vibration (and noise) through its heads, and the turbo housing is > > not positioned to dampen any of this noise. > > > > spuds velvet > > But why then is a 9-5 3.0 V6 considered "top of the range" and is > the most expensive model? Marketing again? > > Johannes --- Full Disclosure: I have a 2001 9-3. I wanted a 9-5 SE Wagon. Also: In the US: the 9-5 V6 is not the top car. The 230 HP L4 Aero is. And the L4 Viggens are above that. * * * * * I don't care about the GM-Saab controversy that airs on this newsgroup weekly; but one aspect that makes sense, is the V6. That engine comes out of a very unexceptional engineering design group at Opel. It was designed for midprice cars. It's used in the US Saturn LS (really an Opel) which sells here loaded for $23.5K -- and is a sales disappointment at that price. This Saturn wagon is mechanically close to the same wagon as the Saab 9-5 SE, which sells for an easy $37K. That's a $14K difference in price -- and the Saturn is a good wagon to start with. Now; I am not a veteran Saab mechanic, but I read well, can service cars, used to service my old Saab, and just took six months to read everything and drive everything before I bought my new 9-3. Everything I stated above could be wrong, but that's what I've read. I've driven both the Saturn LS and the Saab wagons, and they are awfully damned close in size and driving personality (even tho the Saab is better). If you know something I don't, then YOU tell ME what's going on here. <Opinion> As far as the V6 in Saabs go; the US Market is going to force GM to rethink its luxury car strategy, which is God-Damned pathetic. Saab sales are bad here because US buyers won't spend $35K for a four-cylinder car. Nor will they spend $35 - 40K for a car with an engine designed to be cheap to manufacture at the expense of mechanical efficiency and repairability. To stay alive in the US, Saab will need to put a really good small V6 in the 9-3 and a larger, absolutely terrific V6 in the 9-5 if they are to remain compeditive here. Horsepower ratings (already too high in my opinion) must go up another 20% in each case -- minimum. Not because Saab isn't a great car already; but because that's what the US MARKET WANTS. Saab will also need to make some noise. A derivative re-badged Buick SUV isn't enough. I would suggest a 4WD sports sedan that can publicly and repeatedly whip BMW 3-series sedans, and with a cleaner and more intelligently conceived body design than the Acura CT. Saab needs to get the GM 'suits' out of Trollhatten, and then design their own $32K miracle car. </Opinion>
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
