Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 14:33:31 +0200 From: "JP Roberts" <1234nospamo.com> Subject: Re: Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)
Dear Dave, You're right. I've never driven a Saab, but I am totally confident that the only turbo engine about with no real lag is that which has the "bang-bang" system, and this, as far as I can remember is only in Subaru's and EVO's realm, never Saabs. I could already tell turbo lag in my 1.8T even before it was chipped, and Audi's 1.8T can be made to give much higher peak power than any Saab can ever get, so I'm sure it's better engineered, even if it has less cubic room than the 2.3 Saab couterpart. According to non-biased owners who dare criticize their own marque, lag is even noticeable in the magnificient 2.7 Biturbo Audi engine, and that has two turbos precisely to avoid lag. The marvellous BMW 3.0d engine has its own share of lag according to most owners, and this is a 3 litre engine we're talking about. As yet, and according to my sources - correct me if I'm wrong, there is no "normal street" design that will be good enough for lag simply not to be there, which is only sad, given that in my opinion lag should now be a thing of the past. The new S4 has no turbo, and while this is a pitty because then a chipped S4 would be a clear M3 beater, I'm sure it's also easier and more fun to drive than the stock old biturbo S4. According to what I've read, it takes something like the RS6's 4.2 l engine for lag to be nearly unnoticeable, and that's a biturbo. But chip that and I'm sure lag is going to become more apparent. JP Roberts. "Dave Hinz" <DaveMay2004nospam-creek.net> escribiÛ en el mensaje news:2gbtrtFuaqvU1nospamberlin.de... > On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:29:56 +0200, JP Roberts <1234nospamo.com> wrote: > > > > > (someone wrote, but JP trimmed the address of,) > > >> SAAB 4 cylinder turbo engines are far more fuel efficient that a BMW 6 of > >> similar displacement. > > > > If you compare equal power engine and you thrash the engine, the BMW will > > always give you better mileage, so obviously you know nothing about BMW > > engines. > > I've never seen the word "thrash" in a scientific analysis of engine output > and fuel consumption. Perhaps you can point us to, you know, actual data > to back up your claim? > > >> The SAAB (when fitted with a full pressure turbo) also has more peak HP > > and > >> torque than the BMW. > > > > And huge lag and less driveability and the BMW would still beat the SAAB on > > acceleration, which is what counts. Peak HP won't drive you anywhere. > > You've never driven a Saab Turbo, have you. "huge lag"? Maybe in 1978... > > >> Turbo lag is minimized in the SAAB ecopower designs as compared to most > >> other turbocharged engines. Ecopower engines are designed specifically to > >> provide best performace at relatively low rpms. > >> SAAB low pressure turbo engines, which make somewhat lower hp and torque > >> than the BMW six have *no* detectable turbolag. > > > > Audi's 1.8T should not have any detectable turbo lag but I can spot that > > easily, now I can't think Saab turbos can be very different. > > Ah, so you _are_ talking about something you haven't driven. "Well, the > engineers at Audi couldn't figure it out, so Saab must not have either"?, > is that your thinking? > > >> All BMW 6 cylinder engines (with the exception of the old ETA 2.7) are all > >> designed to spin to much higher rpms to make their power. > > > > And their torque is way much linear, which makes them better all round. > > Their smoothness alone qualifies. > > Please compare and contrast to, say, the 2.3Liter Turbo engine from Saab. > Show your sources. (hint: flat is flat). For extra credit, show the > shift points as they relate to the torque curve, per RPM. > > Dave Hinz
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
