Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:53:36 +0000 From: Colin Stamp <col.dustbinnospamp.plus.com> Subject: Re: new saab motor for 9-3 series
On 15 Feb 2005 19:45:14 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> wrote: >On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:42:38 +0000, Colin Stamp <col.dustbinnospamp.plus.com> wrote: > >> 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. Actually, I shouldn't have used the word "better". It should have been "smoother". Also, of course, it's assuming a level playing-field. If you find yourself having to trawl the third-world looking for a V6 that's harsher than a high quality four, then I rest my case m'lud. > >> 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. Nobody's saying that it's unusual, just harsher than the same power from a six. >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. More likely that it's more common and so that's where all the aftermarket money is. Robustness doesn't come into it. There's some very flimsy engines with thriving aftermarket tuning businesses attached to them. >>>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" Nice experiment. It puts me in mind of this :- http://www.tigerracing.com/cars/tiger-z100-main.php > >> 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. > I was thinking from a completely selfish point of view. We only get a few days of snow per year in Milton Keynes, and when we do, driving on the roads is impossible because of all the stationary traffic. In normal conditions, big power and RWD is great fun. The biggest problem my 9-3 has, is traction. My old Nissan 200SX had no-end less power but was much quicker off the mark. I miss that. >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. Sure, if you're buying to tune, then buy the one you can get all the tuning kit for. That isn't related to cylinder count, just where the tuning companies think the money is. > >> 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. BMWs all have RWD and hence longitudinal engines. I can see where you're coming from, a straight six is no-doubt *possible*, but they'd never sell enough to make the huge changes to the whole powertrain worthwhile. You can't blame them for not doing something that's bound to lose them shed-loads of money. The smoothness difference between a straight and a V 6 is pretty marginal anyway. Cheers, Colin.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
