Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:38:53 -0000 From: NeedforSwede2 <carl.robsonnospamcing-czechs.com> Subject: Re: Saab 900 2.1L v 2.0L engine
In article <43s710F1p0vc8U1nospamvidual.net>, DaveHinznospamcop.net says... > On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:58:09 -0000, NeedforSwede2 <carl.robsonnospamcing-czechs.com> wrote: > > In article <43pvrgF1ojg59U1nospamvidual.net>, DaveHinznospamcop.net > > says... > >> Hangon. You need to make sure that the 2.1 engine you're putting in is > >> setup for turbo. Much lower compression than a N/A engine. So > >> switching 2.0 for 2.1 isn't a problem, but switching a non-turbo engine > >> into a car with a turbo bolted to the head, is. > > > Euro APC 900's had a 9:1 compression ratio. Higher than US market ones. > > Maybe it was to do with gas quality. > > Hm. I don't know about that, but I do know that if you take a 99 Turbo > head & turbo, bolt it to a 2.0L B engine set up for naturally aspirated, > it's a dog. As in dog freaking slow. Not enough volume to stuff > fuel:air into, I'm guessing. After all, output is a function of > displacement _and_ compression. Less room to compress into = less > power, yes? > > > Even though the APC could handle lower grade fuel, it was recomended to > > use 98RON unleaded in my old 84 T16S. > > Which, here, is called 93 Octane or something, because they average RON > and (um...the other one) to come up with a number-ish octane rating. > > We use RON, but when unleaded was brought in during the 80's, the best you could get was 97RON though. So Saab were selling a car that Ideally (according to the filler cap) required a fuel not available (at least in the UK). -- Carl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
