Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:59:53 -0700 From: Johannes H Andersen <johannes.andersennopsamel.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Engine noise 9.5 engines
Spuds Velvet wrote: > > 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. > I think you're right there. Top Volvos have transverse 5-6 cyl. You can also get smaller VW/Audis with very compact 5-6 cyl engines. The trend is in this direction. The question is if people will buy a 1.6L 5cyl 9-5 even though it will muster 225 HP ? > 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. Jaguar X-type is such a car, terrific spec and looks, but curiously based on the ubiquitous Ford Mondeo. Another marketing ploy is that they will first launch some hairy 2.5 and 3 L versions with 4WD. Later on, FWD smaller engined versions will be introduced... I expect to see plastic wheel caps and window winders on those. Johannes
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
