The banner above is an advertisment - if it asks you to download software, please ignore.
Site News - 3/26 M Car Covers (by State of Nine) | 12/12 Make Amazon Pay Saabnet!
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 22:29:51 +0100
From: Johannes H Andersen <johsnopsamsafish.com>
Subject: Re: Four Cyl. Engine Design Questions


sliderule wrote: > > In article <3B4E662A.FF8CEDF1nopsamsafish.com>, > johsnopsamsafish.com says... > > > > > > SlideRule wrote: > > > > > > What are the design differences between the 2.0 and the 2.3 4 cyl > > > Saab engines sold in the US? > > > > > > Are they the same engine block, just bored out? > > > > > > > Same bore 90 mm. Different strokes 78 & 90 mm. > > > > > If they are different engines, then why does Saab market two > > > engines with the same horsepower? > > > > > > > Not the same horse power. Some say that the 2.0 is smoother, but > > the 2.3 is stronger. In some markets there is a 2.0 tax barrier. > > > > > Is the 2.3 engine a significantly better design than the 2.0 > > > engine? > > > > > > > No, they are basically same engine. Since 1994 both have balancer > > shafts. > > > > > How does Saab design and build these engines to support > > > turbochargers? Are they the same design as they would be without > > > the Turbos, or did Saab redesign valves, pistons, cranks, and so > > > forth? > > > > > > > Perhaps, but all Saab engines are now turbo charged. Power means > > heat. Heat management is a major engineering problem in turbos. > > > > Johannes > -- > > Thanks. It's too bad that Saab doesn't write a bit more about > their design goals, and the steps they take to implement those > goals. > > I guess I am still puzzled over the 2.0 and the 2.3 I4s. In the > US, these engines both provide 185 horsepower in basic > configuration. I wonder why Saab needs to build two such similar > engines? Is one or the other also used for the Diesel, which is > not available in the US? Is one engine able to provide much more > horsepower, or perhaps is more robust? > It is easy to chip a turbo engine to any power you want, just dial in a number! With limitations this is true. Some people in the UK buy a 2.0 9-5 with 150 bhp, then go home and chip it to 190. I like the reliability of my humble 150 bhp 9000 CSE, so I'm not keen on chipping, performance is never lacking as far as I'm concerned. I suspect that there may be differences between the 2.0 and the 2.3 even with same bhp. As they say over there: "there is no substitute for cubic inches"; A highly stressed turbo may lack some responsiveness, but electronics is the key. The spiral seems never ending; new Aero = 250 bhp. > General Motors (and most other auto companies) did very little to > adapt their engines to turbochargers ten years ago. GM also was > criminally negligent marketing diesel V8s, not beefing up the > engine design to withstand higher compression. Other companies > here (Chrysler) have marketed good engines, but they've also put > light duty I4s and V6s in their vans that wore out prematurely. > > Other companies do a great job. I've always liked the way Saabs > run. They seem to be robust and brisk, and they seem to have the > turbo thing down better than Chrysler, GM, Mazda Subaru, and > other companies have. I would like to know what they did. > There is now a GM Vauxhall Astra Coupe with a GM 2.0 turbo, rumours are that this GM engine will find its way into a new 9-3 sports Coupe next year - oh heck! It is not the power which is lacking - It is things like a rubber band replacing a proper timing chain. Johannes

Return to Main Index
StateOfNine.com
SaabClub.com
Jak Stoll Performance
M Car Covers
Ad Available

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2024 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Mission & Privacy Notice.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]