"Christian" <christianbnopsamail.com> wrote in message news:<N8g0a.852$VQ4.7161nopsamfep4-gui.server.ntli.net>... > "Lance Morgan" <alancemornopsamo.com> wrote in message > news:2a52f3e9.0302050747.1a40f87nopsaming.google.com... > > "Christian" <christianbnopsamail.com> wrote in message > news:<aFE%9.12197$RZ.136951nopsamfep4-win.server.ntli.net>... > > > "Paul Halliday" <pjghnopsamyonder.co.uk> wrote in message > > > >> After my first 900 turbo, > the > > > > injection was a real surprise - it can't quite keep up with a boosting > 900, > > > > but catches up pretty quick. > > > > Paul > > > > > > Has your 900i had an engine transplant? > > > > > > No N/A 16V in '85, not in UK anyway. I found the 16v OK, more refined > and > > > slightly perkier than an 8v, but I had better low down torque with my > 8v. > > > Top speed wasn't much higher either. > > > > > > The gearing and aerodynamics of the 900 don't help as the same (130hp) > motor > > > in the 9000 could crack 120.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1985 900i 16V > > > > 1989 900 Turbo S > > > > http://pjgh.go.dyndns.org/saab/index.html > > > > > > > > Found one source that stated 103 kW, or 138 HP. But the US "S" is > > rated at 140 HP, so that didn't seem right. > > > > Also thought I'd once seen the 91 "i" was a non-cat and rated at 150 > > BHP (but I may be confusing it with a NA 2.3L 9000), and then maybe HP > > went down in 92 & 93 w/the cat? > > > > Does the i use the same exhaust manifold and downpipe as the S? > > > 900 models can be confusing... > > My 8V N/A was 118bhp, (EGR, non-cat) > > 16V N/A is 130bhp or 125-128bhp with cat... > > The '91 US 'S' had a 2.1 Litre 16v N/A engine, with 140bhp. We never got > this motor, but some europeans did.. > > UK 'S' of the same vintage had the 2.0 16v with Low Pressure Turbo, 145bhp > (Cat) > > Full Turbo is 160 - 185bhp > [and] > The 2.1 is reckoned to be a weak motor, eats headgaskets... Thanks. I had thought that from circa 90-93, the "i" was offerred with either the 2.0L or 2.1L, either as a buyer's optional decision, or a non-optional mandated/geographic limitation. Sounds like the latter was the case The 2.1 HGs I knew about, but was disconcerted to later read - after I bought my 91 900S! - that it might be a fundamentally deeper problem with the increased bore of the 2.0 block --> 2.1, and the physical proximity of the coolant passages. I plan to do a preventative head pull in the next couple of months... No noticeable probs Return to Main Index
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
