Date: 26 Jan 2006 15:09:20 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> Subject: Re: Saab 900 2.1L v 2.0L engine
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.