2003-2011 [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
I agree with Caspar that a test drive is a good thing to do. It's more relevant to what's important than any performance figures anyway.
Your test, as you admit, doesn't carry much weight scientifically, since it seems only one test run was done with each car. An average of a number of test runs would help to smooth out error introduced by the stopwatch, your estimation of when you hit 60, etc. It would also be better if multiple trials were done by multiple drivers, etc. etc. But tests aren't always ideal, and you did test both cars under reasonably similar conditions, so it is useful information.
The comparison using auto tranny equipped cars is good and bad. It's good because it takes out the many variables associated with manual shifts. It's bad because with these two particular cars, the trannys aren't at all comparable. One's a 4spd and one's a 5spd. The 5spd should theoretically be faster. I assume you used "sport mode" on both?
Also, supposedly these auto tranny equipped Saabs (at least up through '02) are adaptable in some sense. They can be faster or slower based on the driving habits over time, or at least that's what I'm told. Admittedly, I don't know very much about the autos, but this is a possibility of another uncontrolled variable.
Identical gas used on both? What grade? How about the last couple tanks before that? If I run a tank of 89 through my car, it will be noticably slower until I've taken a couple tanks of the good stuff (93) back through.
I'm curious as to why your range is larger on the '03 (8.0-8.4) than on the '02 (8.0-8.3)...maybe you actually did do multiple trials? Even the car mags with their more sophisticated measuring equipment give an error range on the order of 0.3s for a 0-60 time. Part of that is due to variable conditions, which you've done some work to eliminate. But scientifically speaking, I'd say your data doesn't really say anything conclusively about one car versus the other. The times do seem a little slow though, even for the dog of an auto. Typically (at least in the track & field world), using a stopwatch makes your times faster than a fully electronic timing system.
I must admit the test you've done is more representative of a performance comparison for the average Saab buyer than a more rigorous performance test. The average Saab yuppie doesn't know or care about the performance details we've been arguing about, and to them, the new car accelerates about the same as the old one (and maybe faster in vector trim), and makes them feel better since their new Saab looks more like the BMW, Audi, or G35 their boss drives.
I maintain however that a more rigorous performance test would show the earlier 9-3 to be the superior vehicle in straight-line acceleration. I believe Car & Driver ran 7.2 for the new Linear 5spd, and about half a second faster for the 5spd 9-3SE. This is a fairer engine comparison since the trannys are comparable. Of course a 0-100 or 1/4 mile test would be far more revealing than 0-60. That and a 20-60 2nd gear run.
That said, as I have noted all along, the new car is more than just a new engine; it's also a new 6spd tranny, which may or may not make up for the disadvantages the new car suffers on engine performance and weight. Without seeing the gear ratios or a torque curve, I still place my bet on "may not".
Thanks for the info!
Cheers,
'Roo
posted by 128.42.17...
, Sun, 29 Sep 2002 18:00:06, Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:02:06
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
