[Main 93 Bulletin Board | BBFAQ | Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ] Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos That's it? After waiting 6 months for an Arc. Like This Post: - Subscribe to Daily Digest for this Bulletin Board Posted by Mike Lynch [Email] (#81) [Profile/Gallery] (more from Mike Lynch) on Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:21:13 In Reply to: 2.0T versus 2.0t engines in 2004 9-3 SS, goohouse, Wed, 3 Mar 2004 08:44:31 Alert me when someone posts in this thread: Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup

in 2003, they were delayed 6 months, we finally got one and drove it around the block and we all exclaimed, "That's it?". Which is to say that around the block the 2.0t feels as strong or stronger than the 2.0T.

The explaination for this is that the big T has a bigger turbo which means it's slightly less responsive at lower rpms and also hotter cams which also detracts from low end performance. The 2.0T isn't weaker around town, it just doesn't feel like 35hp more should.

Now out on the highway, where you can wind it out over 4,500 rpm, then you'll find the extra 35hp. It's all biased toward the upper rev range. The bigger turbo and the hotter cams don't come on line until 4,500 rpm's and more.

The old 9-3SE 2.0 HOT engine hit hard down low, peak torque at 1,800 rpm's, but revving it over 5,000 the power was strong but not the sweet spot. The upper rev ranges were kinda' flat. The new 2.0t and 2.0T have their torque peaks at 2,500 rpm's and are much sweeter towards the redline, particularly the 2.0T with it's hotter cams. Now, getting a 2.0T past 5,000 rpm's and up to the redline is pure joy, a much sweeter engine up top.

But for the most part in normal driving, it's hard to tell a difference. And 175 turbo horses is still plenty. The 2.0T is nice if you use high rpms frequently, most folks don't.



posted by 63.197.222...

• 2.0T versus 2.0t engines in 2004 9-3 SS, goohouse, Wed, 3 Mar 2004 08:44:31
  • 2.0T versus 2.0t engines in 2003 9-3 SS, curious, Sun, 7 Mar 2004 06:22:44
  • That's it? After waiting 6 months for an Arc., Mike Lynch , Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:21:13 <-- Viewing This Message
  • Re: 2.0T versus 2.0t engines in 2004 9-3 SS, mike saun, Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:31:41
    • can the turbo in a 2.0T go into a linear?, new guy, Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:43:08
    • Re: 2.0T versus 2.0t engines in 2004 9-3 SS, Chad, Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:45:21
      • Re: 2.0T versus 2.0t engines in 2004 9-3 SS, Brooks G, Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:33:55
        • I've hit 12.5 in a 2.0T, 2.0t is closer to 10.5 but..., Niteman, Thu, 4 Mar 2004 11:29:58

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.

• Prev by Date: It's embarrassing, Jeff, Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:20:44
• Next by Date: Re: anyone notice Saturn uses SAAB wheels now, JackO, Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:29:46
• Main 9³ Bulletin Board

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]

Random Saabnet.com Member Gallery Photos (Click Image)