9-7x Aero... This Fall

[piranha]

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/08/03/saab-unleashes-their-most-powerful-model-ever-the-390hp-9-7x-ae/#comments

just wish this had been in the lineup when i got mine.

[mike saunders]

Find a wrecked Vette and do the swap.

Piece of cake.


Or add a turbo to your current engine.


Brakes still suck, though.

[empowah]

Pics...

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7319/971yn9.jpg

I drove a TrailBlazer SS at the Chevy Rev It Up event, and holy crap, that thing is FAST. It handles well, too.

[timmehhhhhh]

Find a wrecked Vette and do the swap.

Piece of cake.


Or add a turbo to your current engine.


Brakes still suck, though.

Have you heard of a warranty? :roll:

[mike saunders]

Have you heard of a warranty? :roll:

Sure....but I'm not the one whining about the lack of power in my 6,000-lb truck.

Either trade it, turbo it, or take out the engine and replace it with the LS2.

[mike saunders]

I drove a TrailBlazer SS at the Chevy Rev It Up event, and holy crap, that thing is FAST.

...for a truck

It handles well, too.

...for a truck


Everything is relative...:cool:

[empowah]

...for a truck



...for a truck


Everything is relative...:cool:

...for a Saab, too.

The TB SS (and likely the 9-7X Aero) outbrakes, outhandles (lane change, mph), outgrips (skidpad, g), and outaccelerates, say, a 9-3 Aero. Then of course, it outguzzles it, too...

(Car and Driver 10/05 and 3/06)

[mike saunders]

...for a Saab, too.

The TB SS (and likely the 9-7X Aero) outbrakes, outhandles (lane change, mph), outgrips (skidpad, g), and outaccelerates, say, a 9-3 Aero. Then of course, it outguzzles it, too...

(Car and Driver 10/05 and 3/06)

Current 9-3, maybe.

2008 9-3 SS Aero with 300+ HP and AWD?

No.

[empowah]

Current 9-3, maybe.

2008 9-3 SS Aero with 300+ HP and AWD?

No.

That's true. And in SportCombi form, there really is no competition. BMW doesn't make a 335xi wagon, the S4 Avant is $10K more, and the Passat 3.6 is too large.

I thought the XWD 2.8Ts were going to have 280 hp, though...

[mike saunders]

That's true. And in SportCombi form, there really is no competition. BMW doesn't make a 335xi wagon, the S4 Avant is $10K more, and the Passat 3.6 is too large.

I thought the XWD 2.8Ts were going to have 280 hp, though...

The 2.8T is going to be 280 but the "Black Turbo" variant, essentially the Viggen replacement, is going to be 300hp, or slightly north. The Haldex AWD is the same used in the Ovlov "R" models so it can handle the output...

UI'll hunt for the thread....

[SaabScott]

The 2.8T is going to be 280 but the "Black Turbo" variant, essentially the Viggen replacement, is going to be 300hp, or slightly north. The Haldex AWD is the same used in the Ovlov "R" models so it can handle the output...

UI'll hunt for the thread....



That's not entirely accurate Mike ...
The Saab version of the Haldex system is the latest generation and beyond anything on the street right now.

As for the famed "Black Turbo" ... check out Swades site ... it may just be all cosmetic. :cry:

[SaabScott]

...for a Saab, too.

The TB SS (and likely the 9-7X Aero) outbrakes, outhandles (lane change, mph), outgrips (skidpad, g), and outaccelerates, say, a 9-3 Aero. Then of course, it outguzzles it, too...

(Car and Driver 10/05 and 3/06)


I can't speak to actual numbers, but I can attest to the fact that the 9-7x Aero handles very well ... for a car or a truck.

[mike saunders]

That's not entirely accurate Mike ...
The Saab version of the Haldex system is the latest generation and beyond anything on the street right now.

As for the famed "Black Turbo" ... check out Swades site ... it may just be all cosmetic. :cry:
I stand corrected......

[Orlandoaero]

It is interesting that the best performing stock production Saab ever (at least in terms of acceleration, probably handling too) will be a GMT360. Probably most expensive (MSRP) ever too. Will certainly be a fun but very rare vehicle.

[Tweek's Turbos]

I count my buick when I speak of 0-60. I count my saab when I speak of 40-100.

I would also like to invite any 9-7x owner to Saabtoberfest this year.

[XAAMOTTOMAAX]

Find a wrecked Vette and do the swap.

Piece of cake.


Or add a turbo to your current engine.


Brakes still suck, though.

It's not just the engine. It's got a different rear end and I'm pretty sure the suspension and brakes are upgraded also. Mike you're such a hater. But at least you are consistent.

[mike saunders]

It's not just the engine. It's got a different rear end and I'm pretty sure the suspension and brakes are upgraded also. Mike you're such a hater. But at least you are consistent.


Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit.


If you actually read the first link, you'd see that it's a 6,000-lb truck with 390 HP but brakes not much bigger than the 9-3SS Aero.


Now that it's Cliff-noted for you, perhaps now you understand?

[kenw]

The current 70-0 figure of 172 feet is not bad for an SUV. There are others (like the Acura MDX) that take much longer to stop. I would be curious to see where the larger brakes take it.


I have owned a 9-7 since June of '05. It stops well - for a truck - but the brakes have a mushy feel to them.

No matter who makes it or how it performs SUV haters like Mike will always condemn the 9-7. It is a decent truck for those that wanted to stick with the Saab brand and perhaps (like I) did not want to leave their excellent dealer. Its my 7th Saab (starting with an SPG) and while I'm not thrilled with the vehicle I'm not desperate to get out of it either. Let's hope they come up with something unique for those of us who need a larger vehicle with some towing ability. If not there are a wealth of capable vehicles out there.

[mike saunders]

Nice post, except for the unfounded SUV-hater part.

As I've said repeatedly, the 9-7x is a far sight better than its Trailvoy kin....try here (http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=728107&postcount=15) and here (http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=523473&postcount=4) and here (http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=621124&postcount=26). And in a few other places.

My point about the brakes is that it's stupidity to put 390 HP in a 6,000-pound truck and then give it brakes that are merely adequate for the job.

Getting up to speed doesn't do you much good if you can't bring it back down again.

[kenw]

Point well taken Mike. I stand corrected. I guess you have to read the entire thread to know where you stand.

As a veteran (2 year) owner of the 9-7 as well as having had a Grand Cherokee, Suburban, and Toyota 4runner in the family I don't entirely agree on the brake thing. Could they have made them better - sure! But as compared to other SUV's they are not too bad. Let's see how they do 70-0 once the Aero hits the road before we condemn it.

It amazed me how many people trashed the 9-7 before it even hit the road and certainly before they drove one. As an owner I could trash it all day long, but at least I have spent some time behind the wheel. Let's give GM/Saab the benefit of the doubt and see what they do with the Aero version before we pass judgement.

That being said I can't say that I'll get another one when my lease expires - Aero or otherwise. There are other mid-size SUV's that outperform it (X-5, M-Class, MDX) and there are other one's by GM (Denali) that perform very well and offer more utility because of their larger size and way more luxury. It's not that the 9-7 is a bad vehicle, it just doesn't excel in the category. It's kind of like its sedan brethren. The 9-3 is a nice car, but it can't hold a candle to my wife's 330xi. Neither can the 9-5 compare with a 5 series or a whole host of other cars. Maybe the models to come over the next few years will breath some life into the line. I look back wistfully at my first two Saabs - SPG and Convertible - when they were pretty much top of class. Sadly, Saab no longer has any class leaders. They just have not kept up.

[mike saunders]

It's not that the 9-7 is a bad vehicle, it just doesn't excel in the category. It's kind of like its sedan brethren. The 9-3 is a nice car, but it can't hold a candle to my wife's 330xi. Neither can the 9-5 compare with a 5 series or a whole host of other cars. Maybe the models to come over the next few years will breath some life into the line. I look back wistfully at my first two Saabs - SPG and Convertible - when they were pretty much top of class. Sadly, Saab no longer has any class leaders. They just have not kept up.


Totally agreed.

I think the 9-7X Aero is an attempt to recapture part of the "halo car" aspect, but you're right: Saab needs to do it all the way, not just part of the way. I fell the same way about the new Saab 9-3 SS "Black Turbo" Aero...it should have had 300+ HP, not just a smidgen over what's already there. It should have been a contender to the 335i (which is an amazing car...)

As far as the 9-7x goes, 4-pot Brembo calipers or similar brakes on 13.5" rotors would have really opened my eyes.....

[kenw]

Better brakes, better fit and finish, classier interior, a bit better "driver feel", and a couple of gadgets - like park assist and bluetooth hands free phone adaptor - that have become standard on other SUV's would have opened my eyes. Perhaps being a better snow car too. My Aero wagon with snows put it to shame. If we get snow this winter (really have had none in the two years I have had it) I'm putting snows on it. It is really bad to the point where I don't want to take it if I don't have to. Probably the tires, which are more performance than winter grip. Ultimately, it's a pretty good vehicle that just needs a little more to compete with its peers. When its time to roll this one I'll give the Aero model its due - primarily because my dealer is as good as it gets - Shaw Saab in Norwell, MA.


One thing it has is value. My lease is $547/month - nothing down, 15k miles. An X-5 would be twice that. It will be interesting to see how GM/Saab tweaks the program to move the vehicle. They certainly did when it first came out.

Also, is the 9-7 going to be discontinued when the 9-4 comes along. Nothing worse than getting married to the last year of a vehicle and wishing you had waited for the new model...

[96z28ss]

Where are you guys getting that the 97x is 6000 lbs?
Its only 4781 lbs.

[mike saunders]

Where are you guys getting that the 97x is 6000 lbs?
Its only 4781 lbs.


Ahhhhh, the old curb weight vs. GVWR debate! :lol:

Curb weight is pretty stripped down, while the GVWR is what the truck weight with maximum occupants and all options. Like most mid-sized SUVs, the 9-7x (and the Trailvoy iterations) all have a GVWR of 6,001 pounds to qualify for favorable tax breaks given to "farm equipment."


Reality is somewhere between those two weights, but definitely north of 5,000 big ones.....

[XAAMOTTOMAAX]

While many a simpleton may believe they can simply swap an engine and get the same vehicle, my point was that these simpletons are incorrect....whoever they may be.

And since we are talking about brakes, lets really analyze this instead of relying on the windbaggers with no experience driving the vehichle in question.

I think everyone can agree that the Trailblazer SS is a fair comparison given its almost the same vehichle as the 9-7x Aero. 118 ft. to stop from 60 and a rating of excellent by Edmunds...perhaps they are fools so lets look at other data.

I have in front of me a recent Road and Track with their own independent test data giving a figure of 125 ft. to stop from 60. Lets compare this to some other vehicles in the same data chart...

Acura RSX Type S: 132 ft.
Aston Martin DB9: 133 ft.
Audi RS4: 121 ft.
BMW M5: 120 ft.
Ford Shelby GT500: 124 ft.
Saab 9-3 V6 Conv: 132 ft.
Porsche Carrera GT: 124 ft.

Do I really need to list more or has your idiotic comment "the brakes still suck" been throroughly disproven? I think the latter... While the exact braking distances will vary from vehicle to vehicle based on conditions, cargo etc., I think the measly 12.8" rotors with 2 pot calipers have proven they can hold their own and are more than merely adequate.

Cheers.

[mike saunders]

Excellent post.

"Simpleton?"
"Windbaggers?"
"Idiotic?"

That thesaurus you found certainly came in handy, to a point, and you employed decent spelling after a few edits. Best of all, you managed to work out the punctuation and numbers just right. Good for you!!!!!

You get a cookie.

No respect, no acclaim....a cookie.





Only a idiotic windbagging simpleton would fail to understand that the issue isn't just how well you stop once, it's how well you stop, and then accelererate and brake again....repeatedly. Larger rotors = fade resistance.

So, okay, the Trailblazer SS has 'Vette front brakes and pads to go with its Vette engine.

Yay....:roll:


But what's one of the first things that Vette drivers do if they're serious about performance? They ditch the stock brakes and go with an aftermarket upgrade, either the OEM one that comes with 13.5 inch rotors front and 13" rear, or any of the ones from Stoptech, Baer or SSBC...

And that's on a car that's more than 1,000 pounds lighter than the TB SS.

Are you understanding the physics involved now, you sad, sad man? :lol:


This is why the Jeep SRT-8 still beats the TB SS in 0-60, and with 360-mm front rotors and four-piston Brembos, still outbrakes it.



Your only true statement was that I haven't driven a Trailblazer SS. Damn Sam....ya got me there. But as far as experience goes, when I upgraded my engine to 400 bhp, in a car that weighs about 1,500 pounds less than the TB SS, the absolute first mod after the power was installing 314mm rotors from the 9-3 SS Aero and 4-piston Porsche 993 calipers.


When you start driving a 400-hp family car and need to stop it quickly, call me. My number is 617-555-STFU.


Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

[kenw]

Whoa now!! It's getting a bit hot here!


Both of you have some decent points. I am more than surprised that the 9-7x very nearly outbrakes a Carrera GT and a host of other top-flight vehicles. As an owner of the vehicle I can attest to it having decent brakes, but not as good as those numbers suggest. Tomorrow I'm getting my wife's 330 out and doing a comparison test! Something tells me those R&T numbers are suspect!

Mike made a good point about brake fade in a performance situation. The thing is Mike, even with the jazzed up Aero version (or SS, or whatever) the 9-7 is still a truck, not a sports car. When I owned a couple of RX-7's I drove them just as you described - hard into corners, feet on the accelerator and the brake - over and over again. An underbraked vehicle would likely develop brake fade. I doubt most people drive their SUV that way though. If they do they have a death wish and it doesn't come from the vehicle being under-braked. The average driver may need to panic stop from time to time and if the R&T numbers are valid, then the 9-7 does a pretty good job at that. Few if any are trail braking through high speed corners. I wonder how the numbers will look with the beefier set?

I'll report back on my comparison test between the 330 and the 9-7x!

Peace!

[XAAMOTTOMAAX]

"Only a idiotic windbagging simpleton would fail to understand that the issue isn't just how well you stop once, it's how well you stop, and then accelererate and brake again....repeatedly. Larger rotors = fade resistance.

When you start driving a 400-hp family car and need to stop it quickly, call me. My number is 617-555-STFU."

Wow. So it doesn't matter how well you stop once as if to imply someone is going to buy this truck to take to the track or to run autocross. But then you make reference to driving a family car and needing it to stop quickly when the data clearly shows that is exactly what this truck will do. You can talk yourself in circles which is fine and entertaining to those of us who have the attention span to listen to your windbagging, yes, I am a sad sad man for being one of those, but it's clear your motivation is to bash a vehicle based on emotion and sentimentality and not based on logic or data...kinda like how you pick your tuner! I love the SUV to Corvette comparison. Strong stuff. :roll: You are just upset that this big ol Chevy truck will stop quicker when someone pulls out in front of them than your soil stained seated 900. And as always, quite the hater. Your lack of logic has become sadly apparant. Oh and that would be "an" idiotic windbag. No gratuity necessary.

[mike saunders]

Mike made a good point about brake fade in a performance situation. The thing is Mike, even with the jazzed up Aero version (or SS, or whatever) the 9-7 is still a truck, not a sports car.

A very fair point, but then the spotlight should then turn back to the manufacturer, which is marketing the truck as a large vehicle with sports-car qualities.

I'd be curious about what your testing reveals.

The 9-7x is definitely a better handling vehicle than the Trailvoy variants and the lowered center of gravity might help with weight transfer and braking....

[mike saunders]

Wow. So it doesn't matter how well you stop once as if to imply someone is going to buy this truck to take to the track or to run autocross. But then you make reference to driving a family car and needing it to stop quickly when the data clearly shows that is exactly what this truck will do.

Are you still here?

Again, but this time I'll type slower: Unless you know the specific details about a braking test and the types of compounds used, you can't make an apples-to-apples comparison.

Were the other vehicles using race compound pads?
Were the pads and rotors brought up to temperature, or was the car braked cold?

Do you know any of this, or are you just regurgitating something you read in the waiting room at the clinic?


You can talk yourself in circles which is fine and entertaining to those of us who have the attention span to listen to your windbagging, yes, I am a sad sad man for being one of those, but it's clear your motivation is to bash a vehicle based on emotion and sentimentality and not based on logic or data...kinda like how you pick your tuner!

Huh? It's not logical to pick a tuner based on experience and proximity? My car was tuned twice, in person, with custom tunes.

How were you tuned, pilgrim? :lol:


I love the SUV to Corvette comparison. Strong stuff. :roll: You are just upset that this big ol Chevy truck will stop quicker when someone pulls out in front of them than your soil stained seated 900.

Er, perhaps you didn't read what I wrote before about my own brakes. I don't get upset about stopping.

And "soil stained seated" doesn't quite work. What you're looking for is to use the term as a compound modifier, so it should be "soil-stain seated" with the hyphen denoting the adjectivial form.

And, gee, you got me again. There are two baby seats in the back of my 900, and definitely some Cheerios in the seat cushions, mainly because my wife's 9-5 hasn't been used to haul them much. Our minivan does a lot of that duty, but then the other 900 in the driveway, her other car, gets called into service for some kid runs too.

...and what was your point again?


And as always, quite the hater. Your lack of logic has become sadly apparant. Oh and that would be "an" idiotic windbag. No gratuity necessary.

Uh, that's "apparent."







You sad, sad man. :lol:

[kenw]

Ha! Many SUV manufacturers market their vehicles as having sports-car like handling. Don't believe it. As good as some of them (including the 9-7) are they are still trucks. Take any one of them through some twisties and you'll see they don't transition like a low-slung sports car that is half the weight. Handling has come a long way, but will never quite live up to sports car levels - despite the hype.


Same with efficiency. GM has the Displacement on Demand engine and crows about it, but vehicles with it are still gas guzzlers. You can dress up a pig, but its still a pig...

I'll report on my brake testing...if my wife lets me get my hands on her car. As for R&T's testing parameters I would hope they would have one standard, so as not to cook the books on their results.

Geez, you two are hard on each other!

[XAAMOTTOMAAX]

So, the brakes on this truck suck eh? Have any experience to back that up? Ever driven the truck? What's that? All you are basing your comments on is a rotor size comparison with a 9-3 and a general dislike for GM and the direction they have taken the Saab brand? Well that sure sounds like a firm grip on the subject. :roll: You would think someone with kids in the car and such an ish talking know it all attitude about brakes would be a little more concerned with stopping. Might want to stick with the minivan...I bet it's safer. Or does that even matter to you? Doesn't sound like it.

Oh and congrats on surviving your tunes without losing an engine or having boiling oil spill out all over the place. Pay $2000 for a couple *** whipping tunes that take 30,000 miles off the life span of my engine? No thanks. I hope your kids weren't in the car when you let your tuner do 50 over the speed limit just so he could squeeze a little more boost out of the thing. I'll stick with a basic mail order version thank you very much. :cheesy:

[mike saunders]

So, the brakes on this truck suck eh? Have any experience to back that up? Ever driven the truck? What's that? All you are basing your comments on is a rotor size comparison with a 9-3 and a general dislike for GM and the direction they have taken the Saab brand? Well that sure sounds like a firm grip on the subject. :roll:


As with most of your posts, there's a wide gap between what you write and reality. I've repeatedly said that GM's purchase of Saab saved the company (http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=756706&postcount=53) and that many of the post-94 models are vastly improved (http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99898) over their earlier cousins. (http://www.saabcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100137)

I wouldn't expect you to read all my posts, just the maybe one or two to show that you have the merest semblance of a clue. :D

You would think someone with kids in the car and such an ish talking know it all attitude about brakes would be a little more concerned with stopping. Might want to stick with the minivan...I bet it's safer. Or does that even matter to you? Doesn't sound like it.

What part of the earlier posts about brakes escaped you? Should I have written in underlined bold italic when I repeated the part about being so concerned about braking that I improved the brakes with bigger calipers and rotors?

Or were you so intent on continuing your ad hominem argument that you didn't actually read the posts?

Oh and congrats on surviving your tunes without losing an engine or having boiling oil spill out all over the place. Pay $2000 for a couple *** whipping tunes tyour kids weren't in the car when you let your tuner do 50 over the speed hat take 30,000 miles off the life span of my engine? No thanks. I hope your kids weren't in the car when you let your tuner do 50 over the limit just so he could squeeze a little more boost out of the thing. I'll stick with a basic mail order version thank you very much. :cheesy:

Uh, no...no boiling oil nor a lost engine, and about 25K miles with more than twice the factory torque on a stock tranny. I think that speaks to both the tune and to the driving habits of the owner.

...and two speeding tickets in 23 years of driving, skipper. The last one was in 1998. :lol:

...So....if that's it, I'll just end this here. You've shot all the arrows in your quivver and, unfortunately, came up short. Again. You just stick with that "basic mail order version" tune, champ.




TTFN, YSSM. :lol:

[XAAMOTTOMAAX]

I have to say it's quite clever how you divert and distract away from the very words that started all of this. Throw a 6.0 engine in a base 9-7x (or even better yet, turbocharge it...brilliant) and call it a day...and oh yeah, the brakes still suck. Well, regardless of your driving record, how much torque you have or any of the other off topic blabbering, the fact still remains that those two simple statements were flat out wrong and well, simple. The new Aero model is more than just a 6.0 stuffed in a base 9-7x...and the brakes far from suck. If you want the title of the world's most talented forum flamer, you can have it. You flame anyone and everything you come in contact with on any forum...why you are so bitter I can only guess. Unfortunately none of that will change the erroneous nature of your comments about the truck in question. Pat yourself on the back flamer boy. You are on fire! :roll: Now someone please drive the truck and post some data or even opinions with merit.

[kenw]

While you two quibble over nonsense, I am going to call my dealer, who after 7 vehicles is more a personal friend than anything, and reserve the first test drive when he gets one in. The current 9-7, which I have driven for 42k, is competent, but not noteworthy. Quite honestly I don't think it lacks zip, just refinement. It handles well, just not on par with some of its import peers. It stops well, but has a lousy, mushy feel to the brakes - one that does not inspire confidence. The 5.3 moves the vehicle off the line well, but fades a bit after. As for the interior - they could do a whole lot with that. GM has done a great job with the new Denali - I wish they would take some of that and transplant it into the Saab. Who knows, maybe they will at some point. Finally, get rid of the crappy fit and finish. Rear storage covers that fall apart, a glove box held up by a thin piece of metal, which if disturbed taking something in or out of the box unceremoniously dumps the contents on the floor, and bumper fascia that continually have to be reconnected to the vehicle - simple design changes that would prevent much of the rant we have been reading regarding the vehicle. I won't even mention the cup-holder - I'm on my third and counting...


To make the vehicle better it needs more than brakes - whether or not Saab comes through will decide whether or not I step into my 8th Saab or try something else.

Now stop quibbling and tell me about this tuning stuff? Can I pimp the Mrs. beemer?

[XAAMOTTOMAAX]

Well to be honest, for that kind of money, get a Toyota Land Cruiser and skip the Saablazer all together. :cheesy: I have a 2000 TLC with over 110k on it and it's smooth as butter even still. The newer models are even more refined and have higher quality interior materials. No it's not really sporty but the thing will climb over some serious ish and is built like a tank with a Lexus interior.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/xaamottomaax/DSC01578.jpg

And yes you can always tune and pimp as much as you like. There are all sorts of options for the beemer but prepare for high prices. The biggest bang for the buck when it comes to tuning is always in turbocharged vehicles.

[mike saunders]

To make the vehicle better it needs more than brakes - whether or not Saab comes through will decide whether or not I step into my 8th Saab or try something else.

Agreed....If it uses the Corvette rotors and calipers, it likely has the same hub bore and caliper mounting points, so you might be able to source the bigger rotors and calipers from the C6 (Z51 upgrade?) Maybe they're holding back on this as an option....

Now stop quibbling and tell me about this tuning stuff? Can I pimp the Mrs. beemer?

Absolutely. It just depends on how crazy you want to get, or how crazy she'll let you get. :cool:

There are several aftermarket BMW solutions, from simple chip reflashes to full-on E46 turbo kits from a couple of vendors. She might not notice a chip upgrade, and that's probably the least-invasive solution, but the HP will only be a slight bump in power.

A turbo kit develops intense HP on very little boost, but decent reliability. Active Autowerke is big on bimmerforums.com, but that might be because they're frequent posters and a forum sponsor. Dinan might also offer a solution but it's pretty pricey.

One of the things that's galling is that the higher compression, higher displacement, higher revving BMW engines can produce a ton of HP with the same turbos that many Saab modders are using for moderate gains.

Some of the guys in the forced induction board on bimmerforums are using pure standalone systems, or piggybacking with variants of Motronic or Megasquirt...but I wouldn't recommend it...

[mike saunders]

Throw a 6.0 engine in a base 9-7x (or even better yet, turbocharge it...brilliant) and call it a day...and oh yeah, the brakes still suck. Well, regardless of your driving record, how much torque you have or any of the other off topic blabbering, the fact still remains that those two simple statements were flat out wrong and well, simple.


The biggest bang for the buck when it comes to tuning is always in turbocharged vehicles.


Jeeez. I don't even need to try very hard. :lol:

[kenw]

Oh, she'll never let me turbo it, so maybe a chip replacement is the least invasive option.

Besides, she changes cars so frequently it may not be worth a huge investment.

I'm going to have to sneak it out to do my 330/9-7X 70-0 braking test!

As for braking - how difficult is it to upgrade and what's the expense?

[XAAMOTTOMAAX]

Let me clarify....that would be vehicles that are turbocharged from the factory provide the best bang for the buck. Turbocharging vehicles that are not manufactured that way is an extremely expensive way to make a vehicle very unreliable and problematic.

Chipping a non turbo car won't do much to it by itself. You will need to do breathing upgrades to get anything out of it...exh, intake, cams, and then a change in programming could be of some use.

[kenw]

This may be a little off post but here is what I heard from my dealer regarding the 9-7X Aero and other models. He just got back from a dealers meeting in Sweden.

Perhaps getting their game on...finally!

Hello Ken,



The 9-7X is being phased out. We will have it for model year 2008 and 2009. The new 9-4X arrives as a model year 2010 in the fall of 2009. A very, very sporty and aggressive 5-passenger XWD crossover. Looks real sharp. The car will be revealed early next year to the press and automotive publications.



At the Geneva auto show, Saab will be unveiling a new concept car badged the Saab 9-1. This will be a VERY sporty, either 3-door or 5-door, compact, hi-performance car. Details to follow.



In the spring time, Saab will be getting back into the performance game by offering a hi-performance, limited production Saab 9-3 Turbo X. This vehicle will only be available in black, have an aggressive front end, unique rear spoiler, sport exhaust, 280 HP V6, Titanium dash treatments and Aero seats. XWD.



We will be getting a 9-3X Sport Combi next fall. A raised up 9-3 XWD, similar to the Volvo XC90.



Bio-Power will be introduced in 2009.



We will be getting the 9-7X Aero late fall (mid/late October). Our initial allocation are 2 units. The vehicle will be getting a 390 HP engine, 20” wheels standard and a tuned sport chassis.



Will keep you posted,

[mike saunders]

Let me clarify....that would be vehicles that are turbocharged from the factory provide the best bang for the buck.

Hey, hey, hey! A true statement!

Turbocharging vehicles that are not manufactured that way is an extremely expensive way to make a vehicle very unreliable and problematic.

Meh......Except for the thousands of Callaway Vettes running on aftermarket turbo systems for the past 30 years, all with Chevy pushrod shortblocks.

Chipping a non turbo car won't do much to it by itself. You will need to do breathing upgrades to get anything out of it...exh, intake, cams, and then a change in programming could be of some use.


A given. This holds true for both NA and FI cars.....

[XAAMOTTOMAAX]

AFAIK Callaway does supercharger kits for the newer vettes but not turbos anymore. Older cars are a different animal and I imagine they went away from turbo designs with the newer cars for a reason. I'm not saying you can't turbo a newer V8 and I don't think a SC is a better design but if it was me making the call, I'd take a factory NA 6.0 over a homegrown 5.3 turbo any day especially once there are some used ones on the market that have dived into the world of Saab depreciation.

Chipping a turbo car has a lot more upside to it than a non turbo car. I think that's a given as well though.