SaabCentral Forums banner

9 k aero auto compared with 9k cs carlsson manual

2K views 15 replies 9 participants last post by  klarking1075 
#1 ·
about a year ago i had to part with my 92 carlsson due to traction control problems that i could not afford to have repaired so have been sulking ever since until about 3 weeks ago when i found a 1996 aero auto in the paper for £250 so i grabbed it with both hands quick!!!!. mot was easy with only a screen required and then the road test, well!!!!!! the carlsson was quick but this aero makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck and if it had wings this thing would fly and the only query i have is that everybody i have spoken to says that because she is an auto she is limited to 200 bhp due to the box but i find this hard to believe because she out performs the carlsson and the acceleration from 50 to 100+++ is quicker than anything ive ever driven ( see ya scooby!!! ha ha) if anybody could clarify the bhp id be intersted to know as the carly was supposedly running 225 but my aero 200 but is quicker all round, any comments would be appreciated....... mick.
 
#2 ·
dont quote me on this but it might be the T25 turbo.
when i changed out my t25 for the td04 aero turbo i felt like the car gained more torque but didnt accelerate quite as fast as before even though now i know i have more top end if that makes sence.
i figure it the faster spool up of the T25 as compared to the td04.
Suspension setup and gearing of the 96 compared to the 92 also has alot to do with it ....my 2cents worth...
 
#4 ·
It must be the auto box cos IMO a 2.3 manual carlsson will murder a 9000 manual aero and its purely down to gearbox ratios, the aero is too high geared...since getting my aero I had to change my driving technique and have never used 2nd gear do much before.
 
#5 ·
Well it can't be the turbo-the auto Aeros got the T25 exactly the same as all the other 9000's; only the manual Aero got the TD04. It might be chipped though, although you won't find out short of a dyno, or it's just that the old Carly was so old it had lost a lot of its original power.

Either way, your Aero should be making 200bhp and something like 300nm torque, which when I had one (ok not an Aero, but an identical powertrain FPT) didn't feel as dramatically fast as you said.
 
#6 ·
Oh and another thing-an Aero for £250????!!! That's either deal of the century OR it's got a hell of a lot of things wrong with it/imminently going to fail. What's the deal? Is it ok? And what mileage are we talking? I paid £915 for mine, albeit the more desirable manual, and that got me 162000 miles and a very good body and generally solid engine, but I very shortly after buying had to do all the mounts, disks, pads and numerous other bits and bobs to get it up to scratch.
 
#7 ·
ok as i said it had no mot and all it needed was a screen it has 235000 on the clock and full service history from oxford saab its silver with black interior, no body rot apart from one small dent in the drivers side rear wheel arch which ive repaired since ive had it, the only down side is that it has been owned by a builder since 2000 and its been used as a van so the carpets are all shot including the boot liner but these things can be replaced and ive had to clean and feed the seats as they were grey not black. most of it was just dirty so a weeks cleaning and shes looking alot better, it had a head gasket and new chain tensioners in 2005 at oxford saab at a cost of £900 theres no rattle up top or bottom and shes always had mobil 1. at the end of the day with a mrs and kids and house to support im never going to have £1000 to go and buy a decent one so when this came along it had to be done and yes bargain of the century i think it was, thank you very much!
 
#8 ·
It must be the auto box cos IMO a 2.3 manual carlsson will murder a 9000 manual aero and its purely down to gearbox ratios, the aero is too high geared...since getting my aero I had to change my driving technique and have never used 2nd gear do much before.
I've got a '98 CSE with the Aero engine, but I'm not sure if my car is closer to the Carlsson or the Aero. What sets the Carlsson apart? Assuming I have an Aero gearbox, I can't see shorter gears helping one bit. In first gear, the tires will scream at more than 50% throttle. In second, they'll break loose again at 45+ mph.
 
#10 ·
I've got a '98 CSE with the Aero engine, but I'm not sure if my car is closer to the Carlsson or the Aero. What sets the Carlsson apart? Assuming I have an Aero gearbox, I can't see shorter gears helping one bit. In first gear, the tires will scream at more than 50% throttle. In second, they'll break loose again at 45+ mph.
Im in similar position to aero16 as I have 2 9000 Carlssons 1 highly tuned, 1 standard and a highly tuned 9000 aero. The gearbox ratio on the aero is too high and makes 'normal' driving a pain at times, the Carlsson box makes it easier to drive in all circumstances. i hated driving the aero when I first got it, got fed up having to change gear...if you are in too high a gear in the aero and put your foot down its like driving a 900T off boost, whereas in the Carlsson it just picks it bonnet up and flies. The aero is great for the long journeys on motorways but all the gear changing on country roads if motoring fast spoils it. You need to drive both back to back to understand where I'm coming from.
Just a comment, also on the track with a friend with a 2 litre Carlsson who was running quite well but found out he only had base boost of 0.6bar, sorted that out so he had 1.1 bar, I was running 300hp, coming off a bend at approx 50mph at Bruntingthorpe I was right behind him and only just got passed him at 125mph with him laughing at me as I slowly crept by...gear ratios make a big difference, especially if they keep the engine right in the torque curve.
 
#9 ·
I am fortunate enough to actuall own both at the moment. sadly, the 1993 aero has gone "pop" in a big and nasty way. That said, I had previously had the car dyno'd at 254bhp with a remap and few tweeks along the way.

The 1991 carly has been breathed on by Abbott in some time in its life. Fuel chip, mbc, exhaust, induction kit, full suspension,...

Performance wise I cant split the two to be truthful. My kid brother asked me only the other day how the 2 compare. I truthfully believe that you would struggle to split the 2 on the road or the drag strip... The aero pulled a 6.1 to 60 and 14.4 quarter mile at last years PPC £999 challenge. The carly makes its debut next saturday :cheesy: Guess with official timing gear the clocks will tell the tale?? ;)

Both great cars. The aero feels the newer car by far. The Carly has an older kinda "rawer" feel to it more like the 900 T16 aero I used to own. Which one would I sell if the credit crunch had a hold on my dangly bits??? No comment. I just couldnt......;oops:
 
#12 ·
I agree with the gear ratio comments about the Aero, especially since I upped the boost to around 1.4 BAR on mine. Can take an age to get up and going-acceleration moves really need to be planned, so that I'm in the right gear way before I want to go, which is quite annoying. If ever a car needed 6 gears this was it...still on the upside I do do a fair amount of motorway cruising and I can't criticise it there.

I just feel that below 40 there's not a lot of acceleration, because there's no point giving it any in first (wheelspin), and I'm not boosting really in second til at least 35.
 
#13 ·
Only driven one 9k Carly and agree the thru gears speed seems better. You can of course alter the final drive ratio on an Aero from 3.61 to 3.85 or 4.05 by changing the crown gear. Many hard core 9k enthusiats have done this, and with a 4.05 final ratio the Aero will have all the gear flexiblity you could want.

I'm an unreformed speed freak and have seen over 160mph in my Aero on numerous instances on empty autobahns. This is what the 9k Aero does best and was geared/made for. Have driven a tuned 9k Aero for 15 years, if you have not driven one across Germany and Italy you will not appreciate the gearing, which is spot on IF you are driving with lots of boost and able to commonly cruise at say 130 mph on the open road all the ratios fall in place nicely. At the very slow speeds I drive around London lower gears would be much better, the Aero belongs elsewhere.

As regards wheelspin I have found it is much reduced with:

- best quality performance tires from quality maker, currently I like Goodyear F1 DS GS great wet/dry grip. With most tires a FPT 9k can just detroy/spin them at will.

- correctly calibrated functioning TCS, I have on/off switch and ON is faster in both straight line and curves, I estimate TCS cut 15 seconds off a lap at Nurnburgring.

- some poly bits up front on especially tran mount/ upper engine/butterfly bushes

- front SAS sway bar, huge improvement in traction, fitted this and got rid of a lot of wheel spinning on corners

These changes have made my car much quicker in everyday driving than upping the hp, which really comes into its own at higher road speeds.
 
#14 ·
What type of turbo is in the Carlsson?

I do agree that the Aero gearbox is kind of a pain to drive in town. Seems the local speed limits are exactly at the logical shift points for my car.... so I'm never in the right gear.

Other than that, I love my Aero. Not as raw as my SPG (when it works) but definitely a highway bandit.
 
#16 ·
The 9000 Aero auto should be on a T25 with torque reduction in place - 290nm as opposed to 323nm for the FPT manual. The transmission losses from the autobox should mean that it is slower - however, having said that, it will give a better start as the slip of the autobox reduces the amount of wheel spin.

In terms of hp - the MY94-MY98 Aero auto is 200hp. A point worth remembering is that the high failure rate seen in the 9000 autobox is due to the high torque levels. The same box is seen in numerous german cars without the failure rate experienced on the 9000.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top