SaabCentral Forums banner

2011 saab motor?

20K views 18 replies 8 participants last post by  u!dw!d 
#1 ·
I believe the saab 95 has a GM 4 cylinder motor, what about the V6, I have been told it is all Saab, is this true?
 
#2 ·
v6 is also a GM engine

The v6 was developed by Holden (GM Australia). It is generally known as the "GM High Feature" engine. Right now, the Saab 9-5 and Opel Insignia use the 2.8 L version. It will also be used in the 9-4x. It was used in the 9-3 Aero (and Cadillac SRX).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_High_Feature_engine

I'm new to this forum, but, from other forums, it seems that most 9-3 Aero owners love this engine, and it seems very reliable.

Stan
 
#3 ·
FYI AFAIK the 4-banger is a SAAB in-house motor.

The 6 cyl. is a GM LP9 High Feature engine made by
Holden Australia.
 
#5 ·
I saw the 2011 saab 4 cylinder that is now being used and I definitely is not a saab motor, It is used and has been used in GM cars for a while, the Ecotech motor. Before this the 4 cylinder being used was a Saab motor all the way but it has been used. I just would like to know if the 6 cylinder is all saab for 2011? This is not the same 6 cylinder motor that has been used for the passed number of years.
 
#6 ·
the v6 is GM too

The 2.8L v6 used in the 2010/2011 9-5 is built by GM (Holden) in Australia. Look at the window sticker (it says the engine is sourced from Australia). It is essentially the same engine used in the v6 9-3 Aero. If a dealer told you otherwise, I might start looking for a new dealer.

If you're waiting for an "all Saab" motor (whatever that means), you'll be waiting a long time (if ever). Even the 2.3L in the old 9-5 had roots going back to a Triumph motor.

Stan
 
#7 ·
The 2.8L v6 used in the 2010/2011 9-5 is built by GM (Holden) in Australia. Look at the window sticker (it says the engine is sourced from Australia). It is essentially the same engine used in the v6 9-3 Aero. If a dealer told you otherwise, I might start looking for a new dealer.

If you're waiting for an "all Saab" motor (whatever that means), you'll be waiting a long time (if ever). Even the 2.3L in the old 9-5 had roots going back to a Triumph motor.

Stan
I thought the old 95 motor was based on the old 900 motor, same head isn't it?

So if both the 4 cylinder and the 6 cylinder are generic from other car makers, is there one that is better mechanically?
 
#8 ·
I just talked to the Saabsite.com people and they said that the 2.8 v6 in the 2011 is the same motor that was used in the 2006 Aero 93. I thought this was a new motor, Maybe for the 95.

Also it is chain driven for the timing, what was the reliability of that motor?
 
#9 ·
Both good engines

I sifted through many forum postings prior to buying my v6 9-5 last week, and this v6 appears to be very reliable. I've seen a few queries on other forums and there doesn't appear to be any weak spots. The coolant expansion tank tends to crack, but this probably has more to do with the 9-3 packaging vs. the engine design. There are a few reported ignition coil problems, but these were mostly found on modified engines (i.e. chipped). Most complaints are about the gas mileage.

The Cadillac SRX used the same engine, and had a problem with them catching fire. However, this was from a bad power steering hose that would fail and squirt power steering fluid on the hot engine. Again, like the cracked expansion tank, this has more to do with packaging than the actual engine design.

The Turbo4 is a descended from the 2.0 in the 9-3T. It is also more recently descended from the Ecotech 2.0 model LNF which was used in a number of GM sports cars (Saturn Sky Redline, Solstice GXP, Chevy HHR SS and Cobalt SS). The folks on the Buick forums (Buick Regal Turbo) uses this motor don't seem to like it too much, but then they like Buick's so I'm not sure how reliable this is... I did see some quote somewhere from a GM engineer saying they had some improvements in the pipeline...

Both of these engines have been influenced by Saab. I believe most of GM's recent turbo expertise came from Saab. I believe both the 2.0 and 2.8 were tweaked by Saab folks (although they were working for GM at the time so it was "GM European Powertrain" engineers).

Drive both. Pick the one you like. I bought a 2010 so a v6 Aero was about the same cost as the 2011 turbo4 I was looking at.

Stan
 
#10 ·
I sifted through many forum postings prior to buying my v6 9-5 last week, and this v6 appears to be very reliable. I've seen a few queries on other forums and there doesn't appear to be any weak spots. The coolant expansion tank tends to crack, but this probably has more to do with the 9-3 packaging vs. the engine design. There are a few reported ignition coil problems, but these were mostly found on modified engines (i.e. chipped). Most complaints are about the gas mileage.

The Cadillac SRX used the same engine, and had a problem with them catching fire. However, this was from a bad power steering hose that would fail and squirt power steering fluid on the hot engine. Again, like the cracked expansion tank, this has more to do with packaging than the actual engine design.

The Turbo4 is a descended from the 2.0 in the 9-3T. It is also more recently descended from the Ecotech 2.0 model LNF which was used in a number of GM sports cars (Saturn Sky Redline, Solstice GXP, Chevy HHR SS and Cobalt SS). The folks on the Buick forums (Buick Regal Turbo) uses this motor don't seem to like it too much, but then they like Buick's so I'm not sure how reliable this is... I did see some quote somewhere from a GM engineer saying they had some improvements in the pipeline...

Both of these engines have been influenced by Saab. I believe most of GM's recent turbo expertise came from Saab. I believe both the 2.0 and 2.8 were tweaked by Saab folks (although they were working for GM at the time so it was "GM European Powertrain" engineers).

Drive both. Pick the one you like. I bought a 2010 so a v6 Aero was about the same cost as the 2011 turbo4 I was looking at.

Stan
Thanks Stan, great info!
 
#13 ·
@oviedo-

Your seventh picture, the "99 Triumph engine", is actually a 73 or 74 Saab or Scania 2L B engine. 72 was the last year for the Triumph engine. Triumphs were 1700s or 1850s and they had either a light blue or grey? valve cover. Cylinder bores and crank bearing sizes from the B engine may be similar to 2.3s, but the block and head from '85 16Vs are really close.
 
#16 ·
I know, but quite many people think 99´s engines are very much a triumph engine, so even if it were, there´s still a lot of difference between the first Scanias 2L B and the last B235.

Cheers and thanks.
 
#14 ·
the 2.0T motor in the 9-3 SS

Folks the 2.0T motor in the 9-3 SS is an engine block from GM (Ecotec). With that said, the valvetrain/head, cylinders, exhaust, and engine mgmt (trionic 8), and induction/turbo are all Saab (mitsu turbo mind you).

Also really impressive when released was it's 20,000 NM/degree torsional rigidity....
 
#15 ·
Folks the 2.0T motor in the 9-3 SS is an engine block from GM (Ecotec). With that said, the valvetrain/head, cylinders, exhaust, and engine mgmt (trionic 8), and induction/turbo are all Saab (mitsu turbo mind you).
Saab was 100% owned by GM in 2000, and didn´t have an engine development department by then. 2003+ 9-3´s and 2010+ 9-5´s are produced in Trollhattan, but an often hidden fact is that they were fully developed in Rüsselheim, in Germany.
Btw, the turbo isn´t even Saab-GM, is just mitsu.
Cheers
 
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