View Full Version : No I6?
As squishman reported, there is indeed no longer an I6 configuration on the Saab site. Too bad IMO as this combo gives very respectable horsepower with better mileage then the V8. (I tried looking for EPA numbers on the Buick site for the V8 but they were very well hidden I6 is I htink 16/21.)
Buddhabman
07-09-04, 06:15 AM
IMHO the V8 offers the best performance they are looking to market with this vehicle. Plus I think they want to limit the model options so as to limit the production costs. I think this vehicle will be going away relatively quickly, particularly if it doesn't meet sales plan. If it does sell modestly well I hope they add cylinder deactivation in the next version.
SaabKen
07-09-04, 04:55 PM
GM/Saab's decision to drop the I-6 from the 9-7X prolly prompted Volvo to beef up its XC90 powerplant (see Autoweek story). Or maybe it was the other way around.
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=100762
News
Volvo aims to play in the luxury big leagues with addition of V8 offerings
MARK RECHTIN | Automotive News
Posted Date: 9/7/04
GOTHENBURG, Sweden -- Volvo Car Corp. wants to increase the prestige of its automobiles by offering a V8 in its XC90 sport wagon and possibly other vehicles.
Volvo's first V8, a 4.4-liter, 315-hp engine from Yamaha Corp., arrives early next year in the XC90.
Sources say that because the XC90 shares a platform with the S60, S80, V70 and XC70, there is a strong chance that some of those vehicles also will get the engine.
By adding V8s, Volvo hopes to challenge Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Lexus by moving beyond its status as a "tweener" premium brand similar to Acura and Saab. This will be especially true in the United States, where Volvo sells 30 percent of its vehicles and likely will sell a majority of its V-8 engines.
Volvo is relying on features other than a big engine to step up the luxury ladder. In recent years, Volvo has added rollover protection and instant-traction systems to the XC90. It also has added computer-controlled chassis control to the S60R. A blind-spot alert system arrives this fall on many of its vehicles.
Volvo interiors also have been upgraded.
With more negotiating power under the Ford Motor Co. purchasing umbrella, Volvo can afford higher-end components for its vehicles.
'It makes sense'
Volvo's top executives won't confirm the plan to move further upscale, but they don't deny the merits of such an approach. They also admit they have a way to go to match the image of top German producers.
"Logically it makes sense (to expand the lineup) if the V8 engine is available," Hans-Olov Olsson, CEO of Volvo Car Corp., said at a press event here.
"We have to look at the whole product range," Olsson said. "Certainly there is room at the top of the range, and there is a key role for the V8 in the United States."
Volvo managers say that offering the V8 in other models already is in the works.
"If the V-8 is accepted in the XC90, then we can move on to other cars," said Hans Wikman, Volvo vice president for large cars. "We can continue climbing in the luxury segment. Having a V8 will bring us new customers and make Volvo more exciting."
Wikman said the decision to expand the V8 into other cars is "just a matter of time and money," and will be made within a year.
When pressed, he expressed confidence the decision will be affirmative.
"Some cars you need to drive the company's image," Wikman said. "Icons are important. We don't look at it like we're taking on the Germans. We look at it like capturing volume."
Spreading around the V8 makes sense from a cost standpoint, says Eric Noble, president of The Car Lab consulting firm in Orange, Calif.
"Once you get a V-8 engine, you need it in as many vehicles as possible to amortize the cost," Noble says. "If Volvo really wants to compete against the 5 series and E class, they need that V8 available."
V8 engines are essential for luxury brands because they bolster the brand's image and sweeten profit margins, Noble says.
"The V8 engines may only be 20 percent of the mix for Mercedes and BMW, but each one of those cars sold with a V8 provides $10,000 more per unit in price premium," he says.
The XC90 is Volvo's top-selling vehicle in the United States. Through August, the automaker sold 93,817 vehicles in the United States; 24,127 of those were XC90s.
Volvo sales in America are up 3.2 percent from 2003, a record year in which Volvo sold 134,586 vehicles.
Adding the V8 could give a much-needed kick to the aging S80. Only 9,646 units were sold in the United States through August.
The car is scheduled for a redesign in fall 2006.
Volvo executives say they want to sell 600,000 units a year globally by the end of the decade. This year they are on a pace to crack 450,000 units, which would be a record.
Note of caution
Although a V8 should add prestige, the downside is that the engine is being built by a Japanese firm known more for motorcycles than for luxury goods.
A Yamaha engine lacks the strong image of an engine developed in-house by BMW or Mercedes-Benz.
Another downside: The German brands and Lexus offer their top vehicles based on rear-wheel-drive platforms, which are seen as more luxurious than the all-wheel-drive adaptations Volvo will make from its front-drive platforms.
Vic Doolan, who marketed BMWs in the United States in the 1990s before becoming president of Volvo Cars of North America Inc., knows all about the challenges of upgrading a brand.
So while he is pushing hard for Volvo to apply the V8 into other vehicles, he expresses a note of caution.
"You can't be like Volkswagen and just bring out a V8 engine and declare yourself a luxury brand," Doolan says. "You have to earn your premium."
IMHO the V8 offers the best performance they are looking to market with this vehicle. Plus I think they want to limit the model options so as to limit the production costs. I think this vehicle will be going away relatively quickly, particularly if it doesn't meet sales plan. If it does sell modestly well I hope they add cylinder deactivation in the next version.
Well certainly it makes financial sense -- esp. as this sounds like they are scaling back their hopes on this vehicle -- but personally I'd much rather see a blown I6.
Though as the other poster notes that configuration didn't work for Volvo -- but not because of the engine configuration but because of the lack of power in the I6. Almost all testers indicate a distinct lack of power with the Volvo, not a problem for the TB/Envoy.
CosmicSaab
07-09-04, 11:18 PM
If you look, you'll also now see a claim of a fully indepentent suspension. Perhaps things have changed from the origonal plan.
If you look, you'll also now see a claim of a fully indepentent suspension. Perhaps things have changed from the origonal plan.
Wow, you're right! Good eyes.
Now I'm really scratching my head. Next they'll be saying that they have redesigned the structure to improve crash scores. Have they been reading my posts here?
I remember reading that someone had said that the TB platform was engineered to support such a thing, but it seems a huge cost to lay on one small model. Maybe they have a new creative interpretation of what an independent suspension is?
squishmann
08-09-04, 05:28 PM
saab, if you are listening. get rid of the orange reflectors in the mirrors. let's try a clear plastic instead
http://www.saabusa.com/flash/97/gallery/enlarged/ext15.jpg
sethsev7n
08-09-04, 08:22 PM
Yeah, definately clear plastic for the mirror blinkers. I wonder why they even considered orange ones.
Clear plastic is something I associate with rice rockets. No thanks.
SaabKen
08-09-04, 09:51 PM
Bring back the C900/9000 side mirrors ..... they were distinctively SAAB !
Yeah, definately clear plastic for the mirror blinkers. I wonder why they even considered orange ones.
I'm sure that they are available aftermarket as they are same unit as all the other TB clones.
squishmann
09-09-04, 06:21 AM
Clear plastic is something I associate with rice rockets. No thanks.
garuda, what the heck are you talking about? i'm referring to the side marker on the mirrors? how could that be associated with ricers seeing as how MB started the whole thing.
benji9k
09-09-04, 08:28 AM
I think the orange is a US reg. for side markers. May be mistaken, though.
SaabKen
09-09-04, 06:04 PM
I replaced the standard amber sidemarkers with the smoky-clear version. Is that a no-no ?
CosmicSaab
09-09-04, 07:49 PM
If you look, you'll also now see a claim of a fully indepentent suspension. Perhaps things have changed from the origonal plan.
Wow, you're right! Good eyes.
Now I'm really scratching my head. Next they'll be saying that they have redesigned the structure to improve crash scores. Have they been reading my posts here?
I remember reading that someone had said that the TB platform was engineered to support such a thing, but it seems a huge cost to lay on one small model. Maybe they have a new creative interpretation of what an independent suspension is?
Yeah the GMT360 (GM's name for the TB platform) has been designed so an independent rear suspension is possible. Maybe Saab found a way to develop one really cheap, it is possible that they found something in the GM bag that would fit w/o any mods. It could also just be a typo, which I feel is probably the most likely. :(
valbowski1980
09-09-04, 09:49 PM
So who are we to invade now in order to secure our oil supply? I don't get it, Hybrids clearly sell since the Japanese dealers can't keep theirs on the lots. We have been promissed a VDC for some time now, where is it? Lexus is making a Hybrid SUV and so it Toyota, Honda is working on one. Why are the Japanese on the forefront of this technology while GM has nothing to show except a few concepts.
So who are we to invade now in order to secure our oil supply? I don't get it, Hybrids clearly sell since the Japanese dealers can't keep theirs on the lots. We have been promissed a VDC for some time now, where is it? Lexus is making a Hybrid SUV and so it Toyota, Honda is working on one. Why are the Japanese on the forefront of this technology while GM has nothing to show except a few concepts.
Yeah, I guess this is just a "concept":
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/seattle_tt_052704.html
And this too:
http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/hybrid.jsp
I guess it's all as phantom as your knowledge of automobiles. :cheesy:
Let me add though that the market for hybrids is pretty limited. Limited to envirowhackos willing to pay the premium for them. Unit sales of the Toyota Prius are pretty low, despite all the hype for "we can't get enough of them!" And the real world performance of hybrids leaves much to be desired.
Still, GM is rolling them out, starting from the biggest vehicles and working their way down. There's little to fault them with at this point. The Japs don't have a pickup truck hybrid out, and that ultimatly matters more in the American market than a sub-compact. Full-size SUV hybrids will be out next year, and a Malibu hybrid is on the way.
valbowski1980
10-09-04, 03:43 AM
The bus thing is an excellent idea that I was unaware of, however plenty of cities have their running on CNG and have been doing this for some time now. IMO this accomplishes the same thing.
Perhaps you should read your links more carefully Garuda, the Silverado will only be offered in six states and only in "limited quantities", another words a drop of water in a lake. What about the SUVs GM is promising? Will they be offered in limited quantities as well? If so, what good are they?
Honda on the other hand is about to offer a Hybrid Accord, which will not be sold in limited quantities and will do everything a regular V6 one will do except that it will be faster and with better fuel economy. I am also willing to bet that the Malibu will be nowhere near the car that the Accord will since GM has quite a bit of catching up to do to the Japanese. So it appears that you are the one with the phantom knowledge here eh?
...the Silverado will only be offered in six states and only in "limited quantities", another words a drop of water in a lake.
Note as well that the GM trucks are "mild hybrids" not full hybrids like the Toyota Honda and Ford systems. They only add 2-3 MPG max.
...the Silverado will only be offered in six states and only in "limited quantities", another words a drop of water in a lake.
Note as well that the GM trucks are "mild hybrids" not full hybrids like the Toyota Honda and Ford systems. They only add 2-3 MPG max.
Uhhh.. How about, no. Unless you seriously think full-size trucks compete with Toyota's midgit car and Ford's mini-SUV.
The correct statement would be, "GM's trucks are mild hybrids, which is more than Toyota, Honda, and Ford hybrid full-size truck systems, which ARE NONEXISTANT."
And "full hybrids" (which of course will cost more) will be an option with the next generation of GM trucks due out in 1-2 years.
The selling point of the hybrid trucks is not the slightly better fuel economy. Hell, the fuel economy isn't the selling point with Toyota Priuses either (it will take you over a decade to recoup the additional purchase cost with fuel savings even with todays high fuel prices). Envirowhackos buy the Toyota Prius for the image of a "green" vehicle. GM knows that environmentalists won't be buying a truck. The point of the mild-hybrid trucks is to serve as a portable power supply, with lower fuel consumption as a bonus.
The bus thing is an excellent idea that I was unaware of, however plenty of cities have their running on CNG and have been doing this for some time now. IMO this accomplishes the same thing.
Perhaps you should read your links more carefully Garuda, the Silverado will only be offered in six states and only in "limited quantities", another words a drop of water in a lake. What about the SUVs GM is promising? Will they be offered in limited quantities as well? If so, what good are they?
Honda on the other hand is about to offer a Hybrid Accord, which will not be sold in limited quantities and will do everything a regular V6 one will do except that it will be faster and with better fuel economy. I am also willing to bet that the Malibu will be nowhere near the car that the Accord will since GM has quite a bit of catching up to do to the Japanese. So it appears that you are the one with the phantom knowledge here eh?
No ****. Ever hear of a product rollout?
A lot of people seem to like the new Malibu. Sales are up 40% this year. And GM still sells more mid-size cars than Honda does, so a lot of people would disagree with you on that point.
Uhhh.. How about, no. ..Envirowhackos...
How about, correct. As in that is what they are selling currently and that is what we were talking about. ANyway you are beggining to sound like a typical GOP'r with a creative interpretation of truth and no consideration for people who happen to disagree with you - so as far as I'm concerned this conv. is not worthing having.
valbowski1980
12-09-04, 07:03 PM
No ***. Ever hear of a product rollout?
A lot of people seem to like the new Malibu. Sales are up 40% this year. And GM still sells more mid-size cars than Honda does, so a lot of people would disagree with you on that point.
Here is some more phantom knowledge for you, Accord sales as of July 04 were 229,421 while the malibu were projected buy Dave Roman of GM to be 175,000. "GM sells more mid-size cars than Honda does". Gee, has it ever occured to you that GM is just a little larger than Honda? Brand by brand Honda smokes GM but that is yet even more phantom knowledge I guess.
valbowski1980
12-09-04, 07:13 PM
Hell, the fuel economy isn't the selling point with Toyota Priuses either (it will take you over a decade to recoup the additional purchase cost with fuel savings even with todays high fuel prices). Envirowhackos buy the Toyota Prius for the image of a "green" vehicle.
For the image? I guess reducing our dependence on foreign oil and dropping emissions doesn't matter then, all of the above are just pointless causes for the radicals and commies? Has it ever occurred to you that for some of us it's not just about money and that we see that something is very wrong here and that it needs to be changed?
P.S.
The hybrid trucks are still pointless and since there are so few of them they might as well be yet another one of GM's prototypes.
No ***. Ever hear of a product rollout?
A lot of people seem to like the new Malibu. Sales are up 40% this year. And GM still sells more mid-size cars than Honda does, so a lot of people would disagree with you on that point.
Here is some more phantom knowledge for you, Accord sales as of July 04 were 229,421 while the malibu were projected buy Dave Roman of GM to be 175,000. "GM sells more mid-size cars than Honda does". Gee, has it ever occured to you that GM is just a little larger than Honda? Brand by brand Honda smokes GM but that is yet even more phantom knowledge I guess.
Yeah, you wish. Despite having more brands, GM's Chevrolet does more business than Honda's "Honda" and despite Acura peddling lots of cheap $20,000-$30,000 cars at the low of end of the market (questionably luxury), it still gets beat by Cadillac in unit totals.
Hell, the fuel economy isn't the selling point with Toyota Priuses either (it will take you over a decade to recoup the additional purchase cost with fuel savings even with todays high fuel prices). Envirowhackos buy the Toyota Prius for the image of a "green" vehicle.
For the image? I guess reducing our dependence on foreign oil and dropping emissions doesn't matter then, all of the above are just pointless causes for the radicals and commies? Has it ever occurred to you that for some of us it's not just about money and that we see that something is very wrong here and that it needs to be changed?
P.S.
The hybrid trucks are still pointless and since there are so few of them they might as well be yet another one of GM's prototypes.
Maybe we should end our dependence on foreign made cars first. Or maybe foreign made home stereo equipment. Or foreign made trinkets dispensed from $.25 machines.
Seriously, don't talk nonsense. We live in a free trading world. Get used to it.
Your last comment is weak. You think you calling something "pointless" will make it so? GM's hybrid trucks have just come out of the gate. Let's wait a few months until they're one sale everywhere before we make any hasty judgements which we might later regret. Until then, though, one thing remains clear, and that is that GM is king of the full size hybrid trucks.
CosmicSaab
12-09-04, 09:12 PM
Calm down people, it's really not this serious. No matter how much you two argue, it will not change what is. And neither of you are going to change your view of what is and is not.
edusaab
12-09-04, 09:26 PM
The first think I saw the 9-7x was, why they offer a I6 with 275hp and a V8 with 300hp, only 25bhp of differenc and if you take a look at the performance the V8 is fast and also have less consumption.....it hasn't any sense!!! cpuld be if this I6 have les power and less consumption to make an entranc level as the V6 Cayenne or Touareg or the 2.5T of the XC90 could have sense.
You can see two points of view. One; the people prefer the V8 for its better performance and efficiency and to spend a little more money for it and have a car with more image, reducing the attactive of the I6 and his sales.
Second; the people will take the I6 because the V8 only has 25bhp more and this engine will "steal" sales of the V8(this second idea is more a european mentality) the costs of the fuel and also many people here in Europe buy the cheapest versions of the cayenne and touareg and this models....if porsche decide to launch a diesel engine here in europe will be a success, it is sad but it's a fact.
greetings
The first think I saw the 9-7x was, why they offer a I6 with 275hp and a V8 with 300hp, only 25bhp of differenc and if you take a look at the performance the V8 is fast and also have less consumption.....
Hmmm...where are you seeing this? My understainding is that the V8 has lower effeciency (stands to reason all other things being equal) -- the Buick V8 has worse MPG ratings than the I6, right? Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong..
edusaab
13-09-04, 10:21 PM
THe V8 has the same consumption at city, 15mpg, asi it says in the technical spec. data from Saab. The V8 on Highway has 18mpg and the I6, 21mpg.
the V8 has better acceleration, 7.8s against 8.9 of the I6.(0-60)
The same v-max. 191km/h(i think it is limited in both cases).
The V8 has a little better performance(if we believe the official spec. :D :D :D :D ). the V8 it has more wheight and from this specs. has less consumption and better performance.
Also we can think..........the I6 it has similar performance with only 25hp less and only a I6 but less torque, with less displacement(frequently associated to less consumption and less wheight better stability and so).
AS you say, it is logical that the I6 has better consumption, but the problem I think, is the torque, it needs more time, more effort to mantain a speed, to accelerate and to drive it, it is the same, when you use a turbo engine against a nonturbo) or if you compare the 175hp and the Aero(210hp) in everyday use the Aero you can have less consumption, the engine needs less effort thanks to the torque to move the car.
If you take a look at the officil specs of the 9-5Aero and the 220hp version you will see the Aero has better consumption than the 220hp.
Greetings
Stefano
15-09-04, 09:58 PM
Yeah, I guess this is just a "concept":
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/seattle_tt_052704.html
And this too:
http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/hybrid.jsp
I guess it's all as phantom as your knowledge of automobiles. :cheesy:
Excuse me what's the Hybrid part in the Silverado that allows it to be called "Hybrid"? All I see is the possibility for the engine to run driving a generator (which works also as a starter) to feed some power outlets. The electrical power is NOT used for the drive, for traction I mean. So what's so special about this? Does it improve any other aspect of the truck (fuel economy, power, emissions....)? It looks like not.
Happy to be corrected. If I'm not, I'll begin to think that GM just added an almost useless feature to a truck (that's why it won't be sold everywhere, in large number I guess) just to be able to call it Hybrid, because it's so fancy now. :roll:
SaabKen
15-09-04, 10:24 PM
Yeah, I guess this is just a "concept":
http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/seattle_tt_052704.html
And this too:
http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/hybrid.jsp
I guess it's all as phantom as your knowledge of automobiles. :cheesy:
Excuse me what's the Hybrid part in the Silverado that allows it to be called "Hybrid"? All I see is the possibility for the engine to run driving a generator (which works also as a starter) to feed some power outlets. The electrical power is NOT used for the drive, for traction I mean. So what's so special about this? Does it improve any other aspect of the truck (fuel economy, power, emissions....)? It looks like not.
Happy to be corrected. If I'm not, I'll begin to think that GM just added an almost useless feature to a truck (that's why it won't be sold everywhere, in large number I guess) just to be able to call it Hybrid, because it's so fancy now. :roll:
I too am very puzzled on this "hybrid" aspect of this Silverado. If it's in fact a true "hybrid propulsion system" like other hybrid vehicles out there (Insight, Prius, Civic, Escape) and upcoming RX400h, Accord etc, you'd think you would hear much ballyhooing from GM about this. Sounds more like one of those "97% fat-free" labels on junk food :roll:
Stefano
16-09-04, 07:19 PM
The point of the mild-hybrid trucks is to serve as a portable power supply, with lower fuel consumption as a bonus.
The world is safe now that trucks work as portable power supply. I wonder how the world survived until now :roll: .
I still would like to know how the "Hybrid" Silverado gets lower fuel consumption. :-??
like to know how the "Hybrid" Silverado gets lower fuel consumption. :-??
IIRC, chiefly through shutting the engine down at stoplights. And that's _slightly_ lower consumption/
The point of the mild-hybrid trucks is to serve as a portable power supply, with lower fuel consumption as a bonus.
The world is safe now that trucks work as portable power supply. I wonder how the world survived until now :roll: .
I still would like to know how the "Hybrid" Silverado gets lower fuel consumption. :-??
Whoa, what a brilliant analysis. Not.
You could say the same thing about any product, all it would make for is a rather cliched marketing campaign.
The utility of a hybrid truck is easy to see. Construction companies are amongst the biggest consumers of pickup trucks. The Silverado Hybrid can be taken to powerless work sites and used to power many types of construction equipment for up to 36 hours. This eliminates the need to go out and purchase and haul around a seperate electricity generator, the costs of which can be beyond the reach of a small construction firm.
And it's not just construction firms, but also people who are into outdoors type stuff and need a power supply while they're out on camping trips in the middle of nowhere.
For the record, GM has had no problem selling the hybrid trucks they've produced thus far to municipal governments, corporate fleets, and (now) the retail customers in the second part of their rollout. And they're selling them without the government tax break incentives that are given to car hybrids like the Toyota Prius.
Once the product is rolled out nationally over the next year, GM stands to do very well. I don't think anyone else has any sort of truck hybrid on the horizon for quite some time.
Stefano
16-09-04, 10:52 PM
And they're selling them without the government tax break incentives that are given to car hybrids like the Toyota Prius.
....because it's not a Hybrid truck. It's just a truck with a generator.
How does that truck improve ANY of these, compared to a standard Silverado: performance, fuel economy, emissions? :cheesy:
According to FuelEconomy.com:
18/20 vs. 16/19.
10 tons emissions vs. 11 tons.
Annual fuel cost of $1515 vs. $1693.
The hybrid as a standalone option adds about $3000 to the cost. Over 10 years, you'll recoup about $1900 in fuel savings. Keep in mind, even with Honda Civic hybrids, the owners don't recoup the additional costs of the hybrid technology (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/auto/20030507a1.asp). The remaining additional cost would have to be beared by either if you're willing to pay more for driving a hybrid product (which is probably not so much the case with trucks, since there are fewer envirowhacko customers), or you need the additional utility from portable power.
So far, the vehicle is selling well, so it seems like people are willing to pay the extra money for the hybrid truck.
And you can malign it as a "mild-hybrid" all you want, but Toyota, Nissan, Ford, and Dodge all make full-size trucks as well, but none of them have hybrids, not even mild-hybrids. And according to hybrid product maps I've seen of the auto industry, no competitor has any sort of full-size hybrid truck being released at any point in the next few years. GM has quite an advantage on the competition, which is why they're making good money off these "mild-hybrids".
valbowski1980
17-09-04, 05:51 PM
GM has quite an advantage on the competition, which is why they're making good money off these "mild-hybrids".
Sure :roll: .
"Offered in limited quantities only in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Nevada and Florida". How many of these things did GM sell again? They must really make up quite a large chunk of GM's profits.
Honda makes the FCX which is the only government-certified fuel-cell car, ever heard of it? It's sold in limited quantities as well.
valbowski1980
17-09-04, 06:06 PM
"envirowhacko customers"
Interesting terminology you have there. I take it to mean these are people who have the audacity to believe and to god- forbid want alternatives to the internal combustion engine and a cleaner way to travel.
Don't kid yourself, these people know exactly what they are buying.