What is a safe power stage for 2.0T? [Archive] - SaabCentral Forums

: What is a safe power stage for 2.0T?


9-3Vector
11th February 2014, 10:57 AM
So I'm still new to the world of Saab's I haven't had my Vector a year yet. I bought the car for daily use. Being a car guy/ speed freak I'm getting the urge for more power even though i have another car with a ton of it. I've had the car tuned by MPS with a stage 1 . really woke this car up except for the fact that what ever clutch is in the car wont hold the torque it making. So I had to neuter it by bypassing the waste gate control solenoid and running the line right to the actuator. So now I'm limited to 6 psi. So it will stay this way till i can put an updated clutch in it in the spring. The only problem is I know me and once the clutch is done I'll want more. I want to avoid the pit falls of more by that I mean breaking stuff. Where should I stop, where is the line with these cars were you run the risk of breaking stuff with more power.

Now to show you how far out of hand I got with my prior turbo car. Here comes the pics, build sheet , dyno sheet, and drag race vid.

Car was a 1988 Shelby CSX-T ( a turbo dodge shadow) #802 of the 1000 built 2.2 L 4 cyl engine, single overhead cam 8 valve non cross flow head.

Here is the build list when I sold the car in 2010.

FWD stage 5 3bar cal
Apexi SAFC
MSD digital 6 ignition with 2 step
NGK wide band o2
Auto meter 30 psi boost gauge
Cyberdine oil pressure gauge
NGK BR9ES plugs
+40 injectors
AFPR
.020 over common block with JE pistons
ARP main studs,rod bolts,head studs
TII rods
86 2.2 T1 cast crank
F-3 roller cam
061 valve springs with aluminum retainers
adjustable cam sprocket (square tooth)
ported 782 head
TU cast iron header
TU 3 inch swing valve
52mm throttle body
Modded T1 intake(Aaron Miller)
Precision turbo DBB 50 trim, stage 3 wheel
3 inch stainless exhaust turbo back (no cat.)
1080 cfm front mount spearco
Apexi BOV
walbro 255 lph fuel pump
Ramsdell built 555/520 with trans plate & OBX #CLR23907
Joe p. MBC
under drive pully
custom radiator built by TAPP inc.
DevilsOwn alky injection with 7GPH nozzle 2/3 meth 1/3 h2o
89 - K-frame with polly bushings
all polly bushings motor mounts and trans mount.
csracer adjustable track bar.
Billet carrier bearing fixture for equal length
FWD race axles
custom SS oil catch can

9-3Vector
11th February 2014, 11:05 AM
Here are some more pics

Diggs
11th February 2014, 11:08 AM
I bet that thing absolutely flew.

You should post your question in the 9-3SS performance section.

9-3Vector
11th February 2014, 11:14 AM
A vid from the drag strip. The car was on 225/50/15 BFG drag radials spinning the tires for 500 feet. I wouldn't lift cause I wasn't gonna loose to the STI in the other lane. Car went 13.4 @ 114.71 mph. with 2.2xx 60 ft time.

http://youtu.be/09-QWwSykrM

9-3Vector
11th February 2014, 11:17 AM
trying to get the you tube vid to show up in the reply box

9-3Vector
11th February 2014, 11:21 AM
I bet that thing absolutely flew.

You should post your question in the 9-3SS performance section..

Yes it had alot of power. The dyno sheet was at 28 psi boost with pump gas and meth/h2o. I would drive around on the street with the boost set to 30 psi.
3rd gear roll on blow the tires away at 70 mph

9-3Vector
11th February 2014, 11:33 AM
couple of vids from in the car watch the speedometer , tach and boost gauge you'll see how much this car punished tires.

http://youtu.be/w_un4mx-Gx8

http://youtu.be/fFvgBv5OMu8

9-3Vector
11th February 2014, 02:12 PM
Diggs can you move this thread to the 9-3 performance forum ?

saabhutter
11th February 2014, 03:00 PM
Diggs can you move this thread to the 9-3 performance forum ?

Nice build! Not too sure why it'd be put in the 9-3 forum, though.

9-3Vector
13th February 2014, 08:07 AM
Wanted move because of my question regarding my vector

TunnanXWD
13th February 2014, 09:13 AM
Getting a tune .. ;ol;

You really need a new clutch pronto. 250 horses shouldn't be that hard on any clutch.

This reminds me of how far we have come. My first turbo was in 1965 and was in a 1963 Corvair that had the Bill Thomas blow through kit (carbs + turbo+) and it put out about 200/210 horsepower. Back in those days that was pretty quick. When the Porsche 911 came over here in 1965 it only had 128 horses.

booster
13th February 2014, 09:45 AM
If your goal is to make similar HP to that of your previous car, then the upgrade path is the same for most....built engine, large turbo, supporting mods (FMIC+piping, injectors, fuel pump, tuning) and LSD. There is no secret formula. The downfall is that for the most part, this will be a custom solution, since there aren't ready off the shelf kits available for the 93 that push 400WHP.

9-3Vector
13th February 2014, 12:03 PM
If your goal is to make similar HP to that of your previous car, then the upgrade path is the same for most....built engine, large turbo, supporting mods (FMIC+piping, injectors, fuel pump, tuning) and LSD. There is no secret formula. The downfall is that for the most part, this will be a custom solution, since there aren't ready off the shelf kits available for the 93 that push 400WHP.
That is the problem i don't want this to turn into what the shelby was. The Shelby Dynoed At 366 whp , 365 ft lbs to the wheels. That dyno pull was done in third gear which wasn't a 1:1 ratio. I i remember correctly third gear was 1.2:1 ratio. The car would only make 28 psi in that gear, not enough load on the motor. If i would have dynoed it in 4th gear which was a slight over drive which was .94:1 ratio. It would have made well over 30+ psi which would have put the car at the 400+ WHP mark with torque to match it.

9-3Vector
13th February 2014, 12:15 PM
I don't want to make the 9-3 vector into a 400 whp car. The fact is even though the head is outstanding flow wise, light years ahead of the simple 8 valve head that was on the shelby. The intake sucks on the 2.0T . it has no plenum / no plenum volume what so ever. I don't think you could make 400 whp without a custom intake. The modified/ custom intake i had built had a plenum with a volume of 3.2 liters, the intake runners were shortened by 8 inches. That intake increased the power band by 1000 + rpm by it's self.

9-3Vector
13th February 2014, 12:22 PM
Bottom line is with the K&N drop in filter that is in it and the MPS stage 1 tune the car should be in the ball park of 260 HP, 265 ft lbs at the crank. I guess my target would be 300 HP 300 Ft lbs at the crank. Is this do able with a 3 inch down pipe and a stage 2 tune? I don't want to have to change injectors or the fuel pump. I also don't want it to destroy the transmission and related parts.

Diggs
13th February 2014, 12:42 PM
you would probably need a 16t turbo and full exhaust to hit 300 unless you are going to run e85 in which case you would need large injectors but could probably hit that with the stock14t

Pace
13th February 2014, 02:27 PM
Take some time to read around the stickies, performances related posts, and a couple vendors' sites. I think you'll find that 300hp to the crank won't be too difficult, especially if you talk with some of the well-known tuners. The 9-3 platform is completely different from an 80s turbo car - technology had allowed for a lot more efficiency these days.

And what makes you think the intake on the B207R is insufficient? There's a lot more to making power than internal volume. Head flow, turbo efficiency, cam profiling, etc. are going to be the biggest determining factor in how well the intake works.

9-3Vector
13th February 2014, 03:27 PM
Take some time to read around the stickies, performances related posts, and a couple vendors' sites. I think you'll find that 300hp to the crank won't be too difficult, especially if you talk with some of the well-known tuners. The 9-3 platform is completely different from an 80s turbo car - technology had allowed for a lot more efficiency these days.

And what makes you think the intake on the B207R is insufficient? There's a lot more to making power than internal volume. Head flow, turbo efficiency, cam profiling, etc. are going to be the biggest determining factor in how well the intake works.
Well if you look a any 4 cylinder Making 4,5,6,7,800 crank HP the formula for the intake is the same large plenum short runners. The B207R intake is nothing more than four runners cast together with a mounting pad for throttle body. Good for torque but not good of big power at higher RPM. Don't get me wrong i'm sure the stock intake is good for 300 + crank HP. But if someone that wanted to go 400 crank hp and higher . With bigger turbo , intercooler and other supporting mods. I would bet the intake is a bottle neck before you need to worry about head porting and cams. Been there done that.

Tmarter
13th February 2014, 11:52 PM
Well if you look a any 4 cylinder Making 4,5,6,7,800 crank HP the formula for the intake is the same large plenum short runners. The B207R intake is nothing more than four runners cast together with a mounting pad for throttle body. Good for torque but not good of big power at higher RPM. Don't get me wrong i'm sure the stock intake is good for 300 + crank HP. But if someone that wanted to go 400 crank hp and higher . With bigger turbo , intercooler and other supporting mods. I would bet the intake is a bottle neck before you need to worry about head porting and cams. Been there done that.

Well since your first number on your power list started with "4"...there aren't many 2.0's running trionic 8 with 400hp, let alone 300hp...lol so there isn't a lot of experience-backed opinions where the intake will even become a restriction...but honestly if you fabricate or weld, it shouldn't be difficult to make if you measure everything correctly.

The whole system is a bottleneck if you think about it, which is kind of a mind****, lol but the first and most important bottleneck is trionic 8. Don't ever forget that ...:nono; lol

But anyways... for the sake of argument, why are we referencing 400-700hp cars and restrictive intakes heads, and valvetrains when you don't even want to have change the injectors? lol 300 isnt hard, but it's not that simple, it only takes maybe 15 minutes and 150 bucks and you can be in the 350 ballpark with e85 if its available. but with e85, expect the fuel pump to take a ****. thats a fact. if you don't want ethanol, you'll probably hit a little above 350 before you need piston rings. rings are the weakest point.

9-3Vector
15th February 2014, 03:03 PM
Well since your first number on your power list started with "4"...there aren't many 2.0's running trionic 8 with 400hp, let alone 300hp...lol so there isn't a lot of experience-backed opinions where the intake will even become a restriction...but honestly if you fabricate or weld, it shouldn't be difficult to make if you measure everything correctly.

The whole system is a bottleneck if you think about it, which is kind of a mind****, lol but the first and most important bottleneck is trionic 8. Don't ever forget that ...:nono; lol

But anyways... for the sake of argument, why are we referencing 400-700hp cars and restrictive intakes heads, and valvetrains when you don't even want to have change the injectors? lol 300 isnt hard, but it's not that simple, it only takes maybe 15 minutes and 150 bucks and you can be in the 350 ballpark with e85 if its available. but with e85, expect the fuel pump to take a ****. thats a fact. if you don't want ethanol, you'll probably hit a little above 350 before you need piston rings. rings are the weakest point.
Well I'm not even thinking of trying for 400 crank hp. I need this car for daily driving. I have no interest In E85 i have yet to see it at any gas station here in the poconos. I would go meth/h2o first. After the clutch is replaced ill do some exhaust work and see if mike from MPS wants to come out and due a dyno tune and we'll see just how much is left on the table.

Tmarter
15th February 2014, 06:32 PM
Water/Methanol Injection will not work on the 2.0, only on the v6...The Methanol doesn't cooperate with the knock sensing in the ignition system.

With an Auto on a 2.0T, go Full 3" stainless exhaust, 630cc Siemens injectors, Forge drop in front mounted intercooler, upgraded Bypass Valve, upgraded intake or drop in filter, 4 new ignition coil packs and set of NGK BCPR7EIX iridium plugs and get it tuned. Good power you can rely on, drives like a normal everyday car.

Upgrade the compressor and turbine wheel on the TD04 and it pulls like mad ;ol;

weenrock
14th March 2014, 01:32 PM
I was going to start a new thread, but I figured it would make sense just to keep this going since this is along the same topic.

I saw on the zzp website: http://shop.zzperformance.com/

Fastest stock turbo LNF [email protected] 383whp
I know the LNF has some nicer goodies than the LK9/B207R, but with a stock turbo? HOW?

Another thing: There is perception that 300bhp is the limit for stock internals. After reading on a cobalt forum, people are saying 400whp is a safe "limit." While I see that it is a misconception that there is a thin line of "safe power" and "unstable power," there is a rule of thumb of if you are adding more hp, don't expect it to last 200k miles. I think we should really start to understand what is considered safe for the longterm, but spirited daily driver.

I would love to push 300whp, or slightly more (currently at 285bhp via BCB stage 3) without adding a bigger turbo. How would one achieve that?

iksnoved25
14th March 2014, 03:02 PM
I was going to start a new thread, but I figured it would make sense just to keep this going since this is along the same topic.

I saw on the zzp website: http://shop.zzperformance.com/

Fastest stock turbo LNF [email protected] 383whp
I know the LNF has some nicer goodies than the LK9/B207R, but with a stock turbo? HOW?

Another thing: There is perception that 300bhp is the limit for stock internals. After reading on a cobalt forum, people are saying 400whp is a safe "limit." While I see that it is a misconception that there is a thin line of "safe power" and "unstable power," there is a rule of thumb of if you are adding more hp, don't expect it to last 200k miles. I think we should really start to understand what is considered safe for the longterm, but spirited daily driver.

I would love to push 300whp, or slightly more (currently at 285bhp via BCB stage 3) without adding a bigger turbo. How would one achieve that?

VTuner has their stage 3 at 300hp, that has the bigger turbo upgrade (on all stock exhaust/dp). I'm sure if you're running a full upgraded exhaust, slapping on a bigger turbo would put you over that mark.

cupdeez
14th March 2014, 03:04 PM
I think you are probably looking at a stage 3 tune. I think most tuners are getting about 290 hp and 320 lb torque.

Looks like this:

1. upgraded intercooler ($200)
2. Spec 3 clutch & flywheel ($2,000)
3. Stage 3 tune ($400.00
4. 3" full exhaust $500-$1000
5. 3" downpipe $425.00


wow that car is ugly... what a sleeper you could have been taking hundreds off people all day long. I love it.

Gah3535
14th March 2014, 03:08 PM
How much lighter is the cobalt compared to the saab? Anyone do some moderate weight reductions on the saab 9-3?

9-3gotboostAERO
14th March 2014, 03:13 PM
I was going to start a new thread, but I figured it would make sense just to keep this going since this is along the same topic.

I saw on the zzp website: http://shop.zzperformance.com/

Fastest stock turbo LNF [email protected] 383whp
I know the LNF has some nicer goodies than the LK9/B207R, but with a stock turbo? HOW?

Another thing: There is perception that 300bhp is the limit for stock internals. After reading on a cobalt forum, people are saying 400whp is a safe "limit." While I see that it is a misconception that there is a thin line of "safe power" and "unstable power," there is a rule of thumb of if you are adding more hp, don't expect it to last 200k miles. I think we should really start to understand what is considered safe for the longterm, but spirited daily driver.

I would love to push 300whp, or slightly more (currently at 285bhp via BCB stage 3) without adding a bigger turbo. How would one achieve that?

1) The LNF is not as close to our motor as is the LSJ
2) The LNF has direct injection
3) The LNF is also running a larger turbo
4) The LNF is not held back by an ecu/sensors as bad as we are
5) The SS/TC is much lighter, with a better platform for going faster

You will not hit 300whp on a stock 14t, 300 crank maybe but thats really pushing the turbo... Even a 16t won't hit 300whp

weenrock
14th March 2014, 04:15 PM
1) The LNF is not as close to our motor as is the LSJ
2) The LNF has direct injection
3) The LNF is also running a larger turbo
4) The LNF is not held back by an ecu/sensors as bad as we are
5) The SS/TC is much lighter, with a better platform for going faster

You will not hit 300whp on a stock 14t, 300 crank maybe but thats really pushing the turbo... Even a 16t won't hit 300whp

Thank you for clarifying.

Sometimes I feel like (dare I say!) I shouldn't of bought a Saab. I love my Saab, but it is quite embarrassing when I see these punk kids running around in riced out cobalts (god they are ugly) and pushing serious power. I am just disappointed about the Saab platform sometimes.

Gah3535
14th March 2014, 11:14 PM
If you want speed start losing some weight.

billm0066
15th March 2014, 10:38 AM
Thank you for clarifying.

Sometimes I feel like (dare I say!) I shouldn't of bought a Saab. I love my Saab, but it is quite embarrassing when I see these punk kids running around in riced out cobalts (god they are ugly) and pushing serious power. I am just disappointed about the Saab platform sometimes.

Saab's were never built to be 1/4 mile drag queens. You should have bought something else if that's what you care about.

If you want speed start losing some weight.

100lbs for .1 in the 1/4 mile. Not really worth stripping the car for such minor gains, unless it's a dedicated track car.

9-3gotboostAERO
15th March 2014, 10:55 AM
100lbs for .1 in the 1/4 mile. Not really worth stripping the car for such minor gains, unless it's a dedicated track car.

This times 1000x, i've gone the gutted route. It helps immensly in corners and braking... barely makes a dent to acceleration.

Norm95
17th March 2014, 09:26 AM
1) The LNF is not as close to our motor as is the LSJ
2) The LNF has direct injection
3) The LNF is also running a larger turbo
4) The LNF is not held back by an ecu/sensors as bad as we are
5) The SS/TC is much lighter, with a better platform for going faster

You will not hit 300whp on a stock 14t, 300 crank maybe but thats really pushing the turbo... Even a 16t won't hit 300whp

...and variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust. The vvt allows the LHU 2.0T with intake and tune to carry torquw longer than intake, exhaust, and tune on a 2.8T!

9-3Vector
17th March 2014, 10:04 AM
What is the % of drive train loss on a 6 speed manual trans? If its like most front dive stuff it should bd around 15%. If thats the case 300 crank hp x .85 = 255 wheel hp. That doesnt seem to far fetched for the stock turbo.

9-3gotboostAERO
17th March 2014, 10:26 AM
...and variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust. The vvt allows the LHU 2.0T with intake and tune to carry torquw longer than intake, exhaust, and tune on a 2.8T!

Nobody cares, we've been over this before.

weenrock
17th March 2014, 01:18 PM
Saab's were never built to be 1/4 mile drag queens. You should have bought something else if that's what you care about.



100lbs for .1 in the 1/4 mile. Not really worth stripping the car for such minor gains, unless it's a dedicated track car.


I was never hoping to be a drag car, more so a weekend track car, if anything. :cool:

swedespeed7
18th March 2014, 10:41 PM
These cars are fantastic daily drivers. Unless you're doing something like this (http://www.saabsunited.com/9-3txr), keep it your daily :D

Norm95
19th March 2014, 08:32 AM
Getting back to 2.0T power:

http://m.cobaltss.net/forums/showthread.php?t=278045&styleid=9

9-3gotboostAERO
19th March 2014, 09:02 AM
Getting back to 2.0T power:

http://m.cobaltss.net/forums/showthread.php?t=278045&styleid=9

You really have nothing to add to this discussion, that motor is not the same motor... and it's heavily modded well beyond anything that has been tested here. Enjoy your vacation I'm done with your trolling.

cupdeez
19th March 2014, 10:38 AM
Getting back to 2.0T power:

http://m.cobaltss.net/forums/showthread.php?t=278045&styleid=9


I would rather drive my slow *** Saab around then be seen in a 16 year old car their parents bought them.

I bought a real sports car (C6) and use my Saab as a daily driver.

Tmarter
31st March 2014, 10:58 PM
...and variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust. The vvt allows the LHU 2.0T with intake and tune to carry torquw longer than intake, exhaust, and tune on a 2.8T!

I'll agree there, If there was ever a Saab that would bring the company back, and competed in the performance sport compact crowd, it would be a turbo direct injected 4 or 6cyl with VVT.

That's similar to the way the new jaguars are, Direct Injected 5.0 DOHC v8 with VVT and by experience, a timing chain job on one is NOT FUN. The chains on that thing are a mess :o

Tmarter
31st March 2014, 11:05 PM
aww nvm he got banned :(

Gah3535
31st March 2014, 11:20 PM
Its not like timing chains ahve to be serviced as much as timing belts no?

Tmarter
31st March 2014, 11:48 PM
Its not like timing chains ahve to be serviced as much as timing belts no?

normally they shouldn't need replaced, but under very rare occasions they can stretch...

The XJ we dealt with was getting a crank/cam correlation fault, which in the scan tool there was one cause 100% correlated to that code that it threw, and it was timing chain stretch, even with a phone call confirmation to HQ...thing only had like 40k miles on it lol

Gah3535
1st April 2014, 12:30 AM
Ouch. Even then I still like the new jaguars. The XFR especially. If I had some dough laying around I'd buy an old xk8 strip it out and see what it could. Can't really go wrong with jaguar styling and a v8 in the front driving the rear wheels.