SaabCentral Forums banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Anyone know what changes (if anything) in the 2010 9-3 MY? Not sure if anything has been officially or even unofficially released as yet on it (aside from 9-3x topical news). Just curious as I had heard they might be putting in an all-new navigation system. The current one seems to leave a lot to be desired not to mention it can be near impossible to get updates for it.

- anthonyx26
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The biggest news is no more V6. The range topper is going to be the TX package that has the xwd with lsd, Turbo X apperance and rummored 240 hp output from the 2.0T.

-Rogan
Wow...no more V6? Really? While the V6 does gulp the petrol a bit quicker, it does provide a lot of extra power you can feel when driving it. Even a 4 banger with 240 hp likely won't come close to the same feel.

- anthonyx26
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
707 Posts
We knew this was coming...but I think it's a real pity the V6 is not being kept/refined. Here in Canada Audi has been taking out full page colour ads heradling the 2010 S4... 3.0 V6 330 odd bhp and 325 lbs torque (440 Nm). Starting around $ 53,000 CDN (optioned up --nearer 60)

My 2008 VTuned Turbo X is pushing nearly equivalent bhp (320-ish) and significantly more torque than that (nearly 400 lbs).

I certainly won't be switching horses -- and I would think that the bargain hunters should ferret out an X (especially) or XWD 09 Aero soon.

Hope 'new' Saab will be aggressive in its pricing of the X 'kit' (undercut 300 4matic Sport -- maybe at 250 4matic price; or 328xi -- which only has 230 bhp).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
We knew this was coming...but I think it's a real pity the V6 is not being kept/refined. Here in Canada Audi has been taking out full page colour ads heradling the 2010 S4... 3.0 V6 330 odd bhp and 325 lbs torque (440 Nm). Starting around $ 53,000 CDN (optioned up --nearer 60)
Well, maybe we can hold out hope that Koenigsigg may change this decision. Seems silly given how much effort GM put into making this their "global V6", as specd from their Holden office.

- anthonyx26
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
The V6 is getting spread around GM. Besides the new 9-5 and 9-4X, and whatever Opels and Holdens it goes into, you will see it in the new Cadillac SRX.

I think it's pretty clear that the V6 was dropped from the 9-3 because they want you to move up to the 9-5.

I'd just like to see more power out of the 2.0T. If that's 240hp, that's fine by me. 210 hp is kind of pathetic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
The V6 is getting spread around GM. Besides the new 9-5 and 9-4X, and whatever Opels and Holdens it goes into, you will see it in the new Cadillac SRX.

I think it's pretty clear that the V6 was dropped from the 9-3 because they want you to move up to the 9-5.
...or how about I just move up to a BMW 3 series.

- anthonyx26
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
With the new CAFE standards on the way, look for even BMW to offer a 4 cylinder turbo as at least the base engine, if not the only engine as Saab is doing.

I think that if Saab got their hands on the 2.0 GDI turbo from the Cobalt SS, especially the 290hp tune, nobody would even remember or care that there used to be a turbo 6. It just sticks in my craw that we're stuck with the same 210hp engine we had in '03/'04.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
With the new CAFE standards on the way, look for even BMW to offer a 4 cylinder turbo as at least the base engine, if not the only engine as Saab is doing.
Anyone know the basics of CAFE? Is it just the average fuel economy of all models a manufacturer has for sale or does it take into account the sale volume of each model? If it takes sales into account it seems that Saab could indeed continue selling a V6 model, since, I'd guess that the 2.0T is their biggest volume seller.

How will a manufacturer like Ferrari get around this? Or are there minimum volume guidelines as well?

I think that if Saab got their hands on the 2.0 GDI turbo from the Cobalt SS, especially the 290hp tune, nobody would even remember or care that there used to be a turbo 6. It just sticks in my craw that we're stuck with the same 210hp engine we had in '03/'04.
Again, hopefully, Koenigsigg will work to resolve conundrums like this.

I'm no engineer, but I might hazard a guess that a 4-cylinder 280 hp motor will be no more and no less fuel efficient an engine than a 280 hp 6-cylinder, correct?

- anthonyx26
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
Ferrari just pays the gas guzzler tax. Or their customers pay it, really.

I'm pretty sure that it is weighted by sales. For every big car GM sells, they need to sell a ****box, which is a big reason that they went bankrupt (wasted engineering on cars like the Cobalt. GM can't design small cars, and they can't import their good small cars from Europe because the CAFE only compares cars built in the US. Their imports are counted in a separate pot).

Real world gas mileage on a turbo is not any better than a normally aspirated engine, but they can do pretty well on the artificial EPA tests, especially on the highway where there's no boost. That's why turbos are making a comeback.

Car and Driver often mentions that they've never driven a turbo that got better mileage than a competing normally aspirated vehicle. They say that "turbos suck fuel".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
It's not so much CAFE, which is US only, but much more the upcoming European CO2 regulations that are forcing this. If Saab wants to be able to offer the V6 in the 9-5, then pretty much the V6 in the 9-3 has to go away. They just don't sell enough of them here to justify continuing to produce the V6 if they aren't going to sell them in Europe too. And despite the fact that we have a lot of happy V6 Aero owners on this board, they actually do not sell particularly well here - when I was looking at leftover '08s in March, there were FAR more leftover Aeros than 2.0Ts. Just too darned expensive vs. the competition is my guess.

Ferrari gets by it by being wholly owned by FIAT. So that handfull of Ferraris is averaged with a TON of 1.0l FIAT 500s... Ditto Lamborghini being owned by Audi (which all gets averaged with VW). And probably a good bit of the reason for Koenigsegg's [sp?] interest in Saab. Though they sell so few cars that maybe they are exempt anyway.

But really, considering that the 2.0L is easily capable of nearly 300hp, is there really a reason for a gas-guzzling 2.8l V6? I predict we will soon see that the base 2.0l stays at 210hp, and the Aero or equivelant becomes 280 out of the same basic motor. Tuning is cheap, different engines are not.

Personally, I would have loved to have had the option of the 1.8T that they sell in Europe now - detuned version of the 2.0T. I would gladly trade a littel oomph that I seldom use for another 4-5mpg. For that matter, a European-style 1.6L Turbo with 150hp would be more than adequate with the 6spd stick to stir it along. Or best of all the 1.9TiD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,873 Posts
I'm pretty sure for 2010 the A4 has no V6 option either... Just the 2.0T. And of course the S4 will have some beast monster engine in it.
You're correct here. So, not sure if it's a marketing thing or if GM in fact has limited sources on the beast of a V6.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
910 Posts
...
I'm no engineer, but I might hazard a guess that a 4-cylinder 280 hp motor will be no more and no less fuel efficient an engine than a 280 hp 6-cylinder, correct?

- anthonyx26
I've got a stage one 4-cylinder that makes the same hp as a stock 6-cylinder, and I routinely get 27 mpg where as the V6 only gets what, 19 mpg?

So a 4 cyl. with a bigger turbo making 280 hp COULD be more fuel efficient than the V6.

Dropping the V6 doesn't bug me that much. After all the Viggen came with a 4 cylinder. ;) I would rather see a more aggresive tune, with twin turbos or at least a bigger single turbo though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
For anyone who doesn't think that CAFE is a factor, the standard is going to 35 mpg COMBINED (average the city and highway) for 2015.

Now, the mileage they use is not the mileage printed on the sticker, it's the unadjusted mileage from the EPA tests (same as they used to put on the stickers in the '80s). But the 9-3 2.0T doesn't even crack 30 combined.

This is a BIG PROBLEM for the automakers. That's the reason that the Pontiac G8 will not be rebadged as a Chevy when Pontiac is put out to pasture. Look for all the automakers to start downsizing and killing performance options in order to make their numbers.

We'd all sacrifice our first born sons to the Norse Gods if Saab brought over the 1.9 TTiD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
I'm no engineer, but I might hazard a guess that a 4-cylinder 280 hp motor will be no more and no less fuel efficient an engine than a 280 hp 6-cylinder, correct?

- anthonyx26
Incorrect. Under all conditions the smaller 4 cylinder will have less internal friction (assuming comparable engine construction), and will be operating under more load (which minimizes pumping losses). Both of these will increase fuel economy. Fuel consumption is also proportionate to engine size at idle speeds as a general rule, assuming a modern EFI engine. This is where the V6 gets hammered in city driving. The turbo 4 and the V6 of the same power will use similar amounts of fuel at full-throttle, but how much of your daily driving is done at full throttle?

Now there does come a point where if you have a ridiculously high-powered (really high torque at low engine speeds) setup you can get really excellent highway fuel economy simply by having intergallactically tall gearing - this is how the Corvette gets crazy EPA highway numbers despite having 400hp. But this is not useful for most cars.

BUT this does have some bearing here - Saab Turbos have generally always had better fuel economy both on test and in the real world than thier N/A cousins. Saab has always tuned for torque at the expense of all out power, and geared the Turbos higher. The turbo will certainly use more fuel (a LOT more) if you cane it without mercy, but if you drive like a normal adult (something Car and Driver can NEVER be accused of) you will get better mileage with the turbo.

Ultimately, V6s are a marketing ploy in this type of car, IMHO. For that matter, 280hp is a marketing ploy too - completely unnecessary (though certainly a lot of fun occasionally). I prefer to not pay for HP that I can't use though. Call me cheap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
707 Posts
"Ultimately, V6s are a marketing ploy in this type of car, IMHO. For that matter, 280hp is a marketing ploy too - completely unnecessary (though certainly a lot of fun occasionally). I prefer to not pay for HP that I can't use though. Call me cheap. "

'Cheap' [:p].
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,380 Posts
The 2.3t in the 9-5 came in a 170, 185, 220, 250, and 260 hp varient. All of which get VERY similar MPG's, if not the same.

If you drive a 280hp 4-cyl in a civilized manner without jumping on the turbo all the time it can be a very economical engine, but still have balls lined up when you need them. That's why I love my 9-5 Aero.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
The 2.3t in the 9-5 came in a 170, 185, 220, 250, and 260 hp varient. All of which get VERY similar MPG's, if not the same.

If you drive a 280hp 4-cyl in a civilized manner without jumping on the turbo all the time it can be a very economical engine, but still have balls lined up when you need them. That's why I love my 9-5 Aero.
Yes, aren't (relatively) small turbo'd engines great!

For 9-5s, similar, but not the same really. The 170hp cars do get somewhat better highway fuel economy, probably 2-3 mpg in the real world. Part of that is attributable to the difference in tires and less aggressive suspension settings resulting in lower rolling resistance. Where you would see a GREAT difference is if that 170hp was achieved by high-pressure turbocharging a smaller engine, rather than mostly reducing the boost on the same engine. Early '99 low-spec 9-5s with no power seats, no sunroof, taller gearing, 170hp engine, and 15" wheels can get really amazing fuel mileage. 35mpg is pretty easy to achieve. As time went on and the cars got more loaded and heavier the difference got smaller.

This jibes well with the difference between the 2.0T and the 2.0t in the 9-3SS too - the lower powered cars seem to do ~2mpg better. And of course, the more aggressive your driving style the bigger the difference. 170hp flat out uses less fuel than 210hp flat out. Balanced somewhat by needing to use flat out a bit less often, but I think in the real world aggressive drivers just use what they have.

I think by most standards I am a fairly aggressive driver, yet I seldom use more than 3500rpm in my SportCombi, and rarely full-throttle. 6spd stick. I manage to do around 26-27 mpg in suburban driving, and generally 33mpg on long trips (ME to NJ typically, so fast and lots of traffic). Pretty amazing really, for a well-equipped, comfortable and very rapid car. I doubt many cars in the 9-3s class can do better in the real world. Maybe a FWD A4 2.0T could match it. Of course, a Jetta Sportwagen TDI would give me equal real-world performance and much better economy, but they aren't nearly as nice, and more expensive than what I paid for my left-over '08. FYI - former very happy Golf TDI owner back in the day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,147 Posts
As a former 9-3 Aero V6 owner... ditch the 6. Use the 260hp 2.0L DI Ecotec instead.

I owned a 9-3 Aero V6 (auto) and a Solstice GXP (auto) at the same time. Traveled many thousands of miles in each, back-to-back.

Performance wise, I suspect it would be a wash. The 260hp 2.0DI feels very similar to my '06 250hp 2.8L V6 in terms of powerband and torque. I suspect that based on performance alone, most people would not notice a difference.

The Solstice's curb weight is ~2,900 lbs and it has a CD of .45 (which is awful - a Hummer H2 = .57, a Chevy Tahoe is .39). It routinely gets 31-32mpg on the highway.

The 9-3's curb weight is ~3,300 lbs but it has a *much* better CD of .28 (a Prius, for comparison, is .26). Mine routinely got 28-29mpg on the highway from the 2.8L V6 w/ automatic.

I bet a hypothetical 260hp 9-3 Aero 2.0DI could easily be a 33-34+ mpg car on the highway. And give the driver every bit of performance that they're used to with the 2.8L V6. And the 2.0DI is *factory upgradable* to ~300hp, so it is obviously capable of at least that.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top