SaabCentral Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi all,

I'm trying to search some info about this specific version of 2.0T.
I'll be making a project and I'm trying to decide whether to go with 2.8 or 2.0. I'd like this car to be quite fast, maybe even ~5sec up to 60.
Do You think it's possible with this engine ? if yes, what kind of power/torque are we talking about ?
I know that on FWD it's rather not. I've seen many cars even stage 4-5 tuned but none of them could break even 6sec barrier, I presume due to the fwd mainly, but xwd?
I know that 2.8 can do it easily, but the fuel economy is something that holds me back, so do the overall maintenance costs..
Any hints?

thanks!

btw - any idea how many of them have been produced? Were they as much popular as FWD?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
I would just start with the 2.8 V6. It will require less $ to get there, be less stressed producing that power, and all the V6 XWD cars came with a torque-vectoring rear differential, while the 2.0T XWD cars had an open rear diff. The 2.0T could make enough power, but AWD is basically necessary to put that power down from a stop - FWD won't do it unless you have some very sticky tires and probably make some changes to the suspension to keep them planted better.

Unfortunately, the XWD system came pretty late in the 9-3's run, starting with the Turbo X (which was V6 only) and then trickling to other models, but by that point sales were pretty terrible since it was pretty clear that Saab was not going to be around much longer. It was also more expensive than FWD, so the take-rate wasn't very high.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thanks topless.
2.8 sounds really nice but...fuel economy, Nivomats, timing, Haldex and general costs just put me off. Not to mention that there's no space under the hood for anything, it's really hard to even slide a hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Well, the Haldex system will be on any of the AWD saabs, it just has the more complicated but capable torque vectoring on the V6's. Personally, I prefer the 2.0T FWD since it just feels (and is) so much lighter than the V6, and of course for ease of maintenance and costs. Looking for a very hard launch from rest is just not one of the car's many skills
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I read through some factory data and it looks like AWDs are significantly slower, let alone auto tranny. It says over 1 second slower than FWD up to 100km/h. Strange, in most of modern cars it works the other way around.

But let's say that we are about to mod same 2.0T cars to 300bhp, one is AWD the other FWD. Will there be any gain in acceleration on the AWD than FWD, due to bigger torque steer that might be experienced, hence the worse grip ?
Anyone tried?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
But let's say that we are about to mod same 2.0T cars to 300bhp, one is AWD the other FWD. Will there be any gain in acceleration on the AWD than FWD, due to bigger torque steer that might be experienced, hence the worse grip ?
Anyone tried?
Based on your inclination towards acceleration times, I'll assume dry roads all out. I'd wager that after 1st gear, the favor will be to the FWD car as it is lighter (xwd seems to add about 300lbs) and will have less drivetrain loss (any torque going to the back probably loses 5-10% due to the 90 deg gear changes). Even in 1st gear, the extra weight and losses might not be made up for by the xwd system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
What about tuning 2.0 AWD?
I heard it's frail, weak and unrealiable, and can't stand a lot of torque...true ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
I had 04 FWD 2.0T and stage II tune
I now have 2010 2.0 AWD stage II tune
performance wise the FWD will walk all over the AWD
Safety wise the AWD wins
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top