SaabCentral Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Hello all,
I have a 2001 9-3 SE, VIN code K for the motor, with and AW 50-40LE (not the 42) transmission. I was curious what the differences between the 2.3 viggen motor and mine are, i.e.: is it essentially the same as the 2.0 in my car just bored larger? will the AW trans bolt to a viggen motor? I know the viggen is usually a manual.

Also, does anyone know the transmission cooling line pressures? I can't seem to find any info on this pressure, even in the 100+ page transmission rebuild manual. I would like to add an external inline spin on filter and a separate trans cooler while in the rebuild process.

Anyone have an engine for sale ? I am in Michigan.

Thanks in advance everyone
Cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,270 Posts
The 2.3 is just stroked. The block is exactly the same as the 2.0, but the crankshaft, connecting rods, and pistons are different to achieve a longer stroke. If you're looking to convert your engine to a 2.3, the easiest way to do it is to get a 9-5 block with the crankshaft and pistons. All versions of the OG9-5 with a 4-cylinder have a 2.3 liter engine. The Aero has exactly the same engine as the Viggen. You'll need a custom ECU tune, of course, if you do the conversion. I've seen some people with external transmission filters on the 9-5, so you might check that board. The most common way it seems to be done is to just cut one of the cooler lines and clamp a filter in there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
The 2.3 is just stroked. The block is exactly the same as the 2.0, but the crankshaft, connecting rods, and pistons are different to achieve a longer stroke. If you're looking to convert your engine to a 2.3, the easiest way to do it is to get a 9-5 block with the crankshaft and pistons. All versions of the OG9-5 with a 4-cylinder have a 2.3 liter engine. The Aero has exactly the same engine as the Viggen. You'll need a custom ECU tune, of course, if you do the conversion. I've seen some people with external transmission filters on the 9-5, so you might check that board. The most common way it seems to be done is to just cut one of the cooler lines and clamp a filter in there.
So the Aero 95 is the same engine as the Viggen, which would bolt to the trans I have, and have the same motor mounts and such ? What is the performance difference between the K designated motor I have now as opposed to the 2.3 upgrade?
Also, I know that's the common way for the filter, but the hose clamps usually leak from what I have read on other forums, and I would like to be able to change the filter at every other or every third oil change interval. A spin off would be much easier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,094 Posts
All the B2x5 blocks are the same - exactly the same. Performance will depend on the software you run... boost, timing, etc. The 2.0l came anywhere from 150 to 205hp, the 2.3 from 170hp to 260hp.

There should be no pressure to speak of in the cooling circuit - there is nothing to create pressure at the return end. There are metric thread banjo fittings at the transmission side, so it seems the easy approach is just replace that banjo with whatever you need to get to the filter body... an AN adapter, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
All the B2x5 blocks are the same - exactly the same. Performance will depend on the software you run... boost, timing, etc. The 2.0l came anywhere from 150 to 205hp, the 2.3 from 170hp to 260hp.

There should be no pressure to speak of in the cooling circuit - there is nothing to create pressure at the return end. There are metric thread banjo fittings at the transmission side, so it seems the easy approach is just replace that banjo with whatever you need to get to the filter body... an AN adapter, etc.
Cool thanks. Wouldn't there have to be some sort of pressure to pump the fluid through the radiator ? So I could get the 2.3 from a 9-5 Aero from the same year and have 25 extra horses and be a direct bolt in? I just had the cylinder head redone, I assume from your statement that would be the same as well? if so I could bolt the head I have from the 2.0 to the 2.3? budget racer build
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Cool thanks. Wouldn't there have to be some sort of pressure to pump the fluid through the radiator ? So I could get the 2.3 from a 9-5 Aero from the same year and have 25 extra horses and be a direct bolt in? I just had the cylinder head redone, I assume from your statement that would be the same as well? if so I could bolt the head I have from the 2.0 to the 2.3? budget racer build
Also, I wouldn't want to get a block and not have the AW 50 40 LE I'm rebuilding not bolt up
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,376 Posts
FWIW, you can get those HP more easily out of the 2.0 without swapping. If you need a motor change/rebuild then it's worth considering, but if you don't, just add a 2.5" catback and tune the 2.0. 225 HP is easy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
FWIW, you can get those HP more easily out of the 2.0 without swapping. If you need a motor change/rebuild then it's worth considering, but if you don't, just add a 2.5" catback and tune the 2.0. 225 HP is easy.
Yea I figured as much. when I do the trans swap (I have another one on the bench) I have to drop the exhaust anyway. Since it is hanging on by a thread I might as well change it out. I was thinking of making a header out of stainless like those cool Krona ones that I can't afford, as the TIG welder in the other room is calling my name. Would 3" pipe after the turbo help to add a bit more HP or is that a negligible gain from the 2.5? the header is a future project. I would also like to do a balance shaft delete while the trans is getting swapped. All that rotational mass, UGH.

Any thoughts on changing the piston rings ? I think the combination of age of my rings and "new" cylinder head is forcing the crankcase to get a bit pressurized and making the bottom end leak. I never had the leaking problem before the head was rebuilt. That is the only logical explanation I can come up with. The head is like better than brand new. Maybe the seals are just old like me LOL

Thanks ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,270 Posts
How's your PCV system? I've never seen bad rings cause the bottom end to leak. That's usually a sign of a poorly functioning PCV system, in my experience.

I put a 3" downpipe on my 1997 900 years ago. My butt dynamometer didn't measure much of an increase, but the larger pipe allows the turbo to spin up faster, and that makes a very noticeable difference. The 3" downpipe in my car is connected to an approximately 2.5" Viggen Sport Exhaust system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
How's your PCV system? I've never seen bad rings cause the bottom end to leak. That's usually a sign of a poorly functioning PCV system, in my experience.

I put a 3" downpipe on my 1997 900 years ago. My butt dynamometer didn't measure much of an increase, but the larger pipe allows the turbo to spin up faster, and that makes a very noticeable difference. The 3" downpipe in my car is connected to an approximately 2.5" Viggen Sport Exhaust system.
I replaced the PCV with new components when the cylinder head was off the car. I didn't get the update kit tho, but all the parts are new.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,094 Posts
If your rings are weak that's a thing, but a new head won't cause them to be more or less of a problem... unless I guess the old head was seriously wrecked. Either way, a leakdown test will give you the info you're looking for in quantifiable terms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,376 Posts
Yea I figured as much. when I do the trans swap (I have another one on the bench) I have to drop the exhaust anyway. Since it is hanging on by a thread I might as well change it out. I was thinking of making a header out of stainless like those cool Krona ones that I can't afford, as the TIG welder in the other room is calling my name. Would 3" pipe after the turbo help to add a bit more HP or is that a negligible gain from the 2.5? the header is a future project. I would also like to do a balance shaft delete while the trans is getting swapped. All that rotational mass, UGH.

Any thoughts on changing the piston rings ? I think the combination of age of my rings and "new" cylinder head is forcing the crankcase to get a bit pressurized and making the bottom end leak. I never had the leaking problem before the head was rebuilt. That is the only logical explanation I can come up with. The head is like better than brand new. Maybe the seals are just old like me LOL

Thanks ?
A 3" downpipe is never a bad idea. You don't really "need" one unless you pass stage 2, but it will keep EGT's down so that you play safer. A 2.5" catback is a must if you're going to tune although I think most tuners are OK with the stock system on a stage 1. A 2.5" cat back is fine to at least 300 HP. (If you can weld, I have a spare 2.5" Saab Sport exhaust system coming available soon that I plan on selling but it needs some welding of end fittings due to the previous owner being a moron and welding it into the car (with aluminized steel connectors, yikes). - you could weld on some stainless fittings and have a nice cat back for short money).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
A 3" downpipe is never a bad idea. You don't really "need" one unless you pass stage 2, but it will keep EGT's down so that you play safer. A 2.5" catback is a must if you're going to tune although I think most tuners are OK with the stock system on a stage 1. A 2.5" cat back is fine to at least 300 HP. (If you can weld, I have a spare 2.5" Saab Sport exhaust system coming available soon that I plan on selling but it needs some welding of end fittings due to the previous owner being a moron and welding it into the car (with aluminized steel connectors, yikes). - you could weld on some stainless fittings and have a nice cat back for short money).
I'd possibly be interested, send me a PM
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top