SaabCentral Forums banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey guys,

I was looking at my owners manual and something caught my eye. The specs towards the back of the manual read GV weight distribution (gross vehicle weight distribution) SAAB 93 Sports Sedan/Combi 50/50. It also showed weight distribution with a driver in the car and fluids top off as 60/40. Now, reading this makes me really happy, but seriously?

I've never heard of any FWD car able to acheive perfect 50/50 weight balance. It's not even really possible without purposely adding lots of weight to the rear of the car. I have a V6, and it's 180lbs heavier in the front than the 4 due to the larger/heavier engine. I'm sure the aluminum hood and all aluminum engine help, but come on, what's in the rear of the car that could balance out the weight?

Don't get me wrong. When I drive the car hard, it does handle quite neutral. I rarely get understeer, even with my winter tires I usually get a bit of slide. It won't be obvious till I get my RE01R's on and take it to the track this summer.

Anyways, anyone heard any different? If this is true, fantastic!

Bry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
From what I've read the weight distro is 60/40 in the SS, and 58/42 in the 'vert/combi.

I found this in this spec sheet from GM awhile back:

http://archives.media.gm.com/ca/gm/en/products/saab/archives/2009Saab93.html

That lists curb weights and such, but doesn't break 2.0T from 2.8T weight distribution. If a 2.0 is 60/40 I can't imagine its identical for the 2.8 given that additional weight - but apparently its either too close, or GM didn't want to release the numbers publicly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
From what I've read the weight distro is 60/40 in the SS, and 58/42 in the 'vert/combi.

I found this in this spec sheet from GM awhile back:

http://archives.media.gm.com/ca/gm/en/products/saab/archives/2009Saab93.html

That lists curb weights and such, but doesn't break 2.0T from 2.8T weight distribution. If a 2.0 is 60/40 I can't imagine its identical for the 2.8 given that additional weight - but apparently its either too close, or GM didn't want to release the numbers publicly.

Even the actual weight of the car is estimated and shows a range instead of one figure. I'm sure the weight balance is just approx. Anyways, still pretty damn good for a FWD. I've read on another site that the V6 weighs 180lbs more than the 4, which would also explain why the 4 cyl aftermarket springs won't really work with the V6. People who have installed them experienced a very "raked" look. These weight distro specs are what you would normally see on RWD cars like BMW's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
XWD would make more sense as a 50/50
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
BTW, I just noticed that the specs you posted on that link were for the 2009 SAABs. There are too many differences to be able to compare specs. Even between '06 and '07 there were significant changes in suspension, sound deadening, interior, etc. '08 + there were drastic exterior changes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
When the 9-3 SS came out in 2003, Car & Driver had the weight for a 2.0T Vector 6-speed as 59.8/40.2; Motor Trend had a 03 Arc 6-speed pegged at 53/47; while Road & Track also had it pegged at 53/47. You can't get much better numbers than that for a FWD designed car.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top