SaabCentral Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
482 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Went to the dealership last night...

Can someone out there explain how the new Bimmer 330, with a LARGER powerplant and more horsepower(close to 250), as well as more torque, has the same gas mileage as my 9-3 vector? It makes the whole point of turbocharging (and waiting for the reward of turbolag) moot, don't you think?

Will the new v-6 be as fuel efficient as the competition? I wonder if variable valve timing has anything to do with the bimmer's impressive stats. Anyone know if Saab has this coming? Hope so...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,410 Posts
Irishfred said:
I wonder if variable valve timing has anything to do with the bimmer's impressive stats.
It depends on the design, but probably it helps a little. VVT is usually implemented to maximize power.

Does BMW now shut down injectors while cruising? That's the most common way to make bigger engines more frugal without affecting their ability to meet power demands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
Irishfred,

I thought the exact same thing when I saw the window sticker... but i'll still take a turbo engine over a N/A engine any day :D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
209 Posts
Cayman1 said:
Irishfred,

but i'll still take a turbo engine over a N/A engine any day :D
why ?

you have to wait for power, it comes in surges, its not smooth, it burns alot of fuel when you get on it, unless you get on it you can really tell you driving a 4 cylnder, you put more strain on the engine block and componets with the boost kicking in.

So why ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Just a quick update. I have a 2.0t with Sentronic. I have about 8000 miles on this car which is only about 5months old. I had my first extended road trip which was roughly about 500 miles round trip, all highway but mixed flat with mountains(over I-70 cont. divide). I filled up immediately before starting on this trip at Sam's club with least expenisive gas, 85 octane($2.03) . I am a fast driver (but not dangerous) average speed between 75 and 95 mph. On the flat stretches the SID displayed 38mpg of course when I hit the mountains this went south quickly as I was having a kick flying through the curves turbo engaged in and out of manual mode but even so when I arrived at my destination the SID read 31.8 mpg. I was ecstatic, this is one of the compelling reasons I bought this car was for the efficiency. I blew by several BMW's along the way and I can promise you they were not getting in the 30's mpg. On the return side of the trip we were off interstate for part of the trip through the Vail valley, Brekenridge etc and went over Loveland pass 12,000 plus feet, when finally arriving home the SID was 32.1mpg! I am taking a much longer road trip here in a couple of weeks and will keep a detailed driving diary. In my experience, the sticker EPA mpg rating is severely understated...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
rugbybrado said:
why ?

you have to wait for power, it comes in surges, its not smooth, it burns alot of fuel when you get on it, unless you get on it you can really tell you driving a 4 cylnder, you put more strain on the engine block and componets with the boost kicking in.

So why ?
Why....I love the surge when the power kicks in, lot more fun than an N/A engine. A lot more power for your buck when it comes to performance upgrades, yes you are driving a 4 cylinder, and you get good fuel economy when you don't get on it. The engine block is manufactured with the intent of being turbo charged so the engine can easily withstand the boost from the turbo. The sound of turbo's is awesome..

That's why...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,092 Posts
Why....I love the surge when the power kicks in, lot more fun than an N/A engine. A lot more power for your buck when it comes to performance upgrades, yes you are driving a 4 cylinder, and you get good fuel economy when you don't get on it. The engine block is manufactured with the intent of being turbo charged so the engine can easily withstand the boost from the turbo. The sound of turbo's is awesome..

That's why...
Couldnt Agree more. This is the only car i have owned (turbocharged) where i felt the NEED that i have to go out and drive it every day....:D put simply...too much fun!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
NocBlue said:
Just a quick update. I have a 2.0t with Sentronic. I have about 8000 miles on this car which is only about 5months old. I had my first extended road trip which was roughly about 500 miles round trip, all highway but mixed flat with mountains(over I-70 cont. divide). I filled up immediately before starting on this trip at Sam's club with least expenisive gas, 85 octane($2.03) . I am a fast driver (but not dangerous) average speed between 75 and 95 mph. On the flat stretches the SID displayed 38mpg of course when I hit the mountains this went south quickly as I was having a kick flying through the curves turbo engaged in and out of manual mode but even so when I arrived at my destination the SID read 31.8 mpg. I was ecstatic, this is one of the compelling reasons I bought this car was for the efficiency. I blew by several BMW's along the way and I can promise you they were not getting in the 30's mpg. On the return side of the trip we were off interstate for part of the trip through the Vail valley, Brekenridge etc and went over Loveland pass 12,000 plus feet, when finally arriving home the SID was 32.1mpg! I am taking a much longer road trip here in a couple of weeks and will keep a detailed driving diary. In my experience, the sticker EPA mpg rating is severely understated...
You used 85 octane? Wow, and here I am with my 03 linear putting nothing but 93... is it really ok to use such low octane in a turbocharged engine without damage?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
Alot of people feel that higher octane gas at high elevations are somewhat useless. My father lives in Boulder, CO and has a Land Rover which states in the manual to use premium fuel only, but the dealer said it is not neccessary due the altitude in that area (approx 5,500 ft)


I also wonder how accurate the SID is when it comes to MPG readings....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,410 Posts
Cayman1 said:
I also wonder how accurate the SID is when it comes to MPG readings....
There was a lot of discussion about this previously. Must be one of those quirky details that appeal to Saab drivers.

We established that it probably overstates the fuel economy by 1-2% based on the 9-3's odometer reading. In other threads we also established that the 9-3's odometer may be off by the same percentage! The odometer accuracy may vary with wheel/tire combos. I honestly can't remember if the errors were cumulative or cancelled each other out.

I don't think anyone ever measured the true fuel economy based on mileposts on the turnpike or something as accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Cayman1 said:
Alot of people feel that higher octane gas at high elevations are somewhat useless. My father lives in Boulder, CO and has a Land Rover which states in the manual to use premium fuel only, but the dealer said it is not neccessary due the altitude in that area (approx 5,500 ft)
Most of the stations in and around Boulder offer 85, 87, and 91 octane.
After I stumbled upon this page http://genuinesaab.com/psi/files/octane.htm
I decided to use the 91 whenever possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,410 Posts
Cayman1 said:
A lot of people feel that higher octane gas at high elevations are somewhat useless. My father lives in Boulder, CO and has a Land Rover which states in the manual to use premium fuel only, but the dealer said it is not neccessary due the altitude in that area (approx 5,500 ft)
I would be careful. Much of the availability of fuel grade may be driven by demand.

The logic behind using lower than recommended octane has to do with air being less dense at higher altitude. If you mix fuel with thin air and compress it 9-to-1 the pressure will be less than the same fuel/air mixture at sea level. So you can use a more volatile fuel (lower octane) at higher altitude to give you the equivalent pre-combustion pressure you would get using 87 at sea level.

This was all well and good 20-30 years ago when the great majority of vehicles metered air by volume. Modern engine management is very different.

The 9-3 calculates the air mass needed for the recommended fuel grade. 87 is minimum in this car. There are compensations and corrections for pressure and temperature (both ambient and engine temp). But the bottom line is this engine doesn't want lower than 87. It won't ping or knock if you use 85 because it has knock sensors and will retard the timing.

I would guess that by now 85 is the wrong grade of fuel for 95% of the cars using it. They all have knock sensors.

I'm sure there are a lot of people in the mountains who would disagree with me. Hence the demand for 85. My father-in-law (57 years old) still believes that filling any car with premium is always the best way to go. The owner's manual be damned! There's no school like the old school:roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
NocBlue said:
I filled up immediately before starting on this trip at Sam's club with least expenisive gas, 85 octane($2.03) .
When I filled up I had half a tank of 91 octane, I think it was right around 9 gallons I topped off with 85... I think the 2.0t is a lot more forgiving with the octane than the 2.0T. I am sure the altitude here helps a lot too. When I filled up yesterday I did the mileage check, remember the SID read 32.1, the manual calculation computed to 30.8 which I think is still outstanding considering the speed and terrain. Believe me there is NO high speed highway in the states east of the rockys that has this kind of altitude change, the SAAB 2.0 engine is a beast! The 9-3 just carved the road up and there was PLENTY more to go if there wasn't any traffic LAWs or cars in the way. Remember this is an Sentronic too. My brother has the 5speed 2.0t and he can routinely average 38 mpg on the interstate (non-mountain). My point to all of this rambling is that this car is efficient, much better than the EPA sticker. Don't get me started on how quick it is or how well it does in the snow... Can you tell I love this machine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
rugbybrado said:
you have to wait for power, it comes in surges, its not smooth, it burns alot of fuel when you get on it, unless you get on it you can really tell you driving a 4 cylnder, you put more strain on the engine block and componets with the boost kicking in.

So why ?
Because I have more torque than HP! Which makes driving so much more fun around town.

I just got 30.1 mpg on my 2/0t SID after a 200 mile trip this past weekend in my new Saab and I was stoked. Especially considering how nimble the car is at highway speeds. It also handles mountainous inclines nicely. All this from a 4-cyl!

Remember that the EPA is considering redoing the wayCity/Highway MPG is calculated for new car stickers. The way it is calculated is using a way devised in the 50's and in a way in which no one drives. They did a study and something like 95% of the stated figures on all new cars were overstated. I would bet that Saab's are one of the few that may be accurate or even better, UNDERSTATED just from reading the forums and my own experince in a week of ownership.

So even IF the new BMW is stated as the same, it does benefit from advanced technologies that allowed it to get that EPA rating but in real life probably not even close to our little 4-cyl turbo's. Hopefully Saab's new 6 cyl's stay true to that tradition. Imagine those advanced technologies on our 2.0t's!!

MPG was a major factor in me wanting a Saab as it just seemed like gravy for all the fun the car is. Turbo, sporty, PLUS I get good gas mileage! When I test drove the new Subaru Legacy GT Limited I remember the SID on that car saying 16mpg! And poking around the Subaru forums before confirmed similar figures by owners. I couldn't even get that low in my Saab if I tried I think.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top