SaabCentral Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
502 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
As you know, the '07 Aero engine is a 2.8 liter turbocharged with 250 horsepower.

Without the turbo, approximately what would the horsepower be?

Also, it seems that this particular engine suffers from a lot of turbo-lag. Would anyone else agree with this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
The same engine was in the base Cadillac CTS. Made about 210 hp.

Considering that the 2.0T makes 210hp, the Aero should make at least 280!

Supposedly the twin scroll turbo lowers turbolag. Of course, these days, Saab should be using a variable vane turbo to eliminate lag completely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
502 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Krieg said:
The same engine was in the base Cadillac CTS. Made about 210 hp.

Considering that the 2.0T makes 210hp, the Aero should make at least 280!

Supposedly the twin scroll turbo lowers turbolag. Of course, these days, Saab should be using a variable vane turbo to eliminate lag completely.

Agreed. A 2.8L turbocharged engine ought to put out more than 250 horses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Although I considered the MY07 Aero, I didn't test drive one because I wanted the 60th Anniv. and smaller engine for efficiency reasons. My 2.0T hauls **** I can't even imagine the power the Aero would put out. Anyone know just how much faster it is (ie. 0-60 or 0-100 time trials). Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
my belief is that we should not have to be beefing up our HPs. Saab shud have factory set the engines to optimal-max settings so that we could have enjoyed a max from the same engine. These days we currently hear the equivalent of 0.1HP/cc so the 2.8l must hv been factory set to deliver 280HP not to say 300HP.

But then the BSRs and the likes would not hv been selling, no.:cheesy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
I'd say that the Aero is probably half a second faster to 60.

The only review of an Aero that I've ever seen was a car and driver comparo. The Aero was like 6.8 seconds to 60. But they did say that the engine was green and should have been a lot faster.

My take is this: Saab's "space" is cars with high output 4 cylinder turbo engines. Going forward, with climate change and peak oil, this is going to be a great marketing tool.

So if I was a GM marketing person, I'd ditch the turbo 6 engine and put the Solstice GXP engine in the Aero. That engine is very similar to the 2.0T, but has a higher compression ratio and direct injection.

It makes 260 hp on 87 octane fuel! Saab should remap the engine for 91 octane and get 280 hp out of it, same as the new Aero.

A turbo 4 is lighter than a 6. A turbo 4 is cheaper than a 6. A turbo 4 gets better mileage than a 6. And a turbo 4 is a lot different than what the competition is offering (BMW has a turbo 6 in the 335/ 535).

I'd also throw in a variable vane turbo, which I do not believe that the GXP has. I know from back in the Dodge Shelby CSX days, which was the first car with a VVT, turbo lag is cut in half.

Or maybe I'd throw the 9-5 engine in the Aero. In any case, 4 cylinder turbos are where Saab should be. That's their unique nitch in the entry level luxury space.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
502 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
kilo said:
my belief is that we should not have to be beefing up our HPs. Saab shud have factory set the engines to optimal-max settings so that we could have enjoyed a max from the same engine. These days we currently hear the equivalent of 0.1HP/cc so the 2.8l must hv been factory set to deliver 280HP not to say 300HP.

But then the BSRs and the likes would not hv been selling, no.:cheesy:
Jesus f-ing Christ! Enough with the abbreviations! What is "BSR"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
Krieg said:
I'd say that the Aero is probably half a second faster to 60.

The only review of an Aero that I've ever seen was a car and driver comparo. The Aero was like 6.8 seconds to 60. But they did say that the engine was green and should have been a lot faster.

My take is this: Saab's "space" is cars with high output 4 cylinder turbo engines. Going forward, with climate change and peak oil, this is going to be a great marketing tool.

So if I was a GM marketing person, I'd ditch the turbo 6 engine and put the Solstice GXP engine in the Aero. That engine is very similar to the 2.0T, but has a higher compression ratio and direct injection.

It makes 260 hp on 87 octane fuel! Saab should remap the engine for 91 octane and get 280 hp out of it, same as the new Aero.

A turbo 4 is lighter than a 6. A turbo 4 is cheaper than a 6. A turbo 4 gets better mileage than a 6. And a turbo 4 is a lot different than what the competition is offering (BMW has a turbo 6 in the 335/ 535).

I'd also throw in a variable vane turbo, which I do not believe that the GXP has. I know from back in the Dodge Shelby CSX days, which was the first car with a VVT, turbo lag is cut in half.

Or maybe I'd throw the 9-5 engine in the Aero. In any case, 4 cylinder turbos are where Saab should be. That's their unique nitch in the entry level luxury space.
Agreed....A V6 is not a REAL Saab. Should always be a Turbo 4. The V6 totally goes against the Ecopower concept that has made Saab great. Hell we were getting 260HP and 258ft lbs torque out of the 2.3L Turbo, why can't we even get that from a V6? Pathetic. Saab should stick to what they are good at, rather than trying to pander to the consumer reports-reading masses who think V6 = better.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,175 Posts
Marketing may have partially dictated the power output. At 250 hp, it's a bit less than the 9-5. If the hp is too high, AWD is needed. Based on other cars, the limit may be around 260-280 hp before AWD is needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
I agree

Krieg said:
A turbo 4 is lighter than a 6. A turbo 4 is cheaper than a 6. A turbo 4 gets better mileage than a 6. And a turbo 4 is a lot different than what the competition is offering (BMW has a turbo 6 in the 335/ 535).

In any case, 4 cylinder turbos are where Saab should be.
turbo4 is the essence of SAAB and what makes sense in today's world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
Dave 37 said:
Marketing may have partially dictated the power output. At 250 hp, it's a bit less than the 9-5. If the hp is too high, AWD is needed. Based on other cars, the limit may be around 260-280 hp before AWD is needed.
I was told by a saab salesman when asked why the Aero was not already tuned for 280hp (increased turbo boost etc..) was that there would be too much torque steer for th average driver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
DrSandman said:
As you know, the '07 Aero engine is a 2.8 liter turbocharged with 250 horsepower.

Without the turbo, approximately what would the horsepower be?

Also, it seems that this particular engine suffers from a lot of turbo-lag. Would anyone else agree with this?
I'd have to say ... who cares? This car (and just about every other car except a drag car) is not designed to get from 0 - anything quickly. With the tourqe curve we get with the 2.8T there is 258 lb-ft available from 2000 rpm. That means that if you manage your RPMs well, you have plenty overtaking power or acceleration out of a corner or on-ramp.

The V6 is no doubt a result of US influence ... in the states people just think bigger is better!
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
885 Posts
DrSandman said:
As you know, the '07 Aero engine is a 2.8 liter turbocharged with 250 horsepower.

Without the turbo, approximately what would the horsepower be?

Also, it seems that this particular engine suffers from a lot of turbo-lag. Would anyone else agree with this?
I will greatly disagree with you on this. Sorry.

having had/have 4 other Saab turbos before the V6 Aero (including the 95 Aero -2.3T 260hp), the V6 does not suffer from turbo lag by any means. hit the accellerator at any RPM, and the engine kicks up and goes -- it doesn't scream, it doesn't fight you, it doesn't give you sudden whiplash, it just goes, quietly, and quickly.

The torque in the engine is fantastic as well. want to feel the turbo do it's job, roll on to the highway at 40 mph in 4th gear, and feel your butt get pulled at you see the turbo needle dance toward the red. when you hit 60 or so, put it in 6th, and let the turbo continue to do it's job for there forward. That's not lag, friend, that's pure Saab turbo doing it's job, so you don't have to hear the roar of an engine and spit gas out your tailpipe needlessly.

even in first gear, it's got plenty of giddy'up.


the 2.3T on the 95 is a fantastic engine as well. Turbo lag is significantly reduced from it's previous generation as well. it wants to be driven, it asks to be moving quicker, and you can feel it all the way through the rev-band.


take the pre-'03 93 for a drive, anything under 1800RPM and you're really not moving until then.... turbo kicks on... and then you're in business. or if you really want to feel turbo lag, go for a ride in a Subbie.

another thought on looking for turbo lag -- check out a volvo.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top