Why 2.8T instead of 2.3T ?
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Joined
·
2,225 Posts
It's for the US market. Many do not think highly of 4 cylinder engines. The V6 will appeal to those who have not previously driven SAAB's.
I think the Sport Combi is designed for the Swedish market. There are lots of wagons in Sweden. By the way, the Sport Combi is a wagon despite it's name.
I think the Sport Combi is designed for the Swedish market. There are lots of wagons in Sweden. By the way, the Sport Combi is a wagon despite it's name.
Joined
·
609 Posts
I couldn't agree more. When I originally looked at the engine specs, I was shocked to see that the output was exactly the same as the 9-5 Aero's 2.3T engine. That engine is a very proven engine. Plus I am sure it would have an advantage in fuel consumption. Plus isn't the 2.3T getting a bump next year to 260? I'm sure it's to upstage the 2.8T, but still!
I understand that Americans want V6 engines, but those consumers are not typically Saab purchasers. How many times does Saab need to try to sell a V6 to learn it doesn't work? They have always been much more successful at developing and improving their 4 cylinder engines. The last thing a Saab needs is more weight over the front wheels.
Another thing that's sad is that the NA 2.8L V6 in the CTS makes 210 horses with onl intake side VVT. 40 horses is all you can get from from the twin scroll turbochager? C'mon, that's weak.
I understand that Americans want V6 engines, but those consumers are not typically Saab purchasers. How many times does Saab need to try to sell a V6 to learn it doesn't work? They have always been much more successful at developing and improving their 4 cylinder engines. The last thing a Saab needs is more weight over the front wheels.
Another thing that's sad is that the NA 2.8L V6 in the CTS makes 210 horses with onl intake side VVT. 40 horses is all you can get from from the twin scroll turbochager? C'mon, that's weak.
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
There are three reasons that have prompted SAAB to put a V6 in their top of the line 9-3.
1) V6's are more refined by nature - they have less natural vibration than a four. Now this is a relative matter. There are some poorly designed V6's that are less refined that some fours. That caveat being said, V6's are generally more refined. The one being put into the Aero, by all accounts, is a very well designed, highly refined engine.
2) Some consumers demand a six cylinder engine in a vehicle they perceive as a luxury or upscale vehicle. Rightly or wrongly, many consumers will cross a vehicle off their list if it doesn't have a six cylinder engine because, as a rule, four cylinders tend to be less refined and less powerful. This view tends to be more prevalent in the North America, but it certainly is not exclusive there. Many vehicle makers, whether Asian, European, or North American, use six- and eight-cylinder engines in their more premium vehicles.
3) The quality of the power offered by a lightly turbo-boosted V6 will likely be superior to a turbo-boosted I4. The V6 should have more torque in the lower engine speeds and its power delivery will likely be more linear and predictable. Quantities of power may be similar, but the V6's larger displacement will likely mean its power will flow smoother and be spread over a wider range of engine speeds.
1) V6's are more refined by nature - they have less natural vibration than a four. Now this is a relative matter. There are some poorly designed V6's that are less refined that some fours. That caveat being said, V6's are generally more refined. The one being put into the Aero, by all accounts, is a very well designed, highly refined engine.
2) Some consumers demand a six cylinder engine in a vehicle they perceive as a luxury or upscale vehicle. Rightly or wrongly, many consumers will cross a vehicle off their list if it doesn't have a six cylinder engine because, as a rule, four cylinders tend to be less refined and less powerful. This view tends to be more prevalent in the North America, but it certainly is not exclusive there. Many vehicle makers, whether Asian, European, or North American, use six- and eight-cylinder engines in their more premium vehicles.
3) The quality of the power offered by a lightly turbo-boosted V6 will likely be superior to a turbo-boosted I4. The V6 should have more torque in the lower engine speeds and its power delivery will likely be more linear and predictable. Quantities of power may be similar, but the V6's larger displacement will likely mean its power will flow smoother and be spread over a wider range of engine speeds.
A couple of comments:
- Saab didn't have to develop this engine significantly, once again it is a GM engine currently in use in Australian Holdens and soon to be many more GM products.
- I expect that the 2.3T that has served the 9-5 and 9000 so well for years may be struggling to meet the increasingly stringent emmissions regulations.
- 250 bhp from a turbo'd 2.8 litre is fairly lazy. I would think this engine could be good for 350 bhp with some chip tuning. How well the car would handle that is another matter altogether.
If it keeps Saab going then I am all for it - though I wouldn't buy the V6 over the 210 bhp 2 litre.
- Saab didn't have to develop this engine significantly, once again it is a GM engine currently in use in Australian Holdens and soon to be many more GM products.
- I expect that the 2.3T that has served the 9-5 and 9000 so well for years may be struggling to meet the increasingly stringent emmissions regulations.
- 250 bhp from a turbo'd 2.8 litre is fairly lazy. I would think this engine could be good for 350 bhp with some chip tuning. How well the car would handle that is another matter altogether.
If it keeps Saab going then I am all for it - though I wouldn't buy the V6 over the 210 bhp 2 litre.
Rob in Atlanta said:
Well, phisicaly it's impossible that a V6 produce less vibration than a R4 engine. The even numbers of pistons on the same crank shaft will move symetrically and reduce vibration it's one of the reasons why BMW insists on R6 engine.
I agree with black_linear that the last thing a saab needs is more weight moreover 1700kg 9-5 has a perfect acceleration respect of its rivals. Also I don't think that's a kind of market strategy for the US, before a new engine they should have make more comfortable cupholders for years
The only possibility that cross my mind is a probable AWD system that requires à more torque.
Joined
·
111 Posts
You are headed in the right direction here. An inline 6 is the only engine with a true inherant balance. With an Inline 4, balance shafts are almost always required to quell out vibrations at idle speed as there is still an instrument-measurable pulse from the engine where there is no power being produced, hence an idle shudder. With an inline 6, all of the pistons being on the same plane with at at least 1 firing at any given time, there is no full lack of power being produced. Engines in a "V" configuration, while smooth for the most part, do not work on the same plane therefore producing minute vibrations from intertia of the moving parts.omerulas said:
~D.J.~
Joined
·
2,134 Posts
As already said, I'd sooner pin it on marketing and consumer demand for a V6... even though there may not even be a performance difference, some people just think that having a V6 is instantly better and more upscale.
Joined
·
230 Posts
In the end it is a more modern engine with more options, room to grow, and a common block. Time will tell how far they can push it but if it is anything like the Ecopower I4 we'll see some nice options eventually, whether from GM or the aftermarket.
Joined
·
462 Posts
That new 2.8L V6 is also part of GM's new 'high-feature' line of engines. The 9-5 is a standalone vehicle while the 9-3 shares a platform with several GM vehicles. Adapting motor mounts and subframes to fit the 2.4L in the 9-3 would be a pain, so they just do the 2.8L and everyone's happy (except for you four cylinder purists).
As for the output, they probably could get a reliable 280-300 hp out of the turbo 2.8 but it would overwhelm the front wheel drive platform. I've heard that those FWD Pontiacs with V8 engines are sloppy to drive because of too much weight up front, too much torque steer, and asking too much of the front tires.
As for the output, they probably could get a reliable 280-300 hp out of the turbo 2.8 but it would overwhelm the front wheel drive platform. I've heard that those FWD Pontiacs with V8 engines are sloppy to drive because of too much weight up front, too much torque steer, and asking too much of the front tires.
Joined
·
747 Posts
The V6 is a turbo too, Why would you not expect a lag on the 6??? Lag from what I know comes from the turbo. If you want to minimize lag you can add a smaller faster spooling turbo for low end grunt and a larger turbo for top end like in the last gen Supras and 3rd en RX-7. To eliminate lag either go all engine or Supercharge it!!! Correct me if I am wrong but number of cylinders have no bearing on turbo lag.clarkkent said:
Joined
·
111 Posts
A V6 would feel less laggy because it would have more naturally aspirated pull before the turbo were needed. I drove an Arc and an Aero at my retailer earlier, and the lag was very noticable, but also very fun to play with, at least for me.Saabless said:
~D.J.~
Joined
·
5,641 Posts
Not at all the case, the ecopower is one of the greenest engines around.Aero_adam said:
I really don't think it's that laggy, as long as it's above 2000 rpms the power is almost instant.
The exact opposite is true, the 2.3T is significantly better on emissions than the new 2.8V6..... :roll:Aero_adam said:
In fact the 9-5 Aero HOT fitted even with an automatic transmission has a lower CO2 value than the new 9-3SS Aero 2.8V6 fitted with a manual transmission....
Joined
·
609 Posts
It is true. Combine the lower emissions with much better fuel economy and it makes me shake my head! I love the 2.3T engine. It truely is one of the best all around turbo engines out there. Doesn't it's use in the Viggen show you that it's Saab's gem? Although, I guess I don't love it enough to purchase a 9-5!aeropilot said:The exact opposite is true, the 2.3T is significantly better on emissions than the new 2.8V6..... :roll:
In fact the 9-5 Aero HOT fitted even with an automatic transmission has a lower CO2 value than the new 9-3SS Aero 2.8V6 fitted with a manual transmission....
Turbo lag... well it is sort of an issue, but the 2.3T has tons of low end grunt, max torque is available at 1800 RPM. People that drive it are absolutely shocked that it's only a 'little guy' in the engine bay.
Here's something to make the four banger faithful laugh...
Saab 9000 CSE - 1995-1997 3.0 V6 - 2.3 LPT & 2.3T carried on for 1998.
Saab 900 SE - 1994-1998 2.5 V6 - 2.3 NA, 2.0T, & 2.0 HOT carried on
Saab 9-5 Arc - 1999-2003 3.0t V6 - 2.3t & 2.3T carry on.
The V6's just don't seem to make it. None have carried through an entire product cycle. This is the first time however, that the V6 won't be upstaged by a higher power 4 cylinder. Maybe that will change the trend. :cheesy:
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
