 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / February 2005Saab newbie
Just bought my first Saab, a base 2001 93 5 door hatchback with 26,000 miles. Any advice on its care and feeding? > Just bought my first Saab, a base 2001 93 5 door hatchback with 26,000 > miles. Any advice on its care and feeding? My fiance picked up one of those this past summer, and it's been good to us. Although I will mention that (based on both posts in this group and personal experience) that recent 9-3s seem to eat brake rotors for some reason. Maybe it's because people frequently need to slam on the brakes after rocketing from 0 to 60 mph in 7 seconds :) John ps- Oh, and make sure to use high octane fuel for full turbo pleasure. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >ps- Oh, and make sure to use high octane fuel for full turbo pleasure. I agree with the octane. I have a 2000 9-3 base and it does seem to run a little better on premium (Marathon 93 octane). Brake rotors have not been a problem on mine (55,000 still on original pads and rotors) but that is with a manual trans. My suggestion is to change the rear sway bar. I went to the 22mm from Taliaferro what a difference that made! very easy change - 15 minutes. > >>Just bought my first Saab, a base 2001 93 5 door hatchback with 26,000 > >>miles. Any advice on its care and feeding? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > a little better on premium (Marathon 93 octane). Brake rotors have not > been a problem on mine (55,000 still on original pads and rotors) but > that is with a manual trans. My suggestion is to change the rear sway > bar. I went to the 22mm from Taliaferro what a difference that made! > very easy change - 15 minutes. Excuse my ignorance, but what is a sway bar? > > >On 28 Jan 2005 08:46:28 -0800, Ed Sullivan <reallybigshow@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > very easy change - 15 minutes. > Excuse my ignorance, but what is a sway bar? I think it's an anti-roll bar. _ ______________________ _ | | | | | | | |-| |-| | |_| |_| > > ... change the rear sway bar. > Excuse my ignorance, but what is a sway bar? A sway bar is a torsion bar, connects the left and right (rear or front) wheels, makes the suspension stiffer, less independent. Was also fitted on the front of pre 1970 SAABs -- MH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '87 900T8 http://go.to/saab96 > I agree with the octane. I have a 2000 9-3 base and it does seem to > run a little better on premium (Marathon 93 octane). *93* octane is your idea of premium ???? :-( UK 'standard' unleaded ( often called 'premium' for some puzzling reason ) octane is 95 octane - the premium version ( often called 'super unleaded ) is 97/98. Graham > > I agree with the octane. I have a 2000 9-3 base and it does seem to > > run a little better on premium (Marathon 93 octane). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Graham IIRC the octane ratings are different so you're comparing apples to oranges. 93 is the very best stuff you can get here. > > > I agree with the octane. I have a 2000 9-3 base and it does seem to > > > run a little better on premium (Marathon 93 octane). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > IIRC the octane ratings are different so you're comparing apples to oranges. > 93 is the very best stuff you can get here. You mean US the octane rating method is different to UK octane ? Sounds odd to me. Octane is a pure hydrocarbon. The octane rating is intended to compare the performance of gasoline ( made of many hydrocarbons ) to a known reference as a percentage IIRC. Graham > > > > I agree with the octane. I have a 2000 9-3 base and it does seem to > > > > run a little better on premium (Marathon 93 octane). [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > performance of gasoline ( made of many hydrocarbons ) to a known reference as a > percentage IIRC. Yes, just like your gallons are different than our gallons. http://www.jag-lovers.org/xj-s/book/Octane.html " Many people have read this and concluded that the car calls for Premium, since the typical octane ratings in the U.S. are 87/89/91+ -- but that's because they fail to notice the reference to RON. US gasolines are not rated in RON; they are rated in the average of RON and MON, commonly marked on the pump as (R+M)/2. Unless you know how to convert RON to (R+M)/2, the spec in that handbook is meaningless. " > > > > > I agree with the octane. I have a 2000 9-3 base and it does seem to > > > > > run a little better on premium (Marathon 93 octane). [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > on the pump as (R+M)/2. Unless you know how to convert RON to (R+M)/2, the > spec in that handbook is meaningless. " Thanks for the info. I also found this http://www.btinternet.com/~madmole/Reference/RONMONPON.html Odd that the method hasn't been internationally standardised. Graham >> > > > > I agree with the octane. I have a 2000 9-3 base and it does seem >> > > > > to [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Graham Before we tackle that, we should standardize/standardise the English language ;-) > > ...they are rated in the average of RON and MON, > Odd that the method hasn't been internationally standardised. It has, but at least one certain country does not comply... Looks like it's MON for gasoline and RON for petrol. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrol#Octane_rating -- MH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '87 900T8 http://go.to/saab96 If you look hard enough, you can find 100 or 104 octane(US). It's technically for "offroad" vehicles. But I've put it in my cars a few times for fun. I've found it in areas south of indianapolis, and in michigan city. However, expect to pay $4 or higher a gallon. >> > > I agree with the octane. I have a 2000 9-3 base and it does seem to >> > > run a little better on premium (Marathon 93 octane). [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Graham >If you look hard enough, you can find 100 or 104 octane(US). It's >technically for "offroad" vehicles. But I've put it in my cars a few times >for fun. I've found it in areas south of indianapolis, and in michigan >city. However, expect to pay $4 or higher a gallon. That's called aviation fuel. >>If you look hard enough, you can find 100 or 104 octane(US). It's >>technically for "offroad" vehicles. But I've put it in my cars a few times >>for fun. I've found it in areas south of indianapolis, and in michigan >>city. However, expect to pay $4 or higher a gallon. > > That's called aviation fuel. Yup, "low lead 100". Obviously not for cars with a cat. If you live above 5000' then 91 is the best octane you can find! >> > I agree with the octane. I have a 2000 9-3 base and it does seem to >> > run a little better on premium (Marathon 93 octane). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >IIRC the octane ratings are different so you're comparing apples to oranges. >93 is the very best stuff you can get here. > If you live above 5000' then 91 is the best octane you can find! That's right. The excuse is that octane requirement is lower, because of less dense air. And that is true, for normally aspirated engines. Unfortunately, it does not apply to turbos, as far as I have understood. BR,Z >> If you live above 5000' then 91 is the best octane you can find! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >BR,Z Why wouldn't it apply to turbos? > > The excuse is that octane requirement is lower, > > because of less dense air. And that is true, for normally > > aspirated engines. Unfortunately, it does not apply to turbos, > Why wouldn't it apply to turbos? Turbos make their own air denser... -- MH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '87 900T8 http://go.to/saab96 > > > The excuse is that octane requirement is lower, > > > because of less dense air. And that is true, for normally [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Turbos make their own air denser... Yup - would depend on the turbo control as in whether it's relative to atmospheric presssure or an absolute figure in bars. Graham Yes, a turbo charger is indeed a compressor... However, I still fail to see the logic in lower octane at altitude is okay for naturally aspirated engines but not for turbo charged ones (suggested by Zon and I guess now Graham). Octane is a measurement of how high the ignition point of gasoline is... nothing more. Altitude is not an "excuse" to use lower octane. I'm not a refiner but I doubt octane is directly related to the cost of refining the oil. Because of the altitude, the air pressure is lower and therefore things heat up at a lower temp -- where I live at 6,200' water boils at 209 deg F and hence gasoline ignites at a lower temp too -- which leads to the 85 - 91 ratings. Turbos are actually more an asset at high altitude than sea level... and this is mutually exclusive of octane level. For example, why do you think commuter aircraft are turbo charged? Because they do make already thin air denser for combustion... but again, it is a stretch of deductive reasoning to say because things get hotter at lower pressures that octane is therefore a derivative pressure. >> > > The excuse is that octane requirement is lower, >> > > because of less dense air. And that is true, for normally [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Graham > Yes, a turbo charger is indeed a compressor... > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > of deductive reasoning to say because things get hotter at lower > pressures that octane is therefore a derivative pressure. There's still something you're missing here. Turbochargers effectively raise the compression ratio when under boost, higher compression engines require higher octane ratings to prevent detonation due to heated air from the compression, in a turbocharged engine the intake air temperature is higher by nature and it gets hotter still when compressed in the cylinder. This remains fairly constant regardless of atmospheric pressure, while in a N/A engine the compression is effectively lowered with the thinner air. Turbos are more susceptible to detonation under any circumstances and are not affected much by altitude, N/A engines are less prone to detonation at higher altitudes so lower octane is permissable. That said I have yet to come across a production N/A engine that wouldn't run just fine on plain old 87 octane, you can't advance the timing as far and won't get as much power but in engines with a knock sensor there's no fiddling, just less power produced on lower grade fuel. > There's still something you're missing here. Turbochargers effectively raise > the compression ratio when under boost, higher compression engines require > higher octane ratings to prevent detonation due to heated air from the > compression... Not missing anything and I think you failed elementary physics... I understand a turbo charger is driven by exhaust gasses and those exhaust gasses are indeed hot. But when a gas is compressed, any gas, it gets colder by nature... not hotter! > > There's still something you're missing here. Turbochargers effectively raise > > the compression ratio when under boost, higher compression engines require [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > gasses are indeed hot. But when a gas is compressed, any gas, it gets > colder by nature... not hotter! Um, no, when you compress a gas it gets hotter, when it expands it gets cooler. How do you suppose a refrigerator works? The compressor compresses the refrigerant until it liquifies and runs through the hot condenser which is cooled by ambient air, and then passes through an orifice tube where it it evaporates into a lower pressure gasseous state and absorbs heat out of the compartment. For that matter about a Diesel engine? Are you trying to say Diesel fuel spontaneously combusts when you freeze it? And I did very well in physics all the way up through college thank you. > Um, no, when you compress a gas it gets hotter, when it expands > it gets cooler. One hot, bright summer afternoon (British summer, maybe 30C with not very dry air) I saw a small (10 litre?) propane tank builders had just been using to heat tar. The lower half of the tank was frosty, neatly marking the part still containing liquid gas. And anyone who has used a bicycle pump can attest to how warm it becomes, quite quickly.  SignatureAndrew Stephenson > ...propane tank builders > had just been using to heat tar. The lower half of the tank was > frosty, neatly marking the part still containing liquid gas. Because the liquid gas (under high pressure) is expanding to near atmospheric pressure and drawing heat from its surroundings, cooling it down to -0C, freezing the moisture in the air. Same things happens in carburetors, and LPG evaporators, these sometimes freeze up. The gas boils, turns from liquid phase to gas phase, like boiling water. Boiling needs heat. > And anyone who has used a bicycle pump can attest > to how warm it becomes, quite quickly. Yes, but that's also because of friction in the pump valves etc. -- MH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '87 900T8 http://go.to/saab96 > > ...propane tank builders > > had just been using to heat tar. The lower half of the tank was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The gas boils, turns from liquid phase to gas phase, like boiling water. > Boiling needs heat. Propane torches and for that matter any sort of compressed tank will do the same, some to a greater extent than others, it's the exact same process as refrigeration and AC systems use except it's not a closed cycle. You could charge your A/C with propane and it would work, though I would certainly not recommend it as a leak could be dissastrous. >> There's still something you're missing here. Turbochargers effectively raise >> the compression ratio when under boost, higher compression engines require [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > gasses are indeed hot. But when a gas is compressed, any gas, it gets > colder by nature... not hotter! What an odd way to participate in a group discussion; by insulting someone who is trying to explain something to you. > > ... octane requirement is lower, > > because of less dense air. And that is true, for normally > > aspirated engines. Unfortunately, it does not apply to turbos, This sentence is ambiguous, but I read it as; lower octane requirement does not apply to turbos, and I consider that a correct statement; a turbo makes a high fuel/air mix pressure and consequently high RON to prevent engine knock. > I think you failed elementary physics... Be careful now.... > ... But when a gas is compressed, any gas, > it gets colder by nature... not hotter! No it doesn't.... What do you think the intercooler is for? When a gas expands, it cools. That's causing the puff of mist you see when you open a bottle of a carbonated drink; the carbon dioxide in the bottle is under pressure and it when it expands to atmospheric pressure, it draws heat from the surrounding air, cooling it down locally, so moisture from the air condensates in a puff of mist. The same thing happens when you open the valve on a butane or LPG tank; the liquid gas expands, drawing so much heat from its surroundings that ice will form on the valve. To prevent knock when the turbo comes on, the compression ratio in a turbocharged engine is only 1:8 or so (vs. 1:10+ in a NA engine) . The higher the MON/RON the higher the APC computer will allow the turbo pressure to be. -- MH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '87 900T8 http://go.to/saab96 (someone else wrote...) >> ... But when a gas is compressed, any gas, >> it gets colder by nature... not hotter! > > No it doesn't.... What do you think the intercooler is for? Agreed, everything would work differently if his statement was true. Compressing gas heats it. If you don't believe me, put your hand on the pipe between an air compressor and it's tank & tell me what you think. Or, feel a propane tank when it's in use and see how cold it is. > To prevent knock when the turbo comes on, the compression ratio in a > turbocharged engine is only 1:8 or so (vs. 1:10+ in a NA engine) . The > higher the MON/RON the higher the APC computer will allow the turbo pressure > to be. Right. So the base boost may be, say, 0.8 bar, but when you're using APC (or newer) the base boost isn't the upper limit, the knocking is. > > There's still something you're missing here. Turbochargers effectively raise > > the compression ratio when under boost, higher compression engines require [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > gasses are indeed hot. But when a gas is compressed, any gas, it gets > colder by nature... not hotter! Errrr - NO ! For a simple practical example - use a bicycle pump to pump up a cycle tyre. You'll be surprised how hot the air gets. And the pump too. Graham > > Not missing anything and I think you failed elementary physics... I > > understand a turbo charger is driven by exhaust gasses and those exhaust > > gasses are indeed hot. But when a gas is compressed, any gas, it gets > > colder by nature... not hotter! Perhaps the Valued Customer will give an explanation of the above statement before I start admitting that I am a physics failure. Even worse it was an elementary grade. > Yes, a turbo charger is indeed a compressor... > > However, I still fail to see the logic in lower octane at altitude is > okay for naturally aspirated engines but not for turbo charged ones > (suggested by Zon and I guess now Graham). Actually I was referring only to the pressure boost that turbos provide. > Octane is a measurement of how high the ignition point of gasoline > is... nothing more. Altitude is not an "excuse" to use lower octane. > I'm not a refiner but I doubt octane is directly related to the cost > of refining the oil. Actually it is. When you refine oil you get so-called 'fractions' of various octane values. The higher octanes are partly limited by the kind of oil being processed ( light sweet vs heavy crude for example ) but typically attract a premium price due to market demand. Graham >>> If you live above 5000' then 91 is the best octane you can find! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why wouldn't it apply to turbos? Because the turbo will boost until it gets the air density it wants, regardless of local atmospheric pressure. With naturally aspirated, you get what you get and that's all there is. So, a turbo with an air mass meter will be even more dramatically better than a naturally aspirated model, at altitude. Dave Hinz >> I agree with the octane. I have a 2000 9-3 base and it does seem to >> run a little better on premium (Marathon 93 octane). > > *93* octane is your idea of premium ???? :-( Yes. The numbers are calculated differently here, we average the number you use (the theoretical) with a measured number which is always much lower. So the octane listed here differs from yours, a lot, for exactly the same gasoline. Dave Hinz '01 with 26K! Lucky dog; welcome to the pack. Take a few minutes to go through the warranty/maintenance schedules and the tech-specifications pages; that should cover the majority of the things you'll need to cover and need to know. Outside of the usual stuff, I'd recommend feeding the leather at least annually with a high-end hide food (mink oil?). Also, there tends to be some "debate" about oil change intervals... IIRC the official line is every 10K miles; I haven't gone past 5K without a filter/oil change. Enjoy the turbo (especially around 3500 rpm). SignatureJ.Harris '01 9-3SE '97 900SE '88 9000T (R.I.P.) > Just bought my first Saab, a base 2001 93 5 door hatchback with 26,000 > miles. Any advice on its care and feeding? > Just bought my first Saab, a base 2001 93 5 door hatchback.... > Any advice on its care and feeding? Don't forget to mix oil with the petrol.... Wait a minute; 2001?... 5 door?... hatchback? Must be a 9-3 ! :-) -- MH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '87 900T8 http://go.to/saab96 >> Just bought my first Saab, a base 2001 93 5 door hatchback.... >> Any advice on its care and feeding? > > Don't forget to mix oil with the petrol.... > > Wait a minute; 2001?... 5 door?... hatchback? Must be a 9-3 ! What a difference a dash makes... Geeze, Loise. Don't confuse the poor guy. There hasn't been a 2-stroke SAAB since... well, a long freekin time. -Fred W > Geeze, Loise. Don't confuse the poor guy. There hasn't been a > 2-stroke SAAB since... well, a long freekin time. (checks garage) How sure are you about that, Fred? >> Geeze, Loise. Don't confuse the poor guy. There hasn't been a >> 2-stroke SAAB since... well, a long freekin time. > > (checks garage) How sure are you about that, Fred? Correction: There hasn't been a 2-stroke SAAB *manufactured* since... well, a long freekin time. ;-) -Fred W > >> Geeze, Loise. Don't confuse the poor guy. There hasn't been a > >> 2-stroke SAAB since... well, a long freekin time. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -Fred W Did one have to mix the fuel and oil for the 2 stroke Saabs or did they use a separate oil tank? >> Correction: >> There hasn't been a 2-stroke SAAB *manufactured* since... well, a >> long freekin time. > Did one have to mix the fuel and oil for the 2 stroke Saabs or did they use > a separate oil tank? It depends. The early ones (1949-1962) are all "mixers", one quart of oil to 8 gallons of gasoline. Starting in 1963, oil injection became an option (in the "GT-850" engine). Separate tank which holds about 5 quarts of oil (with a sight-glass on the side), driven by the crank, and injects the oil onto the main bearings which then splash-lubricates the rest and is burned as normal in a 2-stroke. Not sure if mixers continued to be sold to the end (was the Shrike engine a mixer, or injected? I don't have one). While an injected engine is more convenient, it's definately fun to watch reaction from people at gas stations when you pour a quart of oil into the gastank before filling. My usual line is "Well, it's never had an oil change, so I just dump it in here and things take care of themselves." Nothing better in the winter than a 2-stroke Saab 96. Not even my c900. Dave Hinz > It depends. The early ones (1949-1962) are all "mixers", one quart of oil > to 8 gallons of gasoline. Starting in 1963, oil injection became an [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Nothing better in the winter than a 2-stroke Saab 96. Not even my c900. What makes it better in the winter? My experience with 2 stroke engines in general (never driven a car with one) has been very mixed. Some, such as outboard motors on boats seem very robust and reliable, others like those little ones on yard equipment and the occasional but quite rare lawnmower to have one have been very finicky and touchy, perhaps owing more to the physics involved with shrinking down an engine than the operating principal. (I wrote:) >> Nothing better in the winter than a 2-stroke Saab 96. Not even my c900. > > What makes it better in the winter? Combination of handling, traction, hand-brake steering, and probably not a little bit of a "This is my car for fun" rather than "This is my daily driver that I have to be careful with". > My experience with 2 stroke engines in general (never driven a car with one) > has been very mixed. Some, such as outboard motors on boats seem very robust > and reliable, others like those little ones on yard equipment and the > occasional but quite rare lawnmower to have one have been very finicky and > touchy, perhaps owing more to the physics involved with shrinking down an > engine than the operating principal. Well, as long as you keep it in tune, oil fouling isn't an issue. You're not going to get a half million miles out of one without a rebuild, but for the limited horsepower (38 to 60-ish BHP, depending), they are amazingly quick. The car isn't all that heavy, and of course it's a Saab so the aerodynamics are great. Dave Hinz >> There hasn't been a 2-stroke SAAB *manufactured* since... well, a >> long freekin time. > >Did one have to mix the fuel and oil for the 2 stroke Saabs or did they use >a separate oil tank? The fuel was mixed at the filling station. The car had only one tank. /Bengt >>> There hasn't been a 2-stroke SAAB *manufactured* since... well, a >>> long freekin time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The fuel was mixed at the filling station. The car had only one tank. Nope: http://www.duck-creek.net/dave/photos/saab/2stroke/section2/ Specifically, http://www.duck-creek.net/dave/photos/saab/2stroke/section2/2_05_02.html Dave >>>>There hasn't been a 2-stroke SAAB *manufactured* since... well, a >>>>long freekin time. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Specifically, > http://www.duck-creek.net/dave/photos/saab/2stroke/section2/2_05_02.html I think the oil tank was only used in the Saab Sport where it also was combined with a pumping mechanism that improved the bearing lubrication. All 2-stroke Saabs I came in contact with used pre-mixed fuel that you filled directly at the filling station. In those days such fuel was quite common and it was quite easy for all users of 2-stroke fuel to fill it directly into motorbikes etc. Or maybe the separate tank was something only for the US market? Signatureth >> Nope: >> http://www.duck-creek.net/dave/photos/saab/2stroke/section2/ >> http://www.duck-creek.net/dave/photos/saab/2stroke/section2/2_05_02.html >> > I think the oil tank was only used in the Saab Sport where it also was > combined with a pumping mechanism that improved the bearing lubrication. Right, that's the gear-driven pump on the left side of that frame. > All 2-stroke Saabs I came in contact with used pre-mixed fuel that > you filled directly at the filling station. In those days such fuel was > quite common and it was quite easy for all users of 2-stroke fuel to > fill it directly into motorbikes etc. Far as I know, gasoil was never sold as such here, you had to mix your own. > Or maybe the separate tank was something only for the US market? I don't believe so. The GT850 and then Monte Carlo engines, and the Sonett 2, all use injected engines. I think mixers might have been gone from the line entirely in 1967, but I'd have to check. Actually, if you can read the fuzzy text on the page after the tank photo, it'll probably give you a range of chassis numbers. Dave Hinz |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.