 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / December 2005GM/Saab finally got the V6 right...
According to Ward's Auto engine top 10 list... http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_wards_names_best/index.htm See also: http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_105637/newsarticle.html After that original flop of a V6 (stemming back to 94), it's nice to see they finally found a winner of an engine. All this, not to mention the I4 found in an other GM vehicle, the Cobalt SS, picking up a nod as well. It's apparently a close cousin to Saab's Ecotec I4. - tex The major issue with the original V6 was the timing belt failure, which resulted in expensive major engine work. There was no mention of any improvements in this area - just power and fuel economy. I suspect even this new engine will be expensive to maintain and repair. Is the oil cooler going to be in the same place? Could I be right in assuming the new V6 will have two DI cassettes - and the same failure rates? Timing belt changes could be routine at 30,000 miles to avoid replacing the heads. Two DI cassettes at 60,000 miles at probably $1,000 for parts alone. Not counting oil changes and turbo charger issues (if any), this engine could cost $3,000 every 60,000 miles in "routine, preventative maintenance". The GM bean counters are drooling about the profits from the "routine maintenance" work. > According to Ward's Auto engine top 10 list... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - tex > The major issue with the original V6 was the timing belt failure, which > resulted in expensive major engine work. There was no mention of any [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > maintenance". The GM bean counters are drooling about the profits from > the "routine maintenance" work. There is no "routine" replacement interval for DI cassettes. I don't know if this engine use timing belt or chain. I don't see why this engine should be more expensive to maintain than other V6 engines in bmw or mercedes with the same kind of power. > There is no "routine" replacement interval for DI cassettes. I don't know > if this engine use timing belt or chain. I don't see why this engine should > be more expensive to maintain than other V6 engines in bmw or mercedes with > the same kind of power. There may not be an official routine, but from what people who have cars using the DI cassettes, there may as well be because they certainly are a common failure point. In my experience, V6 engines in general are just turds. They've got the complexity of a V8 without the power. I've dealt with Volvo, Ford, Chevy, and Toyota V6 engines at one time or another and never liked any of them. They were all overly complex, difficult to work on, had one or more weak spots, shockingly poor fuel economy and no more power than a turbocharged inline 4. Two cylinder banks means twice as many of a lot of parts to deal with and plenty of places for leaks. The V configuration packs things like spark plugs, exhaust and other items in awkward to reach locations right up against the inner fenders or firewall. I'd never buy a car that had one. > > There is no "routine" replacement interval for DI cassettes. I don't know > > if this engine use timing belt or chain. I don't see why this engine should [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > awkward to reach locations right up against the inner fenders or > firewall. I'd never buy a car that had one. I kind of agree that V6 are more complex, but why do so many cars have them? The 2006 2.3 I4 Aero has 260bhp whereas the 2.8 V6 has 250bhp. Some posters here have complained that the 2.3 suffers turbo lag for high output. Or is it just marketing that at least 6 cylinders are expected in this class of car? Or is GM trying to remove blocks of non-GM origin? > I kind of agree that V6 are more complex, but why do so many cars have them? > The 2006 2.3 I4 Aero has 260bhp whereas the 2.8 V6 has 250bhp. Some posters > here have complained that the 2.3 suffers turbo lag for high output. Or is > it just marketing that at least 6 cylinders are expected in this class of > car? Or is GM trying to remove blocks of non-GM origin? The V6 is an American thing, very popular for some reason, people see V6 and they think luxury and power with a bit better economy than a V8. I don't know why, but turbos have never been real popular, I love them though. > The V6 is an American thing, very popular for some reason, people see V6 > and they think luxury and power with a bit better economy than a V8. I > don't know why, but turbos have never been real popular, I love them > though. Turbo's were very popular in the 80's but companies like GM put really crummy turbos in and it was almost guaranteed to fail before 100k. Auto makers soon found out you could do things like tweak fuel injection and go with 4 valves/cylinder for power and economy instead of going turbo. Then the dreaded SUV came to dominate the market and car makers pretty much ignored the more power/less fuel route. The name of the game became big inefficient V-engines. It still amazes me that $40k SUV's are still using 1950's push rod V-6/8's. If Saab can get 230HP and 260Ft/Lbs out of an inline 4, I'd really like to see what they could get out of a 5.0 V-8. > Turbo's were very popular in the 80's but companies like GM put really > crummy turbos in and it was almost guaranteed to fail before 100k. Auto > makers soon found out you could do things like tweak fuel injection and go > with 4 valves/cylinder for power and economy instead of going turbo. Um. Not real up on Saab history, are you. > If Saab can get 230HP and 260Ft/Lbs out of an > inline 4, I'd really like to see what they could get out of a 5.0 V-8. I don't think the engineers who got us there with the 4, will be working on the 8. >> Turbo's were very popular in the 80's but companies like GM put really >> crummy turbos in and it was almost guaranteed to fail before 100k. Auto [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Um. Not real up on Saab history, are you. I'm quite familiar. My point is that most car makers abandoned the turbo. One of the reasons I like Saab's is *because* they stuck with the turbo. My Viggen has 260 Ft/Lbs of torque and is getting me 30mpg! Not bad for a 2.3L 4 cylinder. >> If Saab can get 230HP and 260Ft/Lbs out of an >> inline 4, I'd really like to see what they could get out of a 5.0 V-8. > > I don't think the engineers who got us there with the 4, will be working > on the 8. Too bad eh? Imagine if GM were to unleash some of the Saab engineers to reengineer their archaic V-6 and V-8s. >I kind of agree that V6 are more complex, but why do so many cars have them? >The 2006 2.3 I4 Aero has 260bhp whereas the 2.8 V6 has 250bhp. Some posters >here have complained that the 2.3 suffers turbo lag for high output. Or is >it just marketing that at least 6 cylinders are expected in this class of >car? Or is GM trying to remove blocks of non-GM origin? It's because, generally speaking, you'll get less vibration and noise from a six than from a four producing the same power. Go far above 200BHP on a four and things start to get really raucous. GM wants to sell it's Saabs into the luxury market so they need smooth engines, but the cars keep getting heavier and heavier, and they need more and more power to make them shift. It's no surprise that, sooner or later, increasing the number of cylinders becomes unavoidable. The turbo lag problem is separate, and related more to displacement than the number of cylinders. Of the two engines you mention, the 2.8 should need less boost to produce it's rated output than the 2.3 so the lag will be less regardless of the number of cylinders. Cheers, Colin. >>I kind of agree that V6 are more complex, but why do so many cars have them? >>The 2006 2.3 I4 Aero has 260bhp whereas the 2.8 V6 has 250bhp. Some posters [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > more and more power to make them shift. It's no surprise that, sooner > or later, increasing the number of cylinders becomes unavoidable. They ought to try an inline 5, the one Volvo uses is an absolutely fantastic engine, silky smooth, powerful, responsive, and pretty good fuel economy as well. ><snip> > >I kind of agree that V6 are more complex, but why do so many cars have them? ><snip> Larger engines are quicker off the mark for the typical driver, more reliable and more tolerant of abuse (delayed oil changes, hot shut downs etc). etc, etc etc. For your typical "soccer" mom/dad a highly tuned piece of precision equipment is not the right choice. But I suppose that I'm biased. I don't believe that "soccer" mom's should be driving Turbo Saabs. Especially mine >>The major issue with the original V6 was the timing belt failure, which >>resulted in expensive major engine work. There was no mention of any [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > be more expensive to maintain than other V6 engines in bmw or mercedes with > the same kind of power. Well it is *far* more expensive to maintain than any BMW V6 because there aren't any. BMW 6 cyl engines are all in-lines.  Signature-Fred W The car uses a timing chain as I recall... so no "belt" failures. Plus most of the issues with the old 2,5 900 units were people going too long on the belt ( 35 000mi / 50 000km) Note the V6 in the 9-5 has a better repuation than the 4-cyls (no sludging, no bad turbos, etc). I don't see what people think bad about V6's. Or rather, Saab people. I prefer a 4-cylinder turbo. But generally it becomes difficult to make a tractable, reliable 4-banger turbo at high power levels (300hp+). With a V6 turbo this becomes easy. The 2,8T V6 can do that easily as well. I just wonder why Saab keeps limiting the max torque on their powerplants to 350Nm (258lb-ft). That's been the case since the 9000 Aero days. The V6t just gives a totally flat torque curve. And as we all know, people buy horsepower, but they DRIVE torque. Now put a stronger gearbox and let that baby make as much torque as she wants... 300lb-ft? Yeah now you have a MUCH more fun and interesting car than the already peppy 9-3 2.8T. > >>The major issue with the original V6 was the timing belt failure, which > >>resulted in expensive major engine work. There was no mention of any [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Well it is *far* more expensive to maintain than any BMW V6 because > there aren't any. BMW 6 cyl engines are all in-lines. I know that fact. It was that the way it sometimes comes out. I've been searching the internet to make amends, but not succeeded in finding any past or present BMW V6, but one can always hope... In the meantime, I've spotted writings such as "BMW inline V6" !!! perhaps it shows how we automatically think of any 6 cyl as a V6. > I know that fact. It was that the way it sometimes comes out. I've been > searching the internet to make amends, but not succeeded in finding any past > or present BMW V6, but one can always hope... In the meantime, I've spotted > writings such as "BMW inline V6" !!! perhaps it shows how we automatically > think of any 6 cyl as a V6. ...and I knew that ytou knew it. I was just razzin' you. But there are significant enough design differences between an inline-6 and a V6 that make me greatly prefer the latter. Signature-Fred W >> I know that fact. It was that the way it sometimes comes out. I've been >> searching the internet to make amends, but not succeeded in finding any past [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >But there are significant enough design differences between an inline-6 >and a V6 that make me greatly prefer the latter. That's just because you don't have to fit one sideways into a FWD car ;o) Cheers, Colin. > >> I know that fact. It was that the way it sometimes comes out. I've been > >> searching the internet to make amends, but not succeeded in finding any past [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's just because you don't have to fit one sideways into a FWD car > ;o) Last time I had an inline-4 car, the car rotated around the length axis when I blipped the gas pedal in neutral. That didn't feel quite right. >> >> I know that fact. It was that the way it sometimes comes out. I've been >> >> searching the internet to make amends, but not succeeded in finding any past [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Last time I had an inline-4 car, the car rotated around the length axis when >I blipped the gas pedal in neutral. That didn't feel quite right. Ah yes, I remember that from my old Mk1 Renault 5. Mind-you, that had suspension so soft it would nearly scrape the door mirrors along the road on corners... Cheers, Colin. > But there are significant enough design differences between an inline-6 > and a V6 that make me greatly prefer the latter. I've encountered quite a few excellent inline 6's, in fact I'd be hard pressed to think of one that's got a bad reputation. V6's on the other hand, I can't think of one with a particularly good reputation, they range from OK to lousy. >> But there are significant enough design differences between an inline-6 >> and a V6 that make me greatly prefer the latter. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hand, I can't think of one with a particularly good reputation, they > range from OK to lousy. Right on, brother ... apart from the C900, the Triumph GT6 is about the only other car that "really does it for me". Inline 6s rule ... V6s don't! I think TVR proved that :) I can also think of one V6 that was okay, though - the MG 6R4? Okay, so it was a cut down Rover V8, but it made the Metro cool! I jest, yes :) All that aside, the discussion of the the SAAB turbo V6 leads me to say the following. SAAB could easily achieve that power (and more) on their tried and tested 4 cylinder turbo. The B2XX engine has been honed by SAAB over nearly 25 years and the V6 turbo is simply playing the numbers game. Nothing more. I have driven one and my only thoughts were that it felt like driving an Audi engine in a very poor shell. Cramped, plastic and I didn't feel safe ... a very odd thing indeed to have to say in a SAAB ... and not in a "good way", which I do still experience daily in my C900 :) Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >> But there are significant enough design differences between an >> inline-6 and a V6 that make me greatly prefer the latter. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hand, I can't think of one with a particularly good reputation, they > range from OK to lousy. Yeah, my bad. I meant top say "the former" Signature-Fred W >> But there are significant enough design differences between an >> inline-6 and a V6 that make me greatly prefer the latter. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hand, I can't think of one with a particularly good reputation, they > range from OK to lousy. I can think of one very lousy V6. It is sitting in my driveway . . . >> I know that fact. It was that the way it sometimes comes out. I've been >> searching the internet to make amends, but not succeeded in finding [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But there are significant enough design differences between an inline-6 > and a V6 that make me greatly prefer the latter. Correction. That should have been "...the former" Signature-Fred W No it doesn't have any DI casettes. It uses the much more reliable (virtually infinite service life) GM-style direct ignition. It also uses Bosch Motronic instead of Saab Trionic. That sucks. I really like Trionic. If you study the operation of Trionic, it is a very cool engine management system. The combination of the turbo, ignition and fuel... it's just beautiful. Plus Trionic knows the exact amount of fuel you are burning on each combustion stroke, measured in mg/c (milligrams / combustion). Very cool stuff. > The major issue with the original V6 was the timing belt failure, which > resulted in expensive major engine work. There was no mention of any [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > GM bean counters are drooling about the profits from the "routine > maintenance" work. Rubbish. First off, the new V6 uses a chain. Second, Saab has lowered the costs of the DI-cassettes to around $120.- Signature----------------------------------- Dyrlægebiler - Det intelligente valg >>The major issue with the original V6 was the timing belt failure, which >>resulted in expensive major engine work. There was no mention of any [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > First off, the new V6 uses a chain. Second, Saab has lowered the costs of > the DI-cassettes to around $120.- All of the web articles did not provide information on the timing belt/chain engine design. All they talked about was power. I do not need DI cassettes in the Saab I am keeping because it is real Saab, designed and made when Saab was not owned by GM. If GM/Saab can sell the DI cassettes for $120 and still make money, why were they charging so much before? Do we call it price gouging or markup because Saab was their premium brand name? The car uses a timing chain as I recall... so no "belt" failures. Plus most of the issues with the old 2,5 900 units were people going too long on the belt ( 35 000mi / 50 000km) Note the V6 in the 9-5 has a better repuation than the 4-cyls (no sludging, no bad turbos, etc). I don't see what people think bad about V6's. Or rather, Saab people. I prefer a 4-cylinder turbo. But generally it becomes difficult to make a tractable, reliable 4-banger turbo at high power levels (300hp+). With a V6 turbo this becomes easy. The 2,8T V6 can do that easily as well. I just wonder why Saab keeps limiting the max torque on their powerplants to 350Nm (258lb-ft). That's been the case since the 9000 Aero days. The V6t just gives a totally flat torque curve. And as we all know, people buy horsepower, but they DRIVE torque. Now put a stronger gearbox and let that baby make as much torque as she wants... 300lb-ft? Yeah now you have a MUCH more fun and interesting car than the already peppy 9-3 2.8T. The car uses a timing chain as I recall... so no "belt" failures. Plus most of the issues with the old 2,5 900 units were people going too long on the belt ( 35 000mi / 50 000km) Note the V6 in the 9-5 has a better repuation than the 4-cyls (no sludging, no bad turbos, etc). I don't see what people think bad about V6's. Or rather, Saab people. I prefer a 4-cylinder turbo. But generally it becomes difficult to make a tractable, reliable 4-banger turbo at high power levels (300hp+). With a V6 turbo this becomes easy. The 2,8T V6 can do that easily as well. I just wonder why Saab keeps limiting the max torque on their powerplants to 350Nm (258lb-ft). That's been the case since the 9000 Aero days. The V6t just gives a totally flat torque curve. And as we all know, people buy horsepower, but they DRIVE torque. Now put a stronger gearbox and let that baby make as much torque as she wants... 300lb-ft? Yeah now you have a MUCH more fun and interesting car than the already peppy 9-3 2.8T. > Now put a stronger gearbox and let that baby make as much torque as she > wants... 300lb-ft? Yeah now you have a MUCH more fun and interesting > car than the already peppy 9-3 2.8T. ... Or an 800 BHP 9000 B234? Check Maptun. Corporations limit ... Owners tune! |
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.