Saab 900 2.1L v 2.0L engine

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Jeremy Brown - 24 Jan 2006 18:53 GMT

Hello all,
Quick question, are the 2.1 L 16v engine directly exchangeable for a 2.0 L?
Would an older 2.0 L Saab's emission and engine control system run properly
if a a 2.1 L engine were dropped in?

Thanks,
Jeremy

Reply to this Message

BK - 25 Jan 2006 05:56 GMT

I forgot to add that this is a classic 900, not a NG900. The 2.1L engine
is from a '92.

Jeremy

> Hello all,
> Quick question, are the 2.1 L 16v engine directly exchangeable for a 2.0 L?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Thanks,
> Jeremy

Reply to this Message

Pooh Bear - 25 Jan 2006 08:33 GMT

> Hello all,
> Quick question, are the 2.1 L 16v engine directly exchangeable for a 2.0 L?
> Would an older 2.0 L Saab's emission and engine control system run properly
> if a a 2.1 L engine were dropped in?

What 2.1 litre engine is that ? You seem to be confused.

Graham

Reply to this Message

Dave Hinz - 25 Jan 2006 15:42 GMT

>> Hello all,
>> Quick question, are the 2.1 L 16v engine directly exchangeable for a 2.0 L?
>> Would an older 2.0 L Saab's emission and engine control system run properly
>> if a a 2.1 L engine were dropped in?
>
> What 2.1 litre engine is that ? You seem to be confused.

I don't think he is. Later c900s in the US, anyway, punched the
standard 2.0L engine out to a 2.1L engine. I don't remember if it was
bore or stroke, though.

Far as I know, the engine management won't care, it just sees how much
air it is breathing and gives it fuel accordingly. The lambda feedback
gives it tweaks from there, I would imagine. I'd say go for it.

Dave Hinz

Reply to this Message

John B - 25 Jan 2006 15:51 GMT

> I don't think he is. Later c900s in the US, anyway, punched the
> standard 2.0L engine out to a 2.1L engine.

Yes, I can vouch for this as well, since I drive a 1992 2.1L every day :)

I think the 2.1 is only in NA c900s.

John

Reply to this Message

Jeremy Brown - 25 Jan 2006 17:53 GMT

My main concern is the APC box & turbo. Even though the APC only controls
the turbo, would the added volume of the engine affect the boost, change the
performance charactistics or effect the behavior of the red box apc that is
in my car? (I love that thing, thanks for selling me it, Dave.)

Jeremy

>>> Hello all,
>>> Quick question, are the 2.1 L 16v engine directly exchangeable for a 2.0
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Dave Hinz

Reply to this Message

MH - 25 Jan 2006 18:26 GMT

> My main concern is the APC box & turbo.

The 900i 2.1 engine is a NA with normal (high) compression. A turbo engine needs
low compression (1:8 or so). So, if anything else, you need a thick head gasket
or shorter pistons to lower the compression ratio.

Signature

MH
'72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96
'87 90
'91 900i 2.1

Reply to this Message

NeedforSwede2 - 26 Jan 2006 10:56 GMT

> > My main concern is the APC box & turbo.
>
> The 900i 2.1 engine is a NA with normal (high) compression. A turbo engine needs
> low compression (1:8 or so). So, if anything else, you need a thick head gasket
> or shorter pistons to lower the compression ratio.

Not in the UK you don't.
Turbo engiens for Europe with the APC used 9:1 compression.

Signature

Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

Reply to this Message

Dave Hinz - 25 Jan 2006 18:54 GMT

> My main concern is the APC box & turbo. Even though the APC only controls
> the turbo, would the added volume of the engine affect the boost, change the
> performance charactistics or effect the behavior of the red box apc that is
> in my car? (I love that thing, thanks for selling me it, Dave.)

Glad you're enjoying it. Far as I can figure, all the extra volume will
do is make it take a bit longer for the turbo to bring

Hangon. You need to make sure that the 2.1 engine you're putting in is
setup for turbo. Much lower compression than a N/A engine. So
switching 2.0 for 2.1 isn't a problem, but switching a non-turbo engine
into a car with a turbo bolted to the head, is.

Dave

Reply to this Message

NeedforSwede2 - 26 Jan 2006 10:58 GMT

> Hangon. You need to make sure that the 2.1 engine you're putting in is
> setup for turbo. Much lower compression than a N/A engine. So
> switching 2.0 for 2.1 isn't a problem, but switching a non-turbo engine
> into a car with a turbo bolted to the head, is.

Euro APC 900's had a 9:1 compression ratio. Higher than US market ones.
Maybe it was to do with gas quality.
Even though the APC could handle lower grade fuel, it was recomended to
use 98RON unleaded in my old 84 T16S.

Signature

Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

Reply to this Message

Dave Hinz - 26 Jan 2006 15:09 GMT

>> Hangon. You need to make sure that the 2.1 engine you're putting in is
>> setup for turbo. Much lower compression than a N/A engine. So
>> switching 2.0 for 2.1 isn't a problem, but switching a non-turbo engine
>> into a car with a turbo bolted to the head, is.

> Euro APC 900's had a 9:1 compression ratio. Higher than US market ones.
> Maybe it was to do with gas quality.

Hm. I don't know about that, but I do know that if you take a 99 Turbo
head & turbo, bolt it to a 2.0L B engine set up for naturally aspirated,
it's a dog. As in dog freaking slow. Not enough volume to stuff
fuel:air into, I'm guessing. After all, output is a function of
displacement _and_ compression. Less room to compress into = less
power, yes?

> Even though the APC could handle lower grade fuel, it was recomended to
> use 98RON unleaded in my old 84 T16S.

Which, here, is called 93 Octane or something, because they average RON
and (um...the other one) to come up with a number-ish octane rating.

Reply to this Message

NeedforSwede2 - 26 Jan 2006 16:38 GMT

> >> Hangon. You need to make sure that the 2.1 engine you're putting in is
> >> setup for turbo. Much lower compression than a N/A engine. So
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Which, here, is called 93 Octane or something, because they average RON
> and (um...the other one) to come up with a number-ish octane rating.

We use RON, but when unleaded was brought in during the 80's, the best
you could get was 97RON though. So Saab were selling a car that Ideally
(according to the filler cap) required a fuel not available (at least in
the UK).

Signature

Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

Reply to this Message

Frode - 27 Jan 2006 08:05 GMT

> Hm. I don't know about that, but I do know that if you take a 99 Turbo
> head & turbo, bolt it to a 2.0L B engine set up for naturally aspirated,
> it's a dog. As in dog freaking slow. Not enough volume to stuff
> fuel:air into, I'm guessing. After all, output is a function of
> displacement _and_ compression. Less room to compress into = less
> power, yes?

I drove my 99 for a winter while reworking the turbo and manifold. Yes,
terribly slow until you replace the camshaft with one from a carburettor
model, Compare the two, and you will see that the inlet valves opens far
less the turbo!.

The exhaust valve timing is different,

Frode

Reply to this Message

Pooh Bear - 26 Jan 2006 12:18 GMT

> >> Hello all,
> >> Quick question, are the 2.1 L 16v engine directly exchangeable for a 2.0 L?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> standard 2.0L engine out to a 2.1L engine. I don't remember if it was
> bore or stroke, though.

Curious. Just for the American market it seems.

In a similar vein, I recall that Jaguar produced a 4.2 litre engine in ~ 1966 as an 'upgrade' to
their 3.8 on account of American criticism that that the 3.8 didn't have enough torque.

Incidentally my Dad's 4.2 Mk 10 shredded the BW ( model 35 ? ) auto box. He got a 'deal' from the
factory to replace it. I think he ended up just paying for the labour.

His previous 3.8 Mk II ( manual ) was far less trouble. It came with cross-plys though. That soon
changed !

Graham

Reply to this Message

Richard Sutherland-Smith - 28 Jan 2006 01:24 GMT

> >> Hello all,
> >> Quick question, are the 2.1 L 16v engine directly exchangeable for a 2.0 L?
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Dave Hinz

And Australasia got it, perhaps it was to cope with the air-con. The UK
never had this engine.
I think it was bored out and had bigger valves; it gave 140bhp.

Signature

Richard Sutherland-Smith
19 Webb Road, Wanganui 5001, NZ

Reply to this Message

MH - 25 Jan 2006 18:31 GMT

> What 2.1 litre engine is that ?

The 140 hp 1991-1992 engine in the SAAB 900i 2.1, like mine.

See http://members.home.nl/mhilvers/Autoweek/pag1.jpg
(bottom of page)

Signature

MH
'72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96
'87 90
'91 900i 2.1

Reply to this Message

NeedforSwede2 - 26 Jan 2006 10:55 GMT

> What 2.1 litre engine is that ? You seem to be confused.

Us, and some mainland european C900 non turbos got 2.1 litre engines.
UK didn't get it.
But the intake manifold, when combined with an early 2.3 litre head
makes for the best setup for a modified turbo apparrently.

Signature

Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

Reply to this Message

Rate this thread: