Saab B2X4 turbo engines

Just read that, thanks

I like how most of the 'bad' points of the upgrades for big power will need to be addressed for a rwd conversion and my installation! So if the engine is as capable as people claim then maybe 400bhp would be readily achievable?

I was looking at the Volvo 2.3 turbos first then found the Saab trumped them in specs and reputation. First choice is the 2.3 as the torqueyness suits my style better but I'd consider a 2.0 if it's cheap and local. Unfortunately I don't have the space to buy a car to break for the engine, so it's a slow and regular hunt for something suitable to pop up....

I had the B204L engine put in my Vectra for over 5 years now and they deserve all their cred and more imoa.

The engine of choice is the B204 lump. The 2.3 has more torque but its a taller block ( I think ) so that put it out of the window for my conversion. The engines you want have the red DI.

The engines are very very well built, although GM had hold of them and started cutting back on quality the engines seemed to be already spec'd so left alone. But the later B205 and 35 which came with black DI's weren't as good and the 2.3 suffer from oil gunking up.

I did have plans for mine to get to 300bhp with a TD04 turbo, green giant injectors, 3 bar map, 3 inch downpipe and suitable map. In fact by going for the components I would have been able to push over 300 without issue, but I had to sell the bits before fitting them sadly.

But yes with the right map, downpipe, turbo and injectors 400bhp on stock internals is doable. Mine as standard put out 150bhp, with a better FMIC, open air filter and stage one map it went to 180bhp and with loads more torque too.

Thanks for the offer but I'll decline, I really want the earlier B234 turbo lump because I'm led to believe the internals are far superior and should suit my plans of a budget high power build



My plan is to drop the 2.3 into my Rover P6 which already has a DOHC 2ltr lump formerly on a Garrett T25 pushing somewhere near 200bhp. I don't want another 2.0, as the plan is everything I do is an upgrade so capacity is a primary consideration. Height is not an issue, I've already cut a few holes in the bonnet and am quite happy to cut more

My goal is to hit 300bhp and beyond, preferably going compound charged to start with using an Eaton M62 supercharger and a truck turbo of unknown origin. These are only plans and are in the process of being tested on another engine before committing and making proper brackets, manifolds and plumbing etc.

I wasn't aware there was any difference in height between the 2.0 and 2.3? Just different piston height and stroke length.

There's very little to choose from between the 2.0 and the 2.3. The 2.3 is simply longer stroke, bore is the same. But the starting point is going from the slightly over-square format of the 2.0 to the 'square' 2.3.

The reason people 'think' the 2.3 is more powerful is that all the 9000 aeros and the higher tuned cars had the 2.3 rather than the 2.0. Consequently, when the cars become older and get to the aftermarket fiddlers there isn't any interest in the vanilla models, those basic cars are overlooked and cast aside. You want proof, look at the 9000 2.3 LPT as a perfect example, completely unloved but only an ECU tweak away from the identical performance of the full turbo.

But back to the point, if you were deciding from a planning point of view of whether to go with the oversquare or square engine a race tuner would always go for the oversquare 2.0 engine.

Ultimately it boils down to a 400rpm difference in the place where peak torque is delivered. The 2.0 delivers peak torque 400rpm further up the rev band.

You don't want to use megasquirt. You should use the trionic 5.5 management which comes with the 9000 or the GM900 and very early 9-3.

The t7 engines (black cassette) have problems with the oil pick up mesh being too fine and the internals too fragile. They can be tuned but you have to treat them like the engines from other manufacturers so you go back to the idea of having to decide which hugely expensive upgraded internals you're going to buy. The trionic 7 management system returns to the use of an air-mass-meter instead of the MAP based t5.5

Here's a video of a 2.0 engine tuned to about 500hp... one of my favourites.

sorry has to be rwd for a toy

Jag s type manual box with omega auto bell housing and adaptor plate is a stronger budget option or Vauxhall xe to t5 bellhousing if your flush . R30 omega box is slightly tougher than the r28 in 2.0 omegas but not a lot in it .

My understanding is that the blocks are identical between the 2.0 and the 2.3 and that the difference in capacity is down to the stroke differences in the crank/rods/pistons

I think some of the main differences between the B234 and B235 are that the internals were made lighter for improved fuel economy and the pistons had a lower resistance which led to blow by causing some of the oil sludge issues on the later engines

I don't know how easily the 234 internals would go into a 235 block but I suspect it wouldn't be too difficult. The other main difference which I think was mentioned above somewhere is that the 234 uses T5 management where the 235 uses T7 but I think each system can in theory be made to work on either engine? But I'm not 100% sure on that

I 'think' they're largely the same from the outside, theres a bit of info from this thread www.saablink.net/forum/general-9-5-posts-information/42510.htm

And others out there on doing B235 to B234 swaps in Saabs, while a bit different to your application it should show some of the differences between the two at least