|
|
|
|
|
Not to be one for wanting to disbelieve, but why would saab spend money adjusting the casting on their own engines to mate with vauxhall gearboxes for the last few years they used their own design? Just seems a bit odd to me! But hey, stranger things have happened  presumably because they were using Vaxuahll/Opel platforms/transmissions/etc. by then? I thought they went over to Ecotec at the same time though.... |
| |
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
qwerty
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 2,417
Club RR Member Number: 52
|
|
|
|
Although a 24V Cosworth engine does appeal to me, I am a real turbo fan! After owning my 480 Turbo I expect every car I drive to get a surge of power just after 3000 rpm  I would rather have a 2.0 turbo with 200 bhp, than a 2.9 n/a with 200 bhp. I just like boost ;D plus if you want more power from a 24v cosworth its going to cost serious money, want more power from a 2.3 16v saab turbo tuning is much easier and cheaper to extract more power (just wind up the boost) I agree with you! |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just thinking about this but if the bellhousing pattern is the same as GM what about the sump?? as the xe and the 1.8 mantas use the same pattern this may have worked its way onto the saab engines
i wouldnt mind one my dad has a 96 900se its a low boost turbo and its got so much torque its unbelieveable
|
| |
1966 Ford Cortina GT
2018 Ford Fiesta ST
Full time engineer, part time waffler on Youtube - see Jim_Builds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Turbo's are ok, but a Turbo car cant stay with a N/A car of the same horspower all else being equal, Saab engines might be great, i'm not knocking them, but if you look a the practicality of a swop into a sierra why would you bother when you could buy a cossie for 3 grand? don't forget you have to uprate brakes and suspension and fit a LSD to cope with all the extra power and all thats all ready done in a cos.
I'm guessin the Saab lump isnt used much as anything it bolts straight into already has easier options for more power.
|
| |
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 10:24:46 GMT
|
Turbo's are ok, but a Turbo car cant stay with a N/A car of the same horspower all else being equal Depends, how the boost is controlled and how much lag there is. Traditionally big capacity NA ruled over turbos because of the lag and poor low down torque. But if the engine use a quick spooling turbo and a the boost is mapped to come in quickly (as modern turbo engines are), there is know reason why the NA would be quicker, as the turbo will provide more torque in the mid range and maximum bhp will be produced earlier. |
| |
Sierra - here we go again! He has an illness, it's not his fault.
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,790
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 11:56:15 GMT
|
|
why bother with a saab and all its complications, when surely its far easier to use a volvo turbo as a donor? no gearbox issues, no sump issues, and its already been proved 400hp is pretty simple to get out of one with basic turbo/head mods. plus some come with lsd, and the base car itself don't look too bad anyway!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 12:39:21 GMT
|
Turbo's are ok, but a Turbo car cant stay with a N/A car of the same horspower all else being equal Depends, how the boost is controlled and how much lag there is. Traditionally big capacity NA ruled over turbos because of the lag and poor low down torque. But if the engine use a quick spooling turbo and a the boost is mapped to come in quickly (as modern turbo engines are), there is know reason why the NA would be quicker, as the turbo will provide more torque in the mid range and maximum bhp will be produced earlier. A turbo has a narrower power/torque band than a bigger capacity N/A engine of the same power, and usually weighs more by the time you add in all the pipes and an intercooler, its different if they are the same capacity, in which case the turbo car will be more drivable and usually faster, had this discussion over on turbosport, and it was the racers who proved it to us with lap times and race results from various saloon car championships they run in. A 200bhp 24v 4x4 sierra is quicker to 100mph than a 200bhp 4x4 cossie by almost a second. |
| |
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 14:13:15 GMT
|
|
One thought on Saab engines, i wonder if they might be the same casting as GM`s, so if you fit a, say, Getrag 265 with manta 1.8 bellhouse conversion, presto!, no more slant? Maybe?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 15:05:36 GMT
|
Turbo's are ok, but a Turbo car cant stay with a N/A car of the same horspower all else being equal, Saab engines might be great, i'm not knocking them, but if you look a the practicality of a swop into a sierra why would you bother when you could buy a cossie for 3 grand? don't forget you have to uprate brakes and suspension and fit a LSD to cope with all the extra power and all thats all ready done in a cos. I'm guessin the Saab lump isnt used much as anything it bolts straight into already has easier options for more power. Yes but theres one another reason why a turbo is a cooler swap for Robin than a 2.9 cossie. Pssssssshhhhhhhhhh |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 15:13:13 GMT
|
Depends, how the boost is controlled and how much lag there is. Traditionally big capacity NA ruled over turbos because of the lag and poor low down torque. But if the engine use a quick spooling turbo and a the boost is mapped to come in quickly (as modern turbo engines are), there is know reason why the NA would be quicker, as the turbo will provide more torque in the mid range and maximum bhp will be produced earlier. A turbo has a narrower power/torque band than a bigger capacity N/A engine of the same power, and usually weighs more by the time you add in all the pipes and an intercooler, its different if they are the same capacity, in which case the turbo car will be more drivable and usually faster, had this discussion over on turbosport, and it was the racers who proved it to us with lap times and race results from various saloon car championships they run in. A 200bhp 24v 4x4 sierra is quicker to 100mph than a 200bhp 4x4 cossie by almost a second. I dunno. not arguing cos I don't have enough experience, but my car makes it's hpower at approx 5.5k and makes its torque real low down. And I doubt it weighs near as much as a cossie V6. If someone offered an Cossie V6 engine and to do the swap for me right now for free, I'd deffo decline. |
| |
Last Edit: Sept 5, 2007 15:13:49 GMT by wickedbad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 15:13:33 GMT
|
Yes but theres one another reason why a turbo is a cooler swap for Robin than a 2.9 cossie. Pssssssshhhhhhhhhh Oh yeah forgot about that, my little nephews both liked The fast and the furious too.  |
| |
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 15:25:57 GMT
|
Yes but theres one another reason why a turbo is a cooler swap for Robin than a 2.9 cossie. Pssssssshhhhhhhhhh Oh yeah forgot about that, my little nephews both liked The fast and the furious too. I do love the sound track of a turbo car over a NA screamer. I removed the dump valve from my 480 turbo, and it chattered like mental ;D IMO a turbo running 14psi and sucking through a large filter cone beats twin 45's anyday (I know lots will disagree, but its personal choice) |
| |
Sierra - here we go again! He has an illness, it's not his fault.
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 17:11:58 GMT
|
|
ive been thinking about this conversion all day(only read about it this morning).
ive got the carlton already with the correct box already in it. think id better do some research ;D
|
| |
"quote hairnet"
I'm not paying nine pound for a pi$$!
[/quote]
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 17:18:44 GMT
|
hmmm, heres a pic of the engine from the gearbox end ,thinking about it mounted longetudely(sp).exhaust and inlets would on the correct sides and there doesnt seem to be too much sticking off the back of it, apart from a coolent outlet. so it look,s like it would phsyically fit without to much buggering about.  excuse me for thinking outloud ;D |
| |
"quote hairnet"
I'm not paying nine pound for a pi$$!
[/quote]
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 17:24:39 GMT
|
Saab rallycross - 550bhp and 0-62mph in in 2.5s, all from a 2.3 turbocharged Saab engine. Noice! Definite potential I'd say.   |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 18:42:24 GMT
|
|
Get on it, Stigma!
*n
|
| |
Top grammar tips!
Bought = purchased. Brought = relocated
Lose = misplace/opposite of win. Loose = your mum
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 19:16:43 GMT
|
Yes but theres one another reason why a turbo is a cooler swap for Robin than a 2.9 cossie. Pssssssshhhhhhhhhh Oh yeah forgot about that, my little nephews both liked The fast and the furious too. hmmm yes  But more reliable and driveable power a version of my engine is the the highest output per litre production engine. To match the output per litre yer cossie 2.9 would have to be putting out nearly 600 bhp from the factory but still come with a a 3 year warranty. And it'd still be heavier. I like the idea of saab engines. Looks like fun and very different. That Rallycross version looks a stormer. Would suit the wheels, Robin.  |
| |
Last Edit: Sept 5, 2007 19:18:08 GMT by wickedbad
|
|
gearoil
Part of things
Projectless...
Posts: 918
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 19:40:28 GMT
|
Saab rallycross - 550bhp and 0-62mph in in 2.5s, all from a 2.3 turbocharged Saab engine. Noice! Definite potential I'd say. Ahh... The Saabaru... This used a load of bits from Prodrive, transmission & suspension IIRC. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 19:59:10 GMT
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 5, 2007 20:52:50 GMT
|
Oh yeah forgot about that, my little nephews both liked The fast and the furious too. hmmm yes But more reliable and driveable power a version of my engine is the the highest output per litre production engine. To match the output per litre yer cossie 2.9 would have to be putting out nearly 600 bhp from the factory but still come with a a 3 year warranty. And it'd still be heavier. I like the idea of saab engines. Looks like fun and very different. That Rallycross version looks a stormer. Would suit the wheels, Robin. don't get me started about which is the best engine, the FBA 24v Cologne engine (The BOA and BOB Granada engines are detuned and modified road versions) was the most powerfull N/A under 3 litre piston engine ever made, over 300bhp in fact in Prosport 3000 trim. The Turbo Technics (who designed most of the Ford turbo engines back then) version of the BOA which never went into production, but is fitted into Geoffs Sierra sprint car makes well over 600bhp and there are a couple of 700bhp turbo engines out there. 1 bar boost on stock internals will give 400bhp. Anyway, as I said before, not havin a go at the Saab engine, just wondfer why its so rare in performance cars, if the race/rally boys aint usin it over here there must be better/cheaper/lighter alternatives? |
| |
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
|
|
But more reliable and driveable power
[*]
[*]
