[1QUICK2.0T]

Went back to the track today
i have done the folowing to my 87" 9000t
mbc,3" turbo back exhaust, stock turbo of course, the 3" downpipe starts after the first 180 degre bend which is still 2.5"
Turbo XS BYPASS Valve
timing slightly advanced
stock APC box
3 bar fuel pressure regulator modified to work on a pre 88" fuel rail
weight reduction includes no dooor panels, no speakers on the back, ac delete, pretty much gutted out power windows locks , and the dash are still in. car weighted in at 2565lbs
i made 2 passes
first pass as folows
3k launch boged till boost kicked in, 2gear spun till about 5k let off got back in it still spining shifted at 5500 every gear
2.40 60ft
[email protected]
second pass was a little better
got off the line a little better
2.37 60ft
[email protected] spining all the way through 1st and second
car was on a chassis dyno
225 fwhp
290 fwtq
what you guys think?
my fuel curve got really messed up after the fuel pressure regulator, runs too rich after it hits full boost and the power drops at about 4200 right after full boost fuel pressure regulater seems to spike real high and makes the car have a rich dead spot in it for about 500rpm then hp and trq climbes back up slowly.....

 

[California Saab Tuner]

what you guys think? ---

I think if you're running enough boost to get 290 fwt you'd better be running on race gas. Also your mods don't seem to add up (to me at least). You upped the boost a great deal with the MBC, but you advanced the ignition? You say you bogged at 3K rpms but you're using the stock turbo?

Raising the boost requires retarded ignition for several reasons. The most obvious is increased sensitivity to knock. 9:1 compression will only run full ignition on pump gas until maybe 12-15 psi without a few other engine mods. (water injection, or maybe a T7 engine management system )

The stock turbo on an 87 9000 is probably a garrett T03 ... most likely 45 trim. Though I could be wrong. Nevertheless, that car will reach full boost well before 3000 rpms. I don't think I've ever driven any Saab that has bogged above maybe 1800 rpm for any reason. Even my old 92 900 non turbo won't bog. But then it won't bog even in 5th gear at 1000 rpm so perhaps not the best comparison.

Maybe your car has something exceptional about it that makes it different from the norm. My Viggen seems to have more power (though it's possible it does NOT, it does still seem to) than other cars with the same motor. What you've been saying just sounds too much like you're describing a WRX. I just haven't ever heard any sucess stories with MBC's and Saabs relating to that kind of power. But perhaps a first for everything ... obviously you've left out a LOT of mods you must have made to get anywhere near that power. Should give us a complete list.

 

[grentarc]

BTW - once you use an MBC, the APC box is redundant.. it will not do anything, as it is an EBC (Electronic boost controller).. you actually get rid of the APC system in order to use an MBC.
you had better be watching for knock with that MBC... what PSI are you running?

 

[1QUICK2.0T]

yes i do use race gas not really though....its called xylene if anyone knows its a paint thinner automotive paint thinner that is, lots of grand national guys use it. Its 117 octane unleaded...if you run like i do 50/50 u have to mix the xylene with black mistery oil cuz i dosent have enough oiling in it to keep everything lubricated.
as for the bogging damn i dunno what the problem is but my car has a horrible turbo lag....i was told because its an old AIR RESEARCH turbo that dosent spool fast enough...my buddys wrx spools fast though....on the dyno the passes were made in 4th gear and i flored it at around 2800 boost starting to come in hard at 3k by the time 4 k arived it peaked at 4k 225hp and 290trq...then slowly drops off that was without the 3bar fpr.....after same thing but right after 4k fuel pr spikes real rich and power drops about 25hp then starts to climb back up slowly.
i have turbo xs High Performance MBC i pluged the turbo side to the mbc and ran a vacum line from the throttle body the extra pluged hole on top which i used to get vacum to mbc and from mbc to wastgate. says in directions of the mbc that if you running above 15psi you shold do that.
now as for the boost part....when i hit it in let say 3rd, cuz 2nd just spins when hits boost , so 3rd gear 3k rpm-4krpm it hits 20psi/22psi then 4100rpm drops back to 14.5psi...and at 4300rpm starts building back up by the time i shift 5500 i have about 16.5-17psi
i swear those are all the mods i have
so can you guys answer my question? am i the fastest or what?
i was actually thinking if i can smooth out my fuel curve which goes crazyly rich at 4100rpm then starts to climb lean, i was thinking APEXi Super AFC....my friend that dynos my car said if we straighten out the fuel curve i'll get at least 15fwhp or maybe as much as 25fwhp....since i loose about 25fwhp between 4000rpm-4400rpm.
as for the timing i think its advanced...uhm i turned the dis clockwise very very slight and it made 14hp and 14fwtq....very first numbers i think were 211fwhp and 278fwtq

 

[California Saab Tuner]

LOL!! Turning the distributor on a Saab shouldn't change the timing at all. Timing is controlled by the ingition module, the distributor just tells it which spark plug to fire, not the time it fires it. Garrett air research turbo's shouldn't have that much lag either. YOu should get that replaced. Don't get a big turbo though. As for being the fastest 2.0T ... you're definetly NOT. Maybe around SaabScene, but there was an entire SCCA one seat race car class over here for a while in the 80's that used essentially stock 2.0 turbo's from the 9000s. Skip Barber racing I believe still uses a few of them. Basically stock motors, but with modified ecu's running on race gas with different intakes and exhaust. 220 hp, and only 1,000 lbs. VERY fast, they used to spin 12" wide slicks through nearly every gear!

Wish I had one. They looked like old Formula one cars ... but with Saab engines

 

[1QUICK2.0T]

i'm not talking about indy cars...street cars the ones you drive everyday to work like i do, does any one have a faster street 9000 2ltr bolt on? that my question, thanks for the replys guys
i usually get raged on in here when i mention drag racing the saab

 

[California Saab Tuner]

I wonder if any of the high performance 2.0 9000's here have toyed with race gas. Do you have any times from regular pump unleaded? Might be a better comparison.

 

[Eric van Spelde]

Originally posted by Adrian W:
[qb]LOL!!  Turning the distributor on a Saab shouldn't change the timing at all.         Timing is controlled by the ingition module, the distributor just tells it which spark plug to fire, not the time it fires it.  [/qb][/b]

Not with the B202 turbo's. They still use a Hall-effect distributor for timing - basic timing is set by turning the dist. The ignition module is only making c.q. amplifying a spark, not timing it.

Timing mods for these engines generally involve modifying the boost advance/vacuum retard unit, or replacing it with an uprated or adjustable one.

It's only normally aspirated B202's that use a Hall-effect crank position sensor in conjunction with what Saab calls the EZK system. These cars still have an ignition distributor, but it's empty inside .

 

[California Saab Tuner]

Ahhhh! D'oh! No wonder. I have a normally aspirated engine. Oopsies.

Ta heck with it ... just get a trionic car. lol JK!

 

[1QUICK2.0T]

at the track it bring what you got...if i can steadely hold 15 psi i would defanatly run the times i run now.....but.....it spikes psi so to achive to hold that kind of boost i have to turn it up....before with full interior...about 13 psi of boost pump gas, only mods were cat back exhaust and mbc i ran [email protected]<br />so at the moment i guess i'm the fastest...race gas or no race gas if you got it use it

 

[California Saab Tuner]

I could see one of those running 14.60 with slicks even without race gas. I think you'll find most of the people here aren't THAT into drag racing. So they leave the stock boost limiters in 1st gear. Still, that engine shouldn't be running those kinds of times ... do you have the timeslips? Be interesting to see what the car was doing at the 880 mark.

 

[California Saab Tuner]

Not to sound critical either, that just seems outstandingly fast for that motor.

Certainly possible ... the earlier 9000's were known for aggressive camshafts which gave them heaps of

but a 14.60 out of the 2.0 with just a cat-back? That car should have been a 15.5 or so stock ... cat backs don't make that much difference so I'm at a bit of a loss.

This site shows Car and Driver stats for the 86 9000 turbo which I would assume is close to the specs for yours?

http://members.aol.com/rthrnandz/pages/cdstats.htm

15.8 for the 1986 model.

 

[markcanderson]

You may find this useful in comparing BS with confirmed stock results....


http://www.syclone.freeserve.co.uk/rivals.htm

i.e. Can it really be so that a fairly stock 9000 can do a quarter mile in the same time (i.e. 13.8x) as a BMW E38 EVO m3. Porsche 911 carrera, Subaru Impreza P1, TVR Chimaera 4.5, Merc E55 AMG and be .1 of a second of a Viper GTS ????

 

[Mark in Ireland]

http://www.syclone.freeserve.co.uk/web/c4b.jpg

Not that I condone racing on the road but I did mess around with a guy who had one of these. It was in my old 2.3 Carlsson with lotsa boost. Coming off roundabouts on the A1 he would only pull about 1 car length on me in acceleration and this would remain until my speedo needle was hitting the reset lever on the clock. He then started to very slowly pull away. When we stopped for roadworks I pulled alongside to have a chat but he refused to even look at me...maybe being followed by a £2000 H reg tatty old Saab was a shock to his system!

Looking at that list shows I drive around in a very slow accelerating car.....I can live with that

 

[adrian]

He he, have you seen where the MG Meastro Turbo comes on that list - that would really pi55 a few people off. Might be worth getting one, taking all the body kit and replacing the badges for 1.3HL and go Porsche/BMW baiting

 

[California Saab Tuner]

There's no way an Audi TT runs 14.6! I made my neighbor's Quattro look positively sluggish! I think that site needs 50-70 mph tests at 3K rpm. I'd like to see how a TT does on THAT.

 

[StanleyB]

A B235R engine at least should have no probs in disposing of the TT and S3. The 330CI can also become a cropper. The M3 is however a more tricky beast. Only a single experience so far, which I won partly due to local road condition knowledge. But that's not a conclussive test. I am puzzled however that the heavier 9000 is capable of such extraordinary feats in untuned 2.0 state. A RRR (rolling road report) seems a not unreasonable suggestion.

 

[California Saab Tuner]

Go to:

www.thedodgegarage.com

Look at the "fast friends" page, and the 9,10,11,12 second halls of fame.

Not only does this guy have a 10 secdond 1985 Plymouth Reliant K, but a 13 second Spirit R/T, and a 12 second Daytona! All front wheel drive turbo 4 cyllinders! Then his friends ... man go to the Videos page too. Soooo many fast cars there ... they have a MINIVAN with a 4 cyllinder turbo that runs 12.65!!!!

 

[markcanderson]

Audi (as tested by Performance Car -- forerunner to EVO magazine)... okay it's not a TT.. but it's something close to my heart

Quarter mile : 13.6 @ 102mph
0 to 30 - 1.6 secs
0 to 60 - 4.8 secs.
0 to 100 - 13.1 secs.
0 to 130 - 24.9 secs

In gear -
50 to 70 in 3rd = 3.1 secs
50 to 70 in 4th = 3.8 secs
50 to 70 in 5th = 5.6 secs
50 to 70 in 6th = 9.8 secs

70 to 90 in 3rd = 3.6 secs
70 to 90 in 4th = 4.4 secs

All tests are done with 2 people in the car and a full tank of fuel.

The car that produces these figures has 4 wheel drive, 410NM and 315HP at the flywheel. It is a 200hp/tonne car.

Maarten's NG900 with the special Hirsch mapping, 3inch downpipe and sports exhaust, no CAT, moddified intake and TD04 turbo is dyno tested at 270HP at the flywheel (which is about where you are saying your Viggen is when you say that it has 250HP at the WHEELS)

It's also the same as MarkE's 9000 with 315hp, with a racing gas flowed head, big intercooler, rollerbearing turbo, sports exhaust and custom Maptun mapping. And is probably over 200hp/tonne.. but has the same torque.

Now these cars may loose out on off the line traction, but I bet they could keep up with in gear acceleration once rolling. Both of those cars have ben dyno tested and their HP certified... and one of them is running and publishing accelerometer readings...

AdrianW.. can this be said of your standard Viggen? Please put it on a rolling road.

Oh by the way, these are scans of the article I'm quoting from on the performance figures from my car : http://www.tuningpt.com/scanspages/scan16/scan16.htm

 

[California Saab Tuner]

Here's something interesting on that article that I noticed. (Hopefully you don't take anything to offense, I MUST defend Saab over Audi vigorously, I do wish to rolling road the car, but in the meantime, I fight with all I can muster to defend Saab pride mister! ) While the top speed in that car's 4th gear is 120 mph, it's redline is 7100 rpm. This means at 6000 rpm it's only doing 101 mph. This is exactly the same gear ratio as the Viggen's 3rd gear. So to accurately compare accelleration we should compare the Audi's 4th to the Viggen's 3rd. Also, bring up the Video of my car to compare accelleration. Video doesn't lie. Now the accepted 80-120 kph test in the Viggen yeilds 4.0 seconds for the stock car typically. My car is roughly the same. The Difference of 40 kph equates out to about 24.8 mph. Since a 50-70 mph test is only 20 mph difference and at roughly the same speed. This means that 3.8 seconds would be perfectly reasonable for an accelleration of only 20 mph instead of 4.0 seconds for 40 kph. Easily keeping up with the Audi. Now you say perhaps the Saab doesn't have the high end the Audi does? True it can't rap out 7100 rpms, but the Audi page DOES give an 80-100 mph test. This yields 4.7 seconds ... watch the Video, I have time to get to 80 mph at exactly 8 seconds elapsed time, and I'm at 100 mph (which is where I stop accellerating) well before 13 seconds elapsed time, which doesn't even show up on the video. Again it's reasonable to assume that it this is well under 5 seconds, which makes the 4.7 seconds the Audi takes not seem all that much faster. In fact, if you watch the video closely you can see me let off the throttle at almost exactly 12 seconds, putting my 80-100 at exactly 4.0 seconds ... 0.7 seconds faster than your 315 hp Audi. Suspicious? I am. For I also had two people and a 3/4 tank of fuel. True that I can't rap out to 120 mph and 7100 rpm in that gear. But I never claimed anywhere near 315 hp. Maybe we should Rolling Road the Audi.

Vid: http://195.237.18.37/viggen/adrian.wmv