[Swade]

England’s 4Car website is running a story today that claims the next Saab 9-5 will have a base engine of just 1.6 litres displacement, with a high pressure turbo employed to deliver the output expected of a flagship sedan.


They claim Saab sources told them so, but I’m skeptical.


Here’s how they introduce it:


<blockquote>Saab’s next-generation 9-5 is to feature an all-new 1.6-litre turbocharged engine, in line with the company’s new policy on downsizing….


….Despite the smaller entry-level engine - which will nonetheless have a competitive power output and performance capabilities, boosted by its turbocharger - the new 9-5 will actually be a little larger than the outgoing model….a rival for the likes of the Audi A6, Volkswagen Passat and similarly-sized large family vehicles.

</blockquote>
I get the downsizing thing. That makes sense to me. They’re doing it with the 9-3 to the point that thoughts of a 9-1 are now on hold.


But given that the dimensions of the next 9-5 will actually be larger than the outgoing model, I find it hard to imagine how they’re going to manufacture a premium, flagship driving experience in a large-bodied vehicle with such a small engine.


4Car also state that the current 2 litre BioPower engines will remain, that the 9-5 will get a 2.8 litre turbo V6 that’s similar to what’ll be in the Cadillac CTS (direct injection? If so, then yay!) and there’ll be a couple of diesel options, too.


All the engines in the above paragraph make perfect sense to me and given that the car’s going to be larger than the previous model, retaining the 2.0 BioPower engine as a base would be a form of downsizing in itself. But a 1.6?


Can you imagine a 1.6 engine with a turbo pushing a car this large on a hot day?


I’m not saying that it’s not going to happen, but I think I’ll have to wait and hear it myself from Djup Strupe before I’ll jump on board with this one. It just doesn’t make sense for a premium flagship vehicle.


I think it should also be mentioned here that these plans, if true, are most likely for the European market only. I can’t imagine them trying to push this engine in the US.


——


Djup Strupe, if you’ve got anything to offer on this, then please do. You know where to find me.


I should also mention at this point that the last word we had on Saab 9-5 engines for the 2010 model year was back in May this year. These were posted in comments by someone I didn’t know, but the same person also posted 9-4x engine specs that I know to be accurate.


Long story, short: I’ve got some faith in these numbers.


2.0T 190hp + 220 hp
2.0T Biopower 190-220 hp
2.8T V6 260 hp
2.0 Tid 160 hp + 190 hp
2.9 Tid V6 XWD AT 250 hp


They look like 9-5 numbers to me. I can’t imagine the car getting bigger and those numbers getting smaller.


I’ll be happy to be proven wrong, but a 1.6T Saab 9-5 won’t be on the shopping list of many people I know.


-



</img>

 

[Fencer]

A 1.6 with the 9-5 eqiv does seem hard work. Certainly the turbo could raise the output to whatever they wanted but using it to get the performance would up the fuel consumption.
I understood that it was fairly likely that the GM 2.8V6 would be the top motor for the 9-5 but if its present iteration in the 9-3 turboX is anything to go by, not many people will want it. Speaking to a Saab salesman a couple of weeks ago I was told it had a ruinous thirst.
As a rule Saab owners, certainly those buying top models want the 2.3.T, as in my current Aero. It's a great engine but of course we come back to that old adage that for a luxury upmarket car you must, at least in the US, have a 'V' 6or 8.
GM have a long reliable reputation for ruining most things they touch so why should we expect Saab to be an exception? And yes, I have driven many thousands of miles in American cars and, in my opinion, they are not remotely comparable to the best of Europe.

 

[pojsson]

Have a look at the history of the 1.6 litre and start get in tune with how to use a small engine and get some power out of less fuel.

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membe.../otto/otto.html

 

[Eric van Spelde]

Why not? Passats and Skoda Superbs seem to do reasonably well with 1.4 TSI engines. The latest batch of small displacement turbocharged engines not only gives torque end power levels competitive with much larger N/A engines, the elastic band flexibility (don't be surprised to see positive boost pressure on light throttle openings at anything above idle RPM) and general refinement of them shades any 2.0 N/A unit I know, all whil offering very worthwhile fuel economy improvements.But don't take my word for it - drive a Citroën C5 with the 1.8 or 2.0 petrol engine and tell me you wouldn't want the smooth and torquey PSA/MINI 1.6 turbo engine in there...Oh BTW - the Opel 1.6 turbo engine will be 180 hp - sounds alright as an entry-level engine for a car in its class.

 

[Paddy2bsure]

Regarding lesser engines powering larger cars... what you've got to remember is that in most European countries, car tax either always been high for bigger-engined cars, or it's getting there now. The UK was the great exception until recent years, where it was "one tax rate for all" - so lesser engined cars were never really an issue here. Nowadays, with all the excuses for taxation, it pays for car manufacturers to develop smaller, cleaner, more powerful, more economic engines for the global market - lets call it efficiency!

I can quote several examples of cars with lesser engines that were made available in other countries, but not in the UK - Vectra 1.6 (the current model) or 1.9CDTI (100bhp); Passat 1.6 (B5 shape); there are loads. Yes, they're all dangerously underpowered - I know, I've driven most of them! A 1.6 engine in a car like a 9-5 sounds crackers - but if my 2.2TiD with it's 120bhp pulls okay, why shouldn't a 1.6 Turbo with (probably) 150bhp & a comparable amount of torque?

Even with all the proposed car tax increases, the UK remains a cheap place to tax a car compared to a lot of places in Europe. If you don't believe me, look at some of the rates for Ireland:

CO2 Emissions g CO2/km Road Tax
Bands (€)

A 0 – 120 €100
B 121 – 140 €150
C 141 – 155 €290
D 156 – 170 €430
E 171 – 190 €600
F 191 – 225 €1,000
G 226 and over €2,000

Just in case you're not up to date on the €/£ relationship, it's about €1/£0.79. So a 9-5 Aero would cost almost £1600 to tax - ANNUALLY!!!! "Rip off Britain" or "Rip off Ireland"?

 

[mark e]

And there was me hoping that this meant the revivial of the SVC:

There's no getting away from it. If you want big performance in a big car, then you need to have a big engine. Trouble is, choosing a powerful V6 or V8 over a smaller powerplant brings with it hefty fuel bills and increased exhaust pipe emissions. But that's not the way Saab sees it. The Swedish firm has built a revolutionary 1.6-litre five-cylinder engine that produces a hefty 225bhp and 350Nm of torque, yet returns the fuel economy of a four-cylinder 1.6-litre powerplant.

So how does it work? Well, the key is the firm's new SVC (Saab Variable Compression) system that constantly varies the engine's compression ratio - one of the most important factors in the combustion process. As a general rule, fuel is burned more efficiently if the mixture in the cylinder head is under as much pressure as possible - around 14:1 is the perfect figure. Most have a compression ratio (pressure in the combustion chamber) of around 9:1 - which strikes a balance between power, fuel efficiency and reliability.

Saab's SVC system can alter the volume of (and therefore the pressure within) the combustion chamber via an innovative tilting cylinder head. When cruising, the compression ratio is at its highest - 14:1, allowing the cleanest burn and maximum fuel efficiency.

However, when extra power for acceleration is required, the system lowers the compression ratio and engages a supercharger that forces more fuel and air into the combustion chamber. Because the variable compression is flexible and the supercharger so potent, Saab has reduced the capacity of the engine to only 1.6 litres. As a result, fuel consumption is comparable to standard 1.6s - over 30mpg, with low emission levels, too.

Although the engine is still in its prototype phase, we drove an SVC-equipped 9-5 automatic on the roads surrounding Saab's Trollhattan factory. In terms of power delivery and acceleration, the new unit is nothing short of amazing. The engine feels strong and remarkably flexible and transition bet-ween compression modes is seamless. And as the engine uses many standard components, the technology is financially viable, and will probably cost about the same as a V6.[/b]

Source

 

[kprm77]

Why not? Passats and Skoda Superbs seem to do reasonably well with 1.4 TSI engines.[/b]

You beat me to it with the 1.4 TSI Superbs! The new Superb is bigger than the outgoing car too. Smallest engine in the old model was a 1.8T. IIRC the 1.4TSI is around 125BHP. I'd guess the 1.6T in the Saab would be more than the 150BHP of the old 2.0 LPT..... (Assuming this is true...)

 

[Fencer]

I hate to appear as though I'm against progress, I'm not but there seem to be several unanswered questions. Allowing that the technology works what happens at high speed cruising? At present a smaller engine has to rev much higher to lug a big car along at speed and is much noisier. Soundproofing = weight. If the compressor is helping in this situation then more fuel is going to be burned. Higher revs also mean more wear, all other things being equal. I agree it sounds interesting, fascinating even, but I would not be surprised if it goes the way of the Sterling and the 2-stroke, whose adherents, one of them a friend of mine, insist are the best form of automotive power.
As to the common components bit, well, I really doubt that the cost of this quite high technology can be brought in line with a common V-6 which the Yanks can churn out for pennies.

 

[wrighar]

At present a smaller engine has to rev much higher to lug a big car along at speed and is much noisier[/b]

No, the concept of the SVC engine was when cruising the engine would resort to 14:1 compression ratioj and almost lean burn to provide lots of torque at low speeds.

When more power is needed then the CR drops to 8:1 and boost is applied

 

[sgould]

Our new owners have imposed the Vauxhall Astra 1.3 CDTi as the only company car for the "staff". The first ones arrived this week.

First drives have given rise to almost universal derision!! The guys previously had things similar to the 1.9 turbo diesel Zafira or the Peugeot 307 HDi.

I'm just carrying on and taking the mileage.

Roll on retirement!

 

[Paddy2bsure]

If those Astra's are anything like the 1.6TDCI engines in our Ford Focuses in work, they're a gutless wonder - but they do return 55mpg (with a variety of heavy-footed drivers)! However the Astra & the Focus are tuned towards economy & cleanliness - I don't doubt they could get more out of them if they tried.

There's been enough big cars powered by small engines in the past though - I remember our old Fiat 132 with the 1585cc engine & 98bhp - and it wasn't a light car.

 

[Eric van Spelde]

I hate to appear as though I'm against progress, I'm not but there seem to be several unanswered questions. Allowing that the technology works what happens at high speed cruising? At present a smaller engine has to rev much higher to lug a big car along at speed and is much noisier.[/b]

No - the smaller engine doesn't rev higher. It's just running higher turbo boost - remember that at present the 2.0 base engines are actually detuned versions of something that normally would turn out 200-220 bhp. Also direct fuel injection allows for a higher static compression ratio with the same kind of boost pressure.

If the compressor is helping in this situation then more fuel is going to be burned.[/b]

But less than in the equivalent larger capacity engine because of lesser friction & pumping losses and less radiating surface for heat transfer (heat=energy).

 

[Duncan74]

Although the car is larger, isn't there a good chance it will be lighter too? Not saying it will be alu like the Audi, but the current 9-5 isn't exactly a featherwight, so there is surely scope for placing less load on the engine?

 

[jlc1287]

Hi guys i spoke to a salesman at saab today and he was saying that after the first year (because of the showroom tax) that the 1.6 turbo will be £110 a year to tax, but so will the 2.0 t apparently saab have re-designed there engine to produce less co2 so the 2.0t will only pump out 179kg of co2 and the 2.8 v6 will be £160 a year to tax this all sounds like good progress to me

and apparently all these new engines are saab's own Who know could be true

Josh

 

[cliffhanger]

.......... the 1.6 turbo will be £110 a year to tax, but so will the 2.0 t apparently saab have re-designed there engine to produce less co2 so the 2.0t will only pump out 179kg of co2 ...........

and apparently all these new engines are saab's own Who know could be true

Josh[/b]

2.0t @ 179kg CO2 will not be £110/yr. Assuming you mean g/km, the measurement that is used to determine tax, then 179g/km will be £110/6 months, or £200/year.