It was for market positioning against competing models with a similar power output. Except the very latest ones, that were marked "2.0t" or "2.3t", the LPT doesn't have "Turbo" badging nor a boost gauge as Saab attempted to play down the use of turbocharging, since this was associated in the minds of the public with high-performance vehicles. The 2.0LPT replaced the 150hp 2.3i, giving better fuel economy and much better drivability, for which the LPT engines won awards.Originally posted by Oles:
[qb]Just another case of us being ripped off and paying more for less.[/qb][/b]
May be a bit off topic, but will a Subaru Imprezza and Mitsuibishi Evolution be very expensive and difficult to insure in the UK?Add to this the cost of insuring a high-performance car (my Aero is listed as group 17 while my LPT is group 13) and it is not hard to see that the LPT had a legitimate place in the market.[/b]
Originally posted by cdcarlsson:
[qb]Probably for tax reasons, in some countries car tax is worked out on the bhp the car produces. I believe the lpt at 150bhp comes in just below the higher tax bracket for Italy, but with plenty of lovely torque. In this country it was useful for insurance groupings as well.
Until a few years ago here in Italy Tax and insurances were a lot higer for more than two liters cars. So the most common engine in Italy was the 2.0, in LPT (150hp) and FPT (185hp) versions.I don't think the LPTs were created for Tax perposes as mentioned LPTs in Italy were rated at 190BHP and cost less then UK ones.[/b]
At low rpm, not much difference. But this may be due to the fact that I'm still using the stock wastegate, not the Abbott one. Abbott told me that the stock wastegate could "swing" too much and couldn't cope with the increased boost. I just am not sure.Originally posted by Haggag01:
how did the car perform after taking it from 150bhp up to 190bhp ??[/qb][/b]