Saabscene Saab Forum - Saab Technical Information Resource banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Bill I'm going to change my car in the next couple of months for an Aero, I have a resonably sorted old 1990 2ltr Carlsson follow link to see spec mpens carly scroll down the page a bit that I thought was reasonably quick, my son's 18 year old mate has just bought a 1998 BMW M3 EVO and its quick.How would you say your car would compare performance wise against an M3?
Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
It's not an easy comparison. A tweaked Carly will probably feel 'quicker' than an Aero, unless, like BillJ or Ylee, it's tweaked with a lower final drive etc. The Aero is carrying more weight and in standard transmission, higher gearing. It seems the latest 9-5 Aero's, even though 250 gee-gees, don't 'feel' as quick as a 9000 Aero, in the same way a Carly 'feels' quicker than a 9000 Aero. Again, this is probably a combination of extra insulation, weight, etc., making the speed deceptive, not to mention years of engine development to make for a smoother more seemless power delivery.
A good mate of mine had a E30 M3 EVO, and a racing collegue had a E36 M3 and the guy with the more powerfull 6 cyl E36 M3 thought that my friend's E30 M3 'felt' quicker, probably because it was lighter, smaller, etc. When I drove his E30 M3, I thought it didn't seem as 'quick' as my own Sunbeam-Lotus, but again this is probably a deception.
As for comparing the M3 will an Aero, well, the engines are completely different, it's always difficult to compare as the 'feel' of turbo 4 cyl through fwd is dramatically different to the 'feel' of a normally aspirated 6 cyl through rwd.
I would say buy the Aero because you want one, rather than whether it's better/faster/sexier than spotty geeks bavarian pimp-mobile......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,216 Posts
Not really sure, Mark. I've never driven a Bee Em. In fact I hadn't even been in one until Christmas when my brother took me out for a ride in his new 320d estate (awful seats, even compared to the worst Saab has to offer). I couldn't find any performance figures for the car you mention from a quick look on the Internet. I can only say that with the lower final drive and LSD, the car is now pretty quick, similar to how the Saturn V was a pretty large firework.

Seriously, though, I only have performance figures from before the transmission work. The standing start figures, which are pretty meaningless in the real world, were 0-60 in something less than 6 seconds (I couldn't really launch it properly) and 0-100 in something like 14 seconds with a really bad launch. 50-70 in 2nd gear happened in 1 or two seconds (can't remember).

The sun's out now, so if it dries up and stays dry, perhaps I'll get a chance to get some new figures. I have some spanner-work to do first, though, while it's not pouring.

Handling-wise, the LSD makes it possible to power through corners amazingly well compared to my previous setup. That might make a difference to the comparison too.

It all depends what aspect of performance you're trying to compare.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,216 Posts
Oh, and if anything, the car feels smoother with the lower ratio, contrary to my expectation. And I forgot to mention that the power delivery of the Aero is much smoother than earlier models, especially the 2.0 ones. I undertook an overtaking manoeuvre this morning, blowing past a couple of cars, one of which (a Merc) was accelerating. I only realised how fast I was going when I looked at the speedo coming up to a corner at a speed I'm not going to mention in case MillePlod is reading this. Thinking about it, I could have taken the corner without too much trouble, but I was going far too fast in the eyes of the law and it was raining.

I don't usually do that sort of thing, honest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,305 Posts
Originally posted by BillJ:
[qb] 50-70 in 2nd gear happened in 1 or two seconds (can't remember).
[/qb][/b]
1 second?? You're 'avin a giraffe! I think you'll find it's a wee bit over 2, but that's still
fast!

Anyway to get back to the M3 question, I went head up against an M3 (MY 2001) earlier this year in a friendly blast down a bit of dual carriageway with a few roundabouts thrown in and I would say we were about equal. The beemer has more power and I would gues a less useable torque range, but is probably slightly lower geared.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,948 Posts
In Theory.....

These are the possible figures for my standard Aero. (using it's 248 bhp and 312 lbft, and dyno curves.

STANDING START ACCELERATION RESULTS

Starting vehicle speed: 0 mph
Starting engine speed: 1600 rpm
Starting gear: 1st

Optimum Shift Points:
1st 6200 rpm @ 35 mph
2nd 5720 rpm @ 63 mph
3rd 5450 rpm @ 90 mph
4th 5310 rpm @ 117 mph

Time to Speed:
0- 30 mph............ 1.7 sec.
0- 40 mph............ 3.1 sec.
0- 50 mph............ 4.2 sec.
0- 60 mph............ 5.3 sec.
0- 70 mph............ 7.3 sec.
0- 80 mph............ 8.9 sec.
0- 90 mph............ 10.8 sec.
0-100 mph............ 13.8 sec.

Time to Distance:
0- 100 ft............ 2.9 sec.
0- 500 ft............ 7.7 sec.
0-1320 ft.(1/4 mile). 14.0 sec.
@ 100.9 mph

Top Speed............. 152.8 mph
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top