Saabscene Saab Forum - Saab Technical Information Resource banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm thinking of fitting a turbo on to my 91' 2.3 auto, iv'e seen one advertised (including mani)from a 95' (dont know exact model, I'd need to call)) would it fit??.

Just 1 more wee queery, I went to have a down pipe fitted earlier today. But I was very miffed when the guy told me "it doesn't fit, your car is a 90' model".
I told him that it says in the log book that it's a 91' (and it does I checked it tonight), so why wont it fit?.

I'm getting one for a 90' 2.3, the only reason the guy can think of is that the pipe that doesn't fit is for a manual box, and that the auto pipe is longer.
Because he had to bend the pipe down a little at the bottom of the down pipe to get round the sump, Mmmmm!!.

Why would this be, especialy when the DVLA say it's a 91' but the 91' pipe doesn't fit , anyone ever had/know of this happening before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,935 Posts
Hi there

Turbo question: not sure if the '95 is compatible: I've heard talk of differing 'footprints': someone like Mark E would probably know. If it does fit then you could probably just about get away with running it as an LPT (wastegate set at 0.3 bar max) without having to worry about the compression ratio. Yours will be at 10:1 while the 2.3 turbos of that time were on 8.5:1. OTOH Ovlov get away with 10.25:1 on some of their current turbo models. In all it would give you 15-20 extra hp (although torque is the real point).

As to the down pipe: Saab's MY91 started 09/90. Cars are stored before registering &c &c but I don't really know the answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
Saab1,
I cant help with the turbo query,but with regards the down pipe. The 2.0 >94 (B202 engine) does use a different style of sump from the 2.3 >94 (as well as the oil filter being in a different position),which would explain the additional bend needed for your 2.3. (Manual/auto pipes were the same tho')
94> 2.0/2.3 used the same sump.
Dont forget if you get the turbo bolted on you will need to change the d/pipe anyway.
hope this helps some
G.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,216 Posts
As SteveN has mentioned, you might get away with adding a turbo to the high-compression engine, with a low boost pressure. Not only will you need a new downpipe, but a turbo exhaust manifold too. If the turbo comes with one, all the better.

You will also need the intake piping from a 9000 turbo to get the pressurised air to the throttle body (I assume the throttle body and inlet manifold are the same) and perhaps an intercooler, although I don't know whether this will give you much. It might be useful to keep inlet temperatures as low as possible to reduce the chance of detonation with the high-compression engine, but I don't really know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,524 Posts
Date of registration and date of manufacture are totally different things. Have a look at your VIN number and then check it against BillJ's decoder on his Saab9000 site (link at bottom of this page)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Cheers guy's for that, but I'm a little bit miffed in my owners book it says that the 2.3l & 2.3t have the same comp ratio eg 10:5.1 (or something like that.
But someone said they were diffirent,SteveN also said I'd get about 20 odd horses more. But according to the manual there's 50 horses between them,I'm at 150 the other's 200 (BTW this is the auto's i'm talking about).
Also how easy/hard would it be to change from the ordinary heater to a/c, I know the wiring's all diffirent behind the heater switch so I dont if this is possible, or is it??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,305 Posts
Apart from the intake pipework, you will also need the coolant and oil pipes and associated fittings to plumb them in to the block. I would guess that a standard block will just have blanking plugs in the holes that you can remove.

It will be much better to buy the manifold and turbo together.

The extra 50hp you refer to is for the full blown turbo, which has APC and an intercooler, both of which are essential for this power level. The 20hp figure is about right (the 2.3LPT is 175hp). The more useful element however will be the increase in torque.

Lastly re model year, it's not uncommon for a car to be made in one year but then registered the next...

PS Good things come to those who wait...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,216 Posts
I believe by then the 2.0 was using the same T25 turbo, but not completely sure. As far as going for the full-blown turbo is concerned, not only will you run into problems with detonation due to the higher compression ratio (which hopefully the system will come with by lowering the boost/retarding the ignition), you will also have to install the DI/APC system with its attendant wiring and ECU. I suspect that the fuel injection ECU will also need to be changed. I don't know whether the injectors are the same, although I believe the fuel pressure is 3.0 bar in both cases.

Even then, the ECUs are not programmed for use with such a high-compression engine and I don't know how they would behave. I'm 95% sure that the turbos had 9.25:1 compression ratio and the non-turbos were 10.1:1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Bill.....I allready have DI so that should that kinda sort one out.
But I forgot about the ECU so I'd probably have to get one from the turbo too, I'll start looking for a donor car.
But if not oh well I'll just have to get to it,cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,935 Posts
Originally posted by BillJ
I'm 95% sure that the turbos had 9.25:1 compression ratio and the non-turbos were 10.1:1.[/b]
The pre '94 B234 engines had a compression ratio of 8.5:1 for turbo and 10.0:1 normally aspirated. From the advent of Trionic 5 they went to 9.25:1 turbo and 10.5:1 for normally aspirated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,216 Posts
Originally posted by SteveN:
[qb]The pre '94 B234 engines had a compression ratio of 8.5:1 for turbo and 10.0:1 normally aspirated. From the advent of Trionic 5 they went to 9.25:1 turbo and 10.5:1 for normally aspirated. [/qb][/b]
Oops. My only excuse is that I was working from on-line info as I don't have my 9000 handbooks at work.

Still, I think the message is still the same. In fact, I'm even more sure now that the DI/APC system will have trouble coping with the normally-aspirated compression ratio and that 200hp is a rather unlikely target for this arrangement.

I'll be really pleased for Saab1 if he does get 200hp, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,935 Posts
Posted by BillJ
Still, I think the message is still the same. In fact, I'm even more sure now that the DI/APC system will have trouble coping with the normally-aspirated compression ratio and that 200hp is a rather unlikely target for this arrangement.[/b]
Completely agree: I don't think you'd be able to use more than 0.3 bar of boost safely with that compression ratio. That would bring the car up to 170bhp (same as the 2.3LPTs) and with a lot more torque than the n/a.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,305 Posts
Originally posted by SteveN:
[qb] QUOTE
Originally posted by BillJ
I'm 95% sure that the turbos had 9.25:1 compression ratio and the non-turbos were 10.1:1.[/b]
The pre '94 B234 engines had a compression ratio of 8.5:1 for turbo and 10.0:1 normally aspirated. From the advent of Trionic 5 they went to 9.25:1 turbo and 10.5:1 for normally aspirated. [/qb][/b][/quote]So what about mine then which is a B234 93 and Trionic?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,216 Posts
Originally posted by Mark E:
[qb]... Which says 8.5:1... so stick that in yer pipe and smoke it!            :rolleyes:           [/qb][/b]
Which, along with a ridiculously massive turbo, might help to explain the generous lag you have available at the touch of the throttle
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top