Cost of repair Audi BMW Saab...(crossposting)

Page 2 of 6  
Jim wrote:


Jim must be new to Saabs - Saabs weren't always owned by GM. The Saabs often quoted as running after 300,000 miles were pre-GM. I currently own two Classic and strongly considering a third. My wife lets me collect cars :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

He's talking a '97 so that's a "partially GM" Saab.
I think it might be relevant to know which country he's posting from too. Also, is he a DIY guy (parts cost only) or is he paying for labor too ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim wrote:

Remains to be seen if this is has any drawbacks. In fact it is GM that has been associated with Saab; learning turbo technology and using a 175 bhp Saab turbo engine as an option for GM Vauxhall Vectra. Modern saabs use GM platforms, but they have been heavily modified by the clever Swedish engineers. Saab 9000 (to 1998) and early Saab 900 have no connection with GM.
For me, BMW are too common on the roads. They are not particularly fuel efficient (petrol), although they do have some fine diesels, probably the best. But then if you don't like diesels, you're stuck. And the BMW servicing indicator must be a nuisance if you do your own servicing? I always have an image of BMW drivers being very pushy: "get out of my way" sort of thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:55:59 +0100, Johannes H Andersen

Not particularly "common" in the USA compared to most other cars. More common in some areas than others though.

Funny how they apparently have the same reputation worldwide. I imagine some of them are nice fellows... but many of them seem to have a bit of an attitude problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If I judge myself I must be honest; after getting a BMW I did become more aggresive on the road. But that didn't make me a worse driver. I still pay attention on others.
-- Rajngla t.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol engines available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven more efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an argument under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey 6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine, because of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance. The problem with most BMWs is they are useless in bad weather and if you want to have fun on the dry you may want to spend big bucks on visiting the tyre shop as often as the filling station. This is why I am an Audi driver.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your message proves that you know little about either SAAB turbos or BMWs and probably not much more about your Audi. SAAB 4 cylinder turbo engines are far more fuel efficient that a BMW 6 of similar displacement. The SAAB (when fitted with a full pressure turbo) also has more peak HP and torque than the BMW. Turbo lag is minimized in the SAAB ecopower designs as compared to most other turbocharged engines. Ecopower engines are designed specifically to provide best performace at relatively low rpms. SAAB low pressure turbo engines, which make somewhat lower hp and torque than the BMW six have *no* detectable turbolag. All BMW 6 cylinder engines (with the exception of the old ETA 2.7) are all designed to spin to much higher rpms to make their power. BMWs handle superbly in snow (when outfitted with proper snow tires) due to their optimum 50/50 weight distribution and rear wheel drive. BMWs by and large handle better than either Audi's or SAABs in dry conditions. Z rated tires for any of these cars cost the same amount of money and are available at reasonable prices. Tires for BMWs are no more expensive.
Apparently, you made your automobile choice by listening to other people's hype about SAAB's horrible turbo lag and BMW's rear wheel drive being bad in snow. Too bad for you. You probably have a single set of all-season radials on your Audi Quattro and think that you have the ultimate all weather machine.
I personally would rather have a BMW with a nice set of low profile wheels and Z rated summer tires and second set of wheels and winter snow tires. My second set of wheels and tires would cost what, $600? vs. buying an AWD car and being crippled in handling for 95% of the year? I can take my snow tires off in the summer. Can you take off your AWD hardware?
-Fred W
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you compare equal power engine and you thrash the engine, the BMW will always give you better mileage, so obviously you know nothing about BMW engines.

And huge lag and less driveability and the BMW would still beat the SAAB on acceleration, which is what counts. Peak HP won't drive you anywhere.

Audi's 1.8T should not have any detectable turbo lag but I can spot that easily, now I can't think Saab turbos can be very different.

And their torque is way much linear, which makes them better all round. Their smoothness alone qualifies.

Your definition of handling superbly does not tally with the fact when I go skiing I can often find BMW drivers stranded or looking for their chains. I've driven RWD and can tell you again it's pretty close to useless in really bad weather. Think of slopes uphill. The proper tyres will give you more fun under very specific hyper-controlled conditions but can't do much in real life winter driving on icy roads.

Quite probably true, except for the by and large.

But you will need to replace the rear ones much more often, if you enjoy spirited driving on winding roads, that is. We all know it is winding roads that are good fun.

I have a set of fully dedicated winter Vredesteins to be able to enjoy my quattro in the winter, and a set of Sport Contact 2 that my car is already "wearing" now.

At the end of your BMW life you will probably have spent more money on tyres for your BMW than I will have on my Quattro gear. The difference is you'll have left your BMW parked when there was snow on the road, while I'll have been driving my Quattro all year round.
JP Roberts
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've never seen the word "thrash" in a scientific analysis of engine output and fuel consumption. Perhaps you can point us to, you know, actual data to back up your claim?

You've never driven a Saab Turbo, have you. "huge lag"? Maybe in 1978...

Ah, so you _are_ talking about something you haven't driven. "Well, the engineers at Audi couldn't figure it out, so Saab must not have either"?, is that your thinking?

Please compare and contrast to, say, the 2.3Liter Turbo engine from Saab. Show your sources. (hint: flat is flat). For extra credit, show the shift points as they relate to the torque curve, per RPM.
Dave Hinz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And the front-driver SAABs (and Audis, for that matter) will have to have their front tires replaced more often than their rears. Even.

And I have a set of Michelin Pilot Alpines for my 330xi for winter. A guy in an S4, parked next to me last winter, said he almost didn't make it up the ski hill's road. I said: "get rid of the PZeros."
Floyd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I replace the front and rear tires on my Saab 9-5 at the same time. You have to apply some form of wear management so the front and rear tires wear close to the same rate.
--
Gran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/saab /

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I switch between winter tires and summer tires when appropriate, and what was on the front last year, goes to the back this year. They're all directional, so that's as much tire rotation as is possible, but you're right, it makes the sets ready for replacement all at once.
All cars wear tires, and unless something is drastically wrong, it's not going to differentiate between manufacturers.
Dave Hinz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
fbloogyudsr schrieb:

Good advice. Quattro does not negate the laws of physics. Friction still counts :-)

Regards
Wolfgang
--
* Audi A6 Avant TDI *
* reply to wolfgang dot pawlinetz at chello dot at *
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, Floyd, my argument does not hold true for your 330xi, but the point is that RWD will render their rear tyres unusable much faster than Quattro will render either front or rear or both, that's simply because any burst of acceleration is evenly distributed. You know the worst for tyre life is drift spinning, and that's the only thing I envy from those driving BMW RWDs. Of course I must concede RWD on the dry is way better fun than either FWD or Quattro.

He certainly wouldn't if he'd been driving an RWD.
JP Roberts
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010708090208020205070103 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I dont know why people keep insisting that BMW is bad in winter. IT IS NOT! with the proper winter tires it handles superbly. Again, I live in Montreal and I have an old 5 series and i dont have any problems. The newer models have all these sofisticated systems that make it even a safer ride. I also dont think changin tires is as expensive as you claim. I bought a set of winter tires 3 years ago and a set of performance tires also 3 years ago and both look like the can handle at least 3 more years. I dont know how much your quattro option cost you as compared to non-quattro (i have never seen one here!) Imad JP Roberts wrote:

--------------010708090208020205070103 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"> I dont know why people keep insisting that BMW is bad in winter. IT IS NOT! with the proper winter tires it handles superbly. Again, I live in Montreal and I have an old 5 series and i dont have any problems. The newer models have all these sofisticated systems that make it even a safer ride. I also dont think changin tires is as expensive as you claim. I bought a set of winter tires 3 years ago and a set of performance tires also 3 years ago and both look like the can handle at least 3 more years. I dont know how much your quattro option cost you as compared to non-quattro (i have never seen one here!)<br> Imad<br> JP Roberts wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I think it is precisely BMW that produce the most efficient petrol </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!---->engines </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">available, given similar power figures. Turbos could arguably be driven </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">more </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">efficiently at low speeds, but then again, this is not so clear an </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">argument </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">under normal driving conditions. And everyone knows a nice torquey 6-cylinder or bigger engine is always preferable to a turbo engine, </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">because </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">of the inherent turbo lag and poor low-end performance. The problem with most BMWs is they are useless in bad weather and if you want to have fun </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">on </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">the dry you may want to spend big bucks on visiting the tyre shop as </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!---->often </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">as the filling station. This is why I am an Audi driver.
</pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">SAAB 4 cylinder turbo engines are far more fuel efficient that a BMW 6 of similar displacement. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> If you compare equal power engine and you thrash the engine, the BMW will always give you better mileage, so obviously you know nothing about BMW engines.
</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">The SAAB (when fitted with a full pressure turbo) also has more peak HP </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!---->and </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">torque than the BMW. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> And huge lag and less driveability and the BMW would still beat the SAAB on acceleration, which is what counts. Peak HP won't drive you anywhere.
</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Turbo lag is minimized in the SAAB ecopower designs as compared to most other turbocharged engines. Ecopower engines are designed specifically to provide best performace at relatively low rpms. SAAB low pressure turbo engines, which make somewhat lower hp and torque than the BMW six have *no* detectable turbolag. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> Audi's 1.8T should not have any detectable turbo lag but I can spot that easily, now I can't think Saab turbos can be very different.
</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">All BMW 6 cylinder engines (with the exception of the old ETA 2.7) are all designed to spin to much higher rpms to make their power. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> And their torque is way much linear, which makes them better all round. Their smoothness alone qualifies.
</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">BMWs handle superbly in snow (when outfitted with proper snow tires) due </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!---->to </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">their optimum 50/50 weight distribution and rear wheel drive. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> Your definition of handling superbly does not tally with the fact when I go skiing I can often find BMW drivers stranded or looking for their chains. I've driven RWD and can tell you again it's pretty close to useless in really bad weather. Think of slopes uphill. The proper tyres will give you more fun under very specific hyper-controlled conditions but can't do much in real life winter driving on icy roads.
</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">BMWs by and large handle better than either Audi's or SAABs in dry conditions. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> Quite probably true, except for the by and large.
</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Z rated tires for any of these cars cost the same amount of money and are available at reasonable prices. Tires for BMWs are no more expensive. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> But you will need to replace the rear ones much more often, if you enjoy spirited driving on winding roads, that is. We all know it is winding roads that are good fun.
</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Apparently, you made your automobile choice by listening to other people's hype about SAAB's horrible turbo lag and BMW's rear wheel drive being bad </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!---->in </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">snow. Too bad for you. You probably have a single set of all-season radials on your Audi Quattro and think that you have the ultimate all weather machine. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> I have a set of fully dedicated winter Vredesteins to be able to enjoy my quattro in the winter, and a set of Sport Contact 2 that my car is already "wearing" now.
</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I personally would rather have a BMW with a nice set of low profile wheels and Z rated summer tires and second set of wheels and winter snow tires. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!---->My </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">second set of wheels and tires would cost what, $600? vs. buying an AWD </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!---->car </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">and being crippled in handling for 95% of the year? I can take my snow tires off in the summer. Can you take off your AWD hardware? </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> At the end of your BMW life you will probably have spent more money on tyres for your BMW than I will have on my Quattro gear. The difference is you'll have left your BMW parked when there was snow on the road, while I'll have been driving my Quattro all year round.
JP Roberts
</pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>
--------------010708090208020205070103--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Imad Al-Ghouleh schrieb:

Because it is. Especially compared to a FWD saab or a quattro Audi. :-)
BTDT.
The rearwheel drive is fun and with all the electronic gimmicks it will really do it's job. However at a certain climb angle or even slipperyness of the road, the rearwheel drive gives in, then the FWD and then the quattro.

Fair enough. In my experience, handling is one thing. In dry conditions I couldnt argue which is better on the edge of friction as I haven't driven all drive concepts in this condition. Maybe I should make it clear that IMO the risk of getting stuck with a rearwheel drive is higher than with a FWD or quattro.

Ok, so I live in Austria, we also have quite a bit of snow and it's always the RWD vehicles that get stuck first.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Using the same high quality winter tires FWD's do get you further and quattro even more so.
Regards
Wolfgang
--
* Audi A6 Avant TDI *
* reply to wolfgang dot pawlinetz at chello dot at *
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, no. This is contrary to the laws of physics. If you assume equal axle weights, as the car climbs it places more weight over the rear axle and less over the front. So a rear wheel drive car would have an advantage over a FWD in climbing. Obviously, an AWD car with the same weight and tires would be better than either.
I have never found a FWD car is better than a RWD car in the snow in general. The reason people think that is because at the point that they *do* lose traction (and they all will eventually), it is easier for the inexperienced troglodyte driver to control the FWD's inherent front end plowing understeer than the RWD, which can be made to either under or over steer with judicious input on the fun pedal.
-Fred W
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are now forgetting the most important point here, i.e., as it is impossible to keep perfectly straight steering - for one thing nothing is perfect, for another lateral slopes will spoil the rest of any good attempt at this. This, in practice, in the real world, zillion light years from where you live, means that when slippery enough and from certain climbing angles on the RWD will start swinging its butt so badly that no amount of wheel work will be able to compensate in order to keep the car on the right path. If you don't acknowledge this, it is only because you've never experienced that before. Actually, it does happen even with Quattro, given a sufficient amount of torque and pressure on the accelerator, and that's precisely because of your explanation above.
When climbing under those conditions Quattro has no FWD rivals, RWD is totally out of the question, but FWD is the easiest to handle.

The reason FWD is way more effective on slippery ground than RWD can be read in my previous point. Any attempt at countering this would suggest a tremendous lack of hands-on experience.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You almost got me there :-)
This is going to be a bit longer:
There's sort of a thinking error in your statement. It took me a while to do the math (i.e. mechanics) but the outcome is, that the ratio front/rear with regard to the friction force does _not_ change.
Let me elaborate:
The friction is depending on two parameters (yes, this is a simplification for tires, but it's valid in all cases so bear with with me): the friction coefficient and the force _orthogonal_ to the surface. The formula for the friction force is Ff = Fn x .
The force pressing the car down onto the tarmac in this case is the mass of the car x g (the earht acceleration 9,81) so you got Fn = mass x 9,81
Now if you have the car on a level surface and assume a 50/50 distribution then the orthogonal force per tire is basically a quarter of the Fn. So the result would be Fn/4 x .
The |      V indicates the direction of Fn
     ____ __/ | \__ |_ __V___ _| ____U______U_____
So far so good.
Now the worst case example:
Tilt the road and car 90 (don't sit in the car).
__ | | | |C \ | | | | | | |C / | |_|
In this case, the car would have to be held by something else, because for Fr = x 0. I.e. there is no acceleration towards the tarmac and so there is no resulting orthogonal force pressing the tires to the tarmac and therefore no Friction. The car would slide.
So if you choose increasing angles between 0 and 90, the orthogonal force down on the tarmac slowly decreases on all four tires and is gradually "converted" into a force wanting to push the car "backwards".
But again, for all tires.
The core message is that the friction force is slowly reduced but equally on both front and rear tires as long as you don't change the center of gravity.
Ok, now most likely I have made a complete fool out of myself, but if you are in doubt, then imagine a 90 sloped road. You'd need to support the car on the trunk because there is absolutely no way the tires would be able to hold the car in that position :-)
In your theory, there would be a 100% load on the rear wheels and the car could still go.
I'd be curious to learn if I am really wrong. Mathematically and physically I mean.

I agree. But getting away from a standstill is easier with the FWD because the RWD just slips sideways if it looses traction and you can't steer the direction vector.

Regards
Wolfgang
--
1999 Audi A6 Avant TDI

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wolfgang Pawlinetz wrote:

    Not a bad try, but you're missing the key factor: Torque. Since the center of gravity is NOT on the road, it has a torque arm to the point of contact of the tires. The SUM of the forces on the contact area is as you worked out, but it doesn't remain 50/50 front/rear since the rear axle is providing a counter-clockwise (if viewed as in your drawing) torque while the front axle can only provide a clockwise torque. To reach rotational equilibrium more of the weight force in on the rear axle. It's the same reason that your car will nosedive under braking and lift the front end under acceleration.

    If FWD slips you can't steer either, it's just that most FWD cars have a front weight bias (due to having the engine, transmission, and other such bits up front) so you have more traction all other things being equal.          Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.