9000 Fuel consumption

I currently have a 1993 2.0t that I get around 20mpg in town and around

30mpg on a run. Due to it's age, I am looking at changing for a newer 9000 or 9-5.

What mpg can I expect from a 2.3t or a 3.0 V6?

Bob Brown

Reply to
The Brown & Ollis-Brown Family
Loading thread data ...

Don't know about the 3.0 but from my comparison of my 9000 2.0t and my

9000 Aero, the Aero gearing is significantly higher and returns 5 to 6 mpg more than the 2.0t.

That is...depending on equal use of the fun pedal which isn't always an option. The Aero fun pedal is somewhat digital, FUN ON, FUN OFF, there's not much in between.

:)

David.

Reply to
David Taylor

My 2.3 LPT auto does about 25 MPG around town, and will get up to 34-35 MPG on a long run. I do around 500 miles per week at an average of 31-32 MPG. I assume you would get better MPG from a manual version?

absgt

1997 9000 2.3t CSE Anniversary 1990 9000 2.0T

Reply to
absgt

I do get a lot more mpg from my 1993 2.0t, 35-40 mpg on a run.

Reply to
Johannes H Andersen

Saabs are below average fuel economy wise, but still get 24-30mpg from my old 9000i, I think turbo's should do slightly better.

Reply to
chris

I'd love to know how?! I drove mine consistently for about 500 miles,

50mph, no more than 60mph, all motorway and I was applying the lightest pressure you could imagine. I was seriously trying to get more mpg. The fuel computer said I'd managed 34.2 but on a refil and calculation this turned out to be nearer 32mph. I could not have been more economical if I'd tried without going backwards anytime I came to a slight incline.
Reply to
David Taylor

I'll get 40+ mpg (imperial) over 35 miles. Nothing special about my car, but it is well maintained. It's a manual 1993 2.0 lpt 95k miles on

205/55/16 tyres 35 psi. A couple of years ago I got a new CAT, the old one was quite blocked.
Reply to
Johannes H Andersen

What? Was that instant or aveage mpg? At a constant 30mph :-)

If you've recently reset the EDU you can get those figures, but obviously the aveage is much lower...

Now I had a 1.8 Toyota Carina that always got a consistant 45mpg, but that was a lean burn motor.

Reply to
chris

Average mpg at constant 60mph on M25, reset at the beginning of journey.

The lpt is also very efficient and pre 1994 2.0 models doesn't use balancer shafts.

Reply to
Johannes H Andersen

How are you able to exactly measure the amount of fuel used over a distance of 35 miles? I only trust mpg figures on the basis of mileage covered divided by gallons used. Preferably high numbers in both cases!

Reply to
John

In my 1995 9000CS LPT I get 32 mpg on long interstate trips using premium, and

26-27 around town running on mid-grade. A long trip would be 5-6 hours of 70-80 mph driving. I fill it up when I start out and reset it. That's been pretty consistent independent of weather and grades. Since I live in East Tennessee, I do a lot of hill climbing when I go somewhere.

snipped-for-privacy@madmousergraphics.com

formatting link
design, print design, photography

Reply to
LauraK

Hmm possibly far too short a journey for the EDU to really give a proper value. What about over a tankful?

David.

Reply to
David Taylor

Note the word "Imperial"

From online Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

In the US a gallon is 3.78541 litre: see U.S. customary units An Imperial gallon is 4.54609 litre: see Imperial unit.

At one time, the volume of a gallon depended on what you were measuring, and where you were measuring it. But, by the 19th century, two definitions were in common use. The wine gallon, which was 231 cubic inches, and the ale gallon, of

282 cubic inches.

In 1824, Britain adopted a close approximation to the ale gallon known as the Imperial gallon. The Imperial gallon is based on the volume of 10 pounds of distilled water weighed in air with the barometer standing at 30 inches and at a temperature of 62° Fahrenheit (which works out at 277.41945 cubic inches).

The United States by this time, had already standardised on a close approximation to the old wine gallon. It was at one time defined as the volume of a cylinder 6 inches long and 7 inches in diameter, or 230.907 cubic inches. Today, however, the gallon is 231 in³ exactly. Thus 10 US gallons equals 8.327 Imperial gallons. The Imperial gallon is about a fifth larger than the US gallon.

Both the Imperial and United States gallon are equal to 8 pints. However in the US a pint is 16 fluid ounces whereas an Imperial pint is 20 fluid ounces. Thus a U.S. gallon is 128 fl. oz and an Imperial gallon but 160 fl. oz. This means that A US fluid ounce is around 1.8047 cu. ins and an Imperial fl. oz is around

1.7339 cu. ins. So the US fluid ounce is actually bigger than the imperial, although the US gallon is smaller.

snipped-for-privacy@madmousergraphics.com

formatting link
design, print design, photography

Reply to
LauraK

On the same subject, and at the risk of telling thousands of people what they already know .....

My 1992 9000/9000CS Owner's Manual tells you how to select the units used by the electronic gubbins. This is the sort of thing you are unlikely to find by accident.

-------------------------------- Selecting the units To select the desired combination of units, depress the INFO and R buttons simultaneously and hold them depressed for at least four seconds. Each time the buttons are depressed, on of the four following groups of measurement units will be selected:

  • litres/100 km, kilometres, ºC * MPG (US gal), miles, ºF * MPG (imp. gal), miles, ºF * MPG (imp. gal), miles, ºC

--------------------------------

Seems that Americans who like ºC and continental Europeans who like ºF are out of luck.

When I bought my UK spec SAAB it was set to US gal. and appeared to be giving quite dreadful MPG - low to mid 20s. Fortunately I found the section in the manual after a couple of weeks.

Given that fuel in the UK is now sold in litres but we show distances in miles, I wonder if some people might prefer the following settings to be available:

  • miles/litre, miles, ºF * miles/litre, miles, ºC

These would take some getting used to, but have a certain logic in this wonderfully hybrid Kingdom.

HTH Adrian

Reply to
SAABurger

No, I would like km/liter, km and ºC

------- MH

Reply to
MH

Exercise:

Two cars A and B are compared. Several consumption test were made and the results were averaged. When km/litres was used in the tests, it was found that car A was more economical than car B. But when litres/100 km was used, they found that car B was the more economical than car A?

Reply to
Johannes H Andersen

I know that US pints aren't proper ones already! ;)

I'm comparing my imp. measurement with his.

David.

Reply to
David Taylor

And why not. km/litre seems very sensible to me.

I always think it strange that the continental European calculation (litres/100 km) is inverted comp. with miles/gallon as preferred in Britain/America (differences already well explained in this thread).

I suppose SAAB could offer the ability to select each element (distance, volume, temperature, plus calculation sense) independently but the majority of owners would never get their mind round it. The interactions would be more like setting a digital watch.

Although it is limiting, I can understand why SAAB chose to provide a predefined set of options.

Adrian

Reply to
SAABurger

That is not 'Continental European', in NL we use km/liter.

------- MH '72 97 '77 96 '77 98 '79 96 10:1 on petrol, 8:1 on LPG '87 900T8 ?:1

Reply to
MH

MH, Sorry, I didn't know that. Adrian

Reply to
SAABurger

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.