Just a Saab ng newbie question

What are you, nuts? I see rusted-out 9k's all the time! Really badly rusted out 9K's. The CS-body cars tend to be in good shape, sometimes a little corrosion around the rear wheelwells etc, but the flat-nose

86-90 ish cars, wow. C900's I have also seen many rusty.

Saabs do tend to look good for a long time, and are relatively good on rust. But damn how I hate that lower control arm rust issue on the C900.

Re: The dim view of V6 engines. As SAAB driver since '68, I can say that from a personal perspective that a good deal of the SAAB allure is the presence of elegant engineering. Any time an engineering team can make 1 work better than 2, I get all warm and runny. Knowing full well that the boys at SAAB have NEVER designed an engine from the "ground up", I have always been amazed with the results of their magic with otherwise bland or inferior powerplants. Their secret, it seems to me, stems from identifying solid, basic, fundamental engine designs and making the best of it. A 3 cyl. 2 stroke is an inherently smooth, well balanced design. Likewise the 4 cyl. 4 stroke as long as the stroke stays under 3 ". And when they had to go over 3" stroke they did it so well that they lost nearly no durability. Astounding. It is a suspicious coincidence that SAAB's first foray into the dark world of inherently UNstable engines (read: V6) came as their GM associates started their quest for full ownership. To more than a few SAAB enthusiasts, it has a high "Yuck" factor. The basic math of a 6 cylinder engine works fine with an in-line 6 journal design. Works well with a flat 3 journal design too. But to make a V6 work you have to start messing with heavily compromised concepts like split journal cranks, wildly fluctuating thrust angles and multiple harmonic balancers. There's a reason why Ferrari, Maserati, Citroen, Peugeot, Renault, and Volvo have all backed away from this concept. A V8 race engine is a more dependable and economical powerplant than a V6. The concept sucks at a very basic level. With bottomless pockets and limitless brilliance (Toy, Hon) you can make a robot that jumps, a V6 that works (pretty much) and a pig that flies. But why bother when a blown OHC 4 does it all for

200k mi.??!! I'll buy a 6 cyl. SAAB the same day I buy a 6 wheeled SAAB.

Woof.

"Pidgeonpost" wrote in message news:dp87n3$v01$ snipped-for-privacy@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...

Class warfare in the NG! Actually a Thema would be fun as lon as it wasn't your only ride.

And you could get a Thema with a Ferrari 3.2L V8 engine.

But a 9K Aero could still smoke it ;> Now THAT's superior Swedish engineering! :D

I have a 900 SE V6 with 200K miles...

I raise you a humble 2.0L Vauxhall Astra VRX: 152mph, 0-60 in 6.2 ;o

So what's the magic in your 2.0L rocketship??? 2 bar of boost?? What's that ticking noise??

Woof.

Not mine, I just quoted new car data from Auto Express. Yes, it has a

240bhp turbo, probably gleaned something from Saab. But my point was really that performance as such is not expensive or necessarily exotic these days.

The C900s tend to be rusty because they handle so well in the snow and ice that they beg to driven under those conditions. Unfortunately, there is usually salt on the road, so the rust becomes an issue. My fir st C900 had rust on the front fenders within 16 years. My 1982 rear wheel drive Volvo has minimal rust - because it was parked in the garage for the winter while I was playing in the snow with the Saab :-)

Yep, definately related to the Saab 9-3's block/head...

About the C900 rust issue, the cars are relatively well protected. Except for that lower control arm area. If you analyze the area, you can see how its design traps salt/mud/etc and basically rusts the metal away. It's a high-quality metal and paint, and so will live for 15 years or whatever. But it is a very bad place for your car to rust!

Also the door bottoms are bad on rust.

The heat shield over the catalyst rusts in

On this whole issue, I have a feeling that 10 years from now, as the late

80s and early 90s majority of "authentic" Saabs tragically kick the bucket, the late 90s and current Saab portfolio will suddenly gain authenticity approval among the Saab community. For some reason, anything that doesn't have 200k on the odometer or isn't nearly 20 years old doesn't cut it with the diehards. :-)

I am looking forward to my 2002 Convertible being enviously admired as a classic. :-)

...pablo

Possibly any Saab with the H engine will count ? The last relic of original Saab engineering.

Graham

If anything I'd say the new Ecotec engines (9-3 SS) have more Saab engineering in them than even the original H motoren.

If anything I'd say the new Ecotec engines (9-3 SS) have more Saab engineering in them than even the original H motoren.

Really? I was of the impression that the H-engine is as pure Saab as it gets.

Could you elaborate on that ?

Graham

The Ecotec engine as it is now called, was developed by Opel and Saab jointly. The Saab version also has it's own heads/bottom end/block which appear to have been recently shared on other GM products (ie supercharged Delta cars, some Opels and Vauxhalls) but partswise it is very much Saab engine, and "engineering train of thought" wise it is mostly a Saab motor.

Compared to the original Ricardo motor (ie completely non-Saab) which the H engine evolved from.

Phew...... so the Australians only build it!

No that is the 2.8T motor. Which also has Saab heads, turbo system, etc.