Hello all, Quick question, are the 2.1 L 16v engine directly exchangeable for a 2.0 L? Would an older 2.0 L Saab's emission and engine control system run properly if a a 2.1 L engine were dropped in?
Thanks, Jeremy
Hello all, Quick question, are the 2.1 L 16v engine directly exchangeable for a 2.0 L? Would an older 2.0 L Saab's emission and engine control system run properly if a a 2.1 L engine were dropped in?
Thanks, Jeremy
I forgot to add that this is a classic 900, not a NG900. The 2.1L engine is from a '92.
Jeremy
Jeremy Brown wrote:
What 2.1 litre engine is that ? You seem to be confused.
Graham
I don't think he is. Later c900s in the US, anyway, punched the standard 2.0L engine out to a 2.1L engine. I don't remember if it was bore or stroke, though.
Far as I know, the engine management won't care, it just sees how much air it is breathing and gives it fuel accordingly. The lambda feedback gives it tweaks from there, I would imagine. I'd say go for it.
Dave Hinz
Yes, I can vouch for this as well, since I drive a 1992 2.1L every day :)
I think the 2.1 is only in NA c900s.
John
My main concern is the APC box & turbo. Even though the APC only controls the turbo, would the added volume of the engine affect the boost, change the performance charactistics or effect the behavior of the red box apc that is in my car? (I love that thing, thanks for selling me it, Dave.)
Jeremy
The 900i 2.1 engine is a NA with normal (high) compression. A turbo engine needs low compression (1:8 or so). So, if anything else, you need a thick head gasket or shorter pistons to lower the compression ratio.
The 140 hp 1991-1992 engine in the SAAB 900i 2.1, like mine.
See
Glad you're enjoying it. Far as I can figure, all the extra volume will do is make it take a bit longer for the turbo to bring
Hangon. You need to make sure that the 2.1 engine you're putting in is setup for turbo. Much lower compression than a N/A engine. So switching 2.0 for 2.1 isn't a problem, but switching a non-turbo engine into a car with a turbo bolted to the head, is.
Dave
Us, and some mainland european C900 non turbos got 2.1 litre engines. UK didn't get it. But the intake manifold, when combined with an early 2.3 litre head makes for the best setup for a modified turbo apparrently.
Not in the UK you don't. Turbo engiens for Europe with the APC used 9:1 compression.
Euro APC 900's had a 9:1 compression ratio. Higher than US market ones. Maybe it was to do with gas quality. Even though the APC could handle lower grade fuel, it was recomended to use 98RON unleaded in my old 84 T16S.
Curious. Just for the American market it seems.
In a similar vein, I recall that Jaguar produced a 4.2 litre engine in ~ 1966 as an 'upgrade' to their 3.8 on account of American criticism that that the 3.8 didn't have enough torque.
Incidentally my Dad's 4.2 Mk 10 shredded the BW ( model 35 ? ) auto box. He got a 'deal' from the factory to replace it. I think he ended up just paying for the labour.
His previous 3.8 Mk II ( manual ) was far less trouble. It came with cross-plys though. That soon changed !
Graham
Hm. I don't know about that, but I do know that if you take a 99 Turbo head & turbo, bolt it to a 2.0L B engine set up for naturally aspirated, it's a dog. As in dog freaking slow. Not enough volume to stuff fuel:air into, I'm guessing. After all, output is a function of displacement _and_ compression. Less room to compress into = less power, yes?
Which, here, is called 93 Octane or something, because they average RON and (um...the other one) to come up with a number-ish octane rating.
We use RON, but when unleaded was brought in during the 80's, the best you could get was 97RON though. So Saab were selling a car that Ideally (according to the filler cap) required a fuel not available (at least in the UK).
I drove my 99 for a winter while reworking the turbo and manifold. Yes, terribly slow until you replace the camshaft with one from a carburettor model, Compare the two, and you will see that the inlet valves opens far less the turbo!.
The exhaust valve timing is different,
Frode
And Australasia got it, perhaps it was to cope with the air-con. The UK never had this engine. I think it was bored out and had bigger valves; it gave 140bhp.
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.