40 years of the Ford Transit...

Development engineers Ricardo designed the triumph/saab engine and saab bought them in wholesale initially in 1.7 form then in 1.85 size, saab paid Ricardo a premium for the better made engines but they still got fed up with reliability issues so the design was bought and Saab made it their own, strengthening it significantly. In traditional Saab way, they took the evolution route, electronic fuel injection in '73 (downgraded to mechanical a year later due to cost issues), 16valve head in '77 for rally purposes (mass production by '84), turbocharging also by '77, first to design proper modern style engine management by '82, and lots of other bits to send you all to sleep. Basically by the time the 9000 ended production it was unrecognisable, having grown to a 2.3 with counter rotating balencer shafts. It's still in use however in the 9-5 (cos the 9-5 is basically an updated

9k) where as the 9-3 uses a Saab strengthened version of the GM powerplant. GM are slowly showing the real reason why they bought saab, knowledge. They've 'reassigned' most of the engineers and closing the swedish factory, for example take the Vauxhall Signum 2.0t(not the best looking vehicle): Saab designed seats, saab designed trionic engine management (they even advertise it as such in the brochure), saab designed rear suspension, and the saab modded engine. It's also something like 5 grand less than the equivalent 9-3

Ken

Saabfreak

900 Turbo8 - 9000 CSE Turbo 16

Reply to
K.Shilcock
Loading thread data ...

Almost, once GM had majority share they tried putting the omega's 3.0 V6 in there (which in itself isn't a bad engine), but it wasn't a big seller cos the 225bhp 2.3T had as much torque and cost a lot less so they tried turbocharging it for a time but only very light pressure because the engine wasn't strong enough to cope with more, so even more expensive and very little gain.

Of the three type 4 cars that used the same basic body design (croma, thema,

9000) the 9k was by far the better built. Type either of the others into ebay and see how many you find. The other type4 car was the Alfa 164

Ken

Saabfreak

900 Turbo 8 - 9000 CSE Turbo 16

Reply to
K.Shilcock

That's two generations away. The Corsair (German) Ford V4 was a better engien than the version in the Trannie, and then Saab got their hands on it and worked it over.

Reply to
Andy Dingley

Mid-sized Mark 1s did (between the Kent and the V6), same as the 2000 Corsair. And a truly unfortunate lump it was too.

I think it had a twin barrel carb on it, which the Corsair didn't, but that's from rusty memory.

Reply to
Andy Dingley

No it didn't, it was the Corsair spec.

The timing gear didn't fall off, as it did on the Transit.

Reply to
Andy Dingley

Saab make _lots_ of engines, just not car-sized.

The last "Saab designed" engine was portions of the GM engine series in the Saab 9000 (even finding their way into the Astra) following their technology sharing in the '80s. The ignition and portions of the fuel system are very Saab influenced. Saab were first on the mass-market block to use one-coil-per-plug distributorless systems (they even began this with theV4 and a double-ended coils with lost sparks, like motorbikes). Saabs work on boost control of turbos also pitched up into GM products.

Reply to
Andy Dingley

Except for the 6-stroke Griifin engine (Yes, 6, and yes that's an "i", not a Griffon)

Anyone know where it is ? It used to be in Birmingham Transport Museum, now it's supposed to be back home in Bath - but I can't find who's got it.

Reply to
Andy Dingley

But it's not a 6 stroke, it's a 6 *phase* (for the use of a better word) engine AIUI. It still uses a crank-shaft (although it is more akin to a camshaft) and still uses pistons and valves etc

The engine that disproves Dave's remark is the Wankel rotary IMO...

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

Andy Dingley wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

The WHAT?

Reply to
Richard Polhill

Andy Dingley ( snipped-for-privacy@codesmiths.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

While they may (I don't know, but it doesn't seem that likely) have been the first to use a discrete coil per cylinder, that was only a very small step from the double-ended coil, distributorless, wasted-spark system that Cit had been using in the 2cv since 1948, and that the DS had at launch in

1955. Way before the V4.
Reply to
Adrian

":::Jerry::::" wrote in news:42dec986$0$12801$892e7fe2 @authen.white.readfreenews.net:

Is there a link about that engine?

There have been a few attempts at gas turbine. Witness Rover and Socema Gregoire experiments amongst others.

Reply to
Richard Polhill

news:42dec986$0$12801$892e7fe2

better

IMO...

Yes, but they are then Gas Turbine engines, not IE engines....

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

There was never a GM4pot in the 9000, it is however a GM based unit thats in the new 9-3 and after Saab had done this work was also put in other GM products (see my other posts in this topic)

(even finding their way into the Astra) following their

Their 'Direct Ignition' system as introduced in '92 - '93 (and still used) was another first and includes a cleaning spark cycle before engine start and upon shutdown

(they even began

Reply to
K.Shilcock

The Brooklands Museum has a wonderful triangular aircraft engine with six pistons. Fortunately you can push a button to make it work under electric power; looking at it while it was stationary I just couldn't figure what went where.

Although thinking of earlier posts about all engines being basically the same, I have to agree that it is still suck squeeze bang blow (thanks, Otto).

Geoff MacK

Reply to
Geoff Mackenzie

There are swash-plate engines too - they might qualify as a bit different. Not heard of one used in a car, though.

Snarfed..

Reply to
Andrew Robert Breen

figure what

Does it have 3 crank-shafts, 3 cylinders and 6 pistons, 2 pistons to each cylinder, the pistons opposing each other? If so the RN (and later the railway) used an 18 cylinder version...

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

":::Jerry::::" wrote in news:42dfbd08$0$36265$892e7fe2 @authen.white.readfreenews.net:

Was just a response to Daves's "all engines are the same apart from minor differences."

Trying to work out what IE is but stumped.

Reply to
Richard Polhill

news:42dfbd08$0$36265$892e7fe2

Oops, IC.

Ground opens up....

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

Ah that was it! I thought it might be, but was really racking my brains to think of what else it could've been.

I'm sure gas turbines are classed as IC engines. Combustion happens in the combustion chamber between the compressor and the turbine.

Friend of mine has made one out of a lorry turbo and a coffee tin. I'm sure there are some other ingredients as well but...

Reply to
Richard Polhill

,

No, they are JT's, otherwise under your logic you could call a steam engine an IC engine - Think about it...

Oh, and yes there has been steam powered car and lorries.

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

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.