338 hp saab 900 2-door

I don't know what to make of this guy:

formatting link
Jeremy

Reply to
Jeremy Brown
Loading thread data ...

What I see in the vid is a very ugly car, making an incredible noise in a beautiful quiet forest, burning more gas in 10 seconds than I would in a whole week. Lots of fake smoke, he doesnt even go anywhere.... not my way of using a car.

The word "loser" comes to mind...

Richard.

Reply to
Richard

All I needed to see was the giant wing on the back. What a douchebag.

Reply to
Fred W

All this slow moving tyre burning means that engine gets very little cooling for the power it produces. Head gasket will be consumed at great speed. Anyway, car is no more powerful than many performance salons you can get these days.

Reply to
johannes

in article 3G%ii.146686$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Jeremy Brown at snipped-for-privacy@att.net wrote on 05/07/2007 06:51:

That's a chap called Hermann (no, I don't know him personally). His website 'Blyføt' (lead-foot) went offline a while ago, but the development of that car's B201 engine is quite something. He has a page on Garaget somewhere.

Personally, I like its quirky stylings.

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S
formatting link
Reply to
Paul Halliday

I think this guy needs to invest in a new set of tires. looks like the ones he has on are not giving him sufficient traction to go on down the road.

rod

Reply to
Rod H

What a perfect illustration of the limitations of front wheel drive. Under acceleration, the center of mass of the car moves to the rear and there's not enough weight on the front tires to prevent them from just uselessly spinning.

riserman

Reply to
riserman

Putting aside the issue of traction, I'll wager that particular Saab is a good deal lighter, though.

The average kerbweight of the 2007 Audis with >300 bhp is over 1,800 kg.

That's the equivalent of a Saab plus a *lot* of pies.

Reply to
DervMan

When i had a car with traditional north-south engine, the car would roll a bit when I blipped the pedal; this is of course angular momentum conservation. Similarly, a transverse engine will pitch the car, but the effect is probably more subtle. Depending on the rotation direction of the crankshaft, it could actually help traction. But the effect is probably quite small.

Reply to
johannes

in article snipped-for-privacy@size-nosepam-fitter.com, johannes at snipped-for-privacy@size-nosepam-fitter.com wrote on 05/07/2007 17:56:

... Although it is, like, 20 years old and a C900 which is quite impressive on both counts. Behaviour-wise, well ... Just shout, "Hooligan!" at him in Swedish and carry on about your day.

I warrant the gearbox doesn't last long, despite being a legendary Jorgen Ericsson box.

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S
formatting link
Reply to
Paul Halliday

johannes ( snipped-for-privacy@size-nosepam-fitter.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Ummm, it's a C900. The engine *is* north-south.

Reply to
Adrian

Yes I know. But most modern FWD have transverse. Just wonder about the crankshaft/flywheel rotation direction on transverse FWD cars.

Reply to
johannes

Probably wrong, but I saw it as him holding the car on the hand-brake for maximum [childish] smoke. I mean, with that amount of alleged power he'd either be stopped dead from wheelspin or troubling the horizon, not in imminent danger of being outdragged by an Amish buggy.

Reply to
Véritable Rosbif

The center of mass does not move under acceleration (except for a small shift if the tank is not full).

Reply to
th

If it's not the center of mass that shifts to the rear under acceleration, and you may well be right, what resolution of vectors shifts to the rear? Is it center of gravity or something else?

Front wheel drive cars lose traction easily under maximum acceleration. I know this because it wasn't hard to do even in my 1983 900 turbo. That's why you rarely see front wheel drive race cars.

riserman

Reply to
riserman

It's a torque issue. The tires put a force to the pavement (braking, turning, accelerating). The force is not through the CG, so it creates a torque with the height to the CG as the torque arm (the lower the CG, the less the torque). The only way that the torque can be balanced is by re-distributing the weight force of the car on the tires. Since acceleration creates a clockwise torque that diminishes the force on the front tires [in extreme cases even lifting them off the ground] and increases the force on the rear. Braking does the opposite. Wheel base [or track for turning] and the location of the center of gravity are also factors since they effect the torque arm for the normal force on the tires.

Bill

Reply to
Bill Bradley

FWD works well i everyday driving. In this case it is mostly beneficial to have the engine weight over the driving wheels. I don't race my Saab. However, ultimately RWD gives more control when sliding the car around. In salon car racing, most of the cars are FWD because that is what you get in the compact car class. It was acknowledged that the RWD BMWs in the race had an advantage, this was counteracted by a requirement of carrying an added extra weight. True performance salon cars are 4 wheel drive.

Reply to
johannes

All wheel drive is a compromise most of the time, in use on everyday cars because the chassis and suspension engineers couldn't contain the power.

It works well in adverse conditions but increases drivetrain friction the rest of the time and adds weight and complexity.

Reply to
DervMan

that was delibrate pointless tiresmoking, on the quarter mile he seemed to put the power down OK.....

Reply to
big dom

well my rwd ford sierra with 110bhp had worse traction in the wet than my FWD 185 bhp saab....

pulling off on wet roundabouts I'd get wheelspin through 3rd gear...

Reply to
big dom

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.