GM/Saab finally got the V6 right...

There is no "routine" replacement interval for DI cassettes. I don't know if this engine use timing belt or chain. I don't see why this engine should be more expensive to maintain than other V6 engines in bmw or mercedes with the same kind of power.

There may not be an official routine, but from what people who have cars using the DI cassettes, there may as well be because they certainly are a common failure point.

In my experience, V6 engines in general are just turds. They've got the complexity of a V8 without the power. I've dealt with Volvo, Ford, Chevy, and Toyota V6 engines at one time or another and never liked any of them. They were all overly complex, difficult to work on, had one or more weak spots, shockingly poor fuel economy and no more power than a turbocharged inline 4. Two cylinder banks means twice as many of a lot of parts to deal with and plenty of places for leaks. The V configuration packs things like spark plugs, exhaust and other items in awkward to reach locations right up against the inner fenders or firewall. I'd never buy a car that had one.

I kind of agree that V6 are more complex, but why do so many cars have them? The 2006 2.3 I4 Aero has 260bhp whereas the 2.8 V6 has 250bhp. Some posters here have complained that the 2.3 suffers turbo lag for high output. Or is it just marketing that at least 6 cylinders are expected in this class of car? Or is GM trying to remove blocks of non-GM origin?

The V6 is an American thing, very popular for some reason, people see V6 and they think luxury and power with a bit better economy than a V8. I don't know why, but turbos have never been real popular, I love them though.

It's because, generally speaking, you'll get less vibration and noise from a six than from a four producing the same power. Go far above

200BHP on a four and things start to get really raucous.

GM wants to sell it's Saabs into the luxury market so they need smooth engines, but the cars keep getting heavier and heavier, and they need more and more power to make them shift. It's no surprise that, sooner or later, increasing the number of cylinders becomes unavoidable.

The turbo lag problem is separate, and related more to displacement than the number of cylinders. Of the two engines you mention, the 2.8 should need less boost to produce it's rated output than the 2.3 so the lag will be less regardless of the number of cylinders.

Cheers,

Colin.

Larger engines are quicker off the mark for the typical driver, more reliable and more tolerant of abuse (delayed oil changes, hot shut downs etc). etc, etc etc.

For your typical "soccer" mom/dad a highly tuned piece of precision equipment is not the right choice.

But I suppose that I'm biased. I don't believe that "soccer" mom's should be driving Turbo Saabs. Especially mine

They ought to try an inline 5, the one Volvo uses is an absolutely fantastic engine, silky smooth, powerful, responsive, and pretty good fuel economy as well.

Well it is *far* more expensive to maintain than any BMW V6 because there aren't any. BMW 6 cyl engines are all in-lines.

No it doesn't have any DI casettes. It uses the much more reliable (virtually infinite service life) GM-style direct ignition.

It also uses Bosch Motronic instead of Saab Trionic. That sucks. I really like Trionic. If you study the operation of Trionic, it is a very cool engine management system. The combination of the turbo, ignition and fuel... it's just beautiful. Plus Trionic knows the exact amount of fuel you are burning on each combustion stroke, measured in mg/c (milligrams / combustion). Very cool stuff.

The car uses a timing chain as I recall... so no "belt" failures.

Plus most of the issues with the old 2,5 900 units were people going too long on the belt ( 35 000mi / 50 000km) Note the V6 in the 9-5 has a better repuation than the 4-cyls (no sludging, no bad turbos, etc).

I don't see what people think bad about V6's. Or rather, Saab people.

I prefer a 4-cylinder turbo. But generally it becomes difficult to make a tractable, reliable 4-banger turbo at high power levels (300hp+). With a V6 turbo this becomes easy.

The 2,8T V6 can do that easily as well.

I just wonder why Saab keeps limiting the max torque on their powerplants to 350Nm (258lb-ft). That's been the case since the 9000 Aero days. The V6t just gives a totally flat torque curve. And as we all know, people buy horsepower, but they DRIVE torque.

Now put a stronger gearbox and let that baby make as much torque as she wants... 300lb-ft? Yeah now you have a MUCH more fun and interesting car than the already peppy 9-3 2.8T.

The car uses a timing chain as I recall... so no "belt" failures.

Plus most of the issues with the old 2,5 900 units were people going too long on the belt ( 35 000mi / 50 000km) Note the V6 in the 9-5 has a better repuation than the 4-cyls (no sludging, no bad turbos, etc).

I don't see what people think bad about V6's. Or rather, Saab people.

I prefer a 4-cylinder turbo. But generally it becomes difficult to make a tractable, reliable 4-banger turbo at high power levels (300hp+). With a V6 turbo this becomes easy.

The 2,8T V6 can do that easily as well.

I just wonder why Saab keeps limiting the max torque on their powerplants to 350Nm (258lb-ft). That's been the case since the 9000 Aero days. The V6t just gives a totally flat torque curve. And as we all know, people buy horsepower, but they DRIVE torque.

Now put a stronger gearbox and let that baby make as much torque as she wants... 300lb-ft? Yeah now you have a MUCH more fun and interesting car than the already peppy 9-3 2.8T.

The car uses a timing chain as I recall... so no "belt" failures.

Plus most of the issues with the old 2,5 900 units were people going too long on the belt ( 35 000mi / 50 000km) Note the V6 in the 9-5 has a better repuation than the 4-cyls (no sludging, no bad turbos, etc).

I don't see what people think bad about V6's. Or rather, Saab people.

I prefer a 4-cylinder turbo. But generally it becomes difficult to make a tractable, reliable 4-banger turbo at high power levels (300hp+). With a V6 turbo this becomes easy.

The 2,8T V6 can do that easily as well.

I just wonder why Saab keeps limiting the max torque on their powerplants to 350Nm (258lb-ft). That's been the case since the 9000 Aero days. The V6t just gives a totally flat torque curve. And as we all know, people buy horsepower, but they DRIVE torque.

Now put a stronger gearbox and let that baby make as much torque as she wants... 300lb-ft? Yeah now you have a MUCH more fun and interesting car than the already peppy 9-3 2.8T.

I know that fact. It was that the way it sometimes comes out. I've been searching the internet to make amends, but not succeeded in finding any past or present BMW V6, but one can always hope... In the meantime, I've spotted writings such as "BMW inline V6" !!! perhaps it shows how we automatically think of any 6 cyl as a V6.

Turbo's were very popular in the 80's but companies like GM put really crummy turbos in and it was almost guaranteed to fail before 100k. Auto makers soon found out you could do things like tweak fuel injection and go with 4 valves/cylinder for power and economy instead of going turbo. Then the dreaded SUV came to dominate the market and car makers pretty much ignored the more power/less fuel route. The name of the game became big inefficient V-engines. It still amazes me that $40k SUV's are still using

1950's push rod V-6/8's. If Saab can get 230HP and 260Ft/Lbs out of an inline 4, I'd really like to see what they could get out of a 5.0 V-8.

...and I knew that ytou knew it. I was just razzin' you.

But there are significant enough design differences between an inline-6 and a V6 that make me greatly prefer the latter.

That's just because you don't have to fit one sideways into a FWD car ;o)

Cheers,

Colin.

Um. Not real up on Saab history, are you.

I don't think the engineers who got us there with the 4, will be working on the 8.

Last time I had an inline-4 car, the car rotated around the length axis when I blipped the gas pedal in neutral. That didn't feel quite right.