Just a Saab ng newbie question

Additionally, I gather that the H engine was a 'joint venture' between Ricardo, Triumph and Saab from the beginning.

In comparison how much Saab input is there in the Ecotec ?

Is it indeed as good an engine ? I wouldn't expect a generic GM engine to be as long-lived as a Saab one for example.

Graham

GM isn't all bad. the 350 (5.7L) & 307 (5.0L) would run hundreds of thousands of miles with minimal maintenance. Having said that they have also released quite a few engines "built" by accountant committees.

A 'lazy V8' isn't subject to the same wear and tear as a high performance turbo inline 4 though. Nor does it remotely offer the same power/weight-capacity ratio ! Or fuel economy - by a *long* way !

My only experience of a true GM engine is in the Vauxhall Cavalier. I believe it was also a 'Holden' made engine. Not bad actually but one of them was pretty shagged after 180,000 miles. No real complaints but a Saab engine fares better. My current

9000 CSE has 157,000 miles on it and oil consumption ( a good indicator ) is still very low.

Graham

Nope. that was the 1.75 and 1.85 liter engine before the "B" engine, which came before the "H" engine. Not much in common between the "Triumph" engine and the H engine, if anything. Again, maybe the oil filter.

How much Saab input is there in Saab? How many actual Saab engineers still exist?

Fuel economy? 400 horsepower Corvettes get 30 miles per gallon on the highway! It is also entirely aluminium with a plastic intake manifold, and thus rather light for it's power output. It is also very short due to being an overhead valve V8.

30 mpg? The one guy I knew who had one said he got more like 18-21 on the highway, which still isn't too shabby for what it is, but not great either. It was more like 12-15 around town. Granted his was a few years old, mid to late 90s I think.

James Sweet wrote in news:Qxnvf.20502$If.16829 @trnddc05:

The newer all aluminum engines from GM and Ford get much better highway mileage than the older cast iron engines. They first came out in the early

90s. I had a 1995 Lincoln Mark VIII with the OHC Aluminum V8. It got 26 mpg on the highway. When it kicked into overdrive, it would loaf along at 1200- 1500 rpm running 80-90 mph. Around town I got about 12 mpg. Wonderful highway car though, which is where I drove it 95% of the time. When I got rid of it with 200,000 miles on it, the engine was still running fine, although the rest of the car -- transmission, climate control, brakes, paint, etc, -- was dead or dying.

in article snipped-for-privacy@individual.net, Dave Hinz at snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote on 05/01/2006 15:33:

Indeed! Even the B type was substantially redesigned from the Triumph engine. There were a few internal common parts, but hey, bolts are bolts :) It could still be called a derivative, but the H type in no way could be thought of as a derivate of the Triumph - it's completely different.

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S

Well the H is a derivative of the B, and the B is a derivative of the Ricardo-designed Triumph unit, then Socrates says H is a derivative of the Triumph ;>

in article snipped-for-privacy@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, SmaartAasSaabr at snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote on 06/01/2006 20:21:

... and they're all "derivatives" of the Model T, too, but ...

I see what you're trying to say, but you're wrong. Sorry. Simple as that! The B type is so far removed from the Triumph engine, that it might as well be a new design. The H type is, again, a world away from the B type.

Okay, the 8V H type bears a number of similarities to the B type, but it is still distinctly different. I know that H type knowledge can be translated to assist a B type owner, but it's still "on the H type, I'd do this ... Your B type may be different".

You're on a loser, mate :) The H type is "pure SAAB' ... Simple as that!

I have one of the last of the 8V H types, which is the real essence of classic 900 motoring ... 16V? Pah! Just to start another fun flame war :)

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S

[...]

Not to mention B202 versus B204. The B204 was introduced from MY 1994, but I've been quite happy with the B202, less fuss end energy waste. But I remember I was concerned at the time, as marketing told us that balancer shafts were a must-have in this class of car.

Having never driven an 8V 900, only a 16V what's the difference other than less power? I've driven plenty of 8V Volvos but never a 16V so I can't really compare in either case.

Sure, and we all owe a debt in that case to Dr. Otto, right? Doesn't mean that the H engine has anything in common with his engines, aside from concepts.

Nostalgia? :-)

in article SkGvf.445$ww5.248@trnddc01, James Sweet at snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote on 07/01/2006 03:12:

It's more like the Triumph original ... LOL :)))

The 8V SAAB is a very similar engine indeed to the 8V Volvo. I think there's more low end grunt. It seems sharper off the line. I also prefer the sound of the 8V over the 16V. It's a personal preference. If my car was totalled tomorrow, I'd look for another 8V. I just prefer 'em.

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S

The real question is how many of the current GM Saabs will last 10 years or 200,000 miles. The engine may be fine, but all of the GM electrical components will be dead. How many luxury cars that cost over $40,000 new will be on the road with broken SIDs, AC, power seats, and power windows? The dead DI cassettes or dead computer controlled automatic transmission will definitely keep these cars off the road. Price may not even be an issue - especially if the major parts (computer boards) are not available at any price in 10 years.

That may be as you say, but how much is a '90 900 worth? Or a 1982, if they still drive around?

...pablo

Probably around the same money. For most vehicles it all depends upon condition after about 8 years. Might be $50 might be $5,000. Most insurance companies pay about $1000 for "basic transportation." which is what most vehicles of advanced age are defined as.