UKSaabs

THE site for UK Saab people!
It is currently Sat Dec 05, 2020 10:47 pm

All times are UTC





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:19 pm 
Offline
Active user

Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:50 pm
Posts: 166
Car Models: 9000 CSE 2.0t
I've got a 2.0 9000, wish I had a 2.3, just couldn't get a manual in decent condition when I was buying... but hey, that's life.

One thing that does irk me is the fact the 2.3 seems to be more economical than the 2.0 - averaging 31.7 for the 2.3 to 30.1 for the 2.0. I know this isn't mind blowingly different, but the fact the 2.3 gets to 60 1.5 seconds faster shows that there really is a noticable difference there. All normal logic says the 2.0 should be more frugal, they both have the same architecture, number of valves - even by the end both had balancing shafts. Does anyone know why this is? Surely I should be rewarded somehow for going for the smaller engine!

I've attached an image from a 1996 Top Gear magazine for reference.


Attachments:
IMG_20201121_171007.jpg
IMG_20201121_171007.jpg [ 119.27 KiB | Viewed 487 times ]

_________________
Past cars - 3x OG 9-3 2.0t, 900 Ruby, 9000 2.0t, Hirsch 2.8 Aero NG 9-3
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:25 pm 
Offline
UKS Encyclopædia G-M
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:39 am
Posts: 42391
Location: SW Herts
Car Models: 2007 9-5 Aero est. 300hp Hirsch. 9-3 2010 9-3 Carlsson
I would take those figures with a pinch of salt. They will be done to optimise the figures by professional drivers with little consideration for the health of the car, especially the acceleration times.

The 2.0 and the 2.3 are much the same car and weight. The fuel consumption is probably down to a longer differential/gearing.

Acceleration will be a bit more in line with power, but the gears will be snatched and nothing like the way an owner would drive.

_________________
.
.
.
.
Everything will be OK in the end. If it's not OK, it's not the end...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:27 pm 
Offline
UKSaabs Trader
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:53 pm
Posts: 17963
Location: Devon
The 2.3T has much, much higher gearing. Driving your 2.0t driving along at 70mph in 5th gear is a bit like driving a 2.3T at 70mph in 4th gear. Not quite the same but you get the idea.
If your 2.0t is pre-1996 then it is even lower-geared than the later 2.0t.

_________________
www.SAABits.com - helping to keep Saabs on the road
Discount for UKS members: enter code UKS2019


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:31 pm 
Offline
Active user

Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:50 pm
Posts: 166
Car Models: 9000 CSE 2.0t
I understood the later 2.0s had longer gearing? Certainly by this point - I've got an anni and it's doing around 2700 at 70 from memory.

_________________
Past cars - 3x OG 9-3 2.0t, 900 Ruby, 9000 2.0t, Hirsch 2.8 Aero NG 9-3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:51 pm 
Offline
UKSaabs Trader
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:53 pm
Posts: 17963
Location: Devon
zuider_zee wrote:
I understood the later 2.0s had longer gearing? Certainly by this point - I've got an anni and it's doing around 2700 at 70 from memory.

Longer than the earlier 2.0t, yes, but not longer than the 2.3T.
At 70mph in 5th gear the 2.3T's engine is turning at around 2300 RPM.
At the same speed, my 1995 2.0t runs at nearly 3000 RPM.

Final drive ratios:

2.0t 1994-1995 - 4.45:1
2.0t 1996-1998 - 4.05:1
2.3T 1993-1998 - 3.61:1

The ratio is by how much the engine speed is reduced to drive the wheels so the lower the number, the less the reduction and therefore the higher the gearing.
The actual gear ratios prior to the final drive are the same for all models (from 1994 onwards at least) so the final drive ratio is solely responsible for the difference in overall gear ratio.

_________________
www.SAABits.com - helping to keep Saabs on the road
Discount for UKS members: enter code UKS2019


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:12 pm 
Offline
Active user

Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:50 pm
Posts: 166
Car Models: 9000 CSE 2.0t
Ah! Thanks for pointing that out, I don't feel as bad now about my purchase. Currently in the process of pouring another grand or so into the old girl to get her up to scratch, had a voice in my head saying "are you sure this is the right thing?".

_________________
Past cars - 3x OG 9-3 2.0t, 900 Ruby, 9000 2.0t, Hirsch 2.8 Aero NG 9-3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:28 pm 
Offline
UKS Addict

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:31 am
Posts: 5630
Location: Bucks
Car Models: Saab NG 9-5 Aero
zuider_zee wrote:
Ah! Thanks for pointing that out, I don't feel as bad now about my purchase. Currently in the process of pouring another grand or so into the old girl to get her up to scratch, had a voice in my head saying "are you sure this is the right thing?".

If you are prepared to pay for it Abbott racing can convert your 2.0 into a 2.3 but that won't change the final drive ratio.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:33 pm 
Offline
Active user

Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:50 pm
Posts: 166
Car Models: 9000 CSE 2.0t
GeoffR wrote:
If you are prepared to pay for it Abbott racing can convert your 2.0 into a 2.3 but that won't change the final drive ratio.


I may just go for an ECU upgrade to add on the extra HP, but my aim for this car is to get is to get it to zero rust, zero faults. Still working on the zero rust, it's currently with Jamsaab to get the welding done and a few other jobs. Once that's done it'll be pretty much zero rust, should have all the minor faults fixed by the summer (yeah right). Then I might look at upping the power...

_________________
Past cars - 3x OG 9-3 2.0t, 900 Ruby, 9000 2.0t, Hirsch 2.8 Aero NG 9-3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:50 pm 
Online
UKS Addict

Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:41 am
Posts: 4809
Location: Royal Tunbridge Wells
Car Models: '03 9-5 2.3 Vector Auto Estate Noob Stg 1
Definitely go for a Stage 1 ECU. I had a '94 2.0LPT, added an intercooler ('94 came with APC only, no intercooler) and a Hirsch Stage 1 ECU and it went like an Aero although top speed would not be as high. If yours is an Anni I assume it is a '97 but it will still go well (add the APC too). You can forget the nominal reduction in mpg and enjoy the mid range acceleration.

_________________
Alan

'03 9-5 2.3t Vector Estate Auto Noob Stg 1
'01 9-3 2.0t SE Vert Auto
'81 Triumph TR7 DHC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:29 pm 
Offline
Shotgun
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:51 pm
Posts: 13715
Location: 'Ull
Car Models: 9-5 Aero Auto Est Stg 1 Noobed
Out of interest? Why are you concerned about MPG when you own an old SAAB?

I have had my Stg 1 9-5 (2001) Aero for over 7 years. I don't care how much I consume (unless it drops off a cliff due to a fault).

FWIW, I believe the 2.0T/LPT spools up sooner than the Aero, so better for the local traffic light races :wink: (At least, my unadulterated 2.0LPT Auto was, by comparison to my previous 2.3's (both FP, one manual, one auto).

If you are concerned about the consumption, get a modern blandbox.


NB: Looking at the bigger picture, I/we don't suffer depreciation, higher servicing costs, or interest on loans/PPC's for something we don't own? Pay a bit more on fuel to enjoy paying less overall :mrgreen: :wink:

_________________
Min bil läcker inte,

den bara markerar sitt territorium


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:53 pm 
Offline
Active user

Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:50 pm
Posts: 166
Car Models: 9000 CSE 2.0t
Shalien wrote:
Out of interest? Why are you concerned about MPG when you own an old SAAB?


Oh, I'm not at all. I've owned a couple of 5.3 litre V12 XJSs for my sins, I remember one of them would struggle to return 10mpg around London on a cold, rainy day. I just wanted to console myself that there was some advantage to having a 2.0, even if it is MPG.

My ideal 9000 would be a 200bhp 2.3, I know people love the Aero and you can get so much more from the engine, but in these I prefer the suspension a little softer for that long cruise/barge feel.

_________________
Past cars - 3x OG 9-3 2.0t, 900 Ruby, 9000 2.0t, Hirsch 2.8 Aero NG 9-3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:03 pm 
Offline
UKSaabs Trader
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:53 pm
Posts: 17963
Location: Devon
zuider_zee wrote:
My ideal 9000 would be a 200bhp 2.3, I know people love the Aero and you can get so much more from the engine, but in these I prefer the suspension a little softer for that long cruise/barge feel.

I like my 2.3T CS, having also had an Aero. I have to say, though, that the same long gearing that allowed me to achieve over 40 MPG in the Aero on a long motorway run also makes it ponderous to drive on smaller, twistier roads. My 2.0 CSE with the 4.45:1 gearbox is much better-suited for that.
My 1990 CD 2.3T was much better in that respect, with the same 4.05:1 final drive as is in your 2.0.
The CS is great for comfy cruising, though.

I know what you mean about the Jags. A couple of months ago I had to borrow one of my other half's cars for a few days - a 4.0 Jeep Grand Cherokee. With the very lightest of touches I struggled to manage 15 MPG across country to and from work.

While I don't obsess about MPG, I do like to keep it in mind. Practically, it barely matters as I generally average about 60 miles per week, even though the driving is not economical at all. I spend about £40 on petrol every fortnight. Work that out and you'll see how uneconomical my daily drive is. Having to stop and reverse almost every time I meet another vehicle doesn't help...

_________________
www.SAABits.com - helping to keep Saabs on the road
Discount for UKS members: enter code UKS2019


Last edited by BillJ on Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:09 pm 
Offline
Shotgun
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:51 pm
Posts: 13715
Location: 'Ull
Car Models: 9-5 Aero Auto Est Stg 1 Noobed
BillJ wrote:
zuider_zee wrote:
My ideal 9000 would be a 200bhp 2.3, I know people love the Aero and you can get so much more from the engine, but in these I prefer the suspension a little softer for that long cruise/barge feel.

I like my 2.3T CS, having also had an Aero. I have to say, though, that the same long gearing that allowed me to achieve over 40 MPG in the Aero on a long motorway run also makes it ponderous to drive on smaller, twistier roads. My 2.0 CSE with the 4.45:1 gearbox is much better-suited for that.
My 1990 CD 2.3T was much better in that respect, with the same 4.05:1 final drive as is in your 2.0.

I know what you mean about the Jags. A couple of months ago I had to borrow one of my other half's cars for a few days - a 4.0 Jeep Grand Cherokee. With the very lightest of touches I struggled to manage 15 MPG across country to and from work.

While I don't obsess about MPG, I do like to keep it in mind. Practically, it barely matters as I generally average about 60 miles per week, even though the driving is not economical at all. I spend about £40 every fortnight. Work that out and you'll see how uneconomical my daily drive is.


My Aero is currently showing 20.3mpg. :lol: I have only been doing the work run and shopping trips (1.5m) since I last reset the counter though. Do I care, no! I'm comfortable, warm and dry.

_________________
Min bil läcker inte,

den bara markerar sitt territorium


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:56 pm 
Offline
Active user

Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:50 pm
Posts: 166
Car Models: 9000 CSE 2.0t
Shalien wrote:

My Aero is currently showing 20.3mpg. :lol: I have only been doing the work run and shopping trips (1.5m) since I last reset the counter though. Do I care, no! I'm comfortable, warm and dry.


In the 50mph limited sections of the motorway I can get 50mpg out of my 2.0 anni. I've never had the mpg from mine drop below 30, even in London traffic.

_________________
Past cars - 3x OG 9-3 2.0t, 900 Ruby, 9000 2.0t, Hirsch 2.8 Aero NG 9-3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:34 pm 
Offline
UKS Addict

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:31 am
Posts: 5630
Location: Bucks
Car Models: Saab NG 9-5 Aero
One reason the 2.3 is more economical is simply that the torque curve and gearing are better matched. Something that cannot be said of the 2.0 NG 9-5, but that is probably deliberate to stop it from out accelerating top of the range GM branded cars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:37 pm 
Offline
UKS Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:09 pm
Posts: 11207
Location: Sandwich
Car Models: 2005 9-5 Aero Wagon
30.5 on my stage 3 with mixed driving and not always slow..I guess the added torque of the 2.3 helps too..

_________________
9-5 Aero Estate 2005 in grey
9000 Aero 1995 in black
1994 GM 900
1987 9000 16V S Turbo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:10 pm 
Offline
UKS Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:02 pm
Posts: 8503
Location: Reading, Saabshire.
Car Models: 97 9000 Aero 2.3T
Ok Mr MPG weighing in... lol

Actually there is not that much in it in the real world.
Im a field engineer so spend the day on the road pretty much. Doing about 800 miles a week. Sometimes a little more.
My 9000 2.3 averages 40.5mpg per week. With around 460 to 480 miles per tank.

Back last week my alternator failed so i borrowed my sons 92 9000 2.0t. Which has been upgraded with Carlsson tuning parts. ECU, fuel reg. And a bigger TD04 Turbo. Plus its the older Bosch LH injection.
It revs a fair bit higher than my car at 70mph. My Aero is 2400rpm. Sons 2.0t 3100rpm.
However over the whole week it averaged 37mpg. So not far off my Aero.

_________________
92 9000 CSE 2.0T TD04, Street Terrorist.
97 9000 Aero 2.3T JulesTune Stage 2+
05 Astra 1.8 Elite


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:16 pm 
Offline
UKS Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:47 am
Posts: 7144
Location: Queenborough, Kent
Car Models: 9k, 9-5 Aero & a Jaaag
Would a remapped 2.0 be more economical than an LPT, given it would have more torque available?

I’d guess that going by Paul’s comment above, it could present a good middle ground ...

_________________
'98 9000 2.3T CSE, stage 3
'04 9-5 Aero manual, stage 3
'08 Jaguar XFR


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:29 pm 
Offline
UKS Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:02 pm
Posts: 8503
Location: Reading, Saabshire.
Car Models: 97 9000 Aero 2.3T
sounds wrote:
Would a remapped 2.0 be more economical than an LPT, given it would have more torque available?

I’d guess that going by Paul’s comment above, it could present a good middle ground ...



Well my sons car being a B202 Bosch LH 9000 is probably not the best comparision compared with a 2.0t Trionic car.
I was however surprised it was so close.

RE Torque and a mildly tuned car.
That extra torque a remapped car might have on mild acceleration would probably have a tiny impact on overall MPG.
Since the % time accelerating, compared to the % time at Cruise are very different.
Also if we take my Jules remap at Stage 2+. I have the cruise / light throttle map as per Factory unchanged. So in regular commuting there should be no difference in MPG. Assuming as per my setup, Injectors etc are all standard.
I think im right in saying that anyway. Could be wrong.

_________________
92 9000 CSE 2.0T TD04, Street Terrorist.
97 9000 Aero 2.3T JulesTune Stage 2+
05 Astra 1.8 Elite


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:19 pm 
Offline
Active user

Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:50 pm
Posts: 166
Car Models: 9000 CSE 2.0t
Hmm - this has me really thinking. Doing some research I could turn my B204E into a B204L (185 bhp) - the only difference I can find is the APC valve and ECU settings. That's it right? I'm guessing the total cost of that would be a few hundred quid, and I'd have basically the same performance (if not slightly better) than the 2.3 I always wanted? Same gearbox (but not final drive), same clutch etc right?

I know you can go to B204R (205bhp) but that seems to need a few more components, and I'm not really interested in modifying the car endlessly - but this seems like such a simple upgrade without taking the components outside their designed tolerances (and therefore wearing much faster). Should cost in total a couple of hundred right? Seems too easy...

_________________
Past cars - 3x OG 9-3 2.0t, 900 Ruby, 9000 2.0t, Hirsch 2.8 Aero NG 9-3


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

follow UKSaabs on Twitter



UKSaabs silhouette logo images by Mark Green www.greenphotos.com
"subsilver2" slightly bodged by UKSaabs for our own use.

:: Disclaimer ::
Comments posted here are the views of their individual authors and are not necessarily shared by the owners of this Web site.
Authors assume all responsibility for comments posted here.

UKSaabs The biggest and best privately owned UK based independent Saab forum for all SAAB enthusiasts.
Whilst we encourage our users to support our advertisers the site wishes to remain independent and therefore does not endorse any particular advertiser(s)
UKSaabs is not affiliated with Saab Cars UK or Saab Automobile AB