UKSaabs

THE site for UK Saab people!
It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:33 am

All times are UTC



Forum rules


A place for you to tell us about and show us your car.

Your Cars is the place for telling us about minor upgrades and mini projects.

Full on restorations & major rebuilds should be posted in Restorations & Major Projects.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 401 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 21  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:31 pm 
Offline
Light Pressure Turbo

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:12 pm
Posts: 488
Location: Somerset / London
2.1 N/A sounds very interesting, especially if its got the massive 2 or so rod ratio some of these saab engines have!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:09 pm 
Offline
Active user

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:02 pm
Posts: 42
sonett wrote:
I have a 2.1 16v engine that will be the next engine project. At some point hopefully Dave will cast his eye and vernier calipers over the valve seats and see what can be done.


The standard 32mm inlet valves are a bit titchy for my liking however if 34mm ones can be squeezed in and if I can get the port flow to similar efficiency as other 16v heads I've done then the calcs show the following.

With nothing too wild in the cam department, i.e. similar spec to the 8V, TBs and good exhaust, 11.5 or 12 to 1 CR my simulation program shows 225 bhp at 7000 to 7300 rpm and about 185 ft lbs of torque. I'm not sure that would be an exciting enough jump from the 180 bhp 8V to be worth doing really. It would be a good bit quicker but nothing earth shattering. The 16v Saab head doesn't really have big enough valves to have huge power potential.

Full race potential would be about 260 bhp but obviously that would be nowhere near road driveable.

Probably cheaper to do and much more fun would be a proper 8V turbo engine. Reuse the 44mm valve head or do another 46mm valve one, 8:1 CR with lightweight forged pistons, standard cam or a mild upgrade so not much expense there and a nice modern low inertia roller bearing turbo putting out say 18 psi so it's not too laggy.

275 to 300 bhp and similar ft lbs of torque. 350 bhp with a bigger turbo. I've driven big power turbo engines and although they generally don't rev out very well the shove in the back when the turbo kicks in is very addictive. All the other vehicles around you go into reverse for a while and when you look down at the speedo the 90 mph you thought you might be up to is actually 130.

Or just get the mid life crisis right out of the way in one fell swoop and buy a big bike and kill yourself down a country road. :)


Last edited by Pumaracing on Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:18 pm 
Offline
UKS Addict

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:51 pm
Posts: 2437
Location: Cheshire
Car Model: Saab 900 and 99
The standard inlet inserts on the 16v head i have are 34.1mm, so 34mm should be possible. 36mm inlet valves would be a bit too big, the distance from the spark plug hole would be OK, but the valve seats between the two inlet valves would be overlapping slightly.
The 16v head would be for a future 99 rally car, someone else can play with the turbos. I have plenty of enjoyment from the N/A engines and my personal opinion about Saab turbos, is probably well known, OK on a fairly standard car, but once you start putting hefty torque through them the gearboxes can't cope.

_________________
900i '87
900 Turbo '82
99 GL '83 Turbo Killer
99 EMS '77
Lancer EVO 6.5 TME '00


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:38 pm 
Offline
UKS Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 3975
Location: REMAINING UNFAITHFUL TO FACTORY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS SINCE 1988
Car Model: OLD SAABS....NUMEROUS
Pumaracing wrote:
sonett wrote:
I have a 2.1 16v engine that will be the next engine project.

Probably cheaper to do and much more fun would be a proper 8V turbo engine. Reuse the 44mm valve head or do another 46mm valve one, 8:1 CR with lightweight forged pistons, standard cam or a mild upgrade so not much expense there and a nice modern low inertia roller bearing turbo putting out say 18 psi so it's not too laggy.

275 to 300 bhp and similar ft lbs of torque. 350 bhp with a bigger turbo. I've driven big power turbo engines and although they generally don't rev out very well the shove in the back when the turbo kicks in is very addictive. All the other vehicles around you go into reverse for a while and when you look down at the speedo the 90 mph you thought you might be up to is actually 130.

Or just get the mid life crisis right out of the way in one fell swoop and buy a big bike and kill yourself down a country road. :)


HELLO DAVE 'PUMA'..SONETT HAS PROBABLY MENTIONED THIS,BUT I AM DEVELOPING AN 8 VALVE TURBO ENGINE AT THE MOMENT.THE EARLY SAAB B20 ENGINE (TURBOCHARGED YEAR 1977) RAN 7.2 TO 1 COMPRESSION RATIO WITH STANDARD CAM.

I HAVE FITTED A HEAD WITH SOME PECULIAR CHAMBER WORK,WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN SKIMMED.THE CHAMBERS HAD ALSO EFFECTIVLEY BEEN 'SCOOPED' OUT?
SO AFTER SPENDING HOURS WITH A PIPPETTE,VASELINE AND A HOLE DRILLED IN A PIECE OF PERSPEX,THE CHAMBER SIZE IS ACTUALLY PRETTY CLOSE TO A STANDARD HEAD......

'SONETT' HAS SEEN THIS HEAD IN THE FLESH, AND MADE SOME MUMBLINGS ABOUT IT BEING A MACHINING EXERCISE......
BUT I DECIDED TO FIT IT ANYWAY,AND SEE HOW IT FARED...?

THE ENGINE PRODUCES 180 BHP AND 185LB/FT TORQUE@ 1 BAR BOOST,ON GARRETT T3 ON K-JET......BUT BEAR IN MIND I HAVENT BEEN ABLE TO GET IT ON THE DASTEK ROLLERS YET,SO THESE FIGURES MAY WELL BE A LITTLE OPTIMISTIC....?
EXHAUST MANIFOLD IS CAST IRON,STANDARD AT THE MOMENT,AND EXHAUST IS 60MM ALL THE WAY THRU....

I CANT PHOTOGRAPH THE GRAPH FOR YOU,AS IT IS TOO FEINT INK....BUT HERE IS A TABLE FOR YOU,TO GO OFF ROUGHLY

TORQUE LB/FT BHP

1500 RPM 78 25
2500 RPM 179 95
3500 RPM 167 125
4500 RPM 186 172
5500 RPM 157 175

MAX POWER@ 4760 RPM
MAX TORQUE@4670 RPM

PLEASE HAVE A LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPH COMPARISON BELOW,I WOULD BE INTRESTED IN YOUR COMMENTS.......

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE MODIFIED HEAD DOES NOT HAVE SODIUM COOLED VALVES,BUT DOES HAVE STANDARD VALVE SIZES.

BIRDIE


Attachments:
MODIFIED 99 TURBO HEAD FIGURES.jpg
MODIFIED 99 TURBO HEAD FIGURES.jpg [ 64.05 KiB | Viewed 991 times ]
STANDARD 99 TURBO CHAMBER.jpg
STANDARD 99 TURBO CHAMBER.jpg [ 54.67 KiB | Viewed 991 times ]
MODIFIED 99 TURBO CHAMBER FITTED TO CLARION 99T NOW.JPG
MODIFIED 99 TURBO CHAMBER FITTED TO CLARION 99T NOW.JPG [ 49.81 KiB | Viewed 991 times ]

_________________
NEVER,SUFFER FROM INSANITY...............

ENJOY IT.
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:04 am 
Offline
Active user

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:02 pm
Posts: 42
There might have been a miniscule benefit from the unshrouding round the inlet valve but what's been done round the exhaust and near the spark plug is pointless and just loses some of the squish area which is rarely a good thing.

BTW, none of your quoted power and torque figures match correctly at the given rpm. BHP = Torque x rpm/5252.

Also what is the exact standard boost pressure at 145 bhp on these cars? Once I know that I can baseline a simulation in my engine power calculation programme and see what the power ought to be at any other boost pressure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:12 am 
Offline
Active user

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:02 pm
Posts: 42
This website indicates 7.5 to 8 psi for the non APC 900T. Can anyone confirm?

http://www.thesaabsite.com/Saab%20APC%20adjustment.htm

Baselining a 145 bhp stock engine at the average of the above at 7.75 psi I get 186 bhp with the boost raised to 1 bar (14.5 psi) so if anything yours is not actually better than stock in any respect but a tad worse.

For comparison I've run a simulation with one of my 44mm ported heads and a mildly uprated cam at 245 bhp at the same 1 bar boost. With the 46mm head the computer says 267 bhp.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:33 am 
Offline
Put a SOC in it!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 4:48 pm
Posts: 21141
Location: Fliptop Towers, North Yorks...the flat bit.
Car Model: One or two...
Depends which engine. The B20 in Jools' 99 had 7.2:1 CR, this is the type with the pressed steel cam cover, the non-APC "H" engine with alloy cam cover and dissie on cam had a slightly higher CR, IIRC it was about 7.8:1 or 8:1.

For comparison, Jools' car that made 180 BHP &185LB/FT @ 1 bar compares with a standard car making 145bhp @ ~5300 and 178 lb ft @ 3000, I think the standard boost on them was 0.85 bar but might have been as low as 0.7?? Haven't got any books to check in with me right now...I used to know this stuff off the top of me head :roll:

Dave - the later Saab 16V heads, particularly in the B205/B235 cars like my 9-5, are good for well over 350bhp and up to 400lb ft on about 1.4-1.5bar with the right turbo & fuelling, retaining stock inlet & exhaust manifolds. That's where mine is heading eventually... These can be made to fit the earlier B201 16V engines. That would be pretty savage in a "lightweight" 99... :twisted:

_________________
S4 Avant 3.0 V6T
9-5 Aero 600Nm FB3
900 T16S track hack
96V4s


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:46 am 
Offline
Active user

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:02 pm
Posts: 42
Fliptop wrote:
Depends which engine. The B20 in Jools' 99 had 7.2:1 CR, this is the type with the pressed steel cam cover, the non-APC "H" engine with alloy cam cover and dissie on cam had a slightly higher CR, IIRC it was about 7.8:1 or 8:1.


It's boost pressure not CR I'm after.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:17 am 
Offline
Put a SOC in it!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 4:48 pm
Posts: 21141
Location: Fliptop Towers, North Yorks...the flat bit.
Car Model: One or two...
As I said, it was either 0.7 or 0.85 bar...I think it was closer to 0.7...10.5 psi springs to mind. 0.85 sounds like a more modern Saab.

_________________
S4 Avant 3.0 V6T
9-5 Aero 600Nm FB3
900 T16S track hack
96V4s


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:42 am 
Offline
Light Pressure Turbo

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:12 pm
Posts: 488
Location: Somerset / London
sonett wrote:
my personal opinion about Saab turbos, is probably well known, OK on a fairly standard car, but once you start putting hefty torque through them the gearboxes can't cope.



with the correct turbo and the correct boost control you could have a totally flat 200lbft torque curve giving you around 300bhp at 7500rpm and without ever straining the box, your lack of knowledge about turbos and how they can be used seems to be fuelling your misconception that they are a bad thing
But that said, if you just "prefer" an engine that is all lag (ie N/A) then thats cool, be a boring world if we all wanted the same after all :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:14 am 
Offline
Put a SOC in it!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 4:48 pm
Posts: 21141
Location: Fliptop Towers, North Yorks...the flat bit.
Car Model: One or two...
I probably ought to give Dave (B) a ride in mine some time... :lol:

_________________
S4 Avant 3.0 V6T
9-5 Aero 600Nm FB3
900 T16S track hack
96V4s


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:07 pm 
Offline
UKS Addict

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:51 pm
Posts: 2437
Location: Cheshire
Car Model: Saab 900 and 99
chip-nova wrote:
sonett wrote:
my personal opinion about Saab turbos, is probably well known, OK on a fairly standard car, but once you start putting hefty torque through them the gearboxes can't cope.



with the correct turbo and the correct boost control you could have a totally flat 200lbft torque curve giving you around 300bhp at 7500rpm and without ever straining the box, your lack of knowledge about turbos and how they can be used seems to be fuelling your misconception that they are a bad thing
But that said, if you just "prefer" an engine that is all lag (ie N/A) then thats cool, be a boring world if we all wanted the same after all :D


Yes my lack of knowledge is awful :roll:, all of the C900/99 gearboxes i repair for people are from turbos, ranging from standard to modified.
Another reason for staying with N/A engines is the motorsport aspect, i enjoy competing in the sub 1400cc class, hence my Citroen AX Maxi project and eventually i hope to have a 99 rally car in the 2000cc class.
If i were to buy a high performance turbo car it would probably be a Skyline or maybe a Subaru, but at present i have no desire for such a car.

_________________
900i '87
900 Turbo '82
99 GL '83 Turbo Killer
99 EMS '77
Lancer EVO 6.5 TME '00


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:14 pm 
Offline
UKS Addict

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:51 pm
Posts: 2437
Location: Cheshire
Car Model: Saab 900 and 99
Fliptop wrote:
I probably ought to give Dave (B) a ride in mine some time... :lol:


I think your 900 track car is estimated at 180-200bhp? OK i suppose, but my the engine in my 99 started life at 118bhp, it now has circa 170 and is very tractable.
My old 1400 106 had better performance than your C900, size is not everything :)
This thread is going a little off topic.

_________________
900i '87
900 Turbo '82
99 GL '83 Turbo Killer
99 EMS '77
Lancer EVO 6.5 TME '00


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:57 pm 
Offline
Put a SOC in it!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 4:48 pm
Posts: 21141
Location: Fliptop Towers, North Yorks...the flat bit.
Car Model: One or two...
No Dave, I meant one of the modern cars, the 900 is virtually standard. The 9-3 has 275bhp/400Nm and the 9-5, well once the map is fixed, should be the right side of 300bhp and 450Nm...

Nothing like the throttle response of your car I'm sure, but very addictive thrust nonetheless.

As you say though, a little bit OT...

_________________
S4 Avant 3.0 V6T
9-5 Aero 600Nm FB3
900 T16S track hack
96V4s


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:00 pm 
Offline
UKS Addict

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:51 pm
Posts: 2437
Location: Cheshire
Car Model: Saab 900 and 99
Fliptop wrote:
No Dave, I meant one of the modern cars, the 900 is virtually standard. The 9-3 has 275bhp/400Nm and the 9-5, well once the map is fixed, should be the right side of 300bhp and 450Nm...

Nothing like the throttle response of your car I'm sure, but very addictive thrust nonetheless.

As you say though, a little bit OT...


Ah right OK, different thing altogether.

_________________
900i '87
900 Turbo '82
99 GL '83 Turbo Killer
99 EMS '77
Lancer EVO 6.5 TME '00


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:10 pm 
Offline
Light Pressure Turbo

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:12 pm
Posts: 488
Location: Somerset / London
sonett wrote:
chip-nova wrote:
sonett wrote:
my personal opinion about Saab turbos, is probably well known, OK on a fairly standard car, but once you start putting hefty torque through them the gearboxes can't cope.



with the correct turbo and the correct boost control you could have a totally flat 200lbft torque curve giving you around 300bhp at 7500rpm and without ever straining the box, your lack of knowledge about turbos and how they can be used seems to be fuelling your misconception that they are a bad thing
But that said, if you just "prefer" an engine that is all lag (ie N/A) then thats cool, be a boring world if we all wanted the same after all :D


Yes my lack of knowledge is awful :roll:


Yes, with regards turbos it is if you think you HAVE to have more torque than you want just cause a turbo is fitted.


Quote:
all of the C900/99 gearboxes i repair for people are from turbos, ranging from standard to modified.
Another reason for staying with N/A engines is the motorsport aspect, i enjoy competing in the sub 1400cc class, hence my Citroen AX Maxi project and eventually i hope to have a 99 rally car in the 2000cc class.
If i were to buy a high performance turbo car it would probably be a Skyline or maybe a Subaru, but at present i have no desire for such a car.

Makes perfect sense going non turbo if there are class limitations which make the N/A more competitive for your particular vehicle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:11 pm 
Offline
UKS Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 8:06 pm
Posts: 6888
Location: The Nut Hut
A 99T has a standard boost pressure of 0.7bar :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:29 pm 
Offline
UKS Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 3975
Location: REMAINING UNFAITHFUL TO FACTORY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS SINCE 1988
Car Model: OLD SAABS....NUMEROUS
Pumaracing wrote:
There might have been a miniscule benefit from the unshrouding round the inlet valve but what's been done round the exhaust and near the spark plug is pointless and just loses some of the squish area which is rarely a good thing.

BTW, none of your quoted power and torque figures match correctly at the given rpm. BHP = Torque x rpm/5252.

Also what is the exact standard boost pressure at 145 bhp on these cars? Once I know that I can baseline a simulation in my engine power calculation programme and see what the power ought to be at any other boost pressure.


HELLO DAVE 'PUMA',THE BOOST PRESSURE SHOULD BE 0.7 BAR ON THE 99 TURBO AS STANDARD.

APOLOGIES FOR THE (SMALL) ERRORS,WHICH ACTUALLY TURN INTO BIG ONES......... :oops: REGARDING TOQUE/BHP FIGURES BUT AS I SAID IT WAS TO GIVE A ROUGH IDEA,FROM A FADED POWER GRAPH,LATE LAST NIGHT.

REGARDING THE MODIFIED HEAD,I AGREE THE HEAD HAS HAD THE 'SQUISH FACTOR' TAMPERED WITH.NEVERTHELESS I WAS INTRESTED TO FIT IT AND SEE HOW IT FARED,AS IT WAS THE ONLY ONE I HAD AT THE TIME..........
THE CAR SUFFERS FROM 'PINKING' AT THE MOMENT,WHICH AFTER 1500 MILES OF 'ROAD' DRIVING IS NOT PARTICULARLY EVIDENT.
HOWEVER IN COMPETITION DRIVING ,'PINKING' REARS ITS UGLY HEAD WHEN THE BOOST GETS CHANCE TO BUILD IN THIRD/FOURTH GEAR.
I HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE HEAD COULD BE CAUSING THIS,DUE TO THE MACHINING........?MESSING UP THE SQUISH FACTOR......? AS I HAD NOT HAD THIS EFFECT FROM PREVIOUS 99 TURBOS I HAVE PLAYED WITH.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT..... :wink:

I HAVE ANOTHER HEAD TO FIT ,WHEN I GET CHANCE.........MAYBE IF WE GET TIME,YOU COULD DO THE NECESSARY ON IT.....?

BIRDIE

APOLOGIES TO 'SONETT' FOR DIVING IN ON HIS ''PROJECT TURBO KILLER''...........HE IS NOW TAKING US INTO THE REALMS OF THE UNKNOWN WITH THE 8 VALVE N/A SAAB ENGINE........I MANAGED TO GET SO FAR WITH MINE,BUT AM UNWILLING TO INVEST THE FINANCIALS,TO FIND OUT....CHOOSING TO GO THE TURBO ROUTE INSTEAD....

BUT MAYBE, I AM JUST ONE OF MANY THAT FINDS THIS STUFF VERY,VERY INTRESTING.........?

REAL WORLD 'ENGINE TUNING'............DOING IT !

PLEASE CARRY ON 'SONETT' :wall:

_________________
NEVER,SUFFER FROM INSANITY...............

ENJOY IT.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 7:12 am 
Offline
UKS Addict

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:51 pm
Posts: 2437
Location: Cheshire
Car Model: Saab 900 and 99
OK, back on topic. I removed the exhaust manifold and reduced the secondaries from 30'' to 18'', the results were mixed and it didn't have the effect i was expecting, top end power was increased, but i lost some torque low down.
We took the revs a little bit further this time and at around 6700rpm the power is still not tailing off :), on the road i have taken it to 7000 rpm for a short while and there is no valve bounce.
Image
Image

_________________
900i '87
900 Turbo '82
99 GL '83 Turbo Killer
99 EMS '77
Lancer EVO 6.5 TME '00


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:05 pm 
Offline
UKS Addict

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 6:51 pm
Posts: 2437
Location: Cheshire
Car Model: Saab 900 and 99
[/quote] your lack of knowledge about turbos and how they can be used seems to be fuelling your misconception that they are a bad thing
But that said, if you just "prefer" an engine that is all lag (ie N/A) then thats cool, be a boring world if we all wanted the same after all :D[/quote]

My lack of knowledge of turbos i suppose is relative, here is a pic of me taken a few years ago in work, I'm stood behind part of a 200MW turbine, the HP side of the turbine just has to cope with 160 bar at full load, they are even foolish enough to let me loose with it :lol:
Image

_________________
900i '87
900 Turbo '82
99 GL '83 Turbo Killer
99 EMS '77
Lancer EVO 6.5 TME '00


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 401 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 21  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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