3.0 V6 Petrol.

[school boy]

What was the idea behind using this engine? I'm not having a go at it, just wondering whay they used it as it was slower than a 2.0 and less economical.
How long did they use it for? I presume no one liked it as they scrapped the idea?
Any info and comment please.
Cheers,

School Boy

[K321]

maybe to appear to be more exclusive and upmarket and to 'compete' with the 530BMW and merc E320? and to add a v6 lump for prestige?

[Zaphod I]

The short answer is that it is not slower, and not less economical than the 2.0, otherwise you are correct in all respects

[Aero_saab]

Cylinder snobbery...
Because a 4 pot cannot be as smooth and powerful as a 6?
It gave the cars a different feel, the v6 feeling much lazier to drive, whilst wafting along quite happily.

[aeropilot]

Aero_saab said:

Cylinder snobbery...
Because a 4 pot cannot be as smooth and powerful as a 6?
It gave the cars a different feel, the v6 feeling much lazier to drive, whilst wafting along quite happily.

Correct, cylinder snobbery instigated by the demands of the US market about the only market whre the V6 was popular.
It was better in n/a 3.0 form as fitted in the 9000, rather than the asymetrical light pressure turbo version in the 9-5.

Edited by aeropilot on Sunday 15th June 20:57

[Zaphod I]

Having owned a 9000 2.3 FBT for six plus great motoring years, and after having our current V6 version for around 18 months, I tend to agree. They have different characters. The turbo was fast, and smooth, full of torque, whilst the V6 has a lazy sort of power, is not exactly slow, and although not as outright an acceleration performer, is just as capable.
Both smooth vehicles, in more ways than one.

[School boy]

This has bought up my lack of saab history knowledge as I was refering to the 9-5 as I didn't realise that this engine was available in the 9000. However the statistics given in the old shape 9-5 brochure show that the V6 had a lower bhp, top speed and was less economical than the 150 bhp 2.0lpt. However I realise this was probably more than made up for in tourque and the charicteristics that a v6 typically portrays.

Edited by School boy on Friday 25th July 23:30

[Zaphod I]

The 9-5 V6 mechanicals are identical to those in the 9000, except for the autobox. All but 3 9000V6's are automatic. The manual gearbox was indeed one of Saabs.

[Aero_saab]

9000v6 and 9-5 v6 lpt are close relations, but far from identical, saab actually did a fair bit of work on the engine to get the turbo to work as they wanted.

[Zaphod I]

Ah yes, agreed. What I cannot work out is if the lumps are the same, but the 9-5 has a lpt, why is the bhp output the same? Obviously more torque, though.

[aeropilot]

Zaphod I said:

Ah yes, agreed. What I cannot work out is if the lumps are the same, but the 9-5 has a lpt, why is the bhp output the same? Obviously more torque, though.

BHP wasn't the same....

The 9000 n/a 3.0 V6 was 210hp.
The 9-5 lpt 3.0 V6 was 200hp.

The lpt installation was all about more torque, lower down and more evenly spread rather than the more peaky nature of the n/a V6 in the 9000.

[Zaphod I]

Ah! Stand corrected. The extra 10bhp makes all the difference