What not to do when you see a rusty old Saab behind ...

[stuart-b]

... and that is assume when you put your foot down, he's going anywhere.



When the brown rust bucket went past with the sound of a Group B rally car, I realised something was amiss...

You see a lot of sleepers over here, but this was by far the best I've seen so far.

[NiceCupOfTea]

Haha! Even my slightly frilly Saab 9000 with just its standard 200bhp can embarrass some so called "premium" machinery from time to time!

[stuart-b]

NiceCupOfTea said:

Haha! Even my slightly frilly Saab 9000 with just its standard 200bhp can embarrass some so called "premium" machinery from time to time!

No kidding. This was an 80's 900 Turbo. Slightly peeved, and highly amused at the same time.

[FussyFez]

Sounds hilarious.

I'd love to build something like that, a proper sleeper.

[NiceCupOfTea]

Still a few of them around! 9000s are much easier to turn into powerhouses - 400bhp on stock internals - 900s make good power and handle much better but gearbox is a weak link. Great cars!

[irish boy]

Love 80's saabs and volvo's!

[stuart-b]

NiceCupOfTea said:

Still a few of them around! 9000s are much easier to turn into powerhouses - 400bhp on stock internals - 900s make good power and handle much better but gearbox is a weak link. Great cars!

400...?!

[NiceCupOfTea]

AFAICR, yes!

With the 9000s all the cars had the same internals as the Aero's, just a different turbo and map, whereas on 9-5s and later cars the lesser cars were downrated internally.

[Fattyfat]

NiceCupOfTea said:

AFAICR, yes!

With the 9000s all the cars had the same internals as the Aero's, just a different turbo and map, whereas on 9-5s and later cars the lesser cars were downrated internally.

I'm sure a proper Saab beard may correct me but I believe the only real difference between 9-5 Aeros and lesser models is the turbo and associated hardware and engine management. Internals, ie rods and pistons are all the same. I believe the 9000 engine was just much stronger as stock.

[rscott]

Fattyfat said:

NiceCupOfTea said:

AFAICR, yes!

With the 9000s all the cars had the same internals as the Aero's, just a different turbo and map, whereas on 9-5s and later cars the lesser cars were downrated internally.

I'm sure a proper Saab beard may correct me but I believe the only real difference between 9-5 Aeros and lesser models is the turbo and associated hardware and engine management. Internals, ie rods and pistons are all the same. I believe the 9000 engine was just much stronger as stock.

Not a proper Saab beard here (maybe a Saab stubble...).

The 9000 engine was the B234 and the 9-5 the B235. Both closely related, but the B235 was lightened (and so slightly less strong) with weaker internals. Still good for about 350bhp though with changes to turbo, intercooler, ecu though. Change of pistons and 400bhp is achievable (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukl5b4o6wH4 / http://www.abbottracing.net/product.php?id_product... ).

[TheJimi]

IIRC a similar comparison was made by Clarkson back in the day, re the 95 Aero's in gear times versus the 996TT.

[Sammo123]

My old 9000 was running around 360bhp on its running in map. I sold it before I had a proper map written but it would of been getting on for 400bhp. It was an absolute animal to drive but went through gearboxes like there was no tomorrow!

[Dog Star]

stuart-b said:

When the brown rust bucket went past with the sound of a Group B rally car, I realised something was amiss...

I had a similar experience in about 1998. I was in my spiffy, shiny black MR2. Behind me at some lights on the M62 sliproad is an orange, rusty old A reg Sierra. A right old shed and in it are four burly blokes in donkey jackets and wooly hats. Looked like a load of dustbin men (in retrospect they could have been clubbers).

Next thing this thing takes off past me like a stabbed rat - it really was motoring. Absolutely no idea what it had under the bonnet (Cosworth?) but it was so mental that I've remembered it ever since

[stuart-b]

Why are these engines not used more in lightweight cars like Caterhams and other specials? Or are they not suitable, as they are FWD layout?

I don't think I've ever seen "Put a SaaB engine in..." thread before, plenty of other engine swaps though.

I have only ever been in a SaaB 95 and it was a crap NA automatic

[Mr2Mike]

stuart-b said:

Why are these engines not used more in lightweight cars like Caterhams and other specials? Or are they not suitable, as they are FWD layout?

I don't think I've ever seen "Put a SaaB engine in..." thread before, plenty of other engine swaps though.

I have only ever been in a SaaB 95 and it was a crap NA automatic

Saab engines have been put into RWD cars. Practical Performance Cars magazine had a Mk2 Escort with a Saab engine as a project car (don't think they ever finished though, like most of their projects). There are a couple of people on Locostbuilders (Locost = self build Lotus 7 style car) that have used them as well, though big power turbocharged engine aren't a good fit in super lightweight sports cars like this.

[rscott]

See - http://www.neobrothers.co.uk/saab-b234r-powered-gr... - for a Saab powered Grinnall with 420BHP! They've also got some mad old Saab 96 with silly engines.

[otolith]

Notadoctor said:

One does enjoy upsetting modern bling with our 9000 2.3 HPT - helps all panels have some damage and not been washed for a year!

There's a local motorway slip at the end of a long A road. Often a modern sportster will be just keeping up, so one approaches motorway at 45-50mph then utilises the devastating 9000 power band from thereabouts.

Period advertisement, 50-70mph times...

Yes, now let's try it in 2nd

[g3org3y]

Notadoctor said:

One does enjoy upsetting modern bling with our 9000 2.3 HPT - helps all panels have some damage and not been washed for a year!

There's a local motorway slip at the end of a long A road. Often a modern sportster will be just keeping up, so one approaches motorway at 45-50mph then utilises the devastating 9000 power band from thereabouts.

Period advertisement, 50-70mph times...

Aren't those stats more a comment on gearing rather than "OMFG POWERS/TORKS!!!11"?

Repeat in 3rd gear and I wonder what the difference would be?

[tommobot]

Tbh, I've a bangernomics £500 220,000 mile 9-5 Aero, and that is actually very rapid.

Supposidly 250+bhp and it certainally feels it!

It can't get off the line particually quickly, if at all, but once rolling i'd say it feels / is miles quicker than the previous generation of hot hatches...

[Notadoctor]

g3org3y said:

Notadoctor said:

One does enjoy upsetting modern bling with our 9000 2.3 HPT - helps all panels have some damage and not been washed for a year!

There's a local motorway slip at the end of a long A road. Often a modern sportster will be just keeping up, so one approaches motorway at 45-50mph then utilises the devastating 9000 power band from thereabouts.

Period advertisement, 50-70mph times...

Aren't those stats more a comment on gearing rather than "OMFG POWERS/TORKS!!!11"?

Repeat in 3rd gear and I wonder what the difference would be?

Well, it's a statistic that simply illuminates a particular character and performance design of the Saab 9000.

For me'n'my Saab, and possibly the original OP's Saab, it highlights the PH satisfaction in engaging with a visually underestimated car to place it in a calculated situation where it can thrill the driver and surpass, pass and surprise unexpected modern targets.

So, poor at standing starts, but designed with specific sweet spots based on engineered design. Albeit by Swedes concentrating on the safety aspect of overtaking a vehicle quickly at 50mph rather than the "OMFG POWERS/TORKS!!!" above.

BTW - Autosport article from mid-90s reported that 7% of men using this "Pulls faster than a Lambo" line, whilst danging a Saab keyring before an inebriated girl, actually pulled.