RE: SOTW: Saab 900 Turbo(s)

[richyd]

Gotta love these cars - I've always been a fan of SAAB since owning a 9-3 Turbo back in the day (SAAB fitted Hirsch suspension to mine which sorted the torque steer and floaty ride) The 900's had wonderful original engineering, like Subaru these guys avoided following the crowd and built cars the way they thought they should be built, engineered by engineers, not focus-groups! I'd snap up a decent 900 T16S if I could find one in mint condition, at anything under £3k these are a bargain!! - remember that gangster drama series on the telly with dirty den in it after he left 'enders, those baddies drove a lovely black T16!

[Jobbo]

DrTre said:

Jobbo said:

There was no Aero variant in 1989/90; the quickest ones were then called Carlsson in the UK and had a much more obtrusive bodykit. So I think it's probably in original condition. Those 15" alloys were on virtually every non-Carlsson Saab sold in the last couple of years of the 1980s.

Huh? Can you clarify the "no Aero variant" comment? I know/think it's clouded a bit by the Aero not really being a model per se, but the body kit. The Carlson was a very limited edition model.

There was a dealer-fit Aero Airflow bodykit, which was similar to the Carlsson one and rather heavy-handed; or the early (1984/85) T16S was known as an Aero apparently, but there was no Aero model designation until the mid-90s.

Donster, that car is a 16v Turbo which is why I think the wheels are correct. Maybe the side cladding was a later addition, but it could have come out of the factory that way because there were so many permutations available.

ETA: I have confused myself - the dealer bodykit was called the Airflow not the Aero! Here's one:

Edited by Jobbo on Friday 14th January 11:56

[anything fast]

Great Pretender said:

The Donster said:

I really wish people would stop referring to massive torquesteer as a problem on these cars. It was never as bad as some have made out.

This was old-school turbocharging at its best. Lag, yes, torquesteer, yes, but very managable - not like a Focus RS. Utterly brilliant cars to drive and own and a crying shame I still don't have my flat-front T16S.

Edited by The Donster on Friday 14th January 10:28

So you've simultaneously nullified one cliché and then opened up another one?

Gotta love PH.

my question is have people just given up using thier arms?? My god!! If a powerful FWD car does torquesteer just turn the steering wheel and if that does not work stop flooring it!!! I have had a a FWD focus with 330bhp (an ST not an RS with the fancy revonuckle) and it was easy to drive and mega fun. It did pull left and right but only if you drove like a dick!! However i think you will find most powerful RWD cars (like my 600 BHP trans am) will drive totaly sideways up the road (if you again drive like a dick) and are potentialy more dangerous if you cant drive properly! BTW the New focus RS is by far the best handling powerful FWD car you can buy (i have driven one and it felt almost like an AWD car!)

so i ask why do ppl moan about this? I have driven the old 900 turbo and it drives nice, i dont even mind the lag! It reminds you you have time to put two hands on the steering wheel!

[The Donster]

DrTre said:

Jobbo said:

There was no Aero variant in 1989/90; the quickest ones were then called Carlsson in the UK and had a much more obtrusive bodykit. So I think it's probably in original condition. Those 15" alloys were on virtually every non-Carlsson Saab sold in the last couple of years of the 1980s.

Huh? Can you clarify the "no Aero variant" comment? I know/think it's clouded a bit by the Aero not really being a model per se, but the body kit. The Carlson was a very limited edition model.

I certainly will.

No cars were ever 'badged' as Aeros, just referred to as such - that, I know. All three-spoke body-cladded cars were either labelled 'Aero' or 'T16S' throughout the model's lifespan. I think my comment was probably a little misleading in the sense that I was trying to convey that the car in the ad purported to be something it wasn't (i.e. 'Aero' or 'T16S' bodycladding, but without the wheels, even though it never referred to either, as such). It looks like the cladding was added to at some point in its life, but not from the factory.

I like to think I know my 900s pretty well and have never seen one in this spec before, especially with manual windows.

And yes, I'm well aware of the Carlsson range and it's production period, though there were variants still on sale in body-cladding/three-spoke guise at the same time as the Carlsson.

[buzzer]

I love the look of the 900....

Do they suffer the same problem as the 9-3 with Bulkhead cracking?

[The Donster]

Jobbo said:

DrTre said:

Jobbo said:

There was no Aero variant in 1989/90; the quickest ones were then called Carlsson in the UK and had a much more obtrusive bodykit. So I think it's probably in original condition. Those 15" alloys were on virtually every non-Carlsson Saab sold in the last couple of years of the 1980s.

Huh? Can you clarify the "no Aero variant" comment? I know/think it's clouded a bit by the Aero not really being a model per se, but the body kit. The Carlson was a very limited edition model.

There was a dealer-fit Aero bodykit, which was similar to the Carlsson one and rather heavy-handed; or the early (1984/85) T16S was known as an Aero apparently, but there was no Aero model designation until the mid-90s.

Donster, that car is a 16v Turbo which is why I think the wheels are correct. Maybe the side cladding was a later addition, but it could have come out of the factory that way because there were so many permutations available.

I never said the wheels weren't correct (in fact, I made that point in a previous comment), but the body-cladding was a little odd to me.

Again, your reference to the Aero designation I've also responded to. The early flat-front variants (of which I had one) was indeed 'labelled' Aero (though wasn't on the logbook - that was T16S) which had the same side cladding as this and later T16S/Aero versions.

[The Donster]

Jobbo said:

DrTre said:

Jobbo said:

There was no Aero variant in 1989/90; the quickest ones were then called Carlsson in the UK and had a much more obtrusive bodykit. So I think it's probably in original condition. Those 15" alloys were on virtually every non-Carlsson Saab sold in the last couple of years of the 1980s.

Huh? Can you clarify the "no Aero variant" comment? I know/think it's clouded a bit by the Aero not really being a model per se, but the body kit. The Carlson was a very limited edition model.

There was a dealer-fit Aero Airflow bodykit, which was similar to the Carlsson one and rather heavy-handed; or the early (1984/85) T16S was known as an Aero apparently, but there was no Aero model designation until the mid-90s.

Donster, that car is a 16v Turbo which is why I think the wheels are correct. Maybe the side cladding was a later addition, but it could have come out of the factory that way because there were so many permutations available.

ETA: I have confused myself - the dealer bodykit was called the Airflow not the Aero! Here's one:

Edited by Jobbo on Friday 14th January 11:56

Yes, that's correct. 'Airflow' was the factory option for the '85 model range.

[Jobbo]

Airflow kits may have been official Saab bodykits, but they were definitely not fitted at the factory; Performance Car had a long termer in about 1986/87 which had the Airflow upgrades.

[noclue]

Lol just bought one of these last week from Fleabay, but an 8V Saloon Turbo with Aero kit (so completely wrong spec lol!) and its a great shed!! Totally usable every day and laugh when the boost comes in, well recommended motor for some bangernomics!

[noclue]

Oh mines a 87 and doe shave an Aero kit by the way (confimred by specalist and Saab forum) apparently according to the specalist is was a dealer car with a early concept kit as a demonstrator

[Insight]

G reg or L reg? Has to be the G. I remember Quentin Wilson (the original James May) talk on an old Top Gear saying that when you are spending a grand or less that you should just forget the age of the car and only focus on the condition.

Edited by Insight on Friday 14th January 12:15

[Saabstudent]

rob.e said:

The Donster said:

I really wish people would stop referring to massive torquesteer as a problem on these cars. It was never as bad as some have made out.

This was old-school turbocharging at its best. Lag, yes, torquesteer, yes, but very managable - not like a Focus RS. Utterly brilliant cars to drive and own and a crying shame I still don't have my flat-front T16S.

Re torque steer - did you ever drive a "Viggen"? That thing wouldn't drive in a straight line on dry tarmac at 3/4 throttle. Torque steer at tickover in the wet.

ok, so i'm exaggerating a little, but it really, really was very bad. They should keep one for university automotive engineering students to drive just to see how bad a poorly designed fwd setup can be.

Saab Uk have actually kept a standard Viggen that is given to all the newbies to drive to 'get a feeling' of what an old torque-steering Saab is like. No BS.

G

[Toffer]

Probably what the Triumph Dolomite 16V should have evolved into?

[Saabstudent]

aeropilot said:

rob.e said:

The Donster said:

I really wish people would stop referring to massive torquesteer as a problem on these cars. It was never as bad as some have made out.

This was old-school turbocharging at its best. Lag, yes, torquesteer, yes, but very managable - not like a Focus RS. Utterly brilliant cars to drive and own and a crying shame I still don't have my flat-front T16S.

Re torque steer - did you ever drive a "Viggen"?

What's that got to do with a 900....?

The Viggen was based on the 9-3 which is a COMPLETELY different car, with a completely different bodyshell/engine/transmission/suspension layout making your comparison totally irrelevant

There's a lot wrong in that original post, one of the things being harping on about torquesteer, which was never really a big problem with the 900.
All post 900 Saab designs, with the transverse engine arrangement, such as 9000, GM900, 9-3, 9-5 etc., yes, these do have a much greater tendancy to torquesteer.

Also, the CD player skipping was nothing whatsoever to do with scuttle shake on the convertibles, the 900's with metal roofs did the same, it was due to where the CD changer was located in the later cars, bolted to the floor pan under the rear load floor.

The car the author is referring to was a tin-top aeropilot.
And it wasn't a multi-changer, but a head-unit in the top of the dash. It was as much to do with the head-unit installation as the Kilen springs and mismatched but brand new Sachs dampers on my car.

Reason i know this?
It's my car that Riggers is referring to. Think i'll have to have words, Torquesteer indeed!

G

[900T-R]

The Donster said:

Jobbo said:

DrTre said:

Jobbo said:

There was no Aero variant in 1989/90; the quickest ones were then called Carlsson in the UK and had a much more obtrusive bodykit. So I think it's probably in original condition. Those 15" alloys were on virtually every non-Carlsson Saab sold in the last couple of years of the 1980s.

Huh? Can you clarify the "no Aero variant" comment? I know/think it's clouded a bit by the Aero not really being a model per se, but the body kit. The Carlson was a very limited edition model.

There was a dealer-fit Aero Airflow bodykit, which was similar to the Carlsson one and rather heavy-handed; or the early (1984/85) T16S was known as an Aero apparently, but there was no Aero model designation until the mid-90s.

Donster, that car is a 16v Turbo which is why I think the wheels are correct. Maybe the side cladding was a later addition, but it could have come out of the factory that way because there were so many permutations available.

ETA: I have confused myself - the dealer bodykit was called the Airflow not the Aero! Here's one:

Edited by Jobbo on Friday 14th January 11:56

Yes, that's correct. 'Airflow' was the factory option for the '85 model range.

That pic is of a T16S with the big Carlsson bumpers and whaletail. If I built a 900T now it would look like that

The Airflow addenda were far successful in their integration with the early flat-front bumpers and the sideskirts (that could also be combined with the later bumper style, which is sometimes seen on 4 or 5-door cars for which there were no Aero skirts) were much shallower in profile, they also featured a rubber strip and a 'Saab Airflow' badge in the sideskirt between front arch and door - the latter item more hasoften than not gone AWOL these days.

[Saabstudent]

Petrolhead_Rich said:

Dad used to have an 8v Turbo, stupidly fast car with a nice habit of the turbo kicking in half way round a roundabout resulting in massive understeer as the tyres decide they no longer want to grip! This is the slightly less powerful 16v I think which would be more predictable

Top Shed though!

16v was always quicker than the 8v from the factory.
Even when it comes to tuning, the 16V can be taken much higher (partly due to better fuelling).

However they did sell a 16V light pressure turbo with similar power figures to the 8V turbos, but a much more linear power delivery.

G

[900T-R]

Saabstudent said:

The car the author is referring to was a tin-top aeropilot.
And it wasn't a multi-changer, but a head-unit in the top of the dash. It was as much to do with the head-unit installation as the Kilen springs and mismatched but brand new Sachs dampers on my car.

Reason i know this?
It's my car that Riggers is referring to. Think i'll have to have words, Torquesteer indeed!

G

Should have adopted my rear suspension turret brace in Saabine then.

Edited by 900T-R on Friday 14th January 12:33

[drivin_me_nuts]

I had a T16s convertible and ran it for 3 years. 100k in that time on a daily grind. Loved it. Yes it was wobbly, but oddly enough it was also the most sure footed car. The handling was so predictable and reliability.. well put it this way, the car it was replaced by was an E39 M5 which needed more dealer visits in 6 months and 20k than the saab had in 3 years and 100k. I'd have another T16s in a shot.

Edited by drivin_me_nuts on Friday 14th January 12:30

[britsportscars]

There's a red 900 Turbo that I used to see regularly near Lutterworth in Leicestershire. It had been tweaked and had some money spent on it. Looked pretty cool and sounded awesome! It also had a decent turn of pace too!

My mum had one for a while and she gave up driving it because of the torque steer and wheelspin (or in her words "it keeps wobbling and skidding side to side"). I thought it was great, really cheap too.

The whole Saab brand/image is pretty good too (less pretentious than BMW, Merc Audi etc) will be interesting to see what the new owners do about a smaller model.

[M666 EVO]

The Donster said:

I really wish people would stop referring to massive torquesteer as a problem on these cars. It was never as bad as some have made out.

This was old-school turbocharging at its best. Lag, yes, torquesteer, yes, but very managable - not like some Mk1 Focus RS variants (not all, it has to be said). Utterly brilliant cars to drive and own and a crying shame I still don't have my flat-front T16S.

Edited by The Donster on Friday 14th January 10:28

Edited by The Donster on Friday 14th January 11:50

I'm with you on the Torquesteer. My Delta HPE has just developed (well last night actually) some serious torquesteer but it just means I tend to floor it more for fun! If you can drive well, its easy to keep the revs up and just always have the power on tap. Simples!