From: DervMan on
"DanB" <iridiumdan(a)> wrote in message
> "Douglas Payne" <douggie(a)> wrote in message
> news:6esj9tF8od0tU1(a)
>> jackhackettuk(a) wrote of Saabs:
>>> Aside from them being a bit shite and likely to depreciate like
>>> buggery, any company that tries to market their cars as 'Eco
>>> Power' (IIRC), when they're just as shite on fuel as anything else,
>>> sucks.
>> Yeah, I mean 'Ecotec' was a much cleverer marketing ploy, wasn't it?
> Yea but there was never really an advertising campaign saying "We have
> Ecotec engines, they're well economical!" like Saab are doing with these
> Ecopower things. You know, the advert with the guy that over takes a
> truck and it's banging out about big engine power, from a smalll engine
> with small engine costs.

The one where you have bigger engine power for overtaking and smaller
engines for economy? You've added a slight twist on words though...

Their point is valid though; it's one reason why turbocharging is common.
Throw in weight and space concerns and some clever software to help smooth
boost, wheelspin, so on and so forth... oh and also turbocharging recycles
some energy that is otherwise chucked out of the back and it can help reduce
emissions other than carbon dioxide, should the Government decide that there
are other pollutants too...

My lardy comfortable four door barge has the low pressure 2.0 turbo donk,
badged 1.8t; not very fast (150 bhp, 177 lbsft) but so far has been
economical (~39 so far). By all accounts, having it Hirsch'd or buying a
higher power model makes almost no difference to fuel consumption. Hirsch
is 195 bhp / 229 lbsft, Aero is 210 / 221.

I have the poor cousin of the 2.0 turbos in the 9-3 range. Good excuse to
Hirsch upgrade*. :)

*Saab's official consumption figures show the Hirsch uses less fuel on the
Government tests than the vanilla engine.

The DervMan

From: jackhackettuk on
On 25 Jul, 07:16, Adrian <toomany2...(a)> wrote:
> jackhacket...(a) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
> > only today I was out in the
> > Astra at work and noted it really does have a cracking chassis...
> That'd explain the torque-steer. Still, I'm sure it can be welded up.

Very good... <slow handclap> ;-)

From: Elder on
In article <48896c19$0$2520$da0feed9(a)>,
thedervman(a) says...
> The end being the people at the back. Some systems work remarkably well. I
> like it icy cold, Charlie likes it furnace hot* and the 9-3 works well in
> this respects.
It really does work nicely though doesn't it.
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
From: Elder on
In article <6es56gF8mlekU1(a)>,
iridiumdan(a) says...
> Then of course the Vectra would require the old stage 3, big FMIC, full
> Miltek inc pre-cat removal and sports cat (or is it cats?) and remap -
> rumoured to show 330bhp+ and similar amounts of lbs/ft. Although to be
> honest, I wouldn't bother with the FMIC, just the Miltek and remap for
> 320bhp(ish).
One word. Maptun
Stage 3 Pah, for children that is.
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
From: Elder on
In article <1iklpk2.1mqjqwq1luz1fdN%steve(a)>,
steve(a) says...
> We're all petrolheads, but I can guarantee that the average bloke in the
> street places Saab pretty much up there with the other prestige brands -
> and streets ahead of Vauxhall.
That is the way it used to be. A Saab was a thinking man's BMW. But GM
have failed to maintain that.

Doctors, Lawyer, teachers, pilots, people who required precission and
standards along with performance and longevity would buy Saab Turbos.

Now it's all bloody reps in their 1.9Tids
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases