Saab 9-3 Bio Power tested

[racy]

Full Link: http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/motori...93_convertible

Mini road test in the Saab 9-3 Convertible
By Frank Turner
14/ 4/2008


The Saab 9-3 Convertible looked cool in metallic blue. At the same time it was green.

That doesn’t mean the classy drop-top had been given the two-tone treatment – rather that the verdant colour applied to what was under the bonnet.

For this was a Saab BioPower car, the Swedish company’s tilt at helping save the planet by cutting emissions.

There’s no doubt that Saab have succeeded in producing a green car that really looks the business.

For ages, green meant beards, tree-hugging, mung beans, sandals and dubious dress sense.

With Saab it means style, with cabriolet flair.

We’ve already road tested the face-lifted Convertible, a 150hp diesel version, but the time seemed right, with the increasing focus on green motoring, to put the alternative-fuel model to the test.

When Motoring last leapt aboard the open-top 9-3, we gave it a resounding thumbs-up.

That verdict holds good and there’s no difference to the fulfilling driving experience in the biofuel-powered car.

Saab says the E85 fuel (85 per cent bioethanol from plant sources and 15 per cent petrol) gives more power than standard petrol in the turbo-charged engine.

It is also good for the environment by lowering C02 emissions.

Now, a scientific adviser to the government has been reported as challenging that view, saying that biofuels’ effect has not been properly assessed.

But, globally, there is great confidence in the benefits of this eco-friendly, renewable energy source.

And it has to be said that Saab’s fuel system is flexible and couldn’t be easier to use.

An onboard computer monitors fuel quality at every fill-up and automatically adjusts for best running on any mixture of E85 and petrol.

The car will run equally well on neat petrol.

And, of course, the system doesn’t depend on the manufature of expensive and heavy batteries to earn its green credentials.

Our test car, a Vector Sport with two-litre engine, returning 33mpg (combined), cost £30,360.

[racy]

Originally Posted by racy

Our test car, a Vector Sport with two-litre engine, returning 33mpg (combined), cost £30,360.

This is really an astonishing number, considering its a car with a curb weight of nearly 4,000 pounds.

I say GM should quit teasing us with the Bio Saabs, and start selling them over here. In side every Saab dealership, include an E85 station.

[suckstobeyou]

Originally Posted by racy

This is really an astonishing number, considering its a car with a curb weight of nearly 4,000 pounds.

I say GM should quit teasing us with the Bio Saabs, and start selling them over here. In side every Saab dealership, include an E85 station.

that is also the imperial gallons, so in US gallons it comes to 39mpg, if google is right

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...n+to+US+gallon

[377Z]

Originally Posted by suckstobeyou

that is also the imperial gallons, so in US gallons it comes to 39mpg, if google is right

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...n+to+US+gallon

Its actually ~27.5 US MPG. Divide Imperial MPG by 1.2.

[racy]

Originally Posted by 377Z

Its actually ~27.5 US MPG. Divide Imperial MPG by 1.2.

Let's assume your low ball number is correct. Its still not bad for a "combined" mpg. I have a 300C Hemi, which gets ~26 mpg on the highway, but never more than 17 mpg combined. So if this Saab is getting 27.5 combined, that's still pretty good in my book - expecially considering it uses only 15% the gasoline normal car, and gets more horsepower/torque than a normal 2.0 litre turbo.

[377Z]

Originally Posted by racy

Let's assume your low ball number is correct. Its still not bad for a "combined" mpg. I have a 300C Hemi, which gets ~26 mpg on the highway, but never more than 17 mpg combined. So if this Saab is getting 27.5 combined, that's still pretty good in my book - expecially considering it uses only 15% the gasoline normal car, and gets more horsepower/torque than a normal 2.0 litre turbo.

Why would you need to assume anything about such basic math?

A UK gallon is ~1.2 US gallons. MPG stands for Miles Per Gallon.

Mathematically, MPG is expressed as (miles driven)/(gallons burned). Increasing the denominator while holding the numerator constant will result in a relatively smaller number. Converting gallons burned from UK to US gallons increases the denominator of this particular equation.

Not sure how that could be interpreted as a 'lowball number' as it is the (only) right answer, and not some random figure. It also has nothing to do with whether 27.5MPG is good, bad, or otherwise for this particular car.

[killerrd2]

Originally Posted by 377Z

Its actually ~27.5 US MPG. Divide Imperial MPG by 1.2.

Right on the money. 27.5 mpg

Here's another conversion link to bookmark:

http://hemsidor.torget.se/users/b/bo...2_e.htm#torque

Now if we can just make gasoline from all of my lawn trimmings/clippings I would be ecstatic!!

[racy]

Originally Posted by 377Z

Why would you need to assume anything about such basic math?

A UK gallon is ~1.2 US gallons. MPG stands for Miles Per Gallon.

Mathematically, MPG is expressed as (miles driven)/(gallons burned). Increasing the denominator while holding the numerator constant will result in a relatively smaller number. Converting gallons burned from UK to US gallons increases the denominator of this particular equation.

Not sure how that could be interpreted as a 'lowball number' as it is the (only) right answer, and not some random figure. It also has nothing to do with whether 27.5MPG is good, bad, or otherwise for this particular car.

Settle down fella. You're reading my comment all wrong. Somehow you've interpreted my comment as an offense to your math skills.

Here is what I am saying. A combined mpg in the high twenties or low thirties is great for any car that is designed as a sports cabriolet

[377Z]

Originally Posted by racy

Settle down fella. You're reading my comment all wrong. Somehow you've interpreted my comment as an offense to your math skills.

Judging from the above it is you who needs to settle down, as my reply was non-emotive. I don't see how a secure person could infer that I was offended simply because I made an educative reply.

[racy]

Originally Posted by 377Z

Judging from the above it is you who needs to settle down, as my reply was non-emotive. I don't see how a secure person could infer that I was offended simply because I made an educative reply.

....think i'll go ahead and ruin this thread. since i started it, i'll take the liberty

Explain to us why your post is necessary. What does a person's security have to do with anything? And your reply wasn't educative, it was pedantic. Try not to confuse the two....rather, don't hide an angry pedantry beneath a false helpfulness.

Your first line "Why would you need to assume anything about such basic math?", is an emotive statement and textually did not address the subject of my comment. The subject of my comment wasn't "assumptions", rather it was heralding the the fact that a car with a curb weight of nearly 4,000 pounds gets a combined mpg of 27.5. I still think that's a pretty darned good number.

The last part of your comment, "Not sure how that could be interpreted as a 'lowball number' as it is the (only) right answer, and not some random figure.", is yet another unnecessary emotive statement, and ill-directed response to an unrelated comment. The gist of what I am saying is, 33 or 27.5, it doesn't matter. Both are still good numbers.

Have I included emotion invoking responses above? You bet. Why? Because I have a little time on my hands, and I don't care for your good samaritan false pretense.

The facts are this: If you were "just trying to be educative, your last post was not necessary". What you are really trying to do is be a 'somebody' on an internet chat board. Now granted, that last statement would have been too strong, had you not taken offense to the "settle down" comment of mine. When it all boils down to it, that's what set you off. For that, I apologize. The other comment that seems to have set you off is the "Lowball number". You have no reason to be offended by that. Suck it up and get over it Stu.

[377Z]

Originally Posted by racy

....think i'll go ahead and ruin this thread. since i started it, i'll take the liberty

Explain to us why your post is necessary. What does a person's security have to do with anything? And your reply wasn't educative, it was pedantic. Try not to confuse the two....rather, don't hide an angry pedantry beneath a false helpfulness.

Your first line "Why would you need to assume anything about such basic math?", is an emotive statement and textually did not address the subject of my comment. The subject of my comment wasn't "assumptions", rather it was heralding the the fact that a car with a curb weight of nearly 4,000 pounds gets a combined mpg of 27.5. I still think that's a pretty darned good number.

The last part of your comment, "Not sure how that could be interpreted as a 'lowball number' as it is the (only) right answer, and not some random figure.", is yet another unnecessary emotive statement, and ill-directed response to an unrelated comment. The gist of what I am saying is, 33 or 27.5, it doesn't matter. Both are still good numbers.

Have I included emotion invoking responses above? You bet. Why? Because I have a little time on my hands, and I don't care for your good samaritan false pretense.

The facts are this: If you were "just trying to be educative, your last post was not necessary". What you are really trying to do is be a 'somebody' on an internet chat board. Now granted, that last statement would have been too strong, had you not taken offense to the "settle down" comment of mine. When it all boils down to it, that's what set you off. For that, I apologize. The other comment that seems to have set you off is the "Lowball number". You have no reason to be offended by that. Suck it up and get over it Stu.

Why are you getting so emotional? I wasn't trying to hurt your pride, just correcting a simple question of fact regarding the basis of the fuel economy conversation. My original reply was referencing the 39 MPG figure that was mentioned. The difference between 27.5 MPG or 39 MPG is huge. Heck, even the difference between 33 MPG & 27.5 MPG is huge since 33 is 20% optimistic.


Anyways, I think there are a number of things that make the 27.5 MPG combined out of a ~4000lb car more impressive. First is that it was achieved with E85 fuel--empirical proof that E85 is capable of impressive numbers when optimized, in contrast to the compromised flex fuel offerings currently available. Second, it is proof that installing a small turbo 4 cylinder in a ~4000 lb car is a viable tactic for increasing fuel economy while maintaining adequate performance (a fact others have tried to refute in other recent threads). The article mentions "there is no difference to the fulfilling driving experience" between the bio-power and regular fuel versions. Though its power is not mentioned in this article, others state that the biopower 2.0 has 260HP. Of course there is still some uncertainty regarding the UK test cycle and how it differs from ours. But even if the combined figure was, say, 25MPG in the EPA cycle, that would be impressive for something like a ~4000 lb 4 dr RWD sedan that could still have 260 HP.