UK First Drive: Saab 9-3 2.8 V6 Sedan-Biggers isn't always better

[nadepalma]

http://www.autocarmagazine.com/First...p?RT_ID=214907

Saab 9-3 Saloon 2.8 V6 4dr
Test Date 03/05/2005 09:00:00
Price when new £24,495

Bigger isn't always better

I have a theory that a car always performs best on its home ground. The roads on which it was developed and which the company engineers use every day will always give the most flattering impression of a car’s abilities.

So where better for Saab to show off its new 250bhp V6-powered flagship 9-3 than on the roads around its Trollhattan HQ? Indeed, the steely grey eminence of the Saab factory seemed to be permanently on the horizon (which may have said more about the lamentably short test route than the size of the factory).

Although it generally prefers to use turbocharged four-cylinder engines, Saab does have a record of using V6 engines from parent company General Motors. Both the 900 and 9000 had the option of a V6 motor, and early in the life of the 9-5, a highly unusual ‘asymmetrically turbocharged’ V6 was on the options list (which is where it stayed).

Saab’s determinedly independent attitude meant that the current 9-3 wasn’t offered with the V6 engine, relying instead on its famously punchy four-cylinder units. You get the feeling that Saab would have been happy to continue to tweak its core engines had it not been for overwhelming market demands.

Saab engineers say that six-cylinder engines make up just 20 per cent of the European market for medium-size luxury cars like the 9-3. In the US, however, the ‘entry luxury’ market is dominated by the demand for six-cylinder engines. And with the transatlantic market so important, a big motor is vital.

The new engine

The 2.8-litre turbo unit is based on GM’s new ‘global’ V6 architecture, which will also be the basis for next-generation V6 Opel and Alfa Romeo engines. Although much of the development work was carried out by Holden in Australia, Saab says it was closely involved during the ‘conceptual design and development’, mainly because Saab is GM’s centre of excellence for turbocharging.

The all-aluminium 24-valve V6 powerplant has four chain-driven camshafts, the inlet camshaft getting electronically controlled variable valve timing. Saab says the cylinder heads are unique to its version of the V6. Also unique are the pistons (which are cooled from underneath by jets of oil) and the sintered steel conrods.

It gets a high-tech manifold, too. Double skinned and hydroformed (bent into shape by massive water pressure) with stainless steel liners, it is said to help reduce cold-start emissions.

But most distinctive of all is the turbocharger’s installation. A single, twin-scroll water-cooled Mitsubishi unit, it is mounted on the right of the engine above the transmission. Two separate inlet tracts feed it, one from each bank of cylinders. As the exhaust gas pulses alternate between each cylinder bank, the turbo’s twin scrolls get alternating blasts of exhaust gas.

Saab is also very proud of writing its own software for the engine management system, which can limit the engine’s torque output in slippery conditions. That’s useful, because there’s masses of torque. The engine ticks over at 720rpm and by 1500rpm 90 per cent of the twist action is already being delivered. By 2000rpm, the full 258lb ft is on tap, and it is available right around the rev counter until 4500rpm.

Performance

Saab says this is its fastest-accelerating production car ever, but with nothing more than a brief drive around Trollhattan we couldn’t confirm this. In six-speed manual form, the official 0-62mph figure is 6.9sec, with a top speed in excess of 155mph.

The only further thing we could glean from Saab’s limited official figures was that the manual V6 can run from 50 to 75mph in top gear in just 8.3 seconds.

Sadly, the test cars were US-spec 2006-year models fitted with six-speed automatic gearboxes. The transmission changes gear swiftly and smoothly, but hard acceleration induces a kind of extended slurring reminiscent of a slipping clutch.

Nevertheless, this is certainly a rapid car. Overtaking doesn’t require anything more strenuous than gently extending the ankle. And overtaking is the 9-3 V6’s forte. As you’d expect from the most modern V6 engine available, it is smooth and seamless, but in many ways lacking in character. Admittedly, hooked up to a manual gearbox it could be a very different story, but that won’t improve the dull engine note, despite Saab specially tuning the twin exhaust pipes for a more sporty sound.

Were I in the market for a fast Saab, I’d still be tempted by the four-cylinder 210bhp 2.0 T Aero engine, which has an appreciably sharper feel than the V6. Indeed, Saab will still offer this engine in the UK, partly because of its lower CO2 rating (204g/km versus 252g/km for the V6, making for lower company car tax bills).

As hugely competent as the V6 engine undoubtedly is, we will reserve final judgement until we can try the car with a manual gearbox in the UK. But we’re tempted to bet that the V6 is an answer to a question only really being asked in America.

Hilton Holloway

[nadepalma]

Well, I guess it's a better review that I would have expected from a UK publication.

They do have a point that it was probably more for the US market than the UK market, but I dont' think it would be fair to imply that Saab has no room in their lineup for a V6 and should stick to what they know. Its true that they're known for their turbo I4 engines -- and they do this very well -- but that doesn't mean that a brand can't evolve and move into new territory. I think Saabs are great, but some luxury buyers dont' necessarily want a buzzy (though powerful) I4 when they want something more refined, etc. And ultimately you have to listen to the customer or they go shopping elsewhere. Besides which, if Saab hopes to grow sales around the world, they ultimately have to offer more products and more variants of each of them. A punch V6 could be a way of pushing more 9-3 sales in the market and would make nice competition for the A4 in the US.

Now all they need to do is drop the lower hp 2.0t (the 175hp engine) in the U.S. market, use the 2.0T (the 210hp engine) as the base and give the redesigned 9-5 the same 2.8 V6 with a few more ponies when it comes to market...

Just my thoughts, of course!

[dav305z]

You've got to love the press. GM's yetertech engines and transmissions were the major target for criticism in every car they sold. The engines were "thrashy" and "loud" while the transmission "needed to catch up to the competition."Now GM has a super high tech engine, but it's "lacking character" and the 6-speed auto feels as if were slipping. Geez, so what is GM supposed to do, install the 3800 S/C into this cars engine bay?? That sure has plenty of "character!"

[nadepalma]

Originally Posted by dav305z

You've got to love the press. GM's yetertech engines and transmissions were the major target for criticism in every car they sold. The engines were "thrashy" and "loud" while the transmission "needed to catch up to the competition."Now GM has a super high tech engine, but it's "lacking character" and the 6-speed auto feels as if were slipping. Geez, so what is GM supposed to do, install the 3800 S/C into this cars engine bay?? That sure has plenty of "character!"

You have to love it don't you? No matter what happens, you can't make anyone happy -- especially the UK press. Just read any review by Jeremy Clarkson and he'll tell you just how horrible American/Swedish/Italian/Japanese cars are and their lack of "character" or "sophistication". It would seem that unless it's made or engineered in Germany, it doesn't deserve the same consideration. Unless of course it's BRITISH, in which case the UK press just LOVES those cars and claim how wonderful they are. Just read any review of a Jag, Aston Martin, Land Rover, et al. and they'll go on for pages about it's "character". But mention that it was American dollars and engineering that went into it...and they'll deny that the "Cowboys" had anything to do with it.

Go ask how it was that Aston got a V12 so quickly and they'll say raw ability -- rather than recognizing that it was two Ford Duratec 3.0L V6's mated end-to-end that was the basis for this engine. Ask Jag if they're same 3.0L V6 has anything in common with the Ford Duratec 3.0 (which shares the same architecture with the smaller 2.5L) and they'll say not one bit. If you don't believe this, take a look at the new LR3 that now offers a V6 base engine that is nearly identical to the 4.0L powerplant in the Explorer/Mountaineer/Mustang/Ranger. Ironic isn't it? But we all know that the corporate bean counters need to save money -- and if an engine already exists that can be improved or upgraded -- why shell out more cash? Never mind the fact that it was based on an "American" engine.

And to some extent, the same goes for the foreign car loving journalist here in this country who continually worship at the import-car altar. But in our American "Domestics are Bad" journalist club mantra, they'd give credit to the Swedes and Japanese, while downplaying our own home-grown vehicles. So be it.

Regarding the 9-3, there's no doubt they'd probably prefer it if their test vehicle had a stick -- no argument there -- but that the sixspeed auto was "slipping"? Not sure about that. If you ask me, the new engine sounds great, and I think that it'll be a hit for Saab in this country. Perception alone will dictate this since most luxury buyers need a 6 or 8 cylinder engine vs. Saab's standard I4 fare.

Kudos to GM for designing such an engine -- I hope it's the first of more good things to come. Maybe this engine will show up in other applications across GM brands? Who knows....but we can hope!

[jinushaun]

Originally Posted by nadepalma

You have to love it don't you? No matter what happens, you can't make anyone happy -- especially the UK press. Just read any review by Jeremy Clarkson and he'll tell you just how horrible American/Swedish/Italian/Japanese cars are and their lack of "character" or "sophistication". It would seem that unless it's made or engineered in Germany, it doesn't deserve the same consideration. Unless of course it's BRITISH, in which case the UK press just LOVES those cars and claim how wonderful they are. Just read any review of a Jag, Aston Martin, Land Rover, et al. and they'll go on for pages about it's "character". But mention that it was American dollars and engineering that went into it...and they'll deny that the "Cowboys" had anything to do with it.

Go ask how it was that Aston got a V12 so quickly and they'll say raw ability -- rather than recognizing that it was two Ford Duratec 3.0L V6's mated end-to-end that was the basis for this engine. Ask Jag if they're same 3.0L V6 has anything in common with the Ford Duratec 3.0 (which shares the same architecture with the smaller 2.5L) and they'll say not one bit. If you don't believe this, take a look at the new LR3 that now offers a V6 base engine that is nearly identical to the 4.0L powerplant in the Explorer/Mountaineer/Mustang/Ranger. Ironic isn't it? But we all know that the corporate bean counters need to save money -- and if an engine already exists that can be improved or upgraded -- why shell out more cash? Never mind the fact that it was based on an "American" engine.

You must not read very many UK car magazines.

It's true they generally trash anything American or Japanese, but they certainly don't praise everything British. Read any review about Rover or MG, and you'll get a decidely different opinion of British cars. They acknowledge Ford when talking about AM and Jaguar. (In fact, they often say how much more reliable these brands have become since Ford QA has been involved) I think part of the reason for the great praise if AM, Jaguar, Land Rover, Bentley, etc is because they're expensive cars; and in general, companies don't cheap out on expensive cars.

It's true. British car magazines write a lot about character.

[nadepalma]

Originally Posted by jinushaun

You must not read very many UK car magazines.

It's true they generally trash anything American or Japanese, but they certainly don't praise everything British. Read any review about Rover or MG, and you'll get a decidely different opinion of British cars. They acknowledge Ford when talking about AM and Jaguar. (In fact, they often say how much more reliable these brands have become since Ford QA has been involved) I think part of the reason for the great praise if AM, Jaguar, Land Rover, Bentley, etc is because they're expensive cars; and in general, companies don't cheap out on expensive cars.

It's true. British car magazines write a lot about character.

Actually I do read British car magazines quite a bit -- AutoCar, CAR and Evo mostly. Online I read AutoExpress, TopGear and one from "Channel4". But you're right, this was an oversight on my part, I didn't mention MG Rover. For the most part, they didn't seem to be big fans of them overall. Some magazines did have some good things to say about the MG ZT, ZT-T, and SV. A few had positive things to say about the Rover 75/MG ZT V8. Otherwise, the only other car I hear positive things about was the TF --- that's about it. Though when comparing MGs and Rovers, they always gave MG the edge cause of their sporty handling.

Honestly, the stuff I read most about concering MG-R and some of the smaller British boutique operations like TVR, Invicta, Marcos, etc. seem to be about their 'health' as a company and if they're gonna stick around. I know that companies like Lotus are safe thanks to the Malaysians, but every other week I'd read about how Towers and the Pheonix Consortium were lining their pockets and driving MG-R into the ground. Too bad.

Vauxhall also seems to get a bad rap here and there, but honestly I'm not sure why.

In any event, MG-R was an oversight. Otherwise, it seems as though the only thing better than British brands to UK auto journalists are the Germans -- who can do no wrong apparently.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by nadepalma

But we’re tempted to bet that the V6 is an answer to a question only really being asked in America.

How very very very true.

HOwever, it's always good to note that Saab's main competitors like Audi and Infiniti use a V6. So it's always good to have a V6 anyways. I'd prefer a HOT I4 at 250 (what was wrong with using the 9-5 Aero's engine?) but take what you can get.

It's not like the V6 is a slouch!!!

[mgescuro]

How does the 6-spd semi auto "Slip?" Makes me wonder if they were really using the 6spd Sentronic and not the 5+2spd Sentronic.

In either case, there is a very very slight delay as you push the button to switch gears. That could be termed "slippage." But that's the case with all the semi-auto out there for the most part.