This re-post is sparked by a comment by “JV” today:
….The 2010 9-3 models will only be available with the 1.9TTid, 1.8t, 2.0t, and 2.0T. The XWD versions will only be available with the 2.0T engine. This is to comply with EU CO2 rules.
The Australian sourced V6 will therefore be discontinued for the 2010 model year onwards. If you want the V6 FWD or XWD in your 9-3, get it now because it will be gone after next year(Assuming there is a next year).
And an addendum:
The V6T will only be offered on the 2010 9-5. It is probably as it should be. Take note that all photos of the 2010 9-3X are with the 2.0T badging. This is not coincidence.
There is still a year left though. Perhaps they will allow the V6T in markets such as the US where CO2 rules are…well, non existent. I doubt it though because the cost to carry that expensive engine in one or two markets only would be very high.
To provide a little background information about this, I’d like to draw you back to two entries I did at Trollhattan Saab last year.
Djup Strupe and the Saab 9-3:
Heard from some reliable sources that there is talk, (or already even determined?) that there will be no v6 in the 9-3. Low volume and emissions being the reason. Originaly planed to be updated to the v6 today in the insignia. Now, its scratched. Is this the last year you can order a v6 in the small Saab?
and More Djup Strupe and the Saab 9-3:
As I understood the current 9-3 won’t get a facelift as previously planned. And it is the current 9-3 that you wont be able to get with a V6 in 2010. I asked and was told that this was the final year with the V6 in the 9-3. It was planned that the Insignia V6 would go into the 9-3, but that plan has been cancelled due to low demand, and probably due to the cost of getting it certified in the 9-3. And as I understand it, the current V6 is being made in too few numbers.
The next 9-3 wont, as some people wrote, fit a V6. The global compact (delta) has no V6.
These entries were from October 2008 and this latest information seems to confirm what we were told back then.
With the new 9-5 coming, it probably makes a lot of sense. It’s also a nice nod to the Saab ethos of turbocharged fours that their base model of the time would offer just that engine.
Hopefully they might upgrade the four cylinder in the 9-3, though, so that it makes a bit more power for the upper-level models. One of those DI-turbo engines might be nice.
Related posts:
That Opel blurb...
{ 44 comments }
Alfa Romeo has, it seems, also discontinued their 3.2 V6, sourced from Holden.
They are “replacing” it with a modern 1.8 TBi(200 hp).
Too bad that XWD can’t be fitted to a TTid engines.
I’m not entirely clear whether with the divorce from GM, whether Saab even has the ability to carry on providing the V6 engine as it’s made in Australia by Holden, right ?
SaabKen: Given most of the current SAAB componentry is GM sourced I can’t imagine it would be an issue other than from a cost perspective. GM will remain happy to be a SAAB supplier as long as it gets paid.
Of course they won’t get paid much at all under the terms of a reconstruction ; )
I for one am glad to see the V6 go. It never looked right in the engine bay, with the turbo right in the middle of heat-sensitive components. Plus it sent a mixed message to buyers.
Now if we could only get direct-injected Biopower 4 cylinder engines.
If the ’10 9-3 doesn’t have a V6 in its arsenal, SAAB will not be competitive with the likes of the G37, 3Series, A4, IS250/350, S60 or any other entry level luxo sports sedan. Neither will it compete with the likes of family sedans such as top of the line Camry, Accord, Maxima or Mazda 6.
If that is truly the case, SAAB should just shutter the factory and call it quits. Who is the ’10 9-3 supposed to match up against at its $30k price point?
actually the 9-3 2.0T has more horsepower than the Lexus IS250, Volvo S60 2.5T, VW CC and Passat 2.0Ts and about as much as the A4 2.0T. It’s competitive on the base end of the scale. Plus I think US dealers are still selling more 2.0Ts than V6s. As much as I like the V6, the 2.0T is more than adequate for the FWD cars.
I think the 9-3x might be at a loss without a V6 option, as the XC70 and Outback have high-power options, and the small crossovers from Audi, BMW, etc. have six cylinders.
Not having a V6 option makes Saab more competitive because it promotes brand values.
What’s the point of telling customers that Saab’s turbo 4 is better than the competition’s 5′s and 6′s if you are also selling a gas-guzzling V6? It’s not like Saab’s “highly educated professional” customers can’t see the contradiction. I am willing to bet that offering a V6 in the 9-3 has lost Saab more sales than it has gained them.
Hopefully the new independant Saab will have enough corporate memory to not let this happen again, like it did with the NG900 V6 and 9-5 V6.
I for one enthusiastically support Saab’s getting rid of the V6, but only if they replace that fuel-thirsty turd of an engine with a turbo 4 that makes the same power. Would it be too much for GM to license the LNF to Saab as a parting gift for the 2010+ 9-3 Aeros? A biopower version of that engine would have no problem whatsoever hitting 300-320hp.
The V6 had a great engine note, but it was a needlessly heavy engine that had a really detrimental effect on the 9-3′s handling, which you’ll feel if you compare an 04-05 Aero to one of the later cars. The V6 cars felt much more nose-heavy and much less tossable and athletic than the 4-banger cars it replaces.
I talk a lot about how Saab needs to more aggressively target BMW and Audi with their products, but I also think that they need to do so while retaining their characteristic Saab flavor. Audi didn’t get where it is today by trying to be BMW to a T(T?), they did so by being Audi, playing to their strengths and being damn good about it. So what if their NA engines don’t match BMW’s and their handling is a little more ponderous than their brethren from Munich, they stuck with their Quattro and their excellent interiors and through that they were able to reverse their fortunes from the early 90′s in a big big way.
Saab likewise needs to keep that flavor too, and part of that Saab flavor in the eyes of consumers and the automotive press is turbocharged 4-bangers that swallow the highest levels of stock boost in the industry so that they beat the output of the opponent’s 6-cylinder engines. A turbo V6 that barely made 8psi and 100hp/liter just didn’t cut it. So if the new, independent Saab knows what’s good for them, they’ll start burning the midnight oil to get a ~300hp LNF into the 2010+ 9-3 Aeros, along with the stiffer suspension to match the athletic new engine. Call it the SPG and it’s 335i-beating performance and fuel economy will broadcast to the world that the old Saab is back in a big way.
Like they did in the 80s/90s with the OG900 & 9000 2.3T, Saab should be able to take on most of 6 cyl competition with a really good 4 cyl HP turbo engine.
It also seems rather logical to me to have the larger 9-5 available with a 6 cyl instead of the smaller 9-3.
At the moment its the other way around; a v6 available for the 9-3 but no longer for the 9-5…!
Just out of curiosity; does anybody know if the Cadillac BLS is still in production, or has it finally been discontinued ?
(Don’t worry… I won’t buy one..
Alex, I am forced to concur.
I think the new Saab Performance STCC race car would be a very good way to re-introduce the notion of SPG too with its 275hp I4T.
One thing though; the I4 needs to either be smoother OR de-balanced to get a bit of good old shaking going ala late 60′s American muscle (or my TiD); P
Balance shafts and small turbos with direct injection for the low-hp cars and SE models so they’re smooth with a nice linear power delivery. The SPG’s should have no shafts and much larger, laggier, and louder turbos that make you feel like you’re driving a WRC car. They should be like Evos and STI’s with BMW interiors.
I personally would like to see Saab go the way of Lotus and use only turbo 4′s in their cars. They could start with a great DI power-plant setup like the LNF engine and offer different turbo setups such as (single,twin scroll and twin turbo) along with varied compression ratios for performance values and that’s all they would need across their model lines. BMW has proven that and I just wished Saab could have jumped on this first with a TT4cyl engine first. BMW will be pushing the envelope with what is to be expected from a lower displacement engine. Truly showing what they are capable of with their (TT4cyl and TT6yl engines) giving off the performance of 6cyl and V8 power-plants respectively with greater efficiency.
I’ll say upfront that I like Turbo4s and Saab should continue to develop this expertise/positioning. Small cap is the future and Turbo asssts this. BUT……..has anyone who is thumbing their nose at the 2.8V6 driven one? They are brilliant to drive, even the journalists concede this. It should stay in the 95 and possibly in 93 halo models in my view. Not unlike BMWs use of V8s. 2.8 is not a big engine by any stretch and the performance that you get is terrific in my view. Long Live the V6.
The engine 1.8t and HFV6 for 93 is not available in modelyear 2009.
A 300 hp LNF would be very easy, as it is already rated at 290 hp / 360 tq (?) with the GMPP Turbo upgrade…. and that’s conservative. There are many Solstice GXPs/Sky RLs running over 300 rwhp.
As for the 9-5, it should have a V6 as it will be the “flagship” model. Now that they are breaking away, I’d love to see them stick it to Opel and secure access to the V6TT in the upcoming Insignia… but Saabify the engine and make more horsepower and better economy to boot!!
I completely agree PT. The 2.8 turbo V6 is simply an awesome engine, and it is what sold me on my ’07 Aero. I love everything from the growl of the exhaust at idle to the effortless part throttle passing it provides on the freeway. It is a first class powertrain in a first class car. And as for fuel economy – highway driving produces a more than respectable 26 to 27mpg, and overall I generally get right around 22mpg.
A wise man once said that “0-100km/h isn’t anywhere near as important as 80-120km/h or 100-140km/h. I realise that it might be when it comes to newsprint, but not in the real world.” That statement seems to fit the mission of the V6 perfectly.
Removing the V6 from the 9-3 as an on going option will be a huge mistake that will set this segment backwards. The fact that only V6 Turbo engines are available is a significant advantage over A+B who have clearly dropped their original options in favor of V8s and V10s to satisfy the Yank market. Going on that route will be another major miss calculation. I know that the core values and essence of Saab has been the 4s but again, the brand has to remain competitive and be seen as a clear option to the A+Bs of this world. Trying to do that only with 4 cylinders is going to be a laughing stock. They have to be very careful in not making this kinds of mistakes otherwise we will really see the brand disappearing altogether I am afraid.
Right now fuel is CHEAP, once the economic wheels start turning again we will see $150+ oil prices again and the fuel will follow. I know you americans are a bit spoilt with low gas prices but sooner or later you will have to get closer to what the rest of the world is paying and I dont think you’ll be interested in V6′s and V8′s if you can get reasobable performance from a 4 cyl…
Maybe I’m a bit of a bore but in a daily driver of 9-3 size and weight, what person needs more than 150 hp and 250 Nm ? I know more is fun but in the future I think those of us that drives cars for fun will pay a much larger sack of $ for that pleasure.
Right now fuel is CHEAP, once the economic wheels start turning again we will see $150+ oil prices again and the fuel will follow. I know you americans are a bit spoilt with low gas prices but sooner or later you will have to get closer to what the rest of the world is paying and I dont think you’ll be interested in V6′s and V8′s if you can get reasobable performance from a 4 cyl…
Maybe I’m a bit of a bore but in a daily driver of 9-3 size and weight, what person needs more than 150 hp and 250 Nm ? I know more is fun but in the future I think those of us that drives cars for fun will pay a much larger sack of $ for that pleasure.
Right now fuel is CHEAP, once the economic wheels start turning again we will see $150+ oil prices again and the fuel will follow. I know you americans are a bit spoilt with low gas prices but sooner or later you will have to get closer to what the rest of the world is paying and I dont think you’ll be interested in V6′s and V8′s if you can get reasobable performance from a 4 cyl…
Maybe I’m a bit of a bore but in a daily driver of 9-3 size and weight, what person needs more than 150 hp and 250 Nm ? I know more is fun but in the future I think those of us that drives cars for fun will pay a much larger sack of $ for that pleasure.
Add me to the “keep the six” camp!
It was one of the reasons I ended up in a Turbo X rather than A or B (or C-class). Unless you can show me a smooth 4 with more than 280 HP (Audi 5 is a different kettle). And the proof burden is on those who promulgate that solution.
Massage 6 a bit, and you’ve got a 300-ish HP alternative to 335xi, 3504matic, 6 Quattro. More than sufficient for the punters. Anything more than 10% of that segment, we’d be out of the woods. Sure, not C63 nor M3. But they don’t have XWD either (and properly marketed, what an interesting alternative to an RS). And presumbably we’re not going to be asking those prices.
If a 9-3 of that output isn’t already ready to go (and we all know it is via Hirsch, BSR + warranty), bet our Engineers could achieve that sort of output within a week. At a smidgen of the billable hours flowing to the lawyers these days…
Right now fuel is CHEAP, once the economic wheels start turning again we will see $150+ oil prices again and the fuel will follow. I know you americans are a bit spoilt with low gas prices but sooner or later you will have to get closer to what the rest of the world is paying and I dont think you’ll be interested in V6′s and V8′s if you can get reasobable performance from a 4 cyl…
Maybe I’m a bit of a bore but in a daily driver of 9-3 size and weight, what person needs more than 150 hp and 250 Nm ? I know more is fun but in the future I think those of us that drives cars for fun will pay a much larger sack of $ for that pleasure.
The problem may not be the principle of the six-cylinder as such, but the rather voluminous displacement. This was a trend in recent years. Take for example the very attractive VR6 from VW (that fits into transversal engine cars). It started with 2.8 l, then came 2.9, 3.2 and now 3.6. That’s just a bit too much for low power consumption.
If Saab had money, they might be able to construct a robust 6 cylinder engine for transversal mounting with a displacement of 2 – 2.4 l (like in the former BMW 520, e.g.). Internal friction would still be a problem, requiring e.g. a reduction in piston diameter (to minimize the friction line between piston and cylinder wall), resulting in a long stroke engine…
All the manufacturers have started downsizing their engines. BMWs, once famous for their in-line six cylinders, now use a four cylinder engine, Mercedes’ base offering in the E class has less than 1.8 l (compressor charged), VW offers the Passat with a 1.4 l turbo charged engine.
Smaller, light and efficient engines is the future. Big, heavy and inefficient engines belongs to the past. I’m glad the V6 is gone as it can make the engineer focus on the four cylinder engines.
I’m hoping on a 1.6 l turbo charged engine in the new 9-5 and the 9-3. Right now I’m driving an 9-5 Aero but who needs that amount of power, really? If I can waste less resources by driving a more efficient vehicle than I’m in!
For those of you living in the US. In Sweden the fuel for driving 10 km (~6 miles) in our 9-5 SC Aero costs roughly $1.50 (and prices are down right now; a few months ago it was almost $2).
Alex, I agree with you. If SAAB keep this V6 for some ultra-model, I would expect it to deliver at least 400hp, if not more.
For modest output of 250-300hp a proper 4-banger is more than enough. That’s what turbocharging and SAAB are all about.
As good as the V6 might be i’d like to see Saab on the other side of this reconstruction as not being in the slightest competition with Audi or BMW or any other premium car as Saab has really gone nowhere over the years chasing this market that seems to be bursting at the seams and is hit so hard by economic downturns. Economical 4 cylinder turbos, 3 cylinder twin turbos (if such a thing is possible) 4 cylinder quad turbos etc. etc. with ever decreasing emisions and fuel consumption rather than ever increasing horsepower in a well made, intelligently designed car with none of the superflous and pointless crap that you seem to have to have to compete nowadays. Be a car manufacturer like no other rather than someone following the herd and chasing numbers.
I’d like to see Saab pick up the small turbine engine. Chrysler experimented and even produced a fair number of turbine cars many years ago.
Wouldn’t that emphasize Saab’s link with aviation !?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car
As some of you will know the Porsche 944 was 4-cylinder. A 2,5 litre angine with lots of grunt. Why a four cylinder was chosen is not economics but weight and balance. The 944 is still a great drivers car.. If not the best race Porsche. Well that´s ages ago.
Saab would do better with keeping to 4 bangers in the 9-3. Just take the 2,0 litre, bore it up a bit to 2,2 litre (If posible), put twinscroll on it and get it up to 300 hp.. Perfect driving machine
Audi Australia just anounced a re-vamp of the 6 series here and there are no V8s (although the RS6 has a V10 – proving my halo car theory). The new RS4 has a turbo6 replacing the current V8 too. There’s no question that the market for V8s is shrinking but I still believe that a 6cyl engine has a place alongside 4s in any modern car lineup. Having a range of engines along with a range of bodytypes is what makes up a range. It makes for efficient engineering, manufacturing and sales & marketing with the customer having CHOICES. And that is a key to a successful commercial organisation.
Here endeth the sermon.
My first ever true turbo drive experience was in an S4 V6 Twin Turbo Quattro. This car really hit it. One of the biggest disappointments with the A brand was when they dropped the V6 Turbos and changed them to V8s. I see that PT is updating us with the reinstatement of this as they were tops. I must stress also that you can buy even an A3 with the widest permutations of engine choices, all the way from 1.6, 1.8, 2.0 Turbo and non Turbo as well as diesels. And guess what also a 3.0 V6. Mind you these variances also come in FWD as well as Quattro. Guess who’s outselling who ??? Why restrict the options especially when you went to the trouble of having V6 and now you take them away ??? Plain stupid. And btw, my 2nd Turbo drive was in my old 9-3 Aero Coupe which ended up buying it. I absolutely love the 4s and that is true Saab but as PT mentioned, the V6 are a class apart. We live in a competitive world with options galore. Watch the markets that you play in and who else is in it as these will tell you clearly what the go is !!!
I mean modelyear 2010.
Am I the only one who will be sorry to see the 2.3 liter engine from the 9-5 gone? Still plenty of life left in the old girl, and this engine easily has the stuff to go above 300bhp with a simple software upgrade. The 2.3 has been fitted into the 900/9-3 before, yes? While it may not be the best solution long term (though plenty of car companies have used upgraded versions of the same basic engine architecture for decades– Porsche springs immediately to mind), it is an easy one, and also would signal that Saab wants to keep things “in house” with a powerplant that hearkens back to their days as an independent automaker. Just saying.
swade … Total DITTO here on the gone V6!! The V6 was only marginally faster and the driving experience actually less dynamic than the four. It also made the car heavier and especially more front weight biased, therefore detracting from good driving dynamics. Lastly it was a gas hog with 18 – 20 mpg town vs. the 24-25 mpg town we achieve with the 2.0T. I won’t cry a tear over the V6 gone.
——————–
With the new 9-5 coming, it probably makes a lot of sense. It’s also a nice nod to the Saab ethos of turbocharged fours that their base model of the time would offer just that engine.
Hopefully they might upgrade the four cylinder in the 9-3, though, so that it makes a bit more power for the upper-level models. One of those DI-turbo engines might be nice.
—————————-
Why not use the HiPo Ecotec versions of that are in other GM models such as the Solstice and Cobalt SS etc. with an all-wheel drive system. The FWD cars really cannot cannot handle more than the 2.0T and retain good driving characteristics.
I personally like the 2.3 but it is completely uncompetitive in the market. It is a powerful but rough and vibrating engine that is just compeltely out of its age. Drive a 2.0T and a 2.3 T car side by side and you see what I mean. Alone the idle vibrations shaking the car are enough to make it obsolete. Saab must move on to more modern engines and there are a host of Ecotecs available with much, much more power to do so. how about the cobalt SS engine in an AWD Aero??
I have a 2008 V6 and it’s a smooth, fast engine, but I won’t be sad to see it go – it’s a gas hog. Saab can get the same power and more out of the 2.0T when coupled with XWD. Maybe this is why Hirsch is coming to the US???
While I’m not totally for removing the V6, people who have not driven the 2.0T vs the V6 should go an actually try one. It’s simply superb and super smooth.
The car simply feels more luxurious and “full” 
My 03 was totaled, and now I’m looking for a V6 – sorry but the 4 cyl is out of the question
When you drive the V6, then you feel like you are paying for a premium car
Vector SS you are on the ball !!! Where is Greg Abbott on this as I don’t see his comments ??? We are really with a mass of contradictions here and making our views that are only driven through our passion rather than from the business point in a survival mode. There is a school of thinking that whilst Saab can only offer vehicles with 4 cylinder engines even with full Hirsch optioned parts the public won’t pay for that as they will be still seen as inferior. And now we are asking Saab to dump the V6 and stick to 4s in the 9-3 range ??? Saab has to move away from competing with Japanese equivalents like Honda and Mazda as this is what the market will perceive of a 9-3 being available only in 4s. Saab is a business and they need to make business minded decisions gents and must respond to market demands otherwise they’ll be gone. At present with all this financial turmoil and disparities it’s only premature to enter this debate when we don’t even know what the market forces will be like in 2010 and beyond. Maybe A+B will make their own announcements and decide to dump all their engine options bar their 4s. Saab won’t have a problem then to stick to 4s only in the 9-3 !!!
the only reason the V6 is smoother vs the 2.0 turbo4 is because the V6 has twin scroll turbos which drastically reduces the turbo lag. The LNF engine has twin scroll as well which is why it gets more power through higher RPM’s as well as power equivalent to that of a V6 engine. Oh yeah along with the DI as well but you get the point here. Saab could use a similar set-up on it 4 pots to
ck1x, smoother means not just the power delivery but refinement. Both the 2.0t and 2.0T engines vibrate through the steering in a way the V6 does not.
Turbin I think Saab could stand to test the waters and see if anyone is interested in premium sports sedan with a high powered 4-banger, especially since people have been flocking to the 2.8t’s in droves *NOT*. Imho Saab shouldn’t bother with a turbo V6 unless they can beat the BMW and Audi forced induction sixes both in output and emissions.
Otherwise, if they can’t run with the big boys, they’d be better off doing something different and unique, because frankly “unique” sells a whole lot better than “almost but not quite”. I really think it’s a “build it and they will come” scenario, and that you’ll see all sorts of buyers popping out of the woodwork if Saab could muster the balls to sell a 9-3 Aero XWD with a 300+ hp 4-cylinder engine. People who couldn’t care less about NVH as long as they have something that can flat-out beat a 335i while being totally unique.
I talk a lot about how Saab needs a “killer app”, and I think an AWD 9-3 with the most powerful 4-cylinder engine on the market could well be that car. In addition to living up to Saab’s heritage, it would attract some serious interest from the import enthusiast buyers who would otherwise be looking at R20s, STI’s, EVO’s, G37′s, and the like. If they can build a car that handles like an EVO X but with the livability and luxury of a BMW, they’ll have a real hot ticket on their hands, a loud, in your face anti-M3 that once again makes Saabs into cars that enthusiasts think longingly of.
“ck1x, smoother means not just the power delivery but refinement. Both the 2.0t and 2.0T engines vibrate through the steering in a way the V6 does not.”
————————————————–
You are getting the 2.0T confused with the 2.3T.
We have both, the 2.8T V6 (a SC) and two 2.0 (a “t” SS Linear and a “T” SC). There are NO vibrations on the 2.0 engine. They are amongst the smoothest four cylinders on the market.
“the only reason the V6 is smoother vs the 2.0 turbo4 is because the V6 has twin scroll turbos which drastically reduces the turbo lag. The LNF engine has twin scroll as well which is why it gets more power through higher RPM’s as well as power equivalent to that of a V6 engine. Oh yeah along with the DI as well but you get the point here. Saab could use a similar set-up on it 4 pots to”
————————————–
Actually, if you follow reviews in car mags and posts on the premier Saab forums you will find that the opposite is true. Specifically the V6 is known for some off-idle turbo lag. Us having two 2.0 and one 2.8 V6 in our garage I can fully confirm that. The 2.8 feels smoother, the 2.0 feels faster and more agressive even though it isn’t faster because the 2.0T it has less lag and gets to it more agressive.
Hi Alex D, no confusion, I have a 2.3t, had a 2.0t and have driven the 2.0T. the 2.0 might be smoother than the 2.3 but it is not as smooth as the V6.
Comments on this entry are closed.