Saab 9-3 TriFuel
April 18, 2011 in News
Saab 9-3 TriFuel. Photo: Patrik Lindgren
At “Teknikens Värld LIVE”, a car show hosted by the Swedish car magazine Teknikens Värld in Stockholm, Saab showed their latest addition to their fleet – a Saab 9-3 TriFuel. According to Teknikens Värld this is the world premiere towards the public - but we have been aware of this model since before.
The 9-3 TriFuel can run on three types of fuel: petrol, E85, and CNG. The model has been available for a while in a small series, but now Saab has made 400 cars that can be ordered through your local Saab dealer (we have no information yet regarding which markets it will be available at). If the model is well recieved TriFuel will be here to stay and hopefully Saab might be able to transfer the technology to the 9-5.
The cargo room. Photo: Patrik Lindgren
Under the hood we get the well known 1,8t BioPower engine, which gives 150 BHP with petrol, while it gives 175 BHP with more eco-friendly fuel. The advantage towards competitors is that if you should run out of CNG, you still can continue to drive on a more eco-friendly fuel with E85.
As you can see to the left the floor in the cargo bay has been raised 13 cm to host the gas tanks.
A question I get when I see the photos is if it will be made available with the Griffin-exterior.
(Thanks to BGMI and Romac for clarifying the CNG-term for me! 
/ Carl-Henrik)
Bravada from GMI said on April 18, 2011
It’s “CNG” = Compressed Natural Gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_vehicle
“Another practical advantage observed is the increased life of lubricating oils, as CNG does not contaminate and dilute the crankcase oil”
Ruben NL said on April 18, 2011
That’s good news from a CO2 competition point of view.
Eco sells and, to my knowledge, this is the first edition of an engine that runs on 3 types of fuel. This shows Saab being back as inventors and it should make a selling hit.
Romac said on April 18, 2011
In English = CNG – Compressed Natural Gas
Very interesting, and a great idea. I think in the UK that LPG is more widely available, but CNG has potential environmental benefits.
MillerMan said on April 18, 2011
Interesting stuff, I was hoping to beat Saab myself… I currently run my 9-5 on petrol and LPG. Last weekend I built in a PC to be able to switch between ECU software in a jiffy. That would allow me to run on E85. It’s gonna be my summer project now.
I wonder in what markets this TriFuel will be sold. Some countries already have a good coverage in LPG and therefor not in CNG.
MillerMan said on April 18, 2011
And coming to think of it: I want the TriFuel badge! Anyone got a pic of that or is it just BioPower?
RobinM said on April 18, 2011
The ones I saw in the workshop just said BioPower.
LG Aero said on April 18, 2011
I am surprised at the luke warm reception of tri fuel. This a great leap forward. a number of years ago in the US when engines had carbs on them multi-fuel CNG and gasoline vehicles were sold, primarily to fleets. It was a relatively simple issue to accomplish. Fuel injection and engine computers made that much more difficult. Today the only CNG cars which means a Honda CIVIC only run on that fuel. So ala the Nissan Leaf what happens when you run out of CNG?
Dual fuel makes the CNG practical. You can purchase a compressor drier unit that can be placed in your garage. It is hooked to your natural gas supply for the house. You puyt the output on your SAAB and it will refill the CNG in a number of hours. This simple system exists and is very practical. Larger systems incorporate storage tanks so the refilling is a matter of minutes. If a local gas station were to add CNG it can do that using the supply from the gas main, no delivery trucks required.
I know of no factory built,ready to use multifuel vehicle in the US market and to think I could get a SAAB with it Where do I sign ??
Luk said on April 18, 2011
Sorry, but I think that CNG is the wrong choice… in Italy we have a lot of cars running on Methane or LPG… and LPG is definitely better.
It’s even more eco friendly (and economical) than Petrol and:
- Is possible to use a toroidal tank instead of a cylinder one. This solution can leave boot space like in origin.
- With the same tank capacity you can make double mileage.
- Injection pressur is higher and it can be installed also on HOT Turbo Engines like the 2,0T or the 300hp 2,8T engine without missing performance (CNG is not so performing at all..)
- Fuel pumps are A LOT more diffused than CNG ones, especially on highways.. I veryfied it in Italy, Germany, France, Slovenia, Switzerland and I think also in the Neederlands and other countries.
SAAB, please do not do this mistake!!! Chose the LPG TriFuel solution!!! Choosing the CNG one you will trash your money and it won’t help you to sell more cars !
TurboLover said on April 18, 2011
From a technical point of view you are absolutely correct, BUT the CNG in Sweden is not CNG, it is Compressed Biogas. Biogas is the same thing as natural gas (methane), but it is derived from waste, manure, sewage treatment plants and the likes. I.e. it is not fosil methane
Biogas is not taxed in Sweden, and if you have it as a company car you get a 40% cut on your monthly fee.
LPG has the same tax status as a petrol car in Sweden
Luk said on April 18, 2011
If it’s a choice only for swedish market It’s a reasonable choice… what I hope to is that this choice, which could have a sense in Sweden, won’t be extended to other markets where “methane” tecnology is not so popular while LPG is so much more and it would be a very intelligent choice… especially to have a more competitive engine offer to sell. This solution (A 2.0T and 2.8T LPG possibility even for 9-3, 9-5 and 9-4) could increase dramaticaly the number of Saabs sold in some European markets. A Methane solution will be absolutely not so popular.
Bravada from GMI said on April 18, 2011
This is ANA’s development, not Saab’s.
LPG is indeed more common, but it’s much less environmentally friendly (marginally less polluting than gasoline, but also a fossil fuel, compared to CNG, which can be made out of any waste organic matter easily), and it is much more friendly for engines, as it can be burnt as-is.
The storage issue is currently being intensively researched, with the concept of ANG (adsorbed natural gas) being explored, where partciles of carbon adsorb the methane particles so that storage density can be increased multifold, plus there is less need to pre-pressurize (compress) gas before filling up the tank, so you could basically refuel from your home gas installation, provided you have one. I do believe practical examples of ANG tanks are being tested as we speak.
As a fuel made on-location in any part of the world and 100% carbon neutral, I expect biogas to completely supplant gasoline within 2-3 decades.
Bravada from GMI said on April 18, 2011
CNG is better for engine longevity, I mean, I made it totally convulted and unclear. Methane burns nicely without any additives and requires no anti-knock agent. Purified biogas (biomethane) is practically free of any sulphuric or nitrous agents, it burns only emitting CO2 (with small amounts of monoxide and ozone) and H2O.
OliverH said on April 18, 2011
In switzerland CNG is very popular, lpg stations are heavy to find. In germany instead lpg is very popular. So it’s hard to find the right for all over europe.
If the car is not a monovalent cng and still has a standard gasoline tank inside no problem. CNG or lpg must fullfill the owners requirements. For me living in switzerland i would use gasoline inside switzerland (cheap) and use lpg for sure where available on trips in europe. lpg can be run with a 95 Aero Hirsch and a PRINS conversion.
So from from my point of view i would currently not buy a CNG car and no monovalent gas conversion. Colleagues of mine drive a Touran with CNG (monovalent, so 11l or so gasoline tanks only). If they dive outside switzerland they’ve to update always the POI (CNG stations) of their navi.
But i think Saab have done some market investigations in before – do they?
I also thought the the trifuel car was a project from ANA and not Saab Powertrain AB.
OliverH said on April 18, 2011
One behavior with the direct injection engines Saab uses now: The injection valves in the combustion chamber have to been cooled or would be burned if they’re not cooled. So i would not wonder if the inject also a amount of gasoline if the car is in CNG mode. That problem would also occure in a lpg mode and is specific to all direct injection engines. Could be that they use special injection valves with cng and gasoline connector to each injection valve.
With the old engines of 95-1, the Saab engines, there’s no problem because the injection valves are located in the inlet and not directly in the cylinderhead.
JH said on April 18, 2011
I believe that Saab (or ANA Trollhättan actually) has reasons for choosing CNG over LPG. Most of these cars will probably be sold in Sweden, and CNG is quite common here while LPG is pretty much non-existent as car fuel.
Viggen said on April 18, 2011
isnt CNG and LPG Exactly the same?
Jos said on April 18, 2011
No, it’s not. I don’t know all the details, but LPG and CNG are different, and are not excheangable in one and the same car.
Viggen said on April 18, 2011
Thanks
Chris_de_Ze said on April 18, 2011
In countries with heavy taxing on gas and premium cars, an LPG conversion kit would be just FANTASTIC. In Greece we have a lot of LPG refueling stations and none for CNG.
Why Saab do not produce such conversions kits? These could sell very easy across Europe.
LG Aero said on April 18, 2011
CNG is compressed to high pressures (think Scuba bottles ) and it does not liquefy. LPG is relatively lower pressure and is stored as a liquid but released to the engine as a gas. The storage tanks are built for very different pressures and it is much easier for LPG.
But the fact you can easily set up a refuel station where ever a natural gas pipe runs means distribution in many places would be very easy and economical. It is chicken and the egg though, why do it unless there are more vehicles that run on CNG.
I want one now ( or practically speaking soon )
Viggen said on April 18, 2011
So far i read hear that is that LPG is widely available and CNG not so (in some countries that is). but then is indeed more for the swedish market
Off topic: can someone explain to me to use a picture as avatar ?
Viggen said on April 18, 2011
Sorry, for my bad spelling did not notice i made so many mistake’s
Eagle63 said on April 18, 2011
If you go to http://www.gravatar.com you can read about how that works, its not so difficult.
Btw; I’m sure you’ll be able to find a nice Viggen pic…
Anddeu said on April 18, 2011
It would be nice to have a “TriFuel”- Version of the 9-4 in Europe. Perhaps it could be an alternative for buyers looking for a diesel.
Paddan said on April 18, 2011
I always wondered this with LPG and CNG – how safe are the tanks in a collision? Especially when they are conversions from factory? Comments?
Bravada from GMI said on April 18, 2011
They are generally safe, especially CNG, since CNG is relatively hard to ignite. That said, the tank will decompress to a rather dramatic effect if depressurized by a puncture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOf69xHnyrk
This whole “explosion” is caused by gas decompressing, there was no ignition. So, ANG development is also important to prevent that.
BTW, there is little difference between factory-fitted and properly fitted aftermarket LPG installations, since they are mostly done the same way, by modifying a ready gasoline-powered vehicle. Some CNG-powered vehicles are built differently on the assembly line already to accomodate the larger CNG tanks, but the particular Saabs were modified by ANA from completely assembled vehicles.
Rune said on April 18, 2011
A little googling turned up these links:
http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/naturalgaspropane/a/safenaturalgas.htm
http://www.transecoenergy.com/pages/Safety.htm
Nate 9-3 said on April 18, 2011
I hate to sound like a buzzkill here, but ethonal is not an eco-friendly fuel if it is derived from corn (in contrast to cellulose ethonal or sugarcane ethonal). I live in Iowa, USA. Iowa and Illinois produce the most corn in the world. Naturally we are the center of the corn lobby (ethanol, high fructose corn syrup,etc…) The ethonal industry in the US is heavily subsidized just to make the price at the pump comparable to gasoline. It is a burden to US tax payers. Anybody heard about the US national debt lately?
Furthermore, most studies conclude that if you account for the C02 it takes to produce corn ethanol and add that to the CO2 that an engine will produce in a car, then it actually creates as much or more than gasoline – but at the cost of the subsidies.
Finally, we are in an inflationary environment around the globe. Food costs will go up and will continue to go up. I would rather keep food cots down and feed people than subsidize a small group of farmers with taxpayer money and make food more expensive for the other 98% of the USA. and many more around the world as our corn is shipped everywhere.
If ethanol is your choice, then Brazil got it right. I am VERY pro-SAAB and I hate to take away any of the niches that they have carved out, but corn ethanol as an eco-friendly fuel is a stretch at best when you consider the down sides.
(Hops off of Soapbox)
Niklas G said on April 18, 2011
Also the environment friendlyness of electric cars has been debated, for example by one professor meaning that electric cars produce more CO2 and another one meaning that electric cars still are more environment friendly in the lobng run, but that the question is very complicated.
Red J said on April 18, 2011
Nate,
you may be right, but I don’t understand this sentence.
Why nobody adds the CO2 it takes to produce 1L of Petrol to the amount of Fossil CO2 it is freed by burning petrol?
I don’t want to start a discussion here, because I know that the arguments of both sides are not 100% right, but do you think that every country will concentrate on the same energy source for mobility (crude oil) like they did in the past?
I hope not.
Rune said on April 18, 2011
I am still not convinced CO2 is a problem. Remove CO2 from this planet and most (if not all) life will die. It is every bit as important as H2O. (OTOH, too much H2O also kills, so…)
I agree subsidies are bad. But… You cannot take all that cheap corn and dump it into a country where they have little or no food. You’ll completely kill their economy. Food prices looks like a straw man’s argument to me.
Marque said on April 19, 2011
I’m with you. CO2 seems to me a little bit of a histeria now, while diesel, its small particles silently creating deadly pollution across the world – and besides preventing you to take a deep breath on the streets – is considered an ever evolving almighty propellant.
I hail this as another great and excellent touch from Saab, something that the brand is recognized for, and that is most needed for its persistent success. They think green by nature (and not by fashion), I just love it. I anticipate they will introduce LPG version too for markets where that is the prevalent type. That would be a devasting move and make Saabs most wanted!