Saab beefs up BioPower engine for 2007
The Swedes are on the forefront of alternative energy research and Saab has done its part by announcing a new advanced BioPower engine that delivers 14-percent more horsepower and 11-percent more torque when running on E85 rather than gasoline. That translates into 210 ethanol-induced bhp and 229 ft-lbs of torque, versus 185 bhp and 206 ft-lbs on gas. Meanwhile, a trip to 62 mph takes 7.9 seconds on E85 and 8.5 seconds while chugging fossil fuel. The "flexfuel" engine displaces 2.3 liters across four-cylinders and is turbocharged for good measure. Saab will still sell the smaller 2.3t BioPower engine in the 9-5 sedan and SportCombi along with this new, more powerful motor. One interesting omission from Saab's press release was a comparison of fuel mileage while running on both E85 and gas. We suspect running on E85 rather than gas would return less exemplary numbers in that category.
[Source: AutoblogGreen]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
steve s 10:14AM (5/31/2006)
So in other words really slow before and only moderatly slow now. Well at least its an improvement.
Reply
Mr. K 10:22AM (5/31/2006)
Ethanol has less energy per volume than gasoline has, but has a much much higher Octane rating. Therefore, an engine running purely on E85 could use a higher compression ratio, thus reducing some of the mpg penalty (while getting higher hp & torque). Until E85 becomes widely available this is not feasible however, since these engines have to be dual mode, and the gasoline operation drives a lower compression ratio.
Saab is getting part of the benefit - when running on E85 they crank up the boost, and get more power out of the engine.
Reply
Mallard 10:28AM (5/31/2006)
Are these HP numbers correct? The rated power on the 2.0T in the 9-3 equals what this article says the 2.3 "High Output" is getting. Earlier this year the 2.3T BioPower engine was shown making over 300HP.
Even the regular 9-5 2.3T has ~250HP.
Reply
Michael Karesh 10:47AM (5/31/2006)
I'm not seeing a whole lot worth bragging about either. Clearly still an LPT.
Reply
Matt 10:48AM (5/31/2006)
"We suspect...."
I love it. It's as if you know what the hell you're talking about. Who writes for this site? I mean, who cares what you suspect? Do you do calibration for Ford? Do you run dynos for Roush? Have you designed and built your own engine? All I've ever seen on this site is a crappy old Chevy pickup and an Impala SS of the whale-shaped variety.
I'll tell you what I suspect.
I suspect the media likes to pretend it's important, and knows it's own apertures from other apertures which are more Earth based.
Reply
Calvin 10:50AM (5/31/2006)
The earlier model was the 2.0t. The 2.3t replaces that.
http://wheeltalk.fancal.net/?p=200
Note the lowercase t as opposed to the T.
I doubt the vehicle will be exported outside of Europe anyway.
Reply
Joel H. 11:15AM (5/31/2006)
Matt #4
if you don't like it why are you still here and posting comments?
Reply
Matt 11:22AM (5/31/2006)
#6 - Last I checked, the term "comments" is broad enough to encompass both negative and positive comments. If this was not the case, the "comments section" would be termed the "positive comments" section.
Additionally, I've scoured my post. I'm not sure I said anything about "liking" anything. I enjoy the site. But when I see a pile of crap, I like to point at it, so other people can hold their nose without repeating my mistake.
This site gets a lot of stuff right. It's stuff where they don't add or withold their own blessing based on their own anecdotal knowledge.
"New media" doesn't have editors. This is it, pal.
Incidentally, the writing on this site has gotten a lot better since my postings of old, where my contribution would be something like, "interesting news item, but gee the writing on this site sucks".
Reply
Jellodyne 12:37PM (5/31/2006)
This ain't the New York Times, it's a blog. With a blog what 'we suspect' is a valid. And since, as #2 pointed out, E85 packs less punch per gallon than regular gas, it's a valid suspicion. I suspect as much myself.
The question is -- since thet're taking advantage of the higher compression, does E85 milage go up or down from where it would be if it were a 'conventional' flex fuel vehicle. Which is to say, does the extra power come at the expense of economy, or does the higher compression generate more power 'for free' improving economy. John's comments imply the former, though I'm not sure myself.
Reply
MikeW 2:50PM (5/31/2006)
Even though E85 has less energy per unit volume, the air: fuel ratio favors power.
Car and Driver tested a GM Chevrolet Tahoe on gas and E85.
It was faster in 0-30 by 0.1 second, 0-60 again 0.1 second, and 0-90 by 0.1 second, faster in rolling 5-60 by 0.2 seconds, and 50-70 by 0.2 second.
Does the engine run on the knock limit all the time for just the occasional use of E85, when the spark timing can be radically advanced, probably not.
Fuel mileage STINKS with E85,
Steady state
Gas 25.7mpg@30mph, 22.9mpg@50mph, 16.0mpg@70mph
E85 17.4mpg@30mph, 15.8mpg@50mph, 11.4mpg@70mph.
Live Green, Go Broke.
Reply
Mallard 3:01PM (5/31/2006)
#5 - Yeah, I know the difference between the upper and lower case t's, but this release doesn't call it a T or t, it just says it's more powerful then the old 2.3t. I was simply stating that the current 2.0T makes the same 210HP on pump gas. Why should the 2.3 BioPower make less then that with more displacement when the current 2.3 makes 250HP on pump gas as well?
The rest of the bickering - Yes E85 has a lower Q(lower heating value) then gasoline, showing it has less energy per unit volume. Also, the stoic A/F ratio is richer then the 14.7 of gasoline. Both tohse reasons is why you get less milege with a gasoline engine that runs on E85. However, since E85 is over 100 octane you can run higher compression ratios resulting in better efficiency. (or more boost for more power) Since the BioPower is a standard gas engine that is calibrated to run on E85, it will not have a high base compression ratio. Under low load it will be just like any other gas engine running on E85, and will get worse MPG.
Reply
Swade - Trollhattan Saab 7:52PM (5/31/2006)
To #3
The 300HP Biopower concept that was shown earlier in the year was a specially tuned unit, bigger turbo etc. Its totally feasible, but I can pretty much guarantee that you won't see it until 2008, when the 9-5 is scheduled for it's new platform, including AWD.
Saab cop criticism now for having 260HP through the front wheels. They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot by bringing a 300HP car to market. The Saabophiles would love it, but Saab USA's brief right now is to build their place in the market, not flood it with crits from C&D and the rest of the BMW-minded bunch.
Reply
Matt 2:24PM (6/01/2006)
#9 - Thanks for clearing that up. I'm glad someone is decided what everything is besides God. He's got enough work to do.
In other news, crap still stinks. Even new digital versions.
E85 content? Well, I was waiting for someone who does more than sit around and suspect to clarify the difference between volitility and resistance to combusion (represented to us mortals in the form of an octane rating) and caloric value.
E85 engines can get more power by running higher compression ratios (ratio of low pressure to high pressure). This is because they have a better resistance to pre-ignition (of the hot spot variety). I'm not sure about their resistance to knock of the super-sonic flame-front variety, but I'd guess it's better.
E85 has less caloric value. This means it might get poorer milage. But this is not neccisarily true if you're running closer to stoiciometric due to the improved octain. Toyota has made great mileage gains with fossil fuels by managing the flame front and running closer to stoic.
Has anyone on this list ever wondered how new cars get 30 mpg, and old ones got 15 mpg? Probably not. Because they're all sitting on their arse suspecting things.
I know all of this and I still would not even beging to question Saab and their expertise. So please quit it with your biased media snow job.
Reply
Bill Horstman 7:32PM (6/04/2006)
Does anyone know when a E85 sportscombi aero (or similar design concept) will be for sale in the USA? I had planned to return to Finland earily next year to buy the current model, but would certainly wait if one of these came avaiable in the next 18 months. I would be taking delivery in Europe. Thanks,
Bill
Reply