Last post on May 19, 2013 at 7:53 PM
You are in the Saab 9-3
What is this discussion about?
Saab 9-3, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), Coupe, Convertible, Sedan, Wagon
#21 of 48 Re: MPG [eurospecialist]
Dec 27, 2007 (5:05 pm)
Glad you like the 9-5, but if you out running a V-8 Mustang, then they were not trying hard or it was really a V-6 made to look like a V-8. 1999 - 2004 Mustangs run 14.0 flat in the quarter out of the box. The 2005-2008 Stangs run mid 13's out of the box....both cars are sub 5.5 second cars 0-60 mph.
The 95 Aero runs a 15.2 in the quarter and 6.7 sec 0-60.
Keep in mind that horsepower sells cars, but torque wins races. Mustangs make more torque and are also geared a lot better to get out of hole over your typical sedan.
Sorry to jump in on this, but as a Saab owner, and an avid Mustang owner and drag racer, you are playing on my turf - lol.
The Charger is a bit slower then a stang due simply to all of it's mass. But they are still mid 14 second cars.
The other thing that plays a part is power-band. Anyone in a Saturn could beat me from a 50 mph roll if they caught me in 5th or even 4th gear, but drop the hammer into 3rd, and the tires get roasted.
One of the big appeals to me with a Saab though, is Saab's passion for 4cyl turbos. They get much better then average mpg, yet, when you need the power, it is there.
#22 of 48 Re: MPG [charden1]
Dec 27, 2007 (5:07 pm)
Don't under estimate the hills and the air. Humidity where you live is probably a tad higher then the upper MW in the winter - lol. Cars like dry, cold air for max performance and hp.
Dec 27, 2007 (5:11 pm)
I have many customers who have commented on getting 31-32 MPG in manual transmission 9-3 linears (again with premium and drive much more conservatively than I).
Dec 27, 2007 (5:27 pm)
I might add I have K&N open box air filer, Saab turbo back sport exhaust, short shift kit, little tighter suspension setup (although the suspension is equipped pretty well "out of the box/standard equip), and pushing close to 280hp and over 300 ponds of torque.
I've had my Aero for close to 4 years and know it very well.
I'm sure when pulling another car they are not letting off.
I will give you that the V8 Mustang will definately beat the Saab in the 0-60, but has no chance with mine (unless modified) at 40-110.
Being around Saabs for 10+ years and a history of Porsche/Audi/Saab racing I feel you are playing on my turf.
Do you own or driven the Saab 9-5 Aero?
The car produces more litre to hp/torque ratio than a Porsche 911 Turbo.
#26 of 48 Re: MPG [eurospecialist]
Dec 27, 2007 (6:28 pm)
Hey, I used the "turf" comment first - lol
Has the car been dynoed? K&N is good for about 1 - 2 hp and an exhaust upgrade downstream of the cats is good for maybe 5 - 10 at most, though many net 0. I have spent a lot of time around dynos and most people are very dissappointed after spending money on these types of bolt-ons because they never deliver as advertised.....myself included.
I do not own a 9-5, but have driven a 9-3 Aero and a 9-5 Aero. They both seemed spirited to me. But everyone has their own definition. My good friend and neighbor has a nice 911 (non-turboed) and the car is lot faster then his 9-3 Aero....at least by the butt-o-meter, but I am sure the 1/4 mile time would confirm that. One thing that sort of aggrevated me about the Saab turbo programming is that after a few seconds, the waste gate opens a bit further and the boost drops-off. They must do this to protect the motor and allow Saab to claim the 250 hp, when really it is less after a few seconds at WOT. I am not sure if the Areos work this way or not.
Keep in mind....I don't street race. Never have and never will (not saying you do). The only real race to me is one either across country or on a 1/4 track. As such, I don't have a good feel for what other cars do from a roll. I used to have trouble with a Neon SRT-4 when my car was still stock from a roll. Cars have sweet spots. I have raced many Vettes and generally I get them out of the dig, and they play catch-up at the other end of the track. My car currently runs the 1/4 in the very low 12's and traps at 112 mph. I often times beat cars that trap at higher speeds, but I get there first. This means, they are gaining on me at the end of the track.
We both may be correct. If you have raced a car from a roll and won....then that is a fact. But there is a huge difference in performance between a mid 15 second car and a mid 13 second car...there really is no comparison. The 9-5 Aero have a stated 1/4 trap speed of 94 mph which is really not fast at all and is a prediction of how much hp a car makes. Stock mustangs typically make 98-100 mph in the same distance which really is not all that breath-taking either. Having a better exhaust and intake filter will definately help the car breath better on the top-end, but will only net you 1 - 2 mph at most.
I get those stupid tuner cars running my dam bumper all the time. Sometimes I will squeeze the trigger a little bit and get on it while still staying w/in common sense of the law. Then I get the ricer fly-by and I am sure they end up at the local Burger King bragging that they beat some guy in a sick sounding Mustang.
The other thing that I do is drive like I stole it. I have raced guys who should beat my butt, but their "wimp-o-meter" kicks in or the "I still have a payment and my wife is gonna kill me if I wreck meter" prevails. Some people can't drive worth a crap either. One of the fastest cars on the road for the money is a 2003/2004 Mustang Cobra. I have seen people run these at the track and not break 14 seconds....when they are mid 12 second cars all day long when put in the right hands (they are a bit hard to drive with the IRS).
Anyway, bench racing never gets anywhere. But if you want to make that car of yours truly quick, get it on a dyno, toss in a custom tune and see what you need to do to get the boost up. Saab truly wimps out on boost on these things as they only push around 5 - 6 psi, though I am not sure. Each lb of boost will net you about 5% more hp. If you can get it up to even 10lbs, then you will add about 20% more hp. But unless you open up those headers on that puppy, doing exhaust work won't amount to much of anything but make noise. But at higher levels of boost, it will help more. (I am not a Saab engine expert and never tuned one)
Saab get a lot of power per liter, but there is no replacement for displacement. The nice thing about owning a larger displacement motor that they generally run at lower compression (such as a Ford V8) so that you can do soo much more with it. Mustang Cobras can make 600 wheel hp with nothing more then a pulley swap and a tune and still not be in much danger of blowing a motor.
Anyway, I like Saabs...have and probably always will. I own a 9-3 but regret not buying a 9-5 for the extra room. I think Saabs are the forgotten son of the highway. Drive great, safe as hell, get nice MPG, quirky, and are not boring like most everything else. I wish they were more reliable and cheaper to repair, but I will worry about that when my warranty expires.
Anyway, if we happen to meet on the highway, please ride my bumper, so I can get on it. But, when you pass me, please don't tell all your friends that you beat some SOB in a Mustang - lol
#27 of 48 Re: MPG [ronfc]
Dec 27, 2007 (7:39 pm)
I have always used 87 octane on in my 9-3. The book states (if I recall) that it prefers 89 which is considered mid-grade where I live. I see some places where 90 is considered premium. Out here, 93 is "premium" in the summer and a lot of places switch to 92 in the winter. Some stations only have 91 though year-around.
If the car is set to run on 89, then stepping back to 87 will result in power loss assuming the car has knock sensors and the ability to pull timing. But, the power loss would be in the 2 - 4 hp range...perhaps 5 hp tops. The butt-o-meter can't feel 5 hp except for the fact that you wallet gets thinner from spending the extra money on gas. Perhaps the Saabs pull more timing then I think....I don't know.
If the car is designed to run 92/93, then stepping down to 87 would be more noticeable and perhaps even not advisable.
Know something funny? As fuel prices increase the percent different in low grade and premium fuels decreases. Meaning that if you can get better fuel economy on higher grade fuel, then going with higher grade will actually pay for itself and then some.
Up here we have a lot of E-85. Once the warranty is up on the 9-3 I may consider having it tuned to run E-85. That stuff is 105 to 120 octane depending on the blend. Talk about adding timing....
#28 of 48 Need to make a correction
Dec 28, 2007 (10:59 am)
BTW, the 1996 - 1998 Mustang GT's were slow. They suffered from a bad head design. They were 15 second cars and the 2005+ V-6's are quicker then most of them. Many owners have upgraded the heads, but running into a 1996-1998 GT especially with an auto would be an easy match for a 9-5 or 9-3 Aero.
The 1996-1998 Mustangs are the biggest misstake since Ford introduced the Mustang II in the mid 70's. Not to mention this was the first years after Ford dropped the much loved 5.0. It was a bad time to be a Mustang fan.
#29 of 48 Under 16mpg!
Jan 04, 2008 (11:19 am)
I have about 1000 miles on my 2007 9-3 Aero Sportcombi. I've been averaging 15.8 mpg in a mix of city/highway. I've been driving like a wuss, not accelerating hard, etc. so I have no idea why my mileage is so low. I'm worried something is wrong with the car! Any thoughts??
#30 of 48 Re: Under 16mpg! [biggimp]
Jan 04, 2008 (12:55 pm)
Wow..thats so low.
When I first bought my 2007 9-3 SS, I was averaging slightly under 20 mpg city/highway. But, I was also using a low grade gasoline from the grocery store (Safeway) because it was about .15 cents less than other gas stations! I quickly found out that Safeway gas was really bad for my engine. At one point, my car wouldn't start b/c my plugs were so dirty. So, I think my poor gas mileage was due the gasoline I was using.
Now, my car has about 5k miles on it now and I use a 91 grade only. Also, I set cruise whenever I can and currently Im getting around 25 mpgs city/highway.
I think it takes about 3k miles or so for your car to 'break in' so maybe the mileage is lower during this initial phase?
Try running a 91 or 92 grade and setting cruise at 65 or 70mph. If its still that low..I would take it to the shop...thank god for the warranty. (My car has been in 3 times already!)