Saab improves efficiency of 9-3 diesel, now up to 44.4 mpg (U.S.)
Saab has just tweaked the diesel versions of the 9-3 to reduce the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. Over in Europe, the Saab is available with a 1.9L turbodiesel four in two power flavors. The milder single turbo 150 hp variant is now rated at 44.4 mpg (U.S.) in the sedan or 42.8 mpg (U.S.) in the wagon. The CO2 emissions of the two body styles are now at 139 g/km and 144 g/km respectively. The average 7 percent gains in efficiency are due to revised gearing, taller (lower numerical) final drive ratio, revised engine calibrations and lower rolling resistance tires.
Gallery: 2008 Saab 9-3 diesel
[Source: Saab]
PRESS RELEASE:
Lower CO2 Emissions for Saab 9-3 Diesels
Saab's most popular 9-3 diesel models now offer reduced CO2 emissions and improved fuel consumption.
Linear and Vector specification Sport Sedans, powered by the 150 hp/110 kW, single turbo or the 180 hp/132 kW, two-stage turbo 1.9-liter engine, now produce just 139 gm/km CO2 and impressive fuel consumption of 5.3 l/100 km over the combined cycle. The SportCombi's figures are also improved, to 144 gm/km and 5.5 l/100 km.
In terms of CO2 grams per horsepower, the two-stage turbo models (badged 1.9TTiD) are now among the top performers in their class.
The efficiency gains, averaging 7 percent, have been achieved by a series of fine-tuning measures including: the use of wider gear ratios, a longer final drive, idle and low engine speed remapping, and an optimized tire and wheel choice. Zero to 100 km/h acceleration is unchanged, while fifth gear 80-120 km/h times are increased by less than one second.
The new variants are available only with manual transmission. In many European markets, the CO2 reductions also provide valuable tax-related benefits for customers.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jharlan 2:49PM (2/24/2009)
Those are pretty good numbers. Is there a conspiracy to prevent US residents from buying such technology, or are the auto manufacturers just that unperceptive.
Reply
Brn 3:00PM (2/24/2009)
"Those are pretty good numbers."
Those are Euro-cycle numbers. They don't mean much. The "(US)" is merely a conversion to US gallons, not to EPA numbers.
"Is there a conspiracy to prevent US residents from buying such technology"
These engines won't pass US emissions.
"or are the auto manufacturers just that unperceptive. "
Before the new emissions standards, Jeep had diesel engines available. Ford would happily bring some of their Euro diesels here if they could. Even VW had to pull their diesels (VW did bring one back to the US very recently).
Adam 3:25PM (2/24/2009)
"Those are pretty good numbers."
Those are Euro-cycle numbers. They don't mean much. The "(US)" is merely a conversion to US gallons, not to EPA numbers.
--The EPA numbers are, according to the EPAs own admissions, approximately 18% low for diesels.
"Is there a conspiracy to prevent US residents from buying such technology"
These engines won't pass US emissions.
"or are the auto manufacturers just that unperceptive. "
Before the new emissions standards, Jeep had diesel engines available. Ford would happily bring some of their Euro diesels here if they could. Even VW had to pull their diesels (VW did bring one back to the US very recently).
BMW has diesels that are EPA and CARB approved, so does Mercedes, so does VW/Audi. See the 335d, E/ML/GLK/R-class blu-tech, Jetta TDI, Touraeg TDI, A4 TDI (coming) Q7 TDI (coming) etc.
Rich 3:46PM (2/24/2009)
It's a conspiracy. US diesel emission standards set just above the point where it's economical to make a diesel engine. And then, yes, VW brings the Jetta back and sets the price too high (too high for me anyways), and then does not bring in enough to satisfy demand in the US.
Honda and Subaru cancel their US diesel plans.
Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
meme 4:06PM (2/24/2009)
Adam, if you don't want to believe Brn, just look at the g/km CO2 numbers. 139 and 144 g/km, respectively? The Prius is rated at *104* g/km.
NEDC != FTP (city) and HFET (highway)
Diesel != Gasoline
NEDC Diesel MPGs != FTP/HFET Gasoline MPGs.
End of discussion. Please quit trying to equate them without a meaningful conversion factor.
harlanx6 4:18PM (2/24/2009)
You guys (and Gals) fight it out. I am convinced the lobbyists are in charge in an inherently corrupt system that requires politicians millions of dollars to get a job that pays thousands. We certainly have the best government money can buy!
Brn 4:47PM (2/24/2009)
Adam: "The EPA numbers are, according to the EPAs own admissions, approximately 18% low for diesels."
Please, please, please show me where they admit this. I've had other people point me to EPA documents. I've read the documents. They talk about possible variances, but none of them (that I read) admit to EPA estimates being low.
Yago Bal 11:14AM (2/25/2009)
"These engines won't pass US emissions."
The problem is not the engine or the US emissions limits: it's the fuel grade in the US. Diesel fuel has third world specs in the US, so it's not easy to pull off good emissions with it.
wxman 12:24PM (2/25/2009)
Brn - The acknowledgment that diesels tend to outperform their mileage labels is contained in the EPA document "Final Technical Support Document Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates”, http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06017.pdf , page 8.
The same document also discusses a correction factor for "ethanol in gasoline" (page 82). Clearly, this is not applicable to diesel vehicles, but apparently is included anyway. So it doesn't appear that the tendency for the "new" EPA mileage estimates to be unrepresentatively low for diesel vehicles is that much of a leap.
harlanx6 12:44PM (2/25/2009)
Thanks. Your comments are nearly always educational and the depth of your combined knowledge on the subject is impressive, even if not always leading to the same conclusions. You present the facts and let the reader decide.
Brn 4:14PM (2/28/2009)
wxman: Thank you for providing that document. I do recall seeing something similar.
It's certainly interesting data, but it's still not an admission by the EPA of diesel being off by 18%. It says that with the lowest sample (compared to other fuels), people reported getting 18% better than EPA estimates. It also reported 9-11% higher, with 36x the samples, for conventional gasoline. I would argue that sample size and audience (people driving diesels and watching mpg) could cause the 10% difference.
Again, interesting data. I don't see it as conclusive.
wxman 5:21PM (2/28/2009)
Brn, you may be correct, but that not exactly how I interpret it. I appears to me that they (EPA) are saying that diesel vehicles "beat" the then current estimates ("Current EPA Label Fuel Economy") by an average of 4.3%, which they estimate will balloon to 18.3% with the "new" estimate ("MPG-Based Label" - which is what is now being used), based on the ORNL database.
As far as the sample size is concerned, you're correct, the diesel sample size is smaller than any of the other categories of vehicle types, but it's vastly larger than the sample sized used in the "official" mileage estimates by EPA (conducted in a lab on a dynamometer).
Also, how do you explain the dramatic overestimation of hybrids' fuel economy under the "old" system? It would be my guess that most hybrid owners are at least as obsessed about fuel mileage as diesel owners.
At any rate, it appears that the relative underestimation of diesel vehicle average fuel mileage compared to the other vehicle categories (especially hybrids) is just being carried through with this "new" EPA mileage procedure.
Rick 2:52PM (2/24/2009)
Going out with a bang I guess. What's the point if the company will no longer exist in a year?
Reply
stevejust 6:36PM (2/24/2009)
Exactly what I was thinking. Didn't the peeps at Autobloggreen see that GM was terminating the SAAB marque?
gorr 4:02PM (2/24/2009)
That's what i said weeks ago, they decreased fuel consumption by lugging painfully the engine that move forward this car forward for you by reducing the power that reach the wheels by reducing the gear ratio and trick the electronics to impede you to control the acceleration via the gasoline pedal lugging even more the engine that the consumer paid for but own in reality by europeen commission, epa, doa, us senators, shell, hess, citgo, exxon, chevron, zone 51 employees and owners, aol, reuters, wall streets, rockfeller, chinese goverment, etc. All these zombies live with tax. Manufacturers having accepting some money tax before are now contemplating their agony because consumers want something for their money and actual car manufacturers are working for state and lauphing at consumers that pay for lots of h.p and receive crap products. Doing a car like that cost more
because of the added stress on mechanical parts like valve seats, valves, pistons, oil pump, cooling pumps, transmission, anti pollution valving, platinum in catalytic converters, added steel everywhere to satisfied security, added tax because of weight and added consumption, complicated brakes because of low traction low rolling resistance tires, weird cabin and windsheilds disposition for saving fuel at 55.672 m.p.h at 72 degrees on flat surface at 100 feets above sea level.
So to be concise , everything have been stolen from the jewish in 2001 and everyone is under arrest or scrutinize by income tax owners.
Reply
Schuckert 7:01AM (2/25/2009)
Saab's improves? It's Fiat diesel engines in Saab. Preferrably improved by Fiat Power Train.
Reply
Roland 10:33AM (2/25/2009)
Recent studies show
Particulate matter-- gassers emit alot but it is in the micron(unseen) size range.(
Reply