Kws6000 This is going to be the poem of "how do I love thee let mecout the ways"
1-Higher specific horsepower without forced indution. aka VTEC
2-Brembo brakes.
3-electronic brake distribution
4-Stability assist system
5-Blue tooth phone
6-limited slip differential
7-DVD audio.
8-Bixenon head lamps.
9-DVD navigation system (best in market by a lot).
10-Better resale value (by a ton).
11-After 20 years of trying they still have gobs of tourque steer!
12-And to make a long story short it doesn't have a crappy Opel engine augmented by early 20th century tecnology (turbo). Sorry, but you are driving a swedish Saturn.
All through my adult life (which I can easily dicern has been quite a bit longer than yours) I have driven essentially every model from the 900 up. As a matter of fact one of my partners has a spanking new Saab convertible (his wife's of course) which I drove extensively. In my opinion and his, even my old TLs was a better car. I took him out for a drive on my new 6 speed and he almost **** his pants!!!! So you have the right to your own fantasy world in which SAAB can compete with Acura. I, on the other hand, live in the real world where SAAB has become another second category car maker. Sweet dreams!!!!! Oh by the way, this is my 8th Honda product. All of which have given me spectacular service all the way from a lowly 1300 cvcc.

 

kws6000,

There is no need for racist remarks like that. I think you would be wise to edit your post. :wow:

 

Not to worry gweempost. Those so called ricers are the envy of saabophiles. They are always wondering how those cheap jap cars keep kicking their behind again, again and again.

 

Vtechbrain,I dont know where your getting your info from but you obviously have limited knowledge and didnt bother researching anything befdore commenting.I dont see forced induction being a negative, since with it the saab has a significantly fatter torque curve than the tl which translates into better seat of the pants response.The turbocharger also maintains sea level performance up to an elevation of 10000ft(not like normal aspiration which loses 3% power/1000ft elevation).the power output of the saab can be easily increased by cranking up the boost.The 9-5 aero already has effective brakes and doesnt require a brembo upgrade.You also got some of your facts wrong.The 9-5 aero has stability control and electronic brake distribution. It also has xenon headlights ,onstar and a remote handsfree cell phone.As for torque steer,what torque steer?.Ive never driven any stock 9-5 that presented torque steer issues.The previous generation 9-3s were terrible for torque steer.BTW,the 2.3 turbo is not an opal engine.As for the 9-5 aero being a sweedish saturn ,that again demonstrates your ignorance.Kind of like calling the TL a dressed up civic.As for you being older than me,You have no idea of my age but in your case age doesnt equate with wisdom.I think the TL is a very good car for the money and has a lot of positive attributes( I may buy one because of the value equation) but your comments indicate your lack of knowledge regarding cars.Im looking forward to your upcoming posts about how you smoked a c5 corvette or ran a 13 second quartermile timed with your stopwatch(going uphill)

 

I'll say that I didn't test either car in MT because this time I needed to get something my wife would drive so I could take her truck on occasion. So I drove only the AT versions of the two cars listed and thought the Saab felt to me like it had the edge on handling and pickup than the TL (although I doubt they're much different 0-60). Since then, in conversations which I'll admit could be incorrect, I've been told that I could boost the Aero's hp by nearly 100 for under $1000 - so maybe a turbo isn't a bad thing after all. I'll bet that 350 hp would help my resale value - if I didn't atomize the car and myself first.

Anyway, no other cars seem to fare well in this forum, and these heated arguments don't accomplish much, so maybe we should let this thread drop off page 1 into oblivion . . .

 

Don't worry it's kind of interesting. As you can see KW was only able 2 points out of eleven and go on a rant about turbos. Ive had 3 turbos in the immediate family a saab, a merc, and a volvo. All of them have burned the little spinning wheel below 70k. The mercs replacement was 8k, What a deal!!!! Oh in case you wondered the volvo was intercooled, it made no difference. Turbocharging or supercharging is how manufacturers with second tier technology embellish their products. Honda is one of the leading turbocharging technology powers in the world go check CART and F1. They (and nobody else) just haven't how to build a reliable long lasting blower for gas engines. Little info, you can get a turbo for an s2000 that will inject an adiitional 100HP that makes ummmm, 340 hp out of a 2L engine. Try to suck on that!

 

Vtechbrain,do you even know what an intercooler does?Do you understand the concept of watercooled turbos wrt longevity?Do you understand the concept of torque?Your comments about the massive torque and pull of your car @3000rpm in another post indicate you have never had anything that actually is torquey.You would probably consider a honda s2000 to be a stoplight racer.You tend to highlight your ignorance about cars everytime you post.(although I have to admit a lot of the things you post are quite humerous for their inaccuracies.)Are you secretly the Cliff Clavin character from the old Cheers show?

 

The gloves are off!!! It's Vtechbrian vs. Kws6000. Pretty funny to see you all arguing. The bottom line is this. You buy what you like. If you like the TL buy the TL. If you like a Saab then buy a Saab. I went with the TL because Acura here been good to me. I've owned an Integra, TL-S and the '04 TL. I think the newer Saabs look cool but I have heard one bad story after another. In my opinion, I'll take reliablity any day of the week. Besides both my TLs have some get up and go.

 

This is getting fun Dear KW should I review Boyle's law with you??? Lets not get into the physics of thermodynamics as I'm pretty sure you would come out looking pretty ignorant. The simple point (maybe simple is better for you) is that intercooling increases the efficiency of the turbine and as an added benefit it reduces the overall operating temperature thus increasing the life of the contraption. That's the simple theory, the simple fact is that yes it improves turbo efficiency, no, it does not improve longevity signicantly. At least not at price most people could afford. That's why turbos are only used by companies with second rate engineering. Why do you force me restate the obvious. If you wish we will review the fundamentals of supercharging next, you know, stratified charge and all those other goodies. O lest I forget, yes opel, saturn and SAAB share engines but when GM was looking for an engine for their high performance Saturn red line they had to come sucking up to Honda. Because under their corporate stable they couldn't find anything that would do. CASE CLOSED. NEXT CASE PLEASE!!!!

 

Sorry not to throw gas on the fire, but I can't let this go...

Does this mean that Audi, Porsche, Volvo, Lotus, Bentley, Maybach, and others are all cars with second rate engineering? Don't think so.

You might want to be more careful about what you say, a statement like that doesn't back up your point. I do agree with you that if you want reliable power a turbo probably isn't the best alternative, but if it were the failure you make it to be why would they put it in a quarter of a million dollar Bentley?

 

It's interesting that in all that list ferrari, BMW and Honda don't appear, may it be that the manufacturers that do have first class engineering established by winning essentially all manufacturers award in the last fifteen years dont use them???? I don't know if you've noticed but porsche only make one Turbo model the really fancy ones are normally aspirated. Plus In order to emulate the s2000 they had to come up with an entirely different engine for their boxter which raised the price of the car 20000 more than the s2000. Mercedes is in the biggest losing hole in history because it is producing some of the worst cars in the market. It's time to understand that lofty prices dont make the car its engineering. Three pointed stars, volvos and jumping cats are the prestige cars for the ignorant and easily astonished.

 

Okay I understand. Turbos are used by auto manufactures that are completely behind the times and people that buy those cars are rich and ignorant.

 

Righhhhht! Hopefuly I got one convert!!!!

 

You need to differentiate 'real' turbo vs wannabes.

My 626 Turbo could not be beaten by anything in its class.

My Audi Turbo engine could not even stand the comparaison with the greatness of a BMW 525/535 I6. I would have preferred a bigger displacement NA engine.

Same goes with the 9-5. I don't like their turbo engines. I did drive many of them. A 45000$CAD car with an engine that feels like an Accord is not quite acceptable. It is even worse with the 9-5 Aero. In real world, it can not stand the comparaison with an el cheapo Nissan or Honda V6 that are quicker, smoother and less thirsty.

WRX/STI are a good example of a turbo well applied.

 

Vbrainiac,actually you come out looking pretty ignorant as usual.Intercooling doesnt decrease the temperature of the t.charger,since it is located after the t.charger.The gas temperature only after the intercooler is lower ,hence it has nothing to do with the life of the t.charger.Btw,the turbo 2.3 in the 9-5 isnt shared with any other division.Porsche uses t.charging in their flagship cayenne and 911 models.P.S. Are you really just a bored 16yr old having some fun with all your funny posts?

 

As usal your ignorance is bliss. Why would you want to cool the exhaust of the turbo pin head? After it comes past the turbine it just heads out the muffler boo boo. The intercooler lowers the temperature before the charge to increase density of the air mass (I knew you wouldn't understand Boyle) thus achieving more push per volume of air. Since this air is cooler than the stuff that comes down the manifold, heat stress on the turbine is reduced. I sure as hell hope you're not a mechanic. Because you sure don't know a spark plug from a horses butt. And yes I have a kid that's older than 16. She probably knows more about cars than you do and she doesn't even know how to use jumper cables.

 

AFTER the turbo but BEFORE entering the combustion chamber; right? I mean what's the point of of condensing the air (which is what a intercooler does) if it's not prior to entering the combustion chamber. For the life of me though, I have no idea why it wouldn't be prior to the turbo. Would you have some pics you could post for examples?

 

Vtec,

You misunderstood KWS.

Here is a definition of intercooling:

Intercooling is the process of cooling the air or air/fuel mixture somewhere between the turbo and the engine. Intercooling is sometimes referred to as aftercooling or charge-air cooling.

When KWS refered to the cooling taking place after the turbo, he meant the side that is compressing the intake air, not the exhaust gas that drives the turbo. He was trying to say that intercoolers cool down the intake air after it has been compressed and heated by the turbo.

We shouldn't be so quick to judge someone as ignorant.

 

Sorry mook he's just a pain. He's a TL wannabe bent on putting down a car he doesn't own.

 

Actually,Ive never put the TL down,and For what its designed to do and at its price point,I think that its a fine car.Im just not fanatical about it(or any other car for that matter,including my own).Just like any vehicle,its going to have its good and not so good points.I dont currently own a SAAB,but I have in the past.One of our current vehicles is the prev.gen Tl.I normally ignore posts made by people who obviously lack understanding about their topic,but in this case the comments made were so outrageous that I couldnt resist.Regarding the issue of intercooling and t.charging,www.howstuffworks.com has a pretty good explanation in the auto section.

 

Hey that's a great web site. Thanks.

 

WOW,

I kind of hate to jump in here, but I too have a 6 speed on order along with a GTO and I am still looking at other options like the Aero and the 3 series BMW. I have driven the TL with the auto and it is certianly a great and well built car. I am hoping the 6 speed will corner a littler flater (larger sway bars) and have a little more spunk. I worry about the aero's resale, if SAAB if discounting so much on a new car, it is a nice car but you do have some turbo lag. On the other hand the TL is typical asian in that you have to rev it perty high to make any hp. My current daily driver is a 01 Pontiac GTP and the car has been a good one and the low end torque is addictive, especially when you live in the hills (Pittsburgh). Still on the fence, may wait on the GTO, but I have a C5 and I think it will be similar and I do not like the style so much. A stripped down 325i or 330i can be had for arround the same price of the TL and is more of a fun car to drive
and has maintenance included for 4 years including brakes, of course you do give up a bunch of goodies. Bottom line is in the 30 to 35 price range we are lucky to have a bunch of options and most all of the cars mentioned in this thread are good cars. If dependability is formost I would go with a TL.

 

Hehe. There's another Saab advantage nobody's mentioned yet. The demographic. You will never see offensive flame wars like this on Saabnet. The folks over there are surprisingly friendly and corteous. And the amount of technical knowledge they posess is amazing. Or is it just because the rate closing to $100/hour constitutes a good reason to learn the car yourself?