Difference between 9-5 Aero and Aero HOT?

[Tam]

Whats the difference between a 9-5 Aero and a 9-5 Aero HOT? Is there anything obvious or is it engine tinkering?

[TUS 373]

Could be wrong but I thought they were the same thing - the 2.3 litre with High Output Turbo (as opposed to Light Pressure Turbo) producing 250 bhp.

[mustard]

I agree, during the limited time I worked with Saabs in recent years its just been the Vector (and maybe the Arc) where you could have the choice of 2.3t (lpt light pressure turbo) or 2.3T (HOT High Output Turbo)

All recent Aeros are 250bhp IIRC

[cirks]

same thing but I don't think the current 9-5 Aero is called the HOT any more.

[LongQ]

Not sure when the HOT ID was introduced but 9-5 Aero's pre 2002MY were 230bhp claimed. 2002 to the recent facelift were definitely HOT identified with 250bhp. The new Aeros' have a 2.8l V6 with 260bhp, so the game changes.

Mostly to do with emission regulations and limited options for achieving them with the 2.3ltr four pot I was told. Sadly the fuel consumption seems to have increased. It's an odd thing, saving the planet.

[900T-R]

The 260 bhp version in the 'new' 9-5 is still the 2.3 litre four pot. The GM Global Six from which the 9-3 Aero's 2.8 litre turbo version is derived, doesn't fit in the 9-5, at least not without spending more on re-engineering the old girl to make it fit than GM/Saab are willing to spend on a model that'd going to be replaced rather soon...

[LongQ]

900T-R said:

The 260 bhp version in the 'new' 9-5 is still the 2.3 litre four pot. The GM Global Six from which the 9-3 Aero's 2.8 litre turbo version is derived, doesn't fit in the 9-5, at least not without spending more on re-engineering the old girl to make it fit than GM/Saab are willing to spend on a model that'd going to be replaced rather soon...

Oops. yep, you're quite right of course - just me getting brain fade from reading too much Saab mailed literature and confusing myself later! That said the comments about the fuel consumption are still valid, I believe, according to the published figures. It does seem odd that an 'advance', according to the rules laid down from the powers that control us, results in a bigger capacity engine with about the same output but burning more fuel on the test cycle.

It's a shame really. I have not driven the others but the 2.3HOT, even in automatic configuration, seems to be a great engine. The figures suggest by comparison with the manual it is slower to 60 but in normal road use I doubt the difference would be notable. The thing I really like the way the engine just pulls and pulls with pretty much seamless upshifts all the way.

Will the V6 be any better?

[aeroresh]

There no difference, all HOT stands for is "High Output Turbo" as opposed to the low pressure turbos in the 2.3T.

All 2.3 Aeros are HOTs.