RE: Pure bio concept doubles the grunt
Thursday 15th February 2007
Saab BioPower 100Saab's set to unveil a car that runs on pure bioethanol and delivers twice the power of the standard car.
Pure bio concept doubles the grunt
Saab drives in pure bioethanol concept
Saab BioPower 100
Next month’s Geneva motor show will see what Saab called the first production-based engine to be optimised for pure bioethanol (E100) fuel. The company sees the vehicle as building on the E85 vehicles it's already announced (see links below), with the aim of differentiating itself through cars with added power but lower emissions.
The BioPower 100 consists of a Saab 9-5 Estate with a turbocharged 2.0-litre 9-5 engine that delivers 300bhp -- twice as much as the standard car. This has been possible through modifications to the engine management system and internal components, allowing the use of greater boost pressure with a raised compression ratio. The high specific power output of 150bhp per litre demonstrates scope for future ‘rightsizing’ – using small high output engines that also deliver energy savings, said Saab.
Torque is also up -- it's 295lb-ft -- and the combination means the estate hits 62 mph in 6.6 seconds compared to the 2.0-litre estate's sluggish 11.7 seconds.
The concept also gets a tweaked exterior and interior supervised by GME director of advanced design, Anthony Lo, who penned Saab’s award-winning Aero X Concept.
“Bioethanol is a potent, high quality fuel which opens up exciting possibilities in helping to meet the environmental challenges that face us,” said GM Powertrain head Kjell ac Bergström in Sweden, who leads the BioPower 100 engine development team.
“As the need to reduce energy consumption increases, we are exploring ways to run smaller engines that give relatively high power, with and without hybrid technology. This concept car shows that bioethanol can play a key role in this ‘rightsizing’ process, while also minimising fossil fuel emissions.”
Saab already sells two BioPower engines in the 9-5, the 2.0t BioPower and the 2.3t BioPower; both run on bioethanol E85. Bioethanol delivers more oxgen to the cylinders, so engines deliver more power than they do when burning only petrol.
Related stories
Discussion
article said:
The BioPower 100 consists of a Saab 9-5 Estate with a turbocharged 2.0-litre 9-5 engine that delivers 300bhp -- twice as much as the standard car. This has been possible through modifications to the engine management system and internal components, allowing the use of greater boost pressure with a raised compression ratio.
Hmmm...so revised ECU, more boost and higher compression = more power. No surprises there then.
And it's a lot quicker than a normally-aspirated Saab. No surprises there either!
FFS, this is just a Saab press release, there's no journalistic integrity behind it at all - they're comparing apples and oranges and expecting everyone to be impressed!!!
Sort it out PH journos (if there are any!)!!!
I do know that bio-ethanol can give more power, but this is exaggerating the benefits through poor comparisons
What I don't understand is why they keep the 2.0 Turbo engine - why not engineer a 1.0 litre that still puts out 150bhp, i.e. performs the same as the petrol 2.0 but has improved mpg etc ?
That way we'd get more positive press hopefully and greater support for the bio fuels? ie carbon benefits of growing the fuel AND reduced mpg..
Obviously, we'd still want big engines in sports cars..
That way we'd get more positive press hopefully and greater support for the bio fuels? ie carbon benefits of growing the fuel AND reduced mpg..
Obviously, we'd still want big engines in sports cars..
900T-R said:
havoc said:
And it's a lot quicker than a normally-aspirated Saab. No surprises there either!
No, there's no such thing as an N/A 9-5. The base model has a low-pressure turbo thingy, 150 bhp/240 Nm.
Just researched - good point!
However, someone needs to tell the author that:-
article said:
compared to the normally aspirated 2.0-litre estate's
So in reality what we have is a poorly-researched, half-baked paraphrasing of a Saab press release. I know Haymarket now own PH, but does that mean we need to have Autocar standards of journalism?!?
Just worked it out...some of the ex-TVR management are now working for Ted - they're making us readers do all the development work on the articles!!!
havoc said:
PS - HOW can a 150bhp car take 11+ seconds to hit 60? Is it made out of lead?
Not quite, but kerb weight is quoted as around 1,600 kgs, and Saab seems to be a bit on the conservative side with quoting acceleration figs on their LPT models (in a bid not to take the shine off their comapratively lacklustre 'performance' models?) I remember them quoting a yawn-inducing 11.5 seconds for the low pressure turbo Classic 900 back in '91, and Auto, Motor Und Sport timed it at 9.3...
In-gear flexibility is a lot better than the 0-62(!) figs suggest, though...
havoc said:
So in reality what we have is a poorly-researched, half-baked paraphrasing of a Saab press release. I know Haymarket now own PH, but does that mean we need to have Autocar standards of journalism?!?
To be bluntly honest and with no disrespect meant, I have noted before that press releases pass through PH with either very little editing (leaving the most obvious PR bullsh*t and about 95% of adjectives out goes a long way towards making a press release sort of readable, in my experience
) or they're used for some jokey comment that more often than not misses the point or is even contradictory with essential information hidden somewhere in the third paragraph... havoc said:
Just worked it out...some of the ex-TVR management are now working for Ted - they're making us readers do all the development work on the articles!!!
Edited by 900T-R on Thursday 15th February 14:00
900T-R said:
havoc said:
PS - HOW can a 150bhp car take 11+ seconds to hit 60? Is it made out of lead?
Not quite, but kerb weight is quoted as around 1,600 kgs, and Saab seems to be a bit on the conservative side with quoting acceleration figs on their LPT models (in a bid not to take the shine off their comapratively lacklustre 'performance' models?) I remember them quoting a yawn-inducing 11.5 seconds for the low pressure turbo Classic 900 back in '91, and Auto, Motor Und Sport timed it at 9.3...
In-gear flexibility is a lot better than the 0-62(!) figs suggest, though...
I have a supposedly 150bhp 9-5 saloon. Girly in a cooper S the other day tried to come round me on a roundabout exit onto a dual carriageway. You can guess which car accelerated the fastest between 40-70 mph! In reality the power curve and delivery of the base model turbo's feels more like a similar bhp diesel. Mind you the BSR exhaust and high flow snorkel may make a difference. The Saab snorkel is a steal at 12 quid. Personally I am waiting for the BSR ppc bioethanol chip tune to come out for the older 9-5. Not sure if the injectors on the earlier models can flow enough fuel for high output on bioethanol, but worse I am pieved that the government don't make the E85 bioethanol much cheaper.
Which came first in Sweden, E85 at the pump, or cars capable of running on E85? It seems that both are very slowly dripping into the UK with no ramp up in site. In the usual way, the targets set by the government seem to be worthless - 5% fuel coming from renewable sources, which is manifesting itself in 5% ethanol in "normal" fuel, rather than E85 at the pump.
I'd love to be able to get hold of E85 locally. It might even give Megasquirt a bit of a boost in the UK as it could be a route to older cars running on E85.
ETA: It can be interesting reading PH news articles when you're signed up to CDWrite's mailing list. Sometimes the articles seem awfully familiar...
I'd love to be able to get hold of E85 locally. It might even give Megasquirt a bit of a boost in the UK as it could be a route to older cars running on E85.
ETA: It can be interesting reading PH news articles when you're signed up to CDWrite's mailing list. Sometimes the articles seem awfully familiar...
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 15th February 17:57
To answer my own question:
BBC said:
Sweden's state-backed bioethanol programme, meanwhile, ensures that there is no duty on the fuel. E85-enabled cars are offered free parking in Gothenburg, Stockholm and other municipalities.
Biofuel cars are also 20% cheaper to insure and are exempt from the Stockholm congestion charge, while both personal and fleet users pay less tax.
Ref:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4Biofuel cars are also 20% cheaper to insure and are exempt from the Stockholm congestion charge, while both personal and fleet users pay less tax.
On the other hand the effects on agriculture of growing a number of food crops for oil replacing derivatives may not be as positive as the supposed emissions benefits.
Hence the price tortilla in Mexico increasing rather dramatically as the farmers find they can sell the same base product for a lot more money the the recently encouraged US biofuels market.
Why feed the population when you can satisfy another nation's 'need' for fuels and line your own pockets at the same time.
Brazil converts huge areas of forest and forms of agricultural land to growing fuel plant crops for similar reasons. And Malaysia cut and burns (neat ecology) ever more tropical forest to plant oil palm trees - another source of bio-fuels. Well, the forests weren't doing anything useful were they, just providing somewhere for a few hairy long armed creatures to exist.
I rather suspect the unintended consequences of the apparent 'rush' (relative) to bio-fuels might make some of the recent wrong headed decisions seem like examples of excellence in planning.
Never mind. If our lot introduce the same incentives as Sweden (fat chance) we can all enjoy the thought of the power under the bonnet whilst sitting in the ubiquitous traffic jam listening to news reports about food riots in Mexico.
Hence the price tortilla in Mexico increasing rather dramatically as the farmers find they can sell the same base product for a lot more money the the recently encouraged US biofuels market.
Why feed the population when you can satisfy another nation's 'need' for fuels and line your own pockets at the same time.
Brazil converts huge areas of forest and forms of agricultural land to growing fuel plant crops for similar reasons. And Malaysia cut and burns (neat ecology) ever more tropical forest to plant oil palm trees - another source of bio-fuels. Well, the forests weren't doing anything useful were they, just providing somewhere for a few hairy long armed creatures to exist.
I rather suspect the unintended consequences of the apparent 'rush' (relative) to bio-fuels might make some of the recent wrong headed decisions seem like examples of excellence in planning.
Never mind. If our lot introduce the same incentives as Sweden (fat chance) we can all enjoy the thought of the power under the bonnet whilst sitting in the ubiquitous traffic jam listening to news reports about food riots in Mexico.
It has already been concluded that Ethanol is not a long term solution to the problem with emissions from transport of different kind. The problems mentioned above and the results of a recent Swedish study, pointing at that growing crops for ethanol production will shut out growing of other alternative crops on the available agricultural areals which when used for production of energy at bio-fuel-burning power-plants would have a greater effect on reduction of emissions. It also seems like it would be more energy efficient to grow crops and directly burn them in at a power-plant than to refine it into ethanol.
So, in the long term ethanol will not be the answer, but you must start somewhere, and here is the good thing about E85 and other bio-fuels for cars. They are part of the development of more energy-efficient and bio-freindly cars and a change in mindset of car manufacturers and the public.
Compared to pumping up fossile fuels from within the earth I still think E85 and other bio-fuels are better. We can't go on filling the athmosphere with CO2 from fossile fuels. A lot of the doom and gloom coming out around E85 also assume that it will continue to be produced using methods of today, which is wrong, because new methods and technologies will emerge as soon as demand rises.
Finally, after driving a Saab 9-5 BioPower for a couple of months I have noted/found out the following:
Advantages of E85:
1. Lower CO2-contribution to the athmosphere than fossile fuels
2. Less smelly exhaust fumes
3. More power under the bonnet. E85 gives the engine more peak power which makes the car more fun to drive. The extra 30 bhp really makes a lot of difference.
4. Part of the wave of environment friendlyness among car manufacturers and the public
5. Driving on E85 makes me feel better (at the moment atleast)
Disadvantages of E85:
1. Currently more expensive to run on than petrol in Sweden (politicians argue about how to solve that at the moment). E85 needs to cost less than 70 % of petrol to be more economical, due to the larger fuel consumption when you run on E85.
2.Oil changes need to be done after half the mileage compared to a car running on petrol as E85 "pollutes" the oil faster. (That goes atleast for my Saab which is an early BioPower and has an engine that is a bit of a compromise and not originally designed for running on E85). However new engines/oils will follow and I'm not sure this will be the case in a couple of years. I don't really see this as a problem though as service intervals have become ridiculously long in later years.
3.Not the long term solution to emission problems, but a step on the way
Well, I'm sure there will be much debate on this in the coming year, which can only be good and take us forward somehow in the end.
\ Johan
So, in the long term ethanol will not be the answer, but you must start somewhere, and here is the good thing about E85 and other bio-fuels for cars. They are part of the development of more energy-efficient and bio-freindly cars and a change in mindset of car manufacturers and the public.
Compared to pumping up fossile fuels from within the earth I still think E85 and other bio-fuels are better. We can't go on filling the athmosphere with CO2 from fossile fuels. A lot of the doom and gloom coming out around E85 also assume that it will continue to be produced using methods of today, which is wrong, because new methods and technologies will emerge as soon as demand rises.
Finally, after driving a Saab 9-5 BioPower for a couple of months I have noted/found out the following:
Advantages of E85:
1. Lower CO2-contribution to the athmosphere than fossile fuels
2. Less smelly exhaust fumes
3. More power under the bonnet. E85 gives the engine more peak power which makes the car more fun to drive. The extra 30 bhp really makes a lot of difference.
4. Part of the wave of environment friendlyness among car manufacturers and the public
5. Driving on E85 makes me feel better (at the moment atleast)
Disadvantages of E85:
1. Currently more expensive to run on than petrol in Sweden (politicians argue about how to solve that at the moment). E85 needs to cost less than 70 % of petrol to be more economical, due to the larger fuel consumption when you run on E85.
2.Oil changes need to be done after half the mileage compared to a car running on petrol as E85 "pollutes" the oil faster. (That goes atleast for my Saab which is an early BioPower and has an engine that is a bit of a compromise and not originally designed for running on E85). However new engines/oils will follow and I'm not sure this will be the case in a couple of years. I don't really see this as a problem though as service intervals have become ridiculously long in later years.
3.Not the long term solution to emission problems, but a step on the way
Well, I'm sure there will be much debate on this in the coming year, which can only be good and take us forward somehow in the end.
\ Johan
Gassing Station | Saab | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff