| Author | Message | ||
     Ceejay |
That and people like to make things more complicated than they really are  | ||
| Rocketman |
CJ, you're right about propane which is why those cylinders are refrigerant. 134a if I remember correctly, lol. I didn't put 'em there either. That would be Simon, who'd been laid underneath cleaning the chassis. 9-5 pre GM? Not sure what you mean by that. Saab 95 was the 1970's estate (brake?) version of the 1500cc Ford V4 Cologne engine Saab 96 saloon. 9-5 introduced in 1998. GM were in full control of Saab by then. There are some Saab related pages archived, so yeah, fire away here or wherever. Rocket | ||
| Diablobrian |
That looks like an interesting Saab there Rocket, we don't get those over here. Is that a "Dually" or a tandem axle? You called it a 6 wheeler so I was intrigued | ||
| Rocketman |
There are no rear axles. The 4 swing arms pivot around those steel bars you can just make out if you look carefully at the pic. It is these 8 bushes I'm replacing by the way.  Robert Solstad is a Swedish company (no longer in business) that specialised in building 6 wheel car \ van converted vehicles which are a little popular over there. Starting life as a new top of the range full blown 9000CS 2.3 turbo with leather, walnut, cruise, air con, climate, air bags, sunroof, etc etc, Solstad chops the car in half about a foot behind the front seats. A complete air bed (air suspension) 4 wheel chassis manufactured by Freno in Lapland is married up to the chopped Saab, then Solstad set about building whatever body, in this case a car transporter. Furniture vans, refrigerated vans, even ambulances were amongst those built. About 160 Solstads in total were built over about 10 years. Mine is one of 6 right hand drives, so the story goes. It is the only one known to exist in the UK too. When I've finished sorting I'll put up a thread and post pic's. Rocket | ||
| M1combat |
"1. Superior fuel efficiency. 2. Superior low end power. These are not attributes of a sportbike or performance machine.They're attributes of a Vespa... I LOVE THAT GUY! Seriously,they're not" Apparently you don't watch endurance racing? Fuel efficiency is of VERY high importance at Le-Mans or any other endurance race. Why was the Renault engine favored at the end of the V10 era in F1 (along with the Toyota)? They had more low end power. They were more drivable out of the turns... | ||
| Mikef5000 |
I didn't buy a bike to race, I bought a bike to ride on the street. Therefor, low-end power is much more important to me than high end. Sure I love the high end power when I get on it, but I'd take more low end power instead of more high end power any day. But that's me... and I'm weird. | ||
| Diablobrian |
Silly me, I was thinking rear wheel drive. I can see that working well, I've seen some high end trailers that had a similar system. On topic: low end torque/power is very important for the drive off of corners. | ||
| Ceejay |
Rocket- I thought GM didn't take over Saab until the 2002 maybe that is when they got publicized for doing it, not sure. anyways i have an '01 9-5 aero and basically I can't find any manuals on the damn thing mostly for the torque values, that and finding out how far gone is gone on my front rotors. There's a few other things but, hell I can't find any good info on 'em. I am used to work on american trucks though, which parts and info is a dime a dozen... | ||
| Rocketman |
GM took a major share in Saab back in 1994. 9-5 manuals don't exist unless factory, which are available through dealerships. That said, they span several models over years, and there is really no such thing as a stand alone book like there use to be for earlier cars. They are made up of individual books filed together, and there are lots. That said, try Robert Bentley, though I'm unaware of them doing a Saab manual since the classic 900 16 valve models. Let me know if you're successful. A solution? You should be able to find a CD on eBay that covers all models, which should have every volume per model within it. Torque values included  What do you need to talk anyway? Disc rotors should be worn flat. If a little ridge occurs on the inner and outer edge of the swept are that's not a problem. It should be pretty obvious if they've worn too thin anyway. Look at the venting veins for clues. Piston travel is further too especially as the pads wear down. Look for obvious signs. Sorry but I don't have the spec's to hand at home and I'm holidaying until next week. Rocket | ||
| Xl1200r |
Ask any Ferrarri owner if they're concerned about fuel efficiency...High Performance seldom considers fuel efficiency. Then you can ask any Ferrari owner how often they drive their car  In a Buell, you can get high performance AND high gas mileage - seems like if you can have your cake and eat it too, then why woudln't you? There are other examples - A 505hp Corvette Z06 gets 26mpg highway vs. a Ferrari F430 that makes 490hp and gets 17mpg highway. And the Corvette engine is twice the displacement. More displacement, more power, higher fuel effeciency. Hardly seems fair... Also, look at it this way - A more fuel effecient engine needs to carry less gas to go the same distance as a less fuel effecient competitor. Less gas means less weight. And then if the race is long enough (thank you for brining up LeMans, whoever that was), making every gallon go as far it can counts BIG. Ask any LeMans, NASCAR, Cart, etc. race team how much they like having to get off the racetrack so they can gas up in the pits. BTW - Racecar is a palendrome  (Message edited by xl1200r on January 11, 2007) | ||
| Ducxl |
Help! Help! Police! i'm being stalked! Ok,help me with this "racecar" palendrome,will 'ya? | ||
| Kootenay |
Following are some very prominent technical advantages over most all other comparably performing motorcycle engines and another versus all liquid cooled motorcycle engines. 1. Superior fuel efficiency. 2. Superior low end power. 3. Significantly reduced maintenance, not just in valve lash, but in coolant system maintenance, front brake maintenance, final drive maintenance. 4. Zero risk of coolant system catastrophic failure and subsequent engine damage not to mention the risk of scalding hot liquid spewing all over the place including on the rider as you one is riding down the road. I don't want to argue with Blake, but really. First off, the fuel efficiency issue has nothing to do with whether the engine is air-cooled or liquid-cooled; ditto for low-end power (and really, you want low-end? ride a Yamaha MT-01, makes my Buell feel like an I4); I don't see what brake or final drive maintenance has to do with engine cooling, either, and yes, while I agree that air-cooling eliminates any possibility of catastrophic coolant leakage, that's not really an issue of "technical superiority." About the only thing on Blake's list that got me thinking is the fuel mileage issue, and I don't really know why that is, but I think it has to do with the fact the engine turns relatively slowly (giving the fuel time to burn completely) and doesn't really breathe all that well compared to a 4-valve per cylinder screamer. I do notice that, when I push my bike hard, my fuel economy drops significantly and is really no better than anything else--I really have to ride like a grandmother to approach the incredible fuel mileage everyone talks about. Hey, I'm a big Buell supporter, and am often the lone defending voice on non-brand-specific forums. I really like my Buell, and I agree the chassis is the equal of anything out there. But as much as I like the engine, I'm not so blind that I think it's the be-all and end-all of motorcycle engines; while I think it is a better choice of powerplant for a streetbike than the average 600cc supersport engine, that's not because of technical superiority, but rather because of basic suitability. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Ha... A palindrome is a word or phrase that is spelled the same way forwards as it is backwards. I just threw it out there for the sake of irrelevance. These threads get way too heated sometimes... The bottom line is engine preference is so subjective that there's no sense in arguing about it. Some people inherently prefer a water-cooled engine, just like some guys prefer fat chicks | ||
| Blake |
Geez guys. The Ducati engines are among my favorites. But to deny that the Buell engine does indeed provide a number of very valid technical advantages over them and others, just because you personally don't happen to care for those particular advantages, doesn't render them moot. I don't care so much for peak HP and high revs, but I certainly won't discount those as an technical advantages to today's repli-racer engines. It's like some folks here cannot abide giving any due credit to the strengths and advantages of the Harley-Davidson/Buell engines. In my mind right now, BMW has pushed the state of the art in air-cooled engines. Their newest incarnation of the venerable boxer engine in the R1200S is putting out 120 HP. That would seem to be the current king of the HP/cc for large air-cooled street bike motorcycle engines. So BMW has apparently unseated Buell in that and by a significant margin. I suspect that may well change again in the not too distant future. | ||
| Blake |
"The bottom line is engine preference is so subjective that there's no sense in arguing about it." Shhhh! You'll kill half the activity on the board. LOL!  | ||
| Rick_a |
Speaking of exotic cars...there's a local guy around here using a new Lamborghini as a daily driver. It really looks out of place in rush hour traffic! | ||
| Rocketman |
Then you can ask any Ferrari owner how often they drive their car The classic late 70's and 80's 308 / 328 / 348 models are well known for mileages over 100000. I suspect the 355's will easily see similar and beyond. Granted I doubt many will have stayed with their original owners, but certainly these models can hold as daily drivers. Rocket | ||
| Rubberdown |
"In my mind right now, BMW has pushed the state of the art in air-cooled engines. " Having owned a 9R, 12S, two HD's, and three BMW boxers in the last few years, I've come to the same conclusion. | ||
| Ducxl |
It's like some folks here cannot abide giving any due credit to the strengths and advantages of the Harley-Davidson/Buell engines. Very true..I seldom admit the strengths of my Buells'.I know linear..The smooth delivery of power coming out of a corner.Makes it easy to corner hard.You'd never know it but,i ride Buells' much more often than Ducati.But it's fun to have around | ||
| Jon |
Some complain about and nit pick Buell for conversation. That can't be distinguished by some people from objective criticisms that aren't meant as a put-down. Somebody yells "Attica!!" and the molotov coctails start wizzing throught the air. But all the talk about a new engine make me want to table my plan to get a new bike (Uly vs Multi). Maybe I'll wait a while and see what comes out. | ||
| Rubberdown |
Now don't think that I didn't like the Buells' engines too, cuz I did and still do. I'm just fickle. | ||
| Oz666 |
A few points... High efficiency=high performance. Someone, probably several someones, paid a lot of attention to air flow, volumetric efficiency, flame fronts and on and on. Within the confines of a tested design which was readily available and suited the design parameters of the intended vehicle. The ratio of bore to stroke has a very large influence on the performance characteristics of the resultant engine. Simplistically, big bore/short stroke=high RPM/high HP/low torque - big stroke/small bore= lower RPM/higher torque/lower HP, displacement remaining equal. `08 CARB and Euro emissions met using an air cooled non catalytic converter equipped vehicle is a HUGE engineering accomplishment. And goes right back to combustion efficiency. Converters add weight and restrict flow. Both are BAD on a motorcycle. (Mine already has enough extra weight to drag around.) Getting an essentially flat torque curve from any engine, let alone a long stroke one is very difficult, ask Aaron. When I was bike-looking, my target was a BMW r100RS. I stumbled across Buell in the process. WOW, someone built the bike I always wanted. Light, great handling, awesome brakes, plenty of power for anything I am capable of, easy to work on, made in the US, easy parts availability (or so I thought, still better than any other bike, thanks to Dave and the other sponsors). Maybe a redux of the Barton story is in order, THAT motor made HUGE HP. And, it would seem, that was it's best feature. 50+ MPG is icing on the cake. I bough a bike to ride, the XB series takes it one step (or more) further with lighter weight, better handling, better brakes AND better fuel efficiency. I guess where this is going is, if you are looking for an R1, a Buell won't make you happy. But it makes ME happy. Anyone know how to do the math for "fun quotient" or "shwing factor"? Just remember, when the regs clamp down MORE on noise and emissions, you might just be riding that water cooled Vespa. Oh, and if you want a six speed, try changing to the 29 tooth front pulley first - came stock on mine.   Oz "Nobody gets in to see the Wizard. Not nobody, not no how." | ||
| Spatten1 |
"`08 CARB and Euro emissions met using an air cooled non catalytic converter equipped vehicle is a HUGE engineering accomplishment" I keep reading about that. I don't understand why I should care about that. I care about performance, reliabilty, and price. I also seem to be willing to make exceptions to the above for a little soul in my engine. However, emmissions compliance is supposed to be transparent to the consumer. If it is a big deal to make this 1985 engine pass emissions, then build a new one. I can guarantee you that Ducati, and the four big Japanese companies will still be making 160 hp next year, with or without a cat, it really doesn't matter to me. I do care that the air is clean and am happy about the regs, however, I don't care how the manufacturer makes the bike run clean. I just want something that works well. | ||
| Xl1200r |
The classic late 70's and 80's 308 / 328 / 348 models are well known for mileages over 100000. I suspect the 355's will easily see similar and beyond. Are you suggesting that 100,000 miles on a 30-year-old car is a lot? It will take more than 3300 miles per year to make something a daily driver. I know you stated mileages "over 100,000", but if it was significantly more, you would have said so. And the bottom line is there will always be exceptions to the rules. Just because something is well known doesn't mean it's common. Like I said, against Blake's wishes, engine preference is 100% subjective, regardless of the facts. One of my favorite engines of all time is the GM QUAD-4 H.O. 1989 and it was making 185hp out of a 2.3 liter 4 cyl. Impressive for the time. It was also a reliability nightmare, but I love it regardless. I used to own one, and if I find a nice little 1991 Grand Am with the H.O. in it in nice shape, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. In bikes, I like simple. I like heritage. The little Sportster engine that could is part of what defined Buell, and it's part of what defines them to this day. I LOVE BMW Motorcycles, and I had the opportunity to test ride the new R1200S back before it was even on dealer's floors. What a machine! But you know what grabbed my attention? That traditional boxer twin. That engine is why I would buy that bike instead of any of the 4 cyl models, despite ANY performance advantages. | ||
| Rick_a |
'86 was the first year of the Evo Sportster. You can hardly call the current powerplants anything but distant relatives of the old 4-speed...just as the current XB motors are quite different from the previous generation of 5-speed engines. There are so many improvements both large and small through the years that one would spend hours covering it. The top ends are similar and interchangeable but major changes have been made every where else. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Based on the Cycle World long term wrap up, you should definitely be holding out for the 910, not the 750 (or whatever it is). Good stories! | ||
| Rocketman |
Your comment suggested Ferrari owners don't drive them very often. You're right. Most don't drive them often enough. My apologies 1200r. Rocket | ||
| Rocketman |
Bill, what month(s) CW? I can probably get them here. And thanks. Rocket | ||
| Ceejay |
Thanks rocket, do you like Audi autos? | ||
| Rocketman |
Audi make some great cars. They're not to my liking, though I'd own one if one came along in a deal. My personal choice always comes down to rear wheel drive, unless I'm Saabing of course, lol, but otherwise I usually end up driving classic motors myself. Recently I've been smoking my old Jag XJS around. Before that a 9000 Carlsson with some fancy race parts fitted. Before that a 430 Maserati Biturbo which is a great car despite what those that have never driven one, never mind even owned one, will tell you. Glad you mentioned auto though. I've been meaning to start a thread on that very topic. I've a couple of friends who own Audi's. The 'brake' A4 with the fancy styling. Nice motor. Rocket |
