Saab Link Forums banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,796 Posts
That's a lot of money. Why are you changing to aftermarket rods? How much power are you planning on making?
while it is a lot of money, its actually exactly what they charge for a set of the "turbo tuffs" for the majority if not all sport compacts (hondas, suby's, evo's etc.) which is interesting considering it would be a custom order.

they are also a very good rod. too bad they require so many, i think it will be tough to get that many
people.

my only concern would be handling bearing clearances, since we only have a choice of standard and oversized bearings. may be quite a task to get proper clearance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
879 Posts
while it is a lot of money, its actually exactly what they charge for a set of the "turbo tuffs" for the majority if not all sport compacts (hondas, suby's, evo's etc.) which is interesting considering it would be a custom order.

they are also a very good rod.
Wow, small block chevy rods are so much cheaper.

Anyway, I's suggest pitching this to the B204 guys as well since they use the same length rod if I'm not mistaken. Might help you meet your minimum target.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
moar data

Wow, small block chevy rods are so much cheaper.

Anyway, I's suggest pitching this to the B204 guys as well since they use the same length rod if I'm not mistaken. Might help you meet your minimum target.
No...the B2x4 rods are different than the B2x5 rods :(
unfortunately, that being said!

But if someone can point why these and not Verdi, I might drop some $$$ in this group buy ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,796 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,796 Posts
I do not see reason why someone would like to build 2.3 engine with T5 geometry. Rod ratio is much better in T7.
T5 2.3 R/S - 147mm/90mm = 1.63

T7 2.3 R/S - 153mm/90mm = 1.70

the ratio is not "much better". anything between 1.5 and 1.8 is considered ideal, 1.75 being perfect, so while you could say the T7 geometry is closer to perfect, there really is no benefit since you will be outside the limit of other components before you could rev the motor far enough for the R/S to become an issue in my opinion.

do you know if all the block heights are equivalent to allow the use of the 153mm rod, pending piston dimensions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,232 Posts
Mostly the european saab owners run the B235 pistons in all the cars. It's mainly in the US where owners go to the old 234 geometry in the 235. Going off piston sales as hard data.

Thats why I picked my 159mm Rod 78mm stroke B205 for the racecar. ;) There are more variables than that for sure. Nice piston speeds for above 8500. Should have a cheap higher flowing mod soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
879 Posts
Thats why I picked my 159mm Rod 78mm stroke B205 for the racecar. ;) There are more variables than that for sure. Nice piston speeds for above 8500. Should have a cheap higher flowing mod soon.
That's much more a function of the 78mm stroke than of the use of 159mm rod over a 153mm one. The shorter stroke does make it easier to feed the engine though the so-so 16 valve heads we have.

As SaabKid said, as long as the engine is in the acceptable range (it's even wider than he suggested, a B205 is 2.03 R/S), it's really doesn't make much of any difference. I used to believe it did make a difference, but after exhaustive research on the topic, there's just no data to suggest a significant difference. There is a difference, but 1% at best. And a high R/S isn't 1% better everywhere, it's only slightly better at high rpms, at low rpms it's slightly worse.

So what it boils down to is if you want a torquey midrange machine, build 2.3. If you want more of a top end performer, build a 2.0.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,796 Posts
i used a range i knew more for all motor stuff, so the range yes could be larger.

the other factor is, if your gonna play with the geometry at all to change CR (wrist pin height etc) then the RS stuff goes out the window anyway.

id say more importantly you need to look at the pistons speed and rod angle of each setup anyway (long stroke +long rod = high sidewall load), which would make the argument that the T7 geometry is in fact worse, although like raven said, 6mm rod length change would not make it worse to the point that it is something to avoid IMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,796 Posts
Should have a cheap higher flowing mod soon.
im interested to see what you have in mind...

back on topic tho - im curious to see if you could get enough people for the order, i may be interested.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
879 Posts
id say more importantly you need to look at the pistons speed and rod angle of each setup anyway (long stroke +long rod = high sidewall load), which would make the argument that the T7 geometry is in fact worse, although like raven said, 6mm rod length change would not make it worse to the point that it is something to avoid IMHO.
You have that backwards. Longer rods lessen the rod angle, thus reducing side loading. Of course there is no escaping the piston speed though. The longer the stroke, the greater the acceleration forces. A trade off made be saab to give their increasingly heavy cars better driveability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,796 Posts
blah, sorry i was running through a convoluted example in my head.

my experience was a 95mm crank with factory length rods and OTS pistons. owner changed to custom pistons with raised wrist pins. stupidly i thought for a second that = longer, which of course it does not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,964 Posts
Yes a set one off from Pauter is 860, I can order them and get a discount through the shop if anyone is interested and coudl probably meet the discount with 10 orders, just hit me with a PM
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top