Saab Link Forums banner
1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
419 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Lately I see many people want to go with Trionic 5 or 7 cylinder heads, the only feature better than old B202 heads is bigger intake valves. Also Trionic engine management systems, people think it will add some great power to B202 having that heavy unreliable ignition cassette on your classic Saab.

I just looked at the specifications of new generation Saabs from 1999 to 2006

B204E: 219 N·m (162 lb·ft) @ 3600 rpm 154 hp (115 kW) @ 5500 rpm with 5psi
B204L: 263 N·m (194 lb·ft) @ 2100 rpm 185 hp (138 kW) @ 5500 rpm with 10 psi
ecotech GM engines are in similar range of power.

So 1985 900 turbo makes about 160hp with 7psi, with all that old technology. The 1989 spg makes 175hp with 10psi, and same SPG with red APC box makes 185hp with 15psi.

These are all bone stock out of factory specifications.

I just don't think doing all that work to fit T7 head and ECU into C900 is worth the effort.

Additional argument:
So what if the T7 head flow better if I don't see any major improvement on stock car specs? So the T7 engine flows %40 more but power output is similar to C900 on stock production cars. I am not saying Trionic stuff is worse than old LH , I know that Trionic head and ECU is better but the benefit is so minimal that I am not shure if it is even worth doing the swap.

LH2.4 is flexible too, now that I created tuning solution, you can tune for bigger injectors, idle speed, WOT enrichment and part throttle lambda map. I even posted some of my tunes for free on ecuproject forum. LH2.4 is good system, has smooth idle , great lambda control. APC system is proven to be reliable and information is out that you can mod it yourself. Distributor is old school but it is reliable and with modified diafragm you can make it even better.

On LH2.4 you can even use Volvos LH2.4.4 ecu, MAF and injectors. It is plug and play and will support 300hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,349 Posts
Do you still have a mullet and wear spandex too?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
B204L: 263 N·m (194 lb·ft) @ 2100 rpm 185 hp (138 kW) @ 5500 rpm with 10 psi

The 1989 spg makes 175hp with 10psi.
So based on your figures the newer technology has yielded 10 HP with the same boost pressure, seems to suggest something. What do you think would be the most power you could achieve from each model with only software changes? I would think that the c900 is closer to it's hardware limitations.

It sounds like you agree that the T7 head is superior to a b202 head, id also agree that on a stock c900 changing the head would not be worth the effort. But for someone who is looking to increase the performance of their car, a T7 head is not a bad, cheap, quality upgrade when paired with other modifications.

Same thing goes for t5suite. For someone looking to maintain stock power levels, LH is a perfectly good system. Also, a simple re-tune of the LH system makes sense for many people looking for a little something without a lot of work. However, the ease of tuning and level of control that t5suite allows for does make it a worth while upgrade for others. Especially considering the cost and availability of parts.

I don't see how anyone could argue that a t7 head and T5 conversion would never be worth the effort as that is simply not the case.

Thank you Dan, I laughed.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,730 Posts
Raul, you're wrong.

T5 on a 9k aero or NG900 is limitless, you understand that right? Having sequential fuel injection with boost control and DI that is completely adjustable is better than any BOSCH nonsense from the 80's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,702 Posts
there is more too, T5 makes more power OFF boost, because you play with timing more, ths increases the area under the curve on your dyno sheet,

a DI is more reliable than an ignition amp, which will also leave you stranded without spark, nevermind coil failures, cap failures, wire failures, hall effect failure inside the distributer. and other BS.

i have only ever been stranded once in my life do to a DI, i can think of atleast 6 instants where some form of a c900 ignition system has kept a car from ive been seated in from unning. and ive put way more total miles are cars with DI


lets also compare the reliability of a c900 MAF, to a T5 MAP?? anybody care to comment on this?

what are the biggest injectors you can make idle with LH?, really, i want to know,

also, have you ever actully dynoed a stock c900 or tried to fit trioinic to one? ive driven c900s with modded LH, and T5, and im pretty certian i know which one ran better. (even though the LH car was quicker due to hardware mods)


lastly, it cracks me up how you use 1985 cars as an example, because there wiring harness bio-degrads, that alone would be enough motivation to loose the 80s electro-fuckups

i will not belive a word you say on this topic untill you have converted a c900 to trionic, tuned it, and can speak to the differences from first hand experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,702 Posts
I just looked at the specifications of new generation Saabs from 1999 to 2006

B204E: 219 N·m (162 lb·ft) @ 3600 rpm 154 hp (115 kW) @ 5500 rpm with 5psi
B204L: 263 N·m (194 lb·ft) @ 2100 rpm 185 hp (138 kW) @ 5500 rpm with 10 psi

.
you didnt look up that much, besides 1999, the motor codes all ended in 5

example, b205, b235, ect ect..

also, your saying that going from 10-15psi in a classic 900 yields ONLY anuther 10hp??

thats 2hp per PSI,, that to me says something is very wrong with the system the turbocharger is attached too!!! i can get 10 hp on a trionic saab in software alone without even raising the boost!!!!

give me 1psi more than stock on a trionic car, and i will find well over 10hp from the way it rolled in stock
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,939 Posts
there is more too, T5 makes more power OFF boost, because you play with timing more, ths increases the area under the curve on your dyno sheet,

a DI is more reliable than an ignition amp, which will also leave you stranded without spark, nevermind coil failures, cap failures, wire failures, hall effect failure inside the distributer. and other BS.

i have only ever been stranded once in my life do to a DI, i can think of atleast 6 instants where some form of a c900 ignition system has kept a car from ive been seated in from unning. and ive put way more total miles are cars with DI

lets also compare the reliability of a c900 MAF, to a T5 MAP?? anybody care to comment on this?

what are the biggest injectors you can make idle with LH?, really, i want to know,

also, have you ever actully dynoed a stock c900 or tried to fit trioinic to one? ive driven c900s with modded LH, and T5, and im pretty certian i know which one ran better. (even though the LH car was quicker due to hardware mods)

lastly, it cracks me up how you use 1985 cars as an example, because there wiring harness bio-degrads, that alone would be enough motivation to loose the 80s electro-fuckups

i will not belive a word you say on this topic untill you have converted a c900 to trionic, tuned it, and can speak to the differences from first hand experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,388 Posts
i believe the 205r heads had lightweight valves that made them much revvier as well.

there's nothing wrong with modding lh. i'm running a chip from paul in my car right now and it works as good as can be expected....but i do plan on t5'ing the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
419 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Some of the Volvos in Europe had LH2.4 system with EZK ignition box all the way to year 1998. Sequential injecton only benefits low load performance and fuel economy, does not deliver any aditional horsepower.

Look at the statistics, compare the Trionic 2.0 liter engine output to 1990-1993 900t. Horsepower output is similar. I know '85 is not the best year for c900t so lets use 90-93 for example.

So if T5 system and cylinder head is so awsome, how come factory specifications do not prove that to be the fact.

Trionic system is better don't get me wrong but what I am arguing is, is it worth all the work end effort to fit the system when power gain is minimal.

There are more simple options for C900 now. For example I experimented with 1994 Volvo 950 turbo, LH2.4 ECU in my C900t. Using Volvo ECU 0 280 000 967, Volvo 30lb/hr injectors 0280 150 804 and the same Volvo MAF, you will have near 300hp support on your C900 and good thing all those volvo parts will plug and play in 89-93 c900t. Also direct ignition can be fitted from 90-92 9000t, downside to this is that DI/APC box is not yet supported for tuning, we are still working on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,702 Posts
Look at the statistics, compare the Trionic 2.0 liter engine output to 1990-1993 900t. Horsepower output is similar. I know '85 is not the best year for c900t so lets use 90-93 for example.

So if T5 system and cylinder head is so awsome, how come factory specifications do not prove that to be the fact.

.
Ng900 use different turbos, manifolds, and run at a generically lower pressure

if you really wan to get technical, with the factory specs, a T5 9000 lpt made 170hp, with like 6psi, and won many awards for "best motor" in its LPT state, with a horribly garret on it, and no BPC, what happens when all that bad stuff goes away?

there is more differences than just the EFI system

raul, why are you so afraid to cross the 300hp mark?? lets start talking in trionic terms,,, like 600hp, e85 support, 40,000 volts per cyl with ion sensing ignition system to detect knock,,, instead of a knock sensor thats OEM procedure to test for failure is "hit with hammer, and check a knock light"

how much work to fit a T5 harness to a c900??

well, i did mine in less than one week, with no prior documentation, and nobody to ask for help..

Dan the kids car started in what was basicly first crank

Jp (green9kaero) rolled in the garage one night on LH, and drove him home 4 hours later running on trionic-

id bet you spent more time figuring out how to flash LH chips properly, than many of us have spent converting to T5, so yes, its worth the effort
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
645 Posts
i dd an 86 900t and occasionally drive my g/f 9k aero. ill tell ya what, the 9k is faaaaaaarr superior to drive off boost and around town, i wish my c900 had that driveability
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
419 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
i dd an 86 900t and occasionally drive my g/f 9k aero. ill tell ya what, the 9k is faaaaaaarr superior to drive off boost and around town, i wish my c900 had that driveability
9000 aero is 2.3L a much better powerplant, you can't use that in this argument. even 1986 9000 runs better than c900t, that is because of the front mount intercooler and better design transmission.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
9000 aero is 2.3L a much better powerplant, you can't use that in this argument. even 1986 9000 runs better than c900t, that is because of the front mount intercooler and better design transmission.
What is the difference between a 2.3 and a 2.0 Saab engine? (say... from 1986)
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top