One For Classic Car Fans.....

[glasgowcyclist]

The V6 260 Estate I had did about 20 mpg at best, I think on a long run I managed to squeeze about 23 mpg once, I dread to think what it was doing towing the caravan

I used to lust after a 262 that was parked on my route home years ago. Never seen one since.

 

[Drago]

The 245 wasn't much better, that 1800cc engine wasn't really up to it so consequently used a lot of fuel but then I'm biased as a youth I worked at a SAAB main dealer, far better cars. All the 'safety' innovation Volvo supposedly came up with were actually the company trying to keep up with SAAB.
I don't remember Volvo winning any world rally events whereas SAAB won the Monte Carlo rally more than once (3 times) and when they were rallied the 96 and 99 didn't need a secondary 'roll cage' fitted..................It was built into the standard bodyshell in fact Eric Carlsson was known as 'On The Roof' for the number of times he'd rolled the cars and then went on to finish the event if not win it

The 1800 was the 145, neat little push rod unit.

The 245 went OHC in 2.0, 2.1 and 2.3 four pot form.

As a point of prder, I don't recall SAAB entering any competitive estate cars in BTCC either. Volvo have never bothered entering a factory team in the Monte Carlo rally, so thats a pretty moot point.

Im not sure about Volvo following SAAB in their safety wake. Volvo beat SAAB to the punch with crumple zones (PV444 in 1944, pre dating MB's patent by a decade), three points seatbelts in 1959, safety cell 1944, lamimated windsdreen 1944, DRLs a year ahead of SAAB in 1976, energy absornjng bumpers to all models 1974, ad nauseum.

To be fair to SAAB they beat Volvo to market with dual circuit brakes (1963) and boron steel in some safety structures 1984, and the first single model of SAAB with energy absorbing bumpers was 1971, so Volvo didnt have it all their own way.

The talk of SAABs not "needing" a roll cage for competition is also moot, because they all had to have one anyway. That being the case the point can never be proven or disproven - its mere lore. Motorsport of many classes is rife with cars ending up on their roof to go on to finish and even sometimes win an event, from Minis through to, er, Volvos.

What can be proven is that no one has ever died in the UK while travelling in a mkI or mkII Volvo XC90. No other mass manufacturer has a single model that can claim that (Audi comes closest, some model years of the Q8 can say the same) and Volvo have two. Definitely no SAAB model, as safe as they may have been, can claim the same.

Its certainty apocryphal to suggest Volvo were trailing behind in safety when in numerical terms of innovations they are clearly well ahead. Count 'em.

I like SAABs, particularly the older models, but being hampered by an engine developed from a Triumph unit in the seventies didnt do them any favours and the transmission-ahead-of-engine layout was a hilarious joke.

 

[Reynard]

The 245 wasn't much better, that 1800cc engine wasn't really up to it so consequently used a lot of fuel but then I'm biased as a youth I worked at a SAAB main dealer, far better cars. All the 'safety' innovation Volvo supposedly came up with were actually the company trying to keep up with SAAB.
I don't remember Volvo winning any world rally events whereas SAAB won the Monte Carlo rally more than once (3 times) and when they were rallied the 96 and 99 didn't need a secondary 'roll cage' fitted..................It was built into the standard bodyshell in fact Eric Carlsson was known as 'On The Roof' for the number of times he'd rolled the cars and then went on to finish the event if not win it

Pa Taket Carlsson

 

[Jameshow]

The 245 wasn't much better, that 1800cc engine wasn't really up to it so consequently used a lot of fuel but then I'm biased as a youth I worked at a SAAB main dealer, far better cars. All the 'safety' innovation Volvo supposedly came up with were actually the company trying to keep up with SAAB.
I don't remember Volvo winning any world rally events whereas SAAB won the Monte Carlo rally more than once (3 times) and when they were rallied the 96 and 99 didn't need a secondary 'roll cage' fitted..................It was built into the standard bodyshell in fact Eric Carlsson was known as 'On The Roof' for the number of times he'd rolled the cars and then went on to finish the event if not win it

Sorry but Volvo took over when Saab wet south...

900 and 9000 weren't anything special.

The 850 and 940 were better

Then came v70 including the T5 and v70r

Not to mention the XC60 xc70 and XC90.

 

[raleighnut]

I like SAABs, particularly the older models, but being hampered by an engine developed from a Triumph unit in the seventies didnt do them any favours and the transmission-ahead-of-engine layout was a hilarious joke.

Where do you get these ideas from, the engine was developed by Ricardo for both SAAB and Triumph with Triumph throwing a spanner in the works by wanting the cylinder head suitable for use on both banks of the V8 hence the different angle cylinder head studs/bolts.
Where is the idea that the gearbox is in front of the engine from, the clutch is on the front of the engine but from there the power goes through a triplex chain* to a gearbox underneath the engine with the casing forming the sump although separate oil is used for the gearbox.
SAAB suffered from poor management, with the last true model being the 900 which was simply a revamped 99, the 9000 was a joke an utter rustbucket which despite using thicker steel than it's Fiat/Lancia sister model was hopeless and to then be bought out by General Motors and be making re-engineered and re-badged Vectras an insult as was the re-worked Subaru.
When I worked on them in the late 70's the SAAB was simply the better car, faster and better handling with much better fuel economy than the 'brick' due to the aerodynamics and then when they launched the first turbocharged saloon car (due to the merging with Scania and their expertise) I was there at the Donnington Park launch with Stig Blomqvist driving his rally car. (BTW where do you think 'Top Gear' got the name 'The Stig' from, they'd never have named the mystery driver 'the Turkington')

* SAAB toyed with the idea of using a gear drive to drop the power down to the gearbox but having seen the problems BMC had with the Mini and the power limitations as the engine tried to 'climb' off the gearbox due to this a triplex chain running in oil was a better solution.

 

[Drago]

The Triumph slant-four is an inline four-cylinder petrol car engine developed by the Triumph Motor Company. It first appeared in 1968 in the Saab 99. The first Triumph model to use the engine did not appear until 1972. With an original capacity of 1.7 L, displacement grew over time to 2.0 L. Triumph production ended in 1981.

In 1963 Triumph's Chief Engine Designer Lewis Dawtrey presented the results of his analysis of future engine technology trends and Triumph's anticipated needs.[1] After evaluating rotary, horizontally opposed, V4 and V6 configurations Dawtrey recommended an OHC engine family composed of both Inline-4 and V8 engines that could be built with the same tooling. The new range would be built in capacities of 1.5 L to 3.0 L, allowing it to replace both the four-cylinder Standard SC and derivative Triumph I6 engines whose roots reached back to the Standard Eight of 1953. The recommendation was accepted and development began in-house at Triumph by a design team led by Dawtrey and Harry Webster. The initial model was to be a 1.5 L inline four.

At about the same time Saab was working on designing and building 55 hp 1.2-litre and 68 hp 1.5-litre prototype inline four engines for their upcoming 99 model. UK engineering and consultancy company Ricardo was involved in the Saab project and, while not directly involved in development of the slant-four, did have a general engine-development contract with Triumph and was aware of their progress. When Saab determined that developing their own engine would be too expensive and too risky, Ricardo put Saab into contact with Triumph.

The facts are as they are.

SAAB adopted, and eventually modified, a Triumph unit for their own use, and Ricardo were not involved in the development of that particular unit. However, although it is a Triumph unit SAAB were first to stuff it in a car and sell it.

Much discussion here among SAAB owners themselves...

https://www.saabcentral.com/threads/saabs-triumph-derived-engine.178035/

You might want to check in future before suggesting im mad (I am indeed a loon, but for different reasons,)

 

[raleighnut]

The Triumph slant-four is an inline four-cylinder petrol car engine developed by the Triumph Motor Company. It first appeared in 1968 in the Saab 99. The first Triumph model to use the engine did not appear until 1972. With an original capacity of 1.7 L, displacement grew over time to 2.0 L. Triumph production ended in 1981.

In 1963 Triumph's Chief Engine Designer Lewis Dawtrey presented the results of his analysis of future engine technology trends and Triumph's anticipated needs.[1] After evaluating rotary, horizontally opposed, V4 and V6 configurations Dawtrey recommended an OHC engine family composed of both Inline-4 and V8 engines that could be built with the same tooling. The new range would be built in capacities of 1.5 L to 3.0 L, allowing it to replace both the four-cylinder Standard SC and derivative Triumph I6 engines whose roots reached back to the Standard Eight of 1953. The recommendation was accepted and development began in-house at Triumph by a design team led by Dawtrey and Harry Webster. The initial model was to be a 1.5 L inline four.

At about the same time Saab was working on designing and building 55 hp 1.2-litre and 68 hp 1.5-litre prototype inline four engines for their upcoming 99 model. UK engineering and consultancy company Ricardo was involved in the Saab project and, while not directly involved in development of the slant-four, did have a general engine-development contract with Triumph and was aware of their progress. When Saab determined that developing their own engine would be too expensive and too risky, Ricardo put Saab into contact with Triumph.

The facts are as they are.

SAAB adopted, and eventually modified, a Triumph unit for their own use, and Ricardo were not involved in the development of that particular unit. However, although it is a Triumph unit SAAB were first to stuff it in a car and sell it.

Much discussion here among SAAB owners themselves...

https://www.saabcentral.com/threads/saabs-triumph-derived-engine.178035/

You might want to check in future before suggesting im mad (I am indeed a loon, but for different reasons,)

So Triumph made the engine unit but couldn't use it in their own cars for 4 years because SAAB had exclusive rights to the engine................sounds fishy to me if Triumph designed the unit.

 

[Drago]

It can sound or smell any way you want it. Its still a Triumph engine.

The actual reality is that Triumph didnt have a new car in which to install it until the Dolomite appeared in 1972.

Not being a 6 the market wouldn't have found a 4, no matter how potent, acceptable in the 2000/2500 as a replacement, and the small FWD 1300/1500 would have required significant re engineering in order to accept it, expensive and pointless on a model that was in its twilight years anyway.

This is all detailed in A History of Triumph Sport Cars by Graham Robson, a noted motoring historian who actually worked at Triumph.

 

[biggs682]

Out trying to locate a Metro Kensington that I keep seeing out and about this morning but no joy but did spot these two

A Celica St202 I think not sure about the decals.

And then a distant Honda Civic 4 door saloon

 

[raleighnut]

It can sound or smell any way you want it. Its still a Triumph engine.

The actual reality is that Triumph didnt have a new car in which to install it until the Dolomite appeared in 1972.

Not being a 6 the market wouldn't have found a 4, no matter how potent, acceptable in the 2000/2500 as a replacement, and the small FWD 1300/1500 would have required significant re engineering in order to accept it, expensive and pointless on a model that was in its twilight years anyway.

This is all detailed in A History of Triumph Sport Cars by Graham Robson, a noted motoring historian who actually worked at Triumph.

They did, the Toledo was a reworked 1300/1500 body and got the same engine but rear wheel drive, it could easily have had the 1709cc version fitted to early 99s but Triumph never used this version of the engine waiting until the Dolomite came out (also available with a 1300cc engine) and using the 1850 engine. So why did Triumph never use the original 1709 version it instead being exclusive to SAAB as was the 1850 for the first 4 years, I can just imagine the dialogue at Triumph.

" Ere Harry we got this brand new engine but ain't got a car to fit it to"
"No sweat Fred we'll just sell it to those crazy Swedes, they've been buying engines from Ford for years"
"Yeah they're such nutcases they even put the ignition key under the handbrake and you have to put the car into reverse to take the key out"
"Crazy idea, it'll never catch on, much better with a steering wheel lock that any thug can break to steal the car"

 

[Bonefish Blues]

When I worked on them in the late 70's the SAAB was simply the better car, faster and better handling with much better fuel economy than the 'brick' due to the aerodynamics and then when they launched the first turbocharged saloon car (due to the merging with Scania and their expertise)

This. I worked at a Volvo dealership pumping petrol and I always wished I worked at the cooler Saab dealers!

 

[raleighnut]

This. I worked at a Volvo dealership pumping petrol and I always wished I worked at the cooler Saab dealers!

The mechanic I worked with had been service manager at a Volvo dealership that closed down, it was him told me the only cool car Volvo ever made was the P1800 although the 262 wasn't bad looking. This was back when Volvo numbers made sense, 1st number-series, 2nd number- cylinders and 3rd number- doors.
The 262 just looked sinister.

 

[Drago]

The 262 was so weird it was cool. Inspired by a Lincoln (Ford) town car that Henry Ford Jr. Travelled in when he visited the Volvo factory at Gothenberg. Volvo designers saw it and said, "hold my beer!"

The best looking Volvo Coupe was the 780, with the P80 based C70 close behind.

 

[raleighnut]

The 262 was so weird it was cool. Inspired by a Lincoln (Ford) town car that Henry Ford Jr. Travelled in when he visited the Volvo factory at Gothenberg. Volvo designers saw it and said, "hold my beer!"

The best looking Volvo Coupe was the 780, with the P80 based C70 close behind.

I've taken very little interest in cars built after the mid 80's, just about when they all started looking the same.

 

[diplodicus]

Saw this on this morning's ride. '58 Cadillac, unsure of the exact model