GM Apparently Refused To Build A V8 Engine Developed By Saab
Posted by Sixteen-Cylinders@reddit | cars | View on Reddit | 59 comments
Posted by Sixteen-Cylinders@reddit | cars | View on Reddit | 59 comments
arsinoe716@reddit
There was no need for that engine at that time. The American buyer at that time preferred the low rpm high torque engines. I doubt the Saab engine could replicate the "lazy" feeling engine that only American V8s can produce.
Slideways@reddit
American V8s don't have a monopoly on large displacement. A big, lazy V8 was a Bentley selling point for half a century.
DoesntFearZeus@reddit
I think people that shop for Bentley's are in a bit of a different market than average V8 buyers.
Oo__II__oO@reddit
Or average GM buyers. At that time there was a recession in the Western world, which ushered in Saturn for GM. Saabs were quirky and expensive, and if you wanted a Swedish car back then, it was a Volvo.
arsinoe716@reddit
I didn't say American V8s had a monopoly. I simple said that the American buyer at that time preferred those type of engines.
Slideways@reddit
It was implied when you said "only American V8s" can provide it.
slinkywafflepants@reddit
Yamaha/Volvo V8 as well.
gdnws@reddit
As did Mercedes with the M100 and M156 although I wouldn't call the M156 a lazy low end engine. More that it is a larger displacement.
snacktivism@reddit
They did, and hoo boy, did it sound good:
https://youtu.be/Ltk6Ymv6OSY?si=Q6P0P-P_INZ5qYl9
(He starts it up at 0:30)
edgyusernameguy@reddit
Compared to GM's lineup of V8s that sounds like shit.
snacktivism@reddit
It’s a small capacity all-aluminium European V8, it’s got overhead cams and 32 valves.
Of course it’s not going to sound like anything GM produced.
YeonneGreene@reddit
LT5 was all of those things plus another 1.7 liters, and sounds great.
Oo__II__oO@reddit
LT5 was a hand-built 5.7 designed by Lotus, that had no common parts to any other GM vehicles. It also got 17mpg.
The Saab V8 predated it by a decade, and used a lot of the same top-end parts, pistons, and conrods from their 4-cylinder engines. It also allegedly got 23mpg.
popsicle_of_meat@reddit
I can't tell what it actually sounds like. The exhaust on that must have been muffled to hell. Sounds like any heavy-emission-controls choked V8.
flapsmcgee@reddit
That might be one of the worst sounding V8s I've ever heard.
Navi_Professor@reddit
in 1989...i kinda get it.
they woulda had LT5, L98, 454, 350, 305, and the 262, and the 3800 v6....
i dont think they really saw a poimt in it, especally considering how cheap the SBC was to make. they were practically printimg them
ChirpyRaven@reddit
Exactly. They already had the 305 making the exact same 230hp number in the late 80s/early 90s, introducing another engine that (at least on paper) provides zero upside to it makes zero sense.
jondes99@reddit
And, ironically, it was only a couple years before the Saab 2.3 was making the same power as the V-8 with more torque.
invol713@reddit
This is the most baffling part. They already killed it with turbo 4s. Why go for a V8 at all?
jondes99@reddit
A 4.0L turbo V-8 with 400 horsepower would have made for a different story. Imagine a Saab 9000 with more power than a Testarossa or ZR-1.
mr_bots@reddit
Northstar development would have been well underway by the late 80s as well.
jondes99@reddit
Except for that year they were going to work on head gasket design and just played Minesweeper.
Navi_Professor@reddit
northstar and LT1, which would very quickly kick off LS1.
narwhal_breeder@reddit
And they already productionizing a DOHC all aluminum V8 with the Northstar - which came out less than a year later.
Noobasdfjkl@reddit
Better to just read the original reporting by The Autopian
Capri280@reddit
Now that's just reinventing the Triumph Stag V8, but minus the destroking.
invol713@reddit
If it’s a twin-4, why not have it be 4.6L? That way they could use the same pistons, connecting rods, bearings, & head gaskets. No sense reinventing the wheel.
CodewortSchinken@reddit
I wonder if it was just the same engine. The Saab four cylinder was the same triumph design used to create the stag engine. Maybe they just strapped their in house designed 16v heads on a stag block.
jondes99@reddit
Too easy for Saab. Source: I’ve owned at least a dozen.
WeAreAllFooked@reddit
It's not like the Triumph Stag V8s were notoriously unreliable or anything....
Capri280@reddit
There were some design flaws, but nothing particularly major - about half the stags sold new in the UK are still around and its now a darling of the classic car scene. The bigger problem was terrible QC - which I assume wouldn't have been as much of an issue at Saab
Thomas_633_Mk2@reddit
Genuine question: how many of those have a Rover 3.5 in there instead? The Stag is gorgeous and by all accounts the Leyland 4.4L or Rover 3.5L are fairly easy swaps for the Triumph engine, I could see a lot of owners doing that
MrBattleRabbit@reddit
I’ve sold a fair few of them (25 or so), and only one has had a Rover V8. I’ve come across a few with TR6 engines and Ford V6s as well.
Swaps into Stags are reasonably common, but the majority I’ve seen/sold have had their original engine.
Thomas_633_Mk2@reddit
Fair enough, your sample size is far bigger than just about anyone else's!
What do you think gives the Triumph V8 its reputation then?
MrBattleRabbit@reddit
The cooling system is badly designed, the water pump is mounted in a weird spot and the system just doesn’t flow that well. They’re also prone to air bubbles in the cooling system. Just a grab bag of things that can lead to overheating.
The aftermarket has come up with a bunch of fixes. Most of them have high capacity radiators at this point, some guys go really hard with auxiliary water pumps and other upgrades to the cooling system.
Apparently they also had bad engine castings and sand in the iron from the casting process, although I suspect that the engines impacted by that all died in the 70s.
Purrchil@reddit
Saab should come back. I think it is strange that no Chinese manufacturer has relaunched it.
V8-Turbo-Hybrid@reddit
Chinese automaker was one of reasons why Saab death. GM did not want to let they taken their advanced platform and techs in that time.
Of course, GM still needed to respond that, as they didn’t follow Ford route to sell Volvo.
jondes99@reddit
There is a pretty stark contrast between Ford’s stewardship of Volvo and GM’s handling of Saab.
NightFuryToni@reddit
They did try, both BAIC and NEVS.
bauhausy@reddit
Saab Aeroplane still exists, and is very much not interested in lending its branding to automakers anymore.
It’s why their failed revival (by a company that bought all of Saab Auto assets but the name itself) had to be called NEVS, and they bankrupted in 2023 anyway.
Double_Cleff@reddit
They also refused to let Saturn develop a Straight-6 in the 90s
jondes99@reddit
Well at least Saturn and Saab are both still around and thriving. Oh, right.
DebateTop2248@reddit
Gm the party pooper
Dav_Dabz@reddit
The bean counters strangle hold on GM needs to be studied
holyhesh@reddit
Paul Niedermeyer’s Deadly Sin articles on Curbside Classic is exactly what you are looking for, and honestly needs to be turned into a book, a “On a clear day you can see General Motors” for the current generation of car fans
holyhesh@reddit
“Having never properly set forth my purpose and criteria for the GM Deadly Sins series, it seems like this might be a good time to do so. I understand that they challenge some readers, and it may seem we’re picking on GM unfairly. Humans by nature tend to affiliate themselves to various groups and tribes, which may be sports, religious, ethnic, cultural, political, and many others as well as our favorite automotive brand or company. Which explains the endless automotive pissing matches that have gone on since they were invented. Cars, especially more so in the past, are generally deeply enmeshed in our emotional brain centers. It may be impossible (and dull) to eliminate any personal bias in our writing about cars and their makers, but there is a much bigger picture issue that drives this series.
GM was once the world’s biggest and most profitable corporation, period. As such, its long decline and ultimate death (it really did die; the new GM is a wholly new legal entity) is of very considerable interest to anyone interested in cars and their history. In fact, to deny analyzing what went wrong with GM would be the ultimate act of self-delusion.
I have had a long and intense relationship with GM. As a boy, it was clearly the company I was most affiliated with, and I’ve written plenty about that. But perhaps because of my bi-continental background, there was always a strong inner tension between my feelings for GM and other American cars versus European cars, even as a child. In the fifties and sixties, the two were generally very different. And although I wanted to be accepted with the home team, I struggled with certain doubts about American cars (and their engineering/design priorities) within a few years after arriving.
Although large American cars from the golden era were endlessly appealing on so many levels, we don’t have to go over the well-known history of all the difficult changes that were essentially forced on Detroit. Some of those were externalities largely beyond the industry’s growth (emission controls, energy crises, etc.), but there were many huge vulnerabilities that GM and the other American makers mostly allowed themselves to be prey to.
The inability to make a truly successful small car, to improve quality and reliability, to properly react to major changes in the market place, and to embrace the need for true cultural change in management; among others. We all know what happened over a span of some four decades, but the bottom line is this: the cars that are being made today by GM, Ford and Chrysler much more reflect the European approach to design, and the Japanese fastidiousness with quality and efficient production, than what was once known as the traditional American approach to car design and production. Sorry, but that’s the reality.
But; and a very big but indeed, that doesn’t mean that we’re here to gloat on the demise of GM, Chrysler, and the near-death of Ford. First of all, there were many interesting, appealing, unique and well-built cars during this period of crisis for the American car industry. Speaking for myself, I’ve learned to appreciate those cars much more thanks to the many comments and articles written by other writers over the past five years since I began this journey of exploration. Which is what it is: I’m not coming with a specific agenda. I’m willing to give credit wherever it’s due. And I welcome other writers to balance my own reality, which is not fixed.
In essence, my personal GM Death Watch began quite a long time ago, but I truly began to wonder about GM’s long term health about 1980-1982. Having had personal experience with GM’s X-cars, and driven a 1982 Cimarron 1.8, and taken a good hard look at the inside and outside of a 1980 Seville while living in Southern California, which, like it or not, really has been a driver of many national trends. GM’s cars then simply looked very uncompetitive and hopelessly out of touch (the B-body largely excepted). History has proven that to be correct. If there’s any doubt, look at the 1983 Audi 100/5000, the 1985 Mercedes W124, or the 1997 Lexus RX300 to see how they’ve influenced all modern cars and CUVs, inside and out. Of course, in more recent years fresh new ideas and designs have also sprung forth in the US as well as Europe and Japan, but they all bear their marks, along with a few other key (foreign) cars.
Enough background: what exactly qualifies a car to be a GM DS? Any car that didn’t specifically counter GM’s downward spiral. Here’s the key issue: having a car be called a DS does not mean that it was necessarily a truly bad car! It’s not reflection on any given car to be wholly lacking in qualities that were attractive to some or many. But GM’s decline was wholly the result of its cars; that’s what it was supposed to be in the business of making. And unless any given car was able to strongly counter (subjectively or objectively) GM’s decline, then it was part of the decline. That’s a bit harsh, perhaps, and clearly we’ve tended to choose those cars that were relatively more deadly than others.
Having said that, let me add that obviously there are personal, subjective, emotional and even humorous aspects to documenting GM’s decline. Which is where you come in, with your comments and your contributions with alternate points of view. We’re here to learn, but a chuckle or two along the way never hurts, especially on such a painful subject.
We also have a GM’s Greatest Hits Series, which has lots of room for augmentation. But not every GM car is going to fall in one or the other group. And there has been at least one Chrysler DS, and there may well be more. But there’s one more important fact to remember when/if we tend to single out GM: due to its overwhelming market share through the seventies, GM was not just the leader of the industry; it almost was the industry inasmuch as it had huge ability to influence it. It’s hypothetical, but if GM had adopted disc brakes or fuel injection earlier, and made a big to-do about it, do you think Ford and Chrysler wouldn’t have had to match them? And that could apply to almost any aspect of car building. GM failed to exercise true leadership.
As is often human nature, GM became lazy, defensive and hubristic after it achieved such mammoth success. Just read John DeLorean’s account in “On A Clear Day You Can See GM”, or a host of other books on the subject, although his is perhaps the most damming. That’s not to damn everyone at GM, as there were still many fine folks and accomplishments, but ultimately the results percolated down, as it always does in every organization. GM had a cancer in its executive offices, and it was a deadly one.
Here is a list of the GM Deadly Sins so far, which are numbered strictly according to when they were written, and not according to any ranking of deadliness. And yes, it will get longer yet. And yes, it has not been without controversy; sometimes I’m a bit unsure about a few myself. But even a superb and handsome car like the 1966 Olds Toronado embodied significant aspects of the kind of thinking that eventually brought GM down. Would I love one? Of course; but that’s not the point of this particular exercise.”
Magnus_The_Totem_Cat@reddit
It’s all of them. The engineers got kicked out of the boardroom in favor of “business people” starting in the 1960’s. Take the Pinto, engineering knew the issue and knew how to fix it, bean counters figured the fix would cost more than the lawsuits.
Psychos, every last one of them.
PS: Always love seeing a 9-2x bopping around. But then I have had a bunch of Saabs from a ‘74 99LE to an ‘02 9-3hot.
baronvonpennytree@reddit
GM and Saab was a match made in utter hell. Let’s buy a quirky and storied Swedish car brand that appeals to intellectuals and enthusiasts and suck all the life out of it until it’s just sad, badge-engineered mediocrity. The Saab 9-7X was the ultimate expression of that tragedy.
kilertree@reddit
After what Lotus did with the LT5, they should have absolutely gotten more V8s from Europe.
jrileyy229@reddit
"Testing was extensive, with the vehicle covering around 65,000 km"
Confident_Season1207@reddit
I wish more companies would post videos of them testing their engines on simulated dynos. I think it's cool to see them maxing them out over and over while tilting the engine to simulate going around curves to make sure the oiling system can keep up with it
gdnws@reddit
I only found out about those a little while back. Someone called it a gimbal dyno. It was being used to test the Hurricane inline 6.
AlexxTM@reddit
Thats a lot for a test car. Most I see at my job get scrapped with more then half of that.
sfbiker999@reddit
But doesn't seem like a lot for an engine test. Good for a proof of concept to show that the design works, but still would need a *lot* more testing to prove that it's viable for a production car. And since GM already had v8's with real-world use, why spend the money to finish developing a new one?
At 50mph, that's around 800 hours, or about 20 weeks of 40 hour/week driving.
JJJBLKRose@reddit
Probably a ton of dyno time though, right?
Hustletron@reddit
My buddy used to be a courier and they would drop test engines in their cars - they put on huge numbers of miles for those cars/test engines.
jrileyy229@reddit
And what is that?
For an OEM developing a new engine... Testing with a one of one prototype engine... 40k miles on it does not seem like nearly enough.
I can't imagine GM only put 40k miles on a single LS1 and then saying "yup, it's proven, go spend 100 million dollars developing the tooling and securing the parts, this thing is ready for mass production."
flaagan@reddit
It's SAAB.
It would've been made from unobtanium, cost a bajillion dollars to build each one, and only gone in one specific model of SAAB-built vehicle.
PrpleMnkyDshwsher@reddit
Because knowing Saab, it would have run on whale testicles and required a 3 foot tall malaysian man to do the timing belt service all while making 3 additional horsepower over an L98.