Alfa 164 Turbo and SAAB 9000 turbo: Comparing apples with apples

[VLADDS@domain.elided]

My opinion was always that SAAB's direction of design was different than 
Alfa's.This was supported by recent indepth look at a '94 SAAB 900 2.5 V6 24 
Valve.In it's defense i have to say that the engine had "GM" cast-stamps 
everywhere..However, during a testdrive (auto version), it blew the tensioner 
of the timing belt at relatively higher rpm's.But my point about this car is 
that i had a look at the intake of this engine, forwardtracking from the 
aircleaner box...The incoming pipe seemed to have an end under the right 
fender..but then it countinued with an elbow going back upwards, then i 
discovered another silencer box, then i finally found the intake orifice 
somewhere 1 meter (sorry, i'm still working on feet system) AND 1 silencer 
box away from the airfilter.Such design, worried sick about silencing things 
doesn't generate much speed..
I will agree that a turbo engine is a lot easier modified to bring extra 
performance.Don't forget that SAAB was among the first to introduce turbo 
cars to mass production, because of their success in "how to turbocharge 
without blowing the engine".Their solution -egg of Columbus- was to blow most 
of the extra pressure out the wastegate.
Meanwhile, though, as far as Alfa is concearned, they figured to put the 
whole engine at increased risk (surprised?) by installing not only 
intercooler but overboost as well.Sufffice one floors the right pedal (i talk 
about the 164 turbo now) and the ECU closes the wastegate shut for as long as 
couple seconds.Now the power value given for a 164 Turbo spec i personally 
don't think reflects such a situation as max power value, since the overboost 
was, i think, an option.
Yes, the 164 T is lighter than an L in the same bodystile

The 164 T in the 4 cyl 1995 ccm with 175 Hp and 29 kg x m torque (vs 26.4 in 
the L and 27.4 in the S) maxes out at 225 Km/h vs 230 for the L and goes 0 - 
62 in about the same time as the L (since the standing kilometer occurs in 
both cars in 28.2 sec)
and weighs 1250 kg.

The 164 T in the 6 cyl 1995 ccm with 205 Hp and 28 kg x m torque maxes out at 
237 km/h and standing kilometer in 28.3 sec and 0-62 in 8.2 sec vs 7.9 for a 
regular 3.0 v6.But this model has to deal with the increased weight of the 
"LS" body (known in Eu as the Super ) 1510 kg (about as much as an L)

Now, as far as SAAB are concearned :
The 9000, as far as i can tell (sources used so far are Alfa brochures and 
"Auto Motor und Sport") comes in a 2.0 T (150 HP); 2.0 T (170 HP); 2.3 T (200 
HP) and Aero (225 HP)  with 0-62 as follows : 9.5;8.5;7.5 (same as an L);6.9.
weights are 1375 and 1440 (for the Aero).
now, so far all was EU versions
Road and track that credits 164 L with 0-60 in like 7.5 secs lists the Aero 
with 225 HP (US version this time) with a 0-60 in 7.7 sec.
My guess overall is that the best SAAB is a valuable oponent to any 164 but 
staying with stock nobody blows the fenders of nobody..
Vlad
'91 164 L

------------------------------