Currently reading: Saab 'to use BMW/Mini engines'
Report says Saab is lining up BMW engine deal for new 9-3 and 9-2
Autocar
News
2 mins read
11 June 2010

Saab could use BMW and Mini engines to power its next generation Saab 9-3 and new 92, according to Autocar sources.

Other unconfirmed reports also suggest that the deal between BMW and Saab could extend to Saab building its 9-2 on the Mini platform - something that would appeal to Mini as it attempts to increase volume and cut costs.

It's thought that as early as last summer Saab had its eye on the highly regarded 1.6-litre turbo petrol and turbodiesel units used in the Mini, and reports from Sweden now suggest the deal is done.

The company is keen on what it calls 'right-sized' engines, which it can modify using its extensive experience in turbocharging and engine management technology.

The sources now say that BMW and Saab have already signed an agreement for the Swedish company to buy in the new BMW-derived diesel and petrol engines that are set to make their debut in the forthcoming Mini Countryman.

If true, the deal could include the new 184bhp 1.6-litre, twin-scroll turbo Cooper S engine and the 112bhp 1.6-litre diesel engine used in the Countryman.

Indeed, a senior BMW source recently told Autocar that his company had "no problem" supplying engines to other car makers.

These engines are likely to be mated to the Countryman's new six-speed manual gearbox, which has the ability to accommodate a four-wheel drive system. Saab, however, would retain its own Haldex-based XWD system no matter who supplies the engines.

Saab is also likely to offer a dual-clutch gearbox in the 93, given that it has already developed one for GM.

Ahead of these newly sourced engines, however, Saab is expected to launch a mildly refreshed version of the current 9-3 powered by a GM-sourced 1.6-litre turbo petrol engine.

See all the latest Saab reviews, news and video

Advertisement
Advertisement

Find an Autocar review

Join the debate

Comments
18
Add a comment…
Straight Six Man 17 June 2010

Re: Saab 'to use BMW/Mini engines'

WooDz wrote:
Straight six man : if you're telling me you can any car regardless of Front or Rear wheel drive in heavy rain without any problems, then you are a liar. Sorry to be so blunt but you cannot drive a car in inclement weather with the same pace as in dry weather. It's a fact and if you can you have broken the laws of physics.
I don't have to back off much. Sometimes I do, because I'm not in a hurry, but sometimes I actually step on it. I can control a slide pretty much perfectly, so if the rear end steps out, I don't have a problem, in fact I get on and enjoy it. If there's a risk of aquaplaning, I do back off, though. It's just not THAT big an issue. Of course you don't get as much grip on a wet road as on a dry one: but when do you ever really lose grip in the dry, on public roads? You've got to be really trying hard... I reckon, on a wet road, you can drive a RWD car within 5mph average speed of the same car, the same road, in dry conditions. That's just a guess. What I was protesting was the way people say you can only drive RWD in warm, dry weather, and that a BMW in the wet or on snow or ice is an instant deathtrap, because any driver worth his/her salt knows that's bu11shit.

WooDz 17 June 2010

Re: Saab 'to use BMW/Mini engines'

Straight six man : if you're telling me you can any car regardless of Front or Rear wheel drive in heavy rain without any problems, then you are a liar. Sorry to be so blunt but you cannot drive a car in inclement weather with the same pace as in dry weather. It's a fact and if you can you have broken the laws of physics.

Straight Six Man 15 June 2010

Re: Saab 'to use BMW/Mini engines'

WooDz wrote:
Wrong-wheel-drive is just an opinion. RWD and FWD both have their pros and cons. Drive a FWD on a track on a dry day and you'll wish you had RWD. Drive a RWD in heavy rain and you'll wish you picked the FWD.

People need to understand that SAAB's are not BMWs and the drive setup should appeal to 2 different types of customer. FWD suits SAAB's 'responsible performance' which makes for on the whole a safer drive. Understeer is easier to control than oversteer. FWD is better for inclement weather, FWD makes for better cruising and returns higher MPG over RWD. For BMW; RWD ticks all the right boxes for their brand image, where performance is a major priority.

I've driven many rear-drive cars in heavy rain, with and without traction control. There's no problem with it. There's only one front-drive car I've driven for which I'd swap my BMWs, and that's my wife's old Fiat Twin-cam engined Mini. God, I loved that car. Much as I loved her Alfa 1750GTV - sadly both rusted away to nothing. Understeer is easy to control, but it's no fun. Oversteer is very easy to control, and much more fun. I don't think anyone should be given a driving licence until they've proved they can hold and correct a slide - there have been so many nasty crashes caused because people haven't learned to control oversteer, despite the fact that it's so easy. I've actually witnessed accidents where someone has lost the rear of their car, it's gone into a slide and they've turned back in the direction they were going, making things worse, instead of applying 'a dab of oppo', holding and correcting the slide with just the right amount of throttle and powering out of the slide. It's so easy - I learned to do it as a teenager, I practiced it for ages until I could drift like a pro, and that early knowledge, experience and ability has saved me from crashes more than once. FWD has nothing to do with cruising ability, either - all the big barges, Rolls, Bentley, BMW, Merc, Maybach, are RWD (with the exception of the Audi A8 and the VW Phaeton/Conti Flying Spur). As for higher MPG? I think you'll find that a BMW 320D is rather more economical than the equivalent front-drive Passat or A4...

Find an Autocar car review