Can those ecotecs do the Saab parts shuffle?

You win the prize the 2.0 LPT saab 9-3 is where I'm getting all my bits. They make just 175hp out of 2 litres at a mere 4-6 psi. I have a slightly larger 2.2 litre engine.

Unfortunately even at lower speed it drops gears to climb even the slightest of hills.

I've been a fan of this since day one. You can bet on seeing many more vehicles using forced induction and smaller motors in the future.

Why? The recently passed energy bill.

I also think forced induction will be used to deal with alternative fuels in order to change compression on demand. We most likely won't see water injection from the factory because people are so lazy, but that's a method that can be used in conjunction with FI for increased FE. WI + FI allows for a leaner mixture without the adverse effects.

FI relies on the tactic of using power when you need it and using less fuel when you don't (cruising, idle, etc).

The most important aspect of a turbo setup is the tuning.

VW came up with a setup I thought was interesting. It used something like a 1.4L motor with a super charger for low end and turbo for high. IIRC it put out well over 200hp and I think FE was around 40mpg.

DRIVENBYNOTHING, it's a 2.0L here in Japan, and it's called FSI

I think it sounds like a great idea to add a small turbo to your Saturn, but I've heard some bad stories about turbo'd automatic Hondas. Hondas are notorious for their auto trannies, and if Saturns have not the strongest autos, I would have an extra tranny ready if you do add a turbo.

The main problem I see with a turbo on a nonfactory-turbo'd auto is that when the tranny is between gears, the car will continue to make power due to the turbo spooling. I just don't see this as a good thing for the auto tranny that's not designed for this type of abuse. I might be all wrong, it's just something I through wouldnt be good for the tranny.

Fortunately GM equipped this car with the same transmission they use in the MonteCarlo SS with the 305hp LS1. it's plenty strong

I think adding a turbo to an existing engine is a great way to increase the power. I can't see how it will improve fuel economy.

In fact you can look up the turbo vs. non turbo versions of Volvo's legendary long-lived 2.3 liter engine, sold between from about 1981 through 1995. 240's offered turbo 'till '85, then the 740 and 940 offered it through the end of the 940 run. Turbo always got less mpg even though it's the same basic block.

If you use a SMALLER engine and turbo it to get more power then the overall FE might be better than a bigger engine without turbo. Partially because you're not dragging around the weight of a bigger block. The Europeans figured that out decades ago because they tax cars based on displacement.

Well, a smaller engine generally means less in pumping losses too. If you've got a V8, that engine has to keep 8 pistons moving regardless of power requirements. Most V8s will be injecting fuel into those cylinders at all times as well. If your four cylinder with a turbo can put out the same power as the V8 when it's needed, only 4 pistons are moving and only 4 injectors are spitting fuel into the motor.

Again, if you use water injection you can also lean out the fuel.

You have to remember that most every car turbocharged from the factory was done so for power purposes.

this car had a V6 option and from the posts I've read on the saturn fan sites they are not too reliable and drink fuel like water. If I can get similar performance to the v6 and no loss in milage I will think of the project as a sucess.