"Berang" (berang) 10/24/2018 at 02:28 • Filed to: None

5

5

Excerpts from the 1968 brochures.

Last year for the 2-stroke. The specifications show why the V4 was the obvious choice.

pip bip - choose Corrour > Berang 10/24/2018 at 03:41

0

mmmm.........GIB the brochure!

BvdV - The Dutch Engineer > Berang 10/24/2018 at 03:49

0

Interesting brochures! So much of the things we take for granted now were special back then.

I just realised that Saab never really designed an engine of their own, the 2 stroke being based on a DKW design, the V4 being from Ford, and the B (and to a lesser extent H) engine being based on the Triumph Slant 4. After that it was all GM if I’m not mistaken.

Berang > BvdV - The Dutch Engineer 10/24/2018 at 04:48

1

Although the 2-stroke was inspired by DKW, it was substantially different in most respects. The 92 used a transverse mounted 2 cylinder, but unlike the DKW’s transverse twin, this was mounted beside the transmission, rather than in front of it. In fact, so far as I can find, SAAB was the first production car with this layout. Lloyd’s version didn’t begin production until a few months later, and the Autobianchi Primula which popularized the layout was more than a decade away... (and somehow, the Mini’s dead- end layout still takes all the credit).

The 3 cylinder, longitudinally mounted engine differs in that it uses a conventional points/distributor ignition system, with one ignition coil, vs. DKW’s three coils/three sets of points system. And the SAAB unit was canted over, vs. DKW’s upright engine. So though the concepts are similar, the execution is quite different between the two.

BvdV - The Dutch Engineer > Berang 10/24/2018 at 16:39

0

And once again I learn not to trust everything on Wikipedia...

That’s very interesting though, thanks for correcting me!

Berang > BvdV - The Dutch Engineer 10/25/2018 at 00:20

1

Both pretty cool engines though.