Hype of Trionic new gen heads and engine mngmt

[Raul]

Lately I see many people want to go with Trionic 5 or 7 cylinder heads, the only feature better than old B202 heads is bigger intake valves. Also Trionic engine management systems, people think it will add some great power to B202 having that heavy unreliable ignition cassette on your classic Saab.

I just looked at the specifications of new generation Saabs from 1999 to 2006

B204E: 219 N·m (162 lb·ft) @ 3600 rpm 154 hp (115 kW) @ 5500 rpm with 5psi
B204L: 263 N·m (194 lb·ft) @ 2100 rpm 185 hp (138 kW) @ 5500 rpm with 10 psi
ecotech GM engines are in similar range of power.

So 1985 900 turbo makes about 160hp with 7psi, with all that old technology. The 1989 spg makes 175hp with 10psi, and same SPG with red APC box makes 185hp with 15psi.

These are all bone stock out of factory specifications.

I just don't think doing all that work to fit T7 head and ECU into C900 is worth the effort.

[DrewP]

the only feature better than old B202 heads is bigger intake valves.

Not true. B202 had essentially zero computational fluids knowledge behind it during it's design, it's a 25 year old design!

Also Trionic engine management systems, people think it will add some great power to B202 having that heavy unreliable ignition cassette on your classic Saab.

No, we like being able to have open source access too full-sequential engine management so we can make adjustments to fuel ignition and boost from one interface rather than monkeying with 3 separate ones.

B204L: 263 N·m (194 lb·ft) @ 2100 rpm 185 hp (138 kW) @ 5500 rpm with 10 psi


SPG with red APC box makes 185hp with 15psi.

Now where oh where did that extra efficiency come from to get the same rated output from less airmass.....

It raises the compression ratio a little bit also, and the chamber designs are a little different. Inlet manifold puts the injectors spraying at a much better angle, valve stems are smaller diameter and valves are lighter, T7 heads already have dual valve springs, and the Aero/Viggen heads have nickel alloy exhaust valves rather than just sodium filled steel valves.

These are all bone stock out of factory specifications.

And which one gets better fuel economy and has lower emissions?



The point is adding adjustability and efficiency to take better advantage of the hardware that's there. LH is decent at a lot of things, but it's not nearly as flexible as popping in a full sequential essentially stand-alone system that's flashable on the fly for different outputs, for varying displacements, and can be coded to work with any size fuel injector.

Need more fuel pressure? Pop in a regulator, scale one value, and you're up and running again.


Drew

[Hans]

Saab-financed SCCA Pro Rally c900s had 94+ heads on their B202 blocks starting in, well, 1994 or '95. If you go to Saabnet and search, there is info regarding one of the top engine shops in WA state that put a bunch of Saab 16V heads on a flow bench and found the 94+ to do much better than B202 or B212/early B234 heads. Perhaps Luke or someone else here has, too.

Your boost pressure data is off for B202t power -- please post your source, that is, the Saab document containing the data, not the internet. And are you comparing US power specs to US power specs?

I don't have boost specs at work, but I do know that, for '85, *base boost* spec is 5.5psi, so you're saying that the 85T boosts to 7 psi, max? IIRC, stock boost for non-SPG 16VT is 10-11 psi.

For many, the point of Trionic isn't more power; it's to use T5Suite. Some people like the smoother idle and power delivery, and don't mind the DI issue, especially those who take care of their plugs. Trionic is more sophisticated than Megasquirt, cheaper, programmable, and, well, you know about red engines, Raul, and a red DI cassette makes the engine REDDER!

[Luke]

I do see both sides.

As for my street car i see no need to improve on what saab did on the B202. Its an '86 turbo running on 2.2LH with a later SPG apc box. That's it for modifications to the engine. It runs great, has plenty of power for my needs, gets excellent mileage (much better than my 9-5 was ever able to muster) and is dead reliable and very cheap to maintain and makes me happy.

To be perfectly honest, the results of my tinkering have never resulted in being able to acheive all of the above. Performace, Reliability, Cost: Pick two.

As for the rally car and other "project" cars: I do enjoy the process of attempting to outsmart the engineers of yesterday with todays technology. Its not always an easy challenge, but sometimes you can comeup with a decent result and have fun and learn things in the process.

Personally, I think the trionic stuff that is going on is pretty cool and as for the T7 head, its definatly a flow improvment and people have documented that with flow bench numbers.

[DrewP]

I have seen flowbench numbers of B202 v. T5 v. T7 cylinder heads that show the T7 ports flowing something like 40% more @ same valve lift (especially at low valve lifts) than a B202 head, and they still flow better than a seriously aggressively ported B202 head when they're totally un-modified. I don't remember the numbers, but it was pretty no-brains stuff considering that you can salvage yard yourself a cyl. head for $150 that flowed better than a $1,000 Swedish Dynamics head and is basically a bolt-on.

If you get the chance to check out a T7 inlet manifold, the runners have these awesome little ramp shapes to kick the air up against the roof of the runners right as it passes the injectors to swirl the f*** out of the fuel charge - pretty bitchin' stuff.

I have some out to modify, I'll throw some photos up when I get a chance.


Drew

[Raul]

So what if the T7 head flow better if I don't see any major improvement on stock car specs? So the T7 engine flows %40 more but power output is similar to C900 on stock production cars. I am not saying Trionic stuff is worse than old LH , I know that Trionic head and ECU is better but the benefit is so minimal that I am not shure if it is even worth doing the swap.

LH2.4 is flexible too, now that I created tuning solution, you can tune for bigger injectors, idle speed, WOT enrichment and part throttle lambda map. I even posted some of my tunes for free on ecuproject forum. LH2.4 is good system, has smooth idle , great lambda control. APC system is proven to be reliable and information is out that you can mod it yourself. Distributor is old school but it is reliable and with modified diafragm you can make it even better.

On LH2.4 you can even use Volvos LH2.4.4 ecu, MAF and injectors. It is plug and play and will support 300hp.

[DrewP]

They're a little higher than that, the stock specs don't necessarily reflect the improvements in peak output, but the torque curves on the later engines are loads better than the early stuff.

T7:

B205L - 185hp
B205R - 205hp (slightly larger TE-04 turbo, same everything else)

B235E - 185hp
B235L - 215hp

B235R '99-'01 235hp
B235R '02-'05 250hp (updated PCV, hardware essentially identical)
B235R '06-'09 260hp (higher fuel pressure)

[Raul]

Drew

B205L - 185hp (easily done by upping the boost on bone stock C900)

B205R - 205hp (c900 will result the same power in few minor modifications, same boost pressure, 2.1L head, elbow after turbo, better turbo)

B235E - 185hp
B235L - 215hp

B235R '99-'01 235hp
B235R '02-'05 250hp (updated PCV, hardware essentially identical)

Those are 2.3L engine they don't count in this argument.

[DrewP]

LOL, I am not arguing, you should see me when I'm arguing.

The deal with including the B235x engines is that the cylinder heads, injectors, turbos, cams, etc., everything (basically) is the same as the B205x engines, just longer stroke.


I don't think we're talking about the same things anyway - sure, you can make the same power on old stuff, not arguing that.

The point is it's slightly more work than a 2.1 head in the first place, and nets even better results, so why not?

My '85 with the built motor and 2.1L head makes ~230hp at the wheels, but it is NOT as smooth as it was when stock, and isn't anywhere near as smooth as my Viggen ran.

It idles bad when it's cold, doesn't have altitude compensation, and I have to muddle with the AMM adjustment screw when the seasons change. It fouls plugs by every other oil change, and cooks O2 sensors every 30k if I beat on it.

All I do is put gas in the Viggen.

[Raul]

Drew Viggen is 2.3L a better engine by far so you can't compare that to your 85. And LH2.2 sucks.

The point is it's slightly more work than a 2.1 head in the first place, and nets even better results, so why not?

2.1L is bolt on, and T5 requires major work. Also LH2.4 is bolt on with few more wires spliced and Trionic is major project and you can't mount the trigger wheel reliably, you have to ditch the A/C..etc.

If Trionic stuff was to dramaticly improve the performance of C900 then it would be worth it, but fact is it does not bring any dramatic changes. 10hp at most.

[Crazyswede]

The later heads bolt on easily and only require a slightly modified timing cover, the use of the appropriate head gasket, and an adapted intake manifold.

[DeLorean]

Does a carb work? Sure
Does LH 2.2 Jetronic work? Sure
Does Trionic work? Sure

Just steps in evolution. Is any worth the upgrade over the other? yes. I am holding out for spark-plug port direct injection stand-alone system to replace my old LH 2.2 system.

[Crazyswede]

Does a carb work? Sure
Does LH 2.2 Jetronic work? Sure
Does Trionic work? Sure

Just steps in evolution. Is any worth the upgrade over the other? yes. I am holding out for spark-plug port direct injection stand-alone system to replace my old LH 2.2 system.

I am holding out for battery technology that charges in 10 minutes, has minimal weight and size, and will provide 500 mile range at 75 mph.

[DrewP]

I'm waiting for turn signals in my car that apply the brakes to the car behind me in the lane I want into, so they don't try to block me.


Drew

[DeLorean]

sounds like you need to stop signaling