![[Valid RSS]](http://www.saabhistory.com/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Production
GM Boosts Turbocharging Without Mentioning Saab
September 29th, 2008 by Ryan - 7 Comments
General Motors has recently announced that it will double its global production of small four-cylinder turbocharged engines and that’s a good thing, so in the press release posted this past September 25th, I was expecting to see Saab listed as the beneficiary here, nope, Chevy instead!
Had it not been for Saab’s turbocharging innovations back in 1976 with their concept car, 1977 when it hit development as a 1978 Saab 99 thanks to Per Gillbrand, this press release would not exist nor would all of these mentions that seem way too close to Saab’s evolutionary brand messages such as “fuel efficient and fun to drive” as stated below.
I find it absolutely unacceptable that Saab is not mentioned here by General Motors. What is truly the the problem with actually acknowledging that it was not you, but Saab that has provided GM turbocharging, fuel efficiency, 5-star crash safety ratings, fun to drive characteristics?
While it is great that there is a new factory being built in economically depressed Flint, Michigan at a former brownfield, in a LEED certified facility for “right sized” small-displacement turbocharged engines, it’s wrong to not mention Saab with regards to bringing turbocharging to the GM portfolio.
The market is really falling in Saabs lap and therefore credit is due Saab for bringing General Motors to where they are today.
Let’s begin by providing Saab the credit, as well as the benefits from their own innovations instead of Chevy. It’s one thing that Ford is ripping off Saab’s naming conventions with the use of turbocharging (ie. ecoboost), but for Saab’s owner, General Motors, to use turbocharging without mentioning Saab, is just insulting to the brand and everyone that was responsible at Saab for the development and success of this innovation.
Here is their press release below to read for yourself.
2008-09-25
Strategy Highlighted by the 2011 Chevy Cruze’s new 1.4L Turbo that is Expected to Be a Fuel Economy Leader
GM’s ‘Boost’ In Efficient Four-Cylinders Includes More Turbos
FLINT, Mich. – GM will double its global production of small four-cylinder engines (1.0L to 1.4L) by 2011, with more than half of the increase coming in North America. The strategy is highlighted by an all-new, 1.4L Turbo engine that will power the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze.
The 1.4L Turbo enables great vehicle performance and fuel economy. In fact, the Cruze is expected to be a fuel economy leader in its segment when it launches in mid-2010, and its new engine reinforces GM’s commitment to replacing larger-displacement engines with more compact, advanced four-cylinder engines that optimize performance and fuel savings.One-third of GM’s North American engine volume will be four-cylinders by 2011, and 21 percent of the four-cylinder volume will be turbocharged – a seven-fold increase over today’s volume of turbo engines.
“Power-dense four-cylinders such as the 1.4L Turbo are an integral part of GM’s portfolio of advanced propulsion technologies, including cam phasing, direct injection, Active Fuel Management, clean diesels, hybrids, flex-fuel vehicles, six-speed transmissions and electric propulsion,” said Tom Stephens, executive vice president, GM Global Powertrain and Global Quality. “GM is focused on delivering vehicles that look great, are fuel efficient and fun to drive.”
The Chevy Cruze is such a vehicle. It is an all-new, global compact car that will be built for worldwide distribution at GM’s Lordstown, Ohio facility. It will be offered with the 1.4L Turbo in North America, along with additional small-displacement engines for models sold outside of North America.
A non-turbocharged 1.4L variant will serve as a secondary energy source for the 2011 Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle. For trips up to 40 miles, the Volt’s primary source of power comes from its lithium-ion battery. When the battery’s energy is depleted, the 1.4L engine activates, generating electricity to power the Volt for several hundred additional miles until its battery is recharged.
1.4L Turbo details
At 100 horsepower per liter, the new turbocharged 1.4L has the power of a larger engine but retains the efficiency of a small-displacement four-cylinder in most driving conditions.
“Because of the turbocharger’s on-demand power and responsiveness, it’s like having two engines in the same vehicle – one for power and one for fuel economy,” said Stephens. “It’s truly the best of both worlds.”
The 1.4L’s turbocharger is integrated within the exhaust manifold, for reduced weight and greater packaging flexibility in smaller vehicles. A reinforced crankshaft and stronger connecting rods are unique, delivering additional strength to support the engine’s pressurized, high-rpm performance.
Estimated power ratings for the 1.4L Turbo will be 140 horsepower (104 kW) with a torque rating of 148 lb.-ft. (200 Nm).
In addition to the Chevrolet Cruze, GM will introduce the 1.4L turbo in the U.S. in two additional GM models in 2011.
Global engine family
GM’s small four-cylinder gasoline engines include displacements of 1.0L, 1.2L and 1.4L. The engines were designed with fuel efficiency in mind, including technology such as full variable valve timing that optimizes power and fuel efficiency across the rpm band.
More importantly, torque for these engines – the pulling power that is felt when accelerating from a stop – is generated at lower rpm, for strong, off-the-line launches and confident acceleration at all speeds. Supporting powertrain features, such as torque converter design and transmission gearing, accentuate engine power and contribute further to the feeling of performance.
All engines in the family have premium design elements that contribute to world-class smoothness and durability, including:
* Dual overhead camshafts
* Roller-finger follower valvetrain
* Chain-driven camshafts
* Flow-controlled oil pump
* Piston-cooling oil jets
* Thermal managementThe engines also incorporate numerous mass-reducing features, including a cast iron block with a hollow frame structure, hollow-cast camshafts, and on non-turbo engines, crankshafts with hollow-core main bearing journals and connecting rod journals.
General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM), the world’s largest automaker, has been the annual global industry sales leader for 77 years. Founded in 1908, GM today employs about 266,000 people around the world. With global headquarters in Detroit, GM manufactures its cars and trucks in 35 countries. In 2007, nearly 9.37 million GM cars and trucks were sold globally under the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, HUMMER, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Vauxhall and Wuling. GM’s OnStar subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information services. More information on GM can be found at www.gm.com.
Email This Post
Print This Post
Posted: September 29th, 2008 under 2000-2009.
Comments: 7
Comments
Comment from GoogleAB
Time: September 29, 2008, 8:03 pm
For god’s sake - I like your website and all, but when you spew stuff like this, you look like an uneducated mouth-breathing fanboy.
Though yes, the 99 was a great car and so too was its turbo’ed motor, I repeat another commenter who took you to task on another page:
“Turbocharging isn’t “owned” by any one particular brand of cars.”
In fact, GM had turbos on cars before Saab did. Care to reference the ‘62 Chevrolet Corvair Monza? That flat-six wasn’t the fastest thing running on six pistons, but if my math serves me correctly (it often doesn’t), 1962 is - oh, 14 years before your 1976 prototype.
It’s your prerogative to harp on GM for implementing efficient motors for your small car (IMO, it’s a good thing), but let’s not try to re-write history using facts pulled from our anal cavity and subjective arguments that crumble once we look in our auto history books.
Do a quick search next time, and keep up the interesting posts.
Comment from Ryan
Time: September 29, 2008, 9:29 pm
GoogleAB,
Thanks for your response, are you representing Google Sweden, hence the “Google AB”?. Just curious.
To respond to your statement, of course, I understand that Turbocharging is not owned by another brand, but Saab has certainly made a good association with their integrating it over the years.
My point in stating this is that why should Saab be omitted from any turbocharging dialog within GM? They are a brand of GM afterall that in my opinion here, have really made a name for themselves with regards to turbocharging in comparison to all other GM brands, so why not mention it whenever possible?
So, it’s not my “prerogative to harp on GM” for anything let alone this, but it was worth mentioning that Saab was not mentioning in the context of turbocharging by GM here.
No re-writing history, nor “quick searches” necessary”, etc. just stating my opinion based off of my own observations.
Comment from Fine; A New Name, Then?
Time: September 29, 2008, 9:52 pm
From your posts, you certainly don’t seem to understand that fact - nor do you write in a manner to convey that. Your tone comes off as a “shame on GM! Saab was first! You’d not have turbos if it weren’t for us!” statement.
Same goes for the efficient, yet fun-to-drive phrase. Ever check the mileage on a Lotus Seven? It’s around (or better) than a 9-3, and it won’t demand premium petrol from me, either…
The point of this release wasn’t to highlight a Saab innovation nor a Saab product, but a forthcoming engine to be built not in Sweden, but in the US - and for two Chevrolets, at that.
So tell me - aside from having a turbo, which the 99 and many other Saabs happened to have - how do THESE motors DIRECTLY link to Saab? In fact, only one of the two motors has a turbo - the naturally aspirated mill will serve duty in the Chevy Volt, a car that’ll get much more press coverage than the lowly Cruze ever will.
If you can show me where folks in Trolhattan were called in to enginer a system or which part was directly born from jets, then perhaps I’d agree with you. And I’m also pretty sure GM would milk the turbo heritage wherever possible - the fact that the Turbo X exists is proof positive on that.
Until an ACTUAL Saab link is proven , insisting GM mention Saab in this piece less relevant than if a Saab PR flack had extensively written about the Subaru WRX’s rally heritage when launching the 9-2x. Or GMC’s heritage of body-on-frame SUV’s and the Jimmy’s history when launching the 9-7x.
Those may not be *real* Saabs, but you get the point. Love the enthusiasm for Saab and all, but let’s mix some reality into the batter every now and then.
Comment from Ryan
Time: September 29, 2008, 10:11 pm
Dear “Fine; A New Name, Then”?
I’m getting confused as to what your name is, but that’s besides the point here.
My point is, when areas that Saab has been notable for, are referenced today such as “turbo” and “rightsized” engines, in addition to using verbage that has been only used with Saab in the past such as “fun to drive”, why can’t Saab be mentioned?
To satisfy your inquiry about a “link” from jets to a turbocharger, well that’s an interesting question because I never made that connection before even myself, nor did Saab I think!
The turbocharger idea was implemented by SCANIA, and Per Gillbrand was there to help engineer the integration of it into a Scania built engine for the Saab Car division back in the 1970’s.
As far as that engineering and development process being inspired by jets,..well, I see it being more inspired by the SCANIA truck division than SAAB Aircraft here in that specific instance when it comes to the Turbo.
I hope that settles the score here, thanks again for your interest! :)
Comment from Who cares?
Time: September 29, 2008, 11:30 pm
“My point is, when areas that Saab has been notable for, are referenced today such as “turbo” and “rightsized” engines, in addition to using verbage that has been only used with Saab in the past such as “fun to drive”, why can’t Saab be mentioned?”
Because it has NOTHING to do with this engine, that’s why. It amazes me to see you don’t grasp that. If Saab had engineered part of this motor or their turbo legacy was actually involved with it (two points you keep avoiding, I notice), GM would make mention of it.
Chevy’s built some “fun to drive” cars before too; should we mention the Corvette’s crisp handling every time we talk about the 9-3’s dynamic handling? Should we talk about the ‘62-’69 Corvair Monza’s turbo’ed legacy whenever Saab talks about the 2.0T? Should we bring up the ‘89 Pontiac 6000 STE - an all-wheel-drive sport sedan, by the way - when we reference the new XWD system?
Good writers stick to the point they’re trying to make - nowhere is that as crucial in PR writing. You’ve got to draw a line somewhere; GM did, so give ‘em a break.
PS: The “born from jets” was tongue-in-cheek, btw.
Comment from Ryan
Time: September 30, 2008, 12:41 am
Dear “Who cares?”,
I mentioned turbo, because GM mentioned Turbo, without mentioning Saab. It’s not like GM mentioned small engines, and I was wondering why Saab was not mentioned, they mentioned Turbo, hence my inquiry.
I think the connections to Chevy and Pontiac are quite the stretch.
I’m not going after them, I am just asking them why they did not mention Saab when referencing turbocharging.
Thanks again for your interest in Saab! :)
While we’re onto this dialog, what Saabs do you drive today and what are your favorite?
Best,
R
Comment from etmccaus
Time: September 30, 2008, 2:29 am
Good lord…
“I mentioned turbo, because GM mentioned Turbo, without mentioning Saab. It’s not like GM mentioned small engines, and I was wondering why Saab was not mentioned, they mentioned Turbo, hence my inquiry.”
You answered it yourself in your first reply…
“of course, I understand that Turbocharging is not owned by another brand,”
Ta-dah! *That’s* why! Because in this application, a non-Saab engine that had (as far as we can tell) NO SAAB INVOLVEMENT in its engineering, has NOTHING TO DO WITH SAAB.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but fergodssake, use some logic…
Write a comment