|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to Saab92x.com!
|
|
|
|
tlow98 wrote:
Hmmm, so this will help you survive the crash, but unfortunately if the jaws of life are needed you may not make it if a fire starts.
i don't see where it says the Saab has magnesium as opposed to high strength Boron. reading comprehension fail?
Right, there's nothing about the 9-2x in particular. 
Offline
Offline
In. Now who's gonna throw up their low mileage 06 aero so the gods are appeased?
Agree, I'm thinking "extra reinforcement" for stiffness purposes on our cars from Saab is reaching the limit of believability. That being said, sure would be cool.
Offline
I'm pretty certain that if you compared an '05 WRX sportwagon bare unibody next to an '05 9-2x Aero bare unibody, they would be identical. I think that even an expert would have trouble seeing a difference.
All of the changes made to create the 9-2x are cosmetic or off-the-Subaru-shelf upgrades (i.e. STi steering rack in 9-2x Aero).
In addition, what structural rigidity gains could you possibly expect by reinforcing the C and D pillars (that are up much higher than suspension)? A more rigid roof would probably have greater effect, as cornering loads would be distributed more evenly across the body.
Offline
The C and D pillars each have a large, one-piece vertical (more or less) magnesium hoop, hidden inside. They are not large in cross-section, but they are large in the amount of area they cover (all the way up to the roof skin). It is not for crash safety. It is for a slightly stiffer body, which benefits NVH levels. The source was in November of 2004, a senior SAAB salesman that I interviewed. He had just returned from the factory training. You really have to dig to see these - they are buried, but they are there. It is NOT boron steel.
The metallurgical properties of magnesium complement the metallurgical properties of steel very well in this application, with the intent being a slightly higher resonant frequency of the bodyshell, measured in Hertz. They add minimal weight.
Be careful when you claim something uses Boron steel - it is by far the most expensive steel used in car manufacturing. Most cars are still mostly mild steel, with small amounts of "High Strength" steel. The ONLY reason carmakers have adopted anything BUT mild steel is to meet increasingly stringent crash standards. It adds significant cost to the finished product and it wears out body dies and presses faster.
You can tell when you drill into HS (High Strength) steel members - it's a royal bitch to drill through and it dulls drill bits in a hurry. Boron steel is even worse.
By the way, the SAAB 9-2X is NOT a car you can fully replicate with upgraded Subaru parts - there are enough substantive differences to make it a unique animal, despite what some Subie people think. So if you own one, be proud!
Offline
the_oreck wrote:
noticed all electrical switches. moon roof, window switches, and heated seat switches are nissan parts
Yes, nothing wrong with Nissan switchgear. It works and is reliable. My friend's 1995 Impreza (is that a dirty word here) with 245,000 miles has never had one switch failure. Many Japanese companies share parts and some buy from the same companies.
Offline
tlow98 wrote:
In. Now who's gonna throw up their low mileage 06 aero so the gods are appeased?
Agree, I'm thinking "extra reinforcement" for stiffness purposes on our cars from Saab is reaching the limit of believability. That being said, sure would be cool.
It IS true and it IS cool!
Offline
Training literature available somewhere. Somehow, (not questioning you) when a saleman says something without documentation to back things up, I take things with a grain of salt. I have proven automotive salesmen wrong more than once. The concept of increasing the natural frequency of vibration of the car would act (ever so slightly) in the effect of a slightly stiffer chassis, would be (as you said) more likely to reduce NVH, which I'm sure that Saab would've desired more than the slight improvement in chassis stiffness. As in the goal would be to quiet the rather noisy car to what Saab expects their cars to be, rather than Subaru's goals.
When you say "you really have to dig to see these" (re: the Mg hoops) have you actually seen a chassis cross section showing them or is this the hearsay of the salesman.
Also, the increased use of high strength steel in cars has been spurred mostly for reduced weight, to meet the US more stringent fuel economy standards, and in Europe the decrease of Carbon emissions (the expression differs, the goal is actually quite the same, reduced fuel consumption = reduced carbon emissions), the side benefit being safer vehicles. The end result is marginal increases in safety, as the use of HSS allows for less material to be used, thus reducing weight. The strength of the component actually remains relatively the same. This is similar to the use of aluminum components vs. steel, but it's even harder to keep the cost of aluminum in mfg. Cost of material, design for life, and fastening is much higher for aluminum than steel, although tooling is less expensive for the material. Nonetheless, at least premium vehicles have upped their use of aluminum (where the cost was easier to absorb) and it has increasingly been trickling down to "lesser" vehicles.
Offline
rollingtones wrote:
The C and D pillars each have a large, one-piece vertical (more or less) magnesium hoop, hidden inside. They are not large in cross-section, but they are large in the amount of area they cover (all the way up to the roof skin). It is not for crash safety. It is for a slightly stiffer body, which benefits NVH levels. The source was in November of 2004, a senior SAAB salesman that I interviewed. He had just returned from the factory training. You really have to dig to see these - they are buried, but they are there. It is NOT boron steel.
The metallurgical properties of magnesium complement the metallurgical properties of steel very well in this application, with the intent being a slightly higher resonant frequency of the bodyshell, measured in Hertz. They add minimal weight.
Be careful when you claim something uses Boron steel - it is by far the most expensive steel used in car manufacturing. Most cars are still mostly mild steel, with small amounts of "High Strength" steel. The ONLY reason carmakers have adopted anything BUT mild steel is to meet increasingly stringent crash standards. It adds significant cost to the finished product and it wears out body dies and presses faster.
You can tell when you drill into HS (High Strength) steel members - it's a royal bitch to drill through and it dulls drill bits in a hurry. Boron steel is even worse.
By the way, the SAAB 9-2X is NOT a car you can fully replicate with upgraded Subaru parts - there are enough substantive differences to make it a unique animal, despite what some Subie people think. So if you own one, be proud!
This goes against everything I've heard about the development of the 9-2X, including comments from Bob Lutz, the GM VP that pushed the development of the 9-2X. One of the ground rules the development team was faced was that they could only make cosmetic and suspension tuning changes. The engines, transmissions, and chassis were strictly off limits. This restriction was required since GM needed to use Subaru's data from the Impreza to qualify the 92X, and they had less than a year to develop the 92X. The cost of a complete crash test series of a redesigned chassis was considered cost prohibitive so any changes needed to be primarily cosmetic since those crash tests were not as extensive or costly. I can't imagine adding in a magnesium ring would allow them to use Subaru's crash data.
As far as the UHSS, read this article: http://www.drive.subaru.com/Sum06_WhatsInside.htm Subaru has been a leader in this area, and has been doing this since 2002. I don't have a copy of it but a firefighter I worked with had a drawing of the Impreza pillars. The drawing was from Subaru USA and was done for emergency personnel and included a cross section of the B pillar. It clearly showed the the round rod in the pillar as being boron steel, with the note to not attempt the cut the pillar in that area as tool damage would likely result, slowing the extrication process. Subaru recommended "V" cuts at the top of the pillar specifically to avoid the boron steel rod.
Offline
Scargo wrote:
Also, the increased use of high strength steel in cars has been spurred mostly for reduced weight, to meet the US more stringent fuel economy standards, and in Europe the decrease of Carbon emissions (the expression differs, the goal is actually quite the same, reduced fuel consumption = reduced carbon emissions), the side benefit being safer vehicles. The end result is marginal increases in safety, as the use of HSS allows for less material to be used, thus reducing weight. The strength of the component actually remains relatively the same. This is similar to the use of aluminum components vs. steel, but it's even harder to keep the cost of aluminum in mfg. Cost of material, design for life, and fastening is much higher for aluminum than steel, although tooling is less expensive for the material. Nonetheless, at least premium vehicles have upped their use of aluminum (where the cost was easier to absorb) and it has increasingly been trickling down to "lesser" vehicles.
I second this. I have had some recent up-close exposure to the Chevy Volt's body structure, which has more high-strength steel than any other car (over 70% of its steel is high-strength or ultra high-strength) on the market. It was done for weight reduction - almost entirely. To be sure, they made sure it reacts properly in a crash, but because the battery pack is SO heavy, they went after weight reduction everywhere else they could. So it has a lot of HSS AND aluminum panels, and still comes in a few hundred pounds more than most cars its size. And, of course, this is a big contributor to its high price as well.
The 92X does not have years of additional structural development beyond what Subaru had already done. It's one of the standard complaints about the car - that Saab did almost nothing to make it a Saab. I highly doubt this Mg claim can be substantiated. I want to say "pics, or it didn't happen". And, Tonka is right, they would have had to re-certify the crash test results with any major structural change like that. I doubt that additional time and money was spent doing that. If they had, it would be expected that other changes would also have been made, and then ALL would be re-certified at one time. Certainly some of these changes would make for some noticeable differences between the Saab and Subaru. Yet we really don't see that - anywhere on the car.
Offline
I might add, that if they really wanted to do a "Saablike" cosmetic change, they could've potentially moved the key to the console between the seats, however, such a change would've required crash testing (even changes between hand crank windows and power windows require a full test, which is why even low line cars now have power windows. The cost of retesting overcame the savings of a window motor and switch.) so it probably was skipped as a result (this is a speculation). With the 9-7X gaining additional time before it was launched, and it's notably higher price point, I imagine that they were able make the more notable changes to it that did tend to separate it further from it's TrailBlazer roots than the Saabaru from the Impreza. Either way, both cars are badge jobs done on a chassis that was already in it's last years. Very hard to justify anything requiring testing on a chassis that was about to be retired.
And without trying to insult Rollingtones, I too wanted to see either photographic proof or documentation proof. Considering that this is the only place I had heard about this (none, NONE of the major automotive mags, Autoweek, Road and Track, Car and Driver, Motortrend nor Automobile) had made any mention of Mg hoops in the C/D pillars, which makes me think the old salesman was doing what he does best...
One of the reasons why car salesmen rank right up there with lawsuit lawyers on the rank of people that are soooo trusted... 
Offline
OK, so maybe I got snookered. Maybe the salesman was reciting general facts about Subaru construction and in his mind he added it to the training he had just received about the 9-2X. The only way to know for sure is for someone to look the next time they are doing an extensive interior job on their 9-2X, such as soundproofing, etc.
And I mis-spoke when I said the ONLY reason carmakers are getting away from 100% mild steel is for safety. Yes, it is also for weight reasons, due to increasingly stringent safety requirements which add weight to a vehicle. Saving weight helps emissions AND fuel economy. Dr. Porsche is known to have said "weight is the enemy".
So the increased use of exotic steels and other materials is to save weight, which helps fuel economy, and to increase structural rigidity, which helps meet safety regulations. The downside is of course, a more expensive vehicle.
Offline
Not to add monkeys with wrenches (that's how it goes right?) into this argument, but famed Subaru "body hoops" were/have been confirmed AT LEAST in the A and B pillars with Boron steel. C pillar would make sense, but can't confirm or deny..
Psybin posted an article a while ago about the firemen that have SUCH a hard time cutting the pillars to free people and there was subaru's tech article in the report as well.. great read. 
Offline
No one on this thread questioned the boron steel Subaru A and B pillar hoops. What was questioned was whether Saab added Mg hoops to the C and D pillars. And no non destructive visual inspection during a routine procedure is going to find if Mg was added if it's on the inside of any pillars either.
Offline
330 92x wrote:
Not to add monkeys with wrenches (that's how it goes right?) into this argument, but famed Subaru "body hoops" were/have been confirmed AT LEAST in the A and B pillars with Boron steel. C pillar would make sense, but can't confirm or deny..
Psybin posted an article a while ago about the firemen that have SUCH a hard time cutting the pillars to free people and there was subaru's tech article in the report as well.. great read.
Here ya go. 
Offline
Does the 92x share the EXACT same dash, besides the color of the trim?
I'm looking into getting a gauge pod that goes in the bottom corner of the windshield and A-pillar that they have for WRX. I just want to make sure it fits.
Offline
Bbc84 wrote:
Does the 92x share the EXACT same dash, besides the color of the trim?
I'm looking into getting a gauge pod that goes in the bottom corner of the windshield and A-pillar that they have for WRX. I just want to make sure it fits.
Sir yes sir. Well, minus the Saab badge on the steering wheel...
Offline
Silently wrote:
Bbc84 wrote:
Does the 92x share the EXACT same dash, besides the color of the trim?
I'm looking into getting a gauge pod that goes in the bottom corner of the windshield and A-pillar that they have for WRX. I just want to make sure it fits.Sir yes sir. Well, minus the Saab badge on the steering wheel...
Thanks, ill be ordering a gauge pod and boost gauge soon.
Offline
Is there a difference between the A-pillar mods? Ive seen ones for 'wagon' and ones for 'sedan'.
Offline
Just bought an '06 Aero from a guy outside of DC. You may have seen his ad: https://saab92x.com/viewtopic.php?id=39398
Anywho, got it back up to Maine late Sunday night and had it inspected today. It didn't pass due to blown front axle boots. They say I need both front axle assemblies replaced. The shop I brought it to wasn't completely sure I could use WRX axles on my Aero so I have to wait for a quote until tomorrow.
Has anyone else replaced their front axles? What kind of cost should I be expecting here?
Offline
dotmaster206 wrote:
Just bought an '06 Aero from a guy outside of DC. You may have seen his ad: https://saab92x.com/viewtopic.php?id=39398
Anywho, got it back up to Maine late Sunday night and had it inspected today. It didn't pass due to blown front axle boots. They say I need both front axle assemblies replaced. The shop I brought it to wasn't completely sure I could use WRX axles on my Aero so I have to wait for a quote until tomorrow.
Has anyone else replaced their front axles? What kind of cost should I be expecting here?
04+ WRX Axles fit our cars. I got mine from rock auto ~$125 shipped for the pair iirc.
My thread on the topic: https://saab92x.com/viewtopic.php?id=33292
Offline
wrx axles absolutely fit.
Offline
About the STi steering rack, not sure all trims have them.... 
I have a 2005 linear (stock and from canada) and the lock to lock on my 
is exactly the same as my friend's 2002 wrx (bone stock)
Maybe only aero have them and the linear has the wrx's steering rack... still quicker than a regular impreza so that's nice 
with STi v7 gold mags 
Offline
Correct
The steering has been made more responsive and exact in the 'Aero' by using the steering rack shared by the STI
Read more: Saab 9-2X - Wikicars
Offline
saabarupp wrote:
2004-2007 wrx WAGON axles absolutely fit.
Fixed.
As far as the steering rack is concerned, ONLY the Aero got the STi 15:1 steering ratio. Linears/Imprezas/WRX all got the 'normal' 16.5:1 unit. Reading through the entire thread, this is confirmed at least 4 times, twice by myself (counting this post).
Can a mod please update the first post to include this info?
Last edited by krazykarguy (2013-08-30 09:44:09)
Offline
Jim from The Office drove a 9-2x. Jim from The Office did not drive a WRX/Impreza.
Offline
|
|
Site problems, bugs, or questions? Contact Administrator
All content copyright Saab92x.com 2005-2010
SAAB and the SAAB logos are trademarks of Saab Cars USA, Inc.
Your Privacy Choices