You know...
 

These new members posts about the S cars has got me thinking... We had a car, thirteen years ago that got no less than 36mpg highway (on the revised modern standards, no less), and up to 40mpg highway... It was safe, and more reliable than the crap being put out today, and it has outlasted nearly all of it's similarly aged kin...

So, i ask to all Saturn enthusiasts that read here (and go to my drawing pad) - What if there had been a TRUE second generation S series? If GM had allowed funding to improve on the good existing engine design with tech such as variable valve timing, direct injection, and the like? If engineers had a chance to truly improve on/evolve the existing design, instead of just using a GM corporate platform?

If hey had truly evolved in the mid 90's (94 -95), I think it would've had the potential to sell like an entry level civic at the time, and then, through further refinements, would have (via class-creep) snuck into the Accord/Camry class.

Ever notice how there's an "all new" Accord every three years?

It's called evolution AND marketing.

GM did neither, let the bean counters call the shots, and now it's dead.

Parting thought: (performance versions stock from the factory)
2.4L 4 cyl M90 supercharged from the factory, weighing 3000 lbs tops
3.5L V6 ......maybe supercharged 3200 lbs

HP, Trq.....oh well.

I think that they would have kept the S series small and then made an L series later to compete with Accord/ Camry... Actually, I envisioned them keeping the engine at 1.9 liters and developing a 5 cylinder from that to be used in the bigger car...

When my sketches are finished, I will add them...

My Vision: part une
 

Like I said earlier, Saturn had a good car, with a reasonably good engine... Why not improve from there...

- revisions to the block and head, optimizing rod/stroke ratio for better torque curve and better breathing, and to fix the oil consumption issues plaguing past iterations of the engine...
-addition of variable valve timing (with lift control)as well as higher lift cams to increase power/torque across the powerband...
-addition of direct injection, to enable higher compression ratios, with the retention of port injection to act against the carbon buildup in the intake tract...

Base model cars will be twin cam, and the performance model will be turbocharged...

Base model output should land around 160hp, with the turbo version used in the S series coming in around 200-220hp... The turbo engine would likely be shared with the bigger sibling, the L series to offset help offset R&D costs...

S series cars would adopt use of the continuously variable automatic transmission on base models, with a six speed manual a no-cost option on lower models, and the performance model will be manual only...

Provided the S series doesn't gain tremendous amounts of weight from necessary airbag proliferation and other safety mandates(target at ~ 1150kg or ~ 2500lb), it would have a favorable power/weight ratio among its competitors, and should still get good(if not better than before) fuel mileage...

Preview to part deux-

My initial sketch has a true new-gen S series available in one body-style(3 door coupe) with height coming in at around 54 inches, length at about 162 inches, and width at around 68 inches, all riding on tires with a rolling diameter of 24 inches, and a wheelbase of 96 inches...

Those measurements though, could be subject to change...

A check of popular makes and models tells me that a Saturn S series, like I sketched, would land squarely in B segment territory, and would likely compete with the likes of Ford Fiesta, Chevy Sonic, etc, but would offer considerably more power than any other competitor in segment, other than Fiesta ST(which a theoretical Saturn S3 would beat with its turbocharged engine)

careful what you divulge; once it's on the forum it's public domain and you can NEVER patent it.

Seriously. If you're designing a car, don't show me on a forum. You sound serious enough about for me to throw out the warning above

you and your turbos.
I say stock twincharge.
Or at least stock twin turbo with a 2.3 liter.


Why? because its 4 in the morning and it sounds good right now XD

I'm not 100% serious on designing this car... I mean, the theory is solid, but the calculations are rough at best... And I don't have the slightest idea how to patent or market such an idea, nor do I intend to... The comparisons to current models are only for our entertainment, and for the purpose of envisioning what such a car could theoretically achieve... The above is the result of my engineering mindset combined with my love for underrated automotive creations, like our Saturns... The sketch I have and specifications I have derived are the direct result of me asking a "what-if" question and then putting pencil to graph paper... The issue I would have with pitching the idea to a major automaker is that the end product couldn't end up anywhere near where I have sketched due to the obsessive want to share parts with other models, and since the SATURN name is gone, my car would end up as a pseudo-sporty B segment offering by a major automaker, with its fundamentals compromised in some way on its way to the showroom... The closest I could come myself would be to build a kit-car and use a GM L61(reliability and proven efficiency) and XFE manual trans(an f23 with taller final drive ratio) and try and keep weight and frontal area to a bare minimum... If weight could be kept under 950kg(ideally around 800, but it's pretty optimistic)such a car could deliver great fuel efficiency and lots of fun...


But, there I go rambling along again... Sometimes when the wheels start turning, I can't get them to stop...

I like this logic though.
Have you ever seen the LSJ swapped S car? I think it was on sixthsphere.
The Ion sub frame actually bolts right up. Just needs to be shaved a bit. The rest is wiring to make it work.
I considered it when I had my 92. Building the extra ecotec from the 07 I had (hptuners friendly) and I literally had everything there I needed to wire the 92 to in theory be a light weight Ion at heart.
When I started thinking about it, I would want to supercharge the 2.2, with a built block. Sounds good, right? But the suspension for the S-cars wouldn't be able to handle that kind of power, and I don't know how well the after market scene is for them. I guess a good set of coil overs, sub frame connectors, rear sway bar, strut bar MIGHT be able to handle the 200whp I wanted to throw at it. But who knows.
Something I don't have the time or money to play with right now.
One day I will eco swap a 95 sc.

Don't get me wrong, that sounds like wicked fun, but the goal of my S series redesign was to have a light(1100kg or so)fuel efficient car(45mpg highway, no hybrid BS, no diesel clatter)... Even the (theoretical)turbocharged S3 car was designed for fuel efficiency, hence only 220hp, but likely 38-40mpg highway, given optimal vehicle dynamics...

Your 95 SC2 is sitting in my garage. I want it to go to a good home, not to some 16 yr old to crash and then not have the 20yr old airbag not deploy

Suspension mods are pretty thin so you'd have to improvise, but if the frame bolts up w a bit of shaving, sounds doable

As for the S3, just don't pitch it to GM and you have a chance. And you can make it stand out in a crowd.

Well now, I gotta sell the Ranger first...

I still have no idea who I would pitch the S series idea to, or how I would patent it...

pitch the idea to me, then i will steal it, make millions, and share with my saturnforum family.

Well okay, but you gotta promise each of us a percentage of the earnings from the car...(looks for sketch pad)

I kinda got bored the other night, and finished my S series design, as well as a larger L series(dimensionally placed squarely within the mid size segment) and a two seat RedLine coupe, using a bespoke version of the S series engine with a 9,000 RPM redline...

This talk about an updated design for the S series echoes many of the thoughts I've had since I started owning one. I mean, from a physical size and general appearance standpoint it fits in the same class as the Ford Escort series right before it was dropped. I've driven both and there seems to me to be quite a difference in handling and go power. My SW2 never ceases to amaze me with how much get up and go it has for something with a sub 2 liter engine that can carry 5 passengers. My Geo Metro can get marginally better mileage (it's an auto) but is a total wimp on the road. In fact, I've toyed with the idea of putting the 1.9 in the Metro but I would need to have yet another vehicle available to use while that was going on. The S series is just so lightweight for its size and the 1.9 DOHC is an excellent engine IMHO. A turbo would make this engine even better for power output but I wonder how it would affect the gas mileage. As long as it wasn't constantly driven full out it may not be a significant loss. Having the extra horses would always be appreciated when trying to merge with traffic during rush hour around here.

Actually a turbo might help with fuel mileage, since the engine wouldn't be working as hard and revs would be lower during merging/passing maneuvers... My supercharged ION can generate enough power/torque to climb steep hills without losing speed, in 5th gear, as low as 22-2300 RPM, because it's eating 7-8psi of boost... I imagine that a turbo s series with a manual trans could go around just about everywhere in 5th gear, as long as the turbo would spool up at a low enough RPM... The reason my ION sucks fuel like it does is that with such a tiny pulley on the blower, it takes considerable power to spin the blower while it is making boost...

@leadfoot
@boostjunkie
@Bypassmodtemptingfate

Actually, none of those factors were present in my argument against the efficiency of the supercharger... Any time the bypass valve is closed, the blower is forcing air into the engine, and making boost... The amount of boost is largely determined by the volume of the blower(roughly half the volume of the engine in my case) and blower speed, in relation to engine speed... In short, I've always been able to make boost at low RPM, before getting tuned, and before my bypass mod... AND with the way the bypass valve works(not relative to the bypass mod) it closes long before engine vacuum reaches near zero(as in a WOT condition), so I make boost at part throttle, at low RPM...
Keep these data points in mind-
Speed-90km/h(~55mph)
RPM- ~2200
(The above were read from the gauge cluster, not the UG, so there is a little error I'm sure)
TPS percent- 58.4%
Boost- 5.9psi

The above was taken while climbing the last major hill between my house and Glenville(on US 33)... I can climb it in 5th gear, and not lose speed, and not needing to go WOT...

I do agree however, that keeping the bypass mod in place is tempting fate for something horrible to happen to some part of my drivetrain... There are several instances in which the ECU pulls boost:

Engine temp above acceptable range
Spark knock detected
Sensor malfunction
During gear changes
At launch(though ZZP defeated this one in the tune)
At maximum boost limit

The ECU can only safeguard the car against abuse under these conditions if the solenoid is active and connected... By disconnecting the sensor, I have allowed higher than anticipated boost levels(I've seen as high as 17.5psi) and prevented the ECU from pulling boost when it detects detonation(which I can't detect until it's too late) or under an overheat condition(which I can detect by looking at UG)... So, I try to be alert when the throttle is pinned, and always keep 92 or better in the tank, shift carefully(and always with the clutch disengaged), and pray nothing breaks while I'm playing...

I just boost the crap outta my car #becauseracecar #boostjunkie


But, turbo's aren't meant for low end rpm to spool. Superchargers are though. Turbo's are meant for mid range.

Never said they were; I was just calling you names.

#S3supercharged because #scgoalie #boostondemand #turbonoatlow

Are we terribly worried about mileage?

Let's build the monster, THEN tame it a bit

All silliness aside --

If we were to build this, I think a SC would make sense for exactly the reasons you described (minus the small pulley part). Boost across full RPM range sans idle and redline.

It would in my mind be an adjustable boost limiter setup so that a conservative driver can drive it without squealing tires but goalie can turn up the boost and go zany if he chooses to do so.

A single vehicle that can be marketed to everyone at the same time; with ads for the vehicle displaying the "dial a boost" feature. Conservative drivers will lose some gas mileage due to still turning the S/C w the belt (unless you put in a clutched version similar to A/C), but if marketed mostly as a performance oriented alternative to the same boring crap year after year,

Here's the S3...
It's not for just anyone...
It's for everyone

Turn that dial
It'll make you smile....

bold above Copyright 2015 by the user known as "Derf" '

That's just it. The IRL was still getting good gas mileage. Not AS good as the base model, but still mid to high 20s.
If you turned boost down a bit (say 8psi instead of 12) with a boost controller as said, did some proper head work for better air flow, im sure we could get it into the mid 30s.
What displacement motor are we talking about? the 1.9 dohc? or a 2.2/4 eco?

The "dial a boost" feature has already been done(Nissan Juke), but I like the little jingle anyway...

At any rate, the S3 would be a lower volume model, kinda like the IRL... I would focus on getting the S1 and S2 models(highest volume models)rolling, then roll out S3, L1&2(due to the shared engine with S3), then make the five cylinder L3...

If bore, bore spacing, stroke, rod length and compression height could be kept nominally the same across all the models, then the different engines would be as simple as a designing a block, crank, head, and cams, then plugging in all the components... A 3.8 liter H-8 could be had as simple as a new block and crank,and a timing cover, because you would have the rest of the rotating assembly and the heads and the components that go in it...

There's a revolutionary thought right there(don't steal it)- at the beginning, design a modular engine platform using the exact same piston, rod, valves, lifters, cam followers, etc... Then, it would all come down to how many cylinders you could fit under the hood...

I was referring to a radical new version of the original 1.9 liter Saturn engine, the DOHC version...

Most times the performance variant of any engine loses fuel efficiency just because it's the sports car... Look at the IRL for instance... It has a shorter final drive that hurts fuel mileage(in the name of acceleration)... Most 4cyl performance cars don't seem to break out of the twenties(EPA) due to the weight of the cars and the expected load of the engines, while a 6.2 liter Corvette can get 30mpg highway and run to 60 in under 4 seconds...

Now, look what Mazda done with its SkyActiv engines... Around 2 liters displacement, no tech feature skipped, and near 40mpg highway in the C segment Mazda3... Accomplished with proper gearing and an efficient engine design...

We had great gearing, and a lightweight, aerodynamic design, but the engine was severely dated(and the car still performed well)

In 2002, it was using speed density(MAP based)fuel management, when most imports were using the more efficient mass air (MAF based) fuel management...

A large number of it's imported competitors offered some sort of variable valve timing or other, while the cams(and their timing) was static in the S series

...and I know that uncljohn will argue with me till the end of time, but more compression doesn't hurt, when using modern electronics... There were lots of factory built cars running higher compression(the performance variant of the 2002 Sentra used 11:1 compression)...

If I had $20k to spend restoring a late model S series, I could demonstrate what I'm speaking of...

No offense intended whatsoever. but I think one of Gm's fundamental flaws in managing Saturn affairs after it rammed its way into control was to focus so heavily on the low end cars where the profit per sale sux and not putting enough emphasis or designwork on the performance-driven type vehicle (IRL, SkyRL). The Sky is still a headturner for me ....but it was too little too late.

I don't see any entry level infiniti's out there....so do we want to start at a base model where we make little to no profit or lose money, or do we want to slam the industry with something that has never been seen in this form . No, it's not !00% new technology, but the implementation of it and the sector of the market we cold direct it at (the S3) would be (for the most part.

Who on earth put dial a boost on the Juke? That's gotta be a turbo anyway, not a dial a boost s/c. Totally different market segment than what I'm envisioning INITIALLY.

I'm thinking S3 launch with a boom; if it sinks, it sinks. if it swims it generates higher profit margin sales per unit, which funds development of the S1 S2 and L's.

If we launch a car line the way everyone has always done it, we're just another also-ran. If we turn the model upside down, we get exactly 1 chance to wow the market w the S3 --if it catches, then we're in full sprint mode on development or even production of other models since you two (not me) seem to have the engine design portion covered.

S3, sold at an affordable premium, sink or swim. Determine next step after smoke clears....

With my design, the only difference between the S3 and the two lower models is the engine... More specifically, the difference would simply come down to a thicker head gasket(to lower compression a little) and the addition of boost... Why not launch the entire S series line at the same time?

Well, then.....no arguments here....

I personally think a 3.8 is to big for a small, light weight, efficient car. But I could be wrong, you did the math for that motor.
And a boost controller is meant for a turbo. They do have em for the s/c set ups, but its more so bypassing the bypass to allow more pressure to build.

so what if it is bypassing the bypass, as long as it is done safely, the penny pincher can turn i all the way down/off and the lead foot can have max boost. Thinking of it for fuel consumption/mileage reasons/selling point as well as the fun factor of being able to dial in the power of your car.

It basically lets you adjust the amount of boost/air building so the computer doesn't let it out. Similar to the bypass mod.

Indeed, Got it. But no harm in having it for a selling point w r t gas mileage, yes? So you can ride around in an S3 with 2 psi or 17 psi -- and no one knows

And when you pull up to red lights as the car 1sr in line...and the guy/gal next to you gives you that "look".....dial it up

You guys seem to have supercharged my car for me... I've seen both sides of boost(my IRL and a nasty, 330whp 2.3T ranger I drove), and they both have strong points... For efficiency alone I would still vote for turbocharging, but the soundtrack is so much better with a blower... Basically, there is a difference in how power seems to be delivered... My take-

The supercharged car tends to simply act more like a larger engine as revs climb, but down low, even on boost, torque seems a little thin(maybe it's my intake gasket making the difference), and the car still needs to rev to make power,, but when the turbo spools up the boost is there, it's all present and accounted for, all 26psi(in the Ranger), and it happened to be at only 3200 RPM, where my IRL needs a pull all the way to the limiter to achieve max boost(17.xxPSI)...

Keep in mind that either setup can be optimized for response and performance, and either setup can be poorly assembled and perform badly...

Look at Tesla for an example of this line of thinking in action. They came out with the Roadster and got people's attention. Then the luxurious model S with unprecedented range and free charging stations. Now they've set the world record for the most EVs sold by one company and are indeed focused on developing an "affordable" Tesla.

yeah, what HE said ;)

I have only ever seen 1 tesla, and it looked good. As I passed it on the interstate...

I said that the entire S series line would retail at the same time, I would definitely bring an S3 to the car shows to get people's attention...

your car line, your call

I just realized, we're making plans for this, but there is literally zero chance of such car ever leaving this forum...

I don't know what you guys are talking about. I have plans to eco swap an s car at some point in my life.

never say never, bones
How did Microsoft and Apple start out?
Just a coupl'a dudes in a garage w an idea.....