2001 Saab 93 Turbo, Front End Damage-tree; Good Parts/salvage/repairable Car on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Boeing, Saab introduce entry for T-X trainer program

This post is appearing on Autoblog Military, Autoblog's sub-site dedicated to the vehicles, aircraft, and ships of the world's armed forces. Boeing and Saab revealed their entry for the US military's T-X trainer replacement program. The new jet, simply called T-X, is like the lovechild of a F/A-18 Hornet and an F-16 Falcon, and as Boeing tells it, will provide "performance, affordability, and maintainability advantages" over the competition. "Our T-X is real, ready and the right choice for training pilots for generations to come," Leanne Caret, Boeing Defense, Space, and Security's President and CEO said in an official statement. And Caret isn't not kidding about the Boeing T-X being both real and ready – Boeing is so confident that it built two examples before the official unveiling on Tuesday. The first jet, which Defense News reports will fly by the end of the year, debuted to media with the kind of pomp usually reserved for automotive debuts. Boeing/Saab will use the second jet – also featured on Tuesday – for structural proof testing. The needs of a training aircraft are quite different than those of a traditional fighter. The T-X features stadium-style seating, so the instructor riding in back has nearly as good a view as the student in front. Student evaluations should be easy, too, as the open software transmits data effortlessly between ground training systems and the jet itself. Functionally, Boeing claims the twin-tail layout provides more agility than a single-tail design – remember, the military's newest jets, the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II both use twin-tail layouts – while the Air Force can mount two weapon hard points on the jet's wings. According to Defense News, four manufacturers – Boeing/Saab, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin/KAI, and Raytheon/Leonardo/CAE – are vying for the contract to build 350 new trainers to replace the Air Force's fleet of aging T-38 Talons. Featured Gallery Boeing/Saab T-X Entry News Source: Boeing, Defense NewsImage Credit: Boeing Saab Military

Why won't automakers slap on a turbo badge anymore?

Where have all the turbos gone? Not the actual pieces that go in the engine, mind you, those are everywhere these days as automakers downsize cylinder counts and boost efficiency and CO2 claims. But the turbo badges and fanfare are missing. Back when turbos were something to get excited about there was "turbo-driven," "turbonium," and "The Turbo Zone," among other silly lines. But now that basically every car is getting some sort of boost even on the lowliest trims, automakers are almost sliding in the turbos under the radar. Or if you look at some of the nomenclature, pretending they don't exist at all. The 911 Turbo badge shows where the car goes from being sane to lunatic. It's an important border. The latest automaker to hide that it has boosted the turbo presence is Porsche with the 2017 911 lineup. Even the standard Carrera models now get turbocharged flat-six engines, meaning the 911 Turbo models aren't quite as special as they once were. Porsche is in a sticky situation with this. The 911 Turbo, after all, signifies where the 911 family takes off from being a sports car and becomes the Ferrari fighter. The 911 Turbo badge shows where the car goes from being sane to lunatic. It's an important border, but now Porsche has crossed it and is trying to downplay the fact. There are a lot of exaggerations with displacement badges today, with claims the 2.0-liter turbo four in a Mercedes C Class equates to a naturally aspirated 3.0-liter six to make a C300. Volvo is pretty far up there, too, saying an XC90 T8 means V8 power, even though it's a 2.0-liter turbocharged and supercharged four with electric assist. I don't know why BMW can't just call the car a 330i Turbo, rather than inflating the numbers up to 340i. Saab tried all of this back in the '90s when it decided to turbocharge its entire lineup, from light pressure units all the way up to models actually called "Saab 9-3 HOT" (for high-output turbo). But then the brand deleted any external reference to the turbo under the hood and people wondered why they were buying a $42,000 four-cylinder convertible. And that didn't turn out well. Even though these turbo replacements often make more power than their naturally aspirated predecessors, they're very different engines. People knew something changed when they exchanged their leased 328i with a 3.0-liter six for a 328i with a 2.0-liter turbo four.

What would you drive in 1985?

Bereft of live baseball games to watch, I've turned to the good ship YouTube to watch classic games. While watching the 1985 American League Championship Series last night, several of the broadcast's commercials made its way into the original VHS recording, including those for cars. "Only 8.8% financing on a 1985 Ford Tempo!" What a deal! That got me thinking: what would I drive in 1985?  It sure wouldn't be a Tempo. Or an IROC-Z, for that matter, despite what my Photoshopped 1980s self would indicate in the picture above. I posed this question to my fellow Autobloggists. Only one could actually drive back then, I was only 2 and a few editors weren't even close to being born. Here are our choices, which were simply made with the edict of "Come on, man, be realistic."  West Coast Editor James Riswick: OK, I started this, I'll go first. I like coupes today, so I'm pretty sure I'd drive one back then. I definitely don't see myself driving some badge-engineered GM thing from 1985, and although a Honda Prelude has a certain appeal, I must admit that something European would likely be in order. A BMW maybe? No, I'm too much a contrarian for that. The answer is therefore a 1985 Saab 900 Turbo 3-Door, which is not only a coupe but a hatchback, too. If I could scrounge up enough Reagan-era bucks for the ultra-cool SPG model, that would be rad. The 900 Turbo pictured, which was for auction on Bring a Trailer a few years ago, came with plum-colored Bokhara Red, and you're damn sure I would've had me one of those. Nevermind 1985, I'd probably drive this thing today.   Associate Editor Byron Hurd: I'm going to go with the 1985.5 Ford Mustang SVO, AKA the turbocharged Fox Body that everybody remembers but nobody drives. The mid-year update to the SVO bumped the power up from 175 ponies (yeah, yeah) to 205, making it almost as powerful (on paper, anyway) as the V8-powered GT models offered in the same time frame. I chose this particular car because it's a bit of a time capsule and, simultaneously, a reminder that all things are cyclical. Here we are, 35 years later, and 2.3-liter turbocharged Mustangs are a thing again. Who would have guessed?