Autoblog.nl didn’t borrow a pristine, factory-correct Turbo X for a nostalgia lap. They drove a customer-grade, street-used car that’s been turned into a rolling test platform – still on the stock, load-based ECU strategy, still wearing the Turbo X silhouette, but operating in a power band Saab never released. The owner is Lennart Lammertse, the person behind Lammertse Techniek in the Netherlands (established 2011), and the video/article format (Mijn Auto) forced something that dyno graphs usually don’t: a clear explanation of why the 2.8 V6 Turbo X feels conservative in stock form, where it is mechanically constrained, and how you get from 280/400 to roughly 430 hp and 600 Nm without rewriting the car into an aftermarket science project.
For us, this matters for a different reason than it does for Autoblog’s mainstream audience: it’s one of the rare public, on-road breakdowns that connects hardware design choices (manifolds, turbo frame, exhaust routing) with calibration constraints (load model, limiters) and drivetrain survival (original gearbox) – in a package that is still intended to pass inspections and remain serviceable.
We’ve already covered one of Lammertse Techniek’s Turbo X-related projects on SaabPlanet, and that context is important here because this isn’t a one-off internet build. It’s part of an ongoing development track: platform learning first, productizable solutions later.
What Autoblog Actually Tested: A Turbo X Used as a Development Mule, Not a Showcase Car
The Autoblog article frames this as “430 hp out of a Saab,” but the more useful angle is how that number is approached and why it’s presented as an evolving figure rather than a final claim. In the video (watch video below), Lennart states that the last measured state was ~400 hp / 550 Nm, with the current expectation of ~430 hp / 600 Nm, and he explicitly describes ongoing work on the calibration because the ECU is load-based and will trigger limiters when requested boost and calculated load stop agreeing.
That’s a meaningful admission. Load-based strategies are predictable when the airflow model and component behavior match the maps. Once you change manifold efficiency, turbo response, and backpressure, you can push the system into regions where the ECU protects itself – not because something is mechanically “wrong,” but because the modeled engine no longer matches the actual engine.
So Autoblog didn’t test a “finished 430 hp Turbo X.” They tested a Turbo X in the middle of a controlled development cycle, and Lennart is unusually transparent about what that implies: gains are real, but so are the software boundaries if you want to keep factory logic and factory diagnostics intact.
The Hardware That Actually Moves the Needle: Manifolds First, Turbo Second
Most 2.8 V6 builds get discussed backwards – people lead with turbo brand and finish with exhaust manifolds as an afterthought. Lennart lays it out in the correct order: the stock manifolds are undersized and have poor flow characteristics, so they become a choke point at higher mass flow. He describes the factory pieces as effectively forcing pulses to “hit a wall” before turning, which is a blunt way of describing poor collector geometry and abrupt internal transitions.
Lammertse Techniek’s response is the opposite of decorative tubular fabrication: self-developed manifolds with smoother bends and better flow. The key outcome isn’t “sound” or “looks.” It’s that the engine can move exhaust energy to the turbine more effectively, which improves spool characteristics and reduces the tendency to choke at higher rpm.
Autoblog’s driver notices the car’s behavior in a way that lines up with this: it doesn’t behave like a modern torque plateau. It comes alive after a threshold (around 3,000 rpm in the discussion). That’s consistent with a setup where you’re improving high-load breathing and turbine efficiency but still running a calibration that respects drivetrain limits and stock ECU behavior.
Hybrid Turbo on the Original Frame: Why That Choice Isn’t About Budget
Lennart states the turbo is still based on the original frame, but with larger internals – a “hybrid turbo.” Later in the video he mentions a G25-66 setup as part of the hardware story. For readers who build these cars, the point isn’t the exact compressor map; it’s why the original-frame concept is attractive when your goal is repeatability and serviceability:
- Packaging remains closer to factory routing
- Heat management stays within known zones
- Downpipe and underhood layout don’t become a custom-only nightmare
- The car can be supported as a product path, not just a single owner’s solution
That matches Lennart’s broader positioning: he talks about building something that can be sold broadly in Europe, still pass inspections, and remain visually close to factory when you open the hood.
If you’ve worked around B284 installations, you know the trap: big turbo power is easy to quote and hard to integrate cleanly. The Turbo X doesn’t need another “dyno hero.” It needs hardware that can survive heat cycles, be installed repeatedly, and be calibrated without turning the ECU into a fight every time ambient conditions change.
Why the ECU Becomes the Constraint: Load Modeling and Limiters, Not Just Fueling
This is the most technically honest part of the Autoblog feature: Lennart doesn’t pretend the stock ECU is a blank canvas. He explicitly says the team is trying to make everything work smoothly with the standard engine computer, and that the limiters can intervene when you try to request more boost than the modeled load structure allows.
That’s the real reason the power figure is described as “around” rather than “verified at X on this date.” If you want to keep:
- factory-level drivability
- factory diagnostics
- factory-safe strategies for knock, torque intervention, and thermal protection
…then you don’t just “turn it up.” You reshape the engine’s behavior to fit inside a logic system designed around stock manifolds, stock turbo dynamics, and stock exhaust backpressure.
It’s also why this build matters: it’s not a standalone tune story. It’s a demonstration of what can be extracted while still keeping the car coherent as an OEM-like package.
Drivetrain Reality: Why This Turbo X Is “Conservative” on Purpose
A lot of commenters questioned the claimed output. Some guessed “350 max,” others demanded dyno proof. That argument misses the more relevant part: Lennart’s own explanation of gearbox limitations.
In the video he references known gearbox boundaries and makes it clear this power level is chosen to stay under a threshold. In the comments, the Lammertse Techniek account goes further: they mention having another Saab project with a much larger turbo where the setup is held back due to the original gearbox, and that stronger gears should allow a move toward 700–800 hp territory.
Whether you believe those future targets is less important than what it confirms about this Turbo X: it’s built around a constraint system. The car is tuned to be used, tested, and refined – not to hit a peak number once and then get parked.
Autoblog’s Driving Notes
Autoblog’s driver describes the car as an “interesting mix”: a rougher engine character paired with comfort-oriented controls. That’s not a vague impression; it’s a direct consequence of the hardware and tuning approach:
- The turbo response is intentionally not flattened into a modern, instant-torque feel
- The rest of the car stays aligned with what a Turbo X actually is: a fast AWD sedan with daily usability
- Hydraulic steering remains a distinguishing detail because it transmits load changes in a way EPS cars filter out
The video also includes an observation about how the car used to choke at higher rpm in stock form – Lennart describes it as running out of breath around 5,500 rpm. With better manifolds and the revised turbo setup, the car continues to pull toward the top end. That’s exactly what you’d expect if you’re removing a high-load exhaust restriction and improving turbine efficiency.
This is the part that should resonate with experienced owners: the build isn’t presented as a “night and day” transformation in every driving condition. It’s targeted. It changes the regions where the stock car is measurably constrained – high rpm, high load – while keeping a factory-like operating envelope elsewhere.
Lammertse Techniek’s Position in the Saab Ecosystem: Specialization, Documentation, and Export
Lennart’s shop description matters because it explains how this kind of project becomes scalable rather than anecdotal.
From the company profile: Saab enthusiasm is family-rooted, Lennart started hands-on work young (including engines and gearboxes), and the business goal from day one was to deliver service with transparency – showing customers what’s wrong, documenting work, and advising on future maintenance to prevent breakdowns. He also states he uses modern tools, documents repairs with images, and shares them with customers.
That sounds basic until you deal with high-output V6 Saabs across borders. Documentation is the difference between a car that can be maintained anywhere and a car that becomes dependent on one workshop forever.
He also notes specialization in the 9-3 V6, XWD, and the “new 9-5” generation, and mentions customers coming from across Europe and even America. That aligns with what we’ve seen in the market: the owners who keep these cars long-term are the ones willing to pay for a solution that is repeatable and proven, not just installed.
Market Context: Why a 430 hp Turbo X Still Has a Buyer Base
The Autoblog video includes an honest market assessment: most Turbo X-level owners could buy something newer, but they choose this because it’s specific. That’s not sentimentality; it’s selection bias. The remaining Turbo X cars aren’t “daily drivers by necessity” anymore. They’re kept by people who want a certain mix:
- AWD traction with Saab packaging
- the B284 torque profile and tuning potential
- understated exterior with factory-only cues
- a platform that still has unresolved technical headroom
The most important detail here is that the Turbo X is now in the phase where knowledge concentration matters more than parts availability. Anyone can buy a turbo. Not many can build a package that stays drivable, passes inspections, and doesn’t collapse into heat issues and limiter battles.
That’s why an Autoblog feature about one specific car is relevant: it documents a methodology, not just a headline power number.
What to Take Away from This Turbo X Test
This Autoblog test is useful because it doesn’t treat the Turbo X as a museum piece or a meme. It shows:
- Manifolds are the critical enabler for high-load breathing on the B284
- A hybrid turbo on the original frame can be a deliberate engineering choice, not a compromise
- The stock ECU can be pushed far, but load-based logic and limiters define the boundary
- The build is constrained by drivetrain survivability, not engine capability
- There’s a real, international customer base for repeatable, documented V6/XWD solutions
For Saab enthusiasts who already know the factory Turbo X story, that’s the point: the car’s “unfinished” feeling in stock form wasn’t imagined. The platform simply never got the development runway Saab people wanted. Shops like Lammertse Techniek are now doing that work in public – one controlled iteration at a time.
