V70 2.0 10V?????
 

What I would like to know are these engines any good? ie gutless?
I've had the 2.5 10v before and that was really nice to drive and very responsive.(No comments from T-5 drivers please!!!)Is there any people out there that drive an s/v70 with this engine that could comment?

Regards

Matt

Volvo fanatic

RE: V70 2.0 10V?????
 

Hi Matt,
Not the 2.0 , we had the 2.5 10v and to be frank it ''appeared'' gutless. It knocked out a quoted 140BHP but unless the revs were got up a bit it was not very racy. I know of one person who owned a 2.0 10v and he found it gutless and eventually chipped it. On the other hand a smooth engine always feels slow until you hit a roundabout!!
Cheers Nige

RE: V70 2.0 10V?????
 

Flame me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 10v supposed to be 'lazy' engines. I.e. Not the fastest around, but more torque than Jerremy Clarkson.

'Tis how the 1.8 10v works in the 440, not quick but so relaxing and you can pull off in third.......

Stu

RE: V70 2.0 10V?????
 

Yeah I mean the 2.5 10v engine will be quicker to 20ish mph than the 2.5 20v engine, but the 20v will have a run on it by 60mph.

Despite my T5 having roughly 270bhp my 120bhp 14 year old 240 is quicker to maybe 10mph!

RE: V70 2.0 10V?????
 

>Hi Matt,
>Not the 2.0 , we had the 2.5 10v and to be frank it
>''appeared'' gutless.

Well I suppose that will depend on what it's compared with.

But the 2.5 10v is not short of torque, and low-down torque, too.

It has practically the torque of the 2.5 20v - but clearly less peak power.

>It knocked out a quoted 140BHP but
>unless the revs were got up a bit it was not very racy.

Actually the first incarnation of the 2.5 10v had 144bhp - since I think it has been quoted as 140. I don't expect that - in itself - makes much difference, but these engines were updated, and perhaps that has affected the characteristics?

I certainly wouldn't describe my 2.5 10v as gutless - not the fastest thing around, but has plenty of torque, and no slouch either.

Lei Chan

RE: V70 2.0 10V?????
 

>Yeah I mean the 2.5 10v engine will be quicker to 20ish mph
>than the 2.5 20v engine, but the 20v will have a run on it
>by 60mph.

S'funny you should mention that.

I was lined up side by side with an 850 2.5 20v (I drive an S70 2.5 10v auto).

We both took off at the same time, and both clearly floored it, up to the speed limit of the road (60). I'm pretty sure it was an auto, too because of the characteristics of how the car moved when gear changes must have been occurring.

The 850 probably started a fraction earlier, although mine improved slightly at the lower speeds. To be honest, it was quite a close thing, the 850 was *slightly* in front (ie the front of my car was nearly level with the rear of the 850).

I put the closeness of acceleration down to the fact that the 10v has almost as much torque as the 20v.

The 850 slowed to turn off, and I lifted when I got to the speed limit. I was suprised at how close it was - when I saw that it was a 2.5 20v, I thought it would leave me for dead.

Given that the 850 started moving early, and took off rather quickly, I suspect they were accelerating as hard as I was.

Lei Chan

RE: V70 2.0 10V?????
 

Also if you get the choice between a 2.0 20v and a 2.5 10v go for the 2.5 - displacement wins over valves any day for actual driveability.

RE: V70 2.0 10V?????
 

Avoid like the plague - it's an under-engined car which will not reward the driver, as well as being less reliable due to the engine having to work much harder.

A tax break car designed for the company car park, not your garage.

RE: V70 2.0 10V?????
 

Total Rubbish!!!!!!

I have had my V70 2.0 10v from new back in '97. Not only have I found this to be one of the smoothest cars I have ever owned, the 2.0 10v engine really does a cracking little job.

As for reliable - mine has now done just over 176K miles without any hiccups - it has never let me down.

As for a Tax break car for the company car park, Simon...were you bullied as a small child????

RE: V70 2.0 10V?????
 

As I said I think all this type of thing is down to what you want from the car and what it was designed to do. If you want T5 performance then you won't be buying a 2.0 10v, if you just want a smooth lazy car then why not?

This holds true for most modern cars, as they said on Top Gear (before it moved to channel 5) 'There is basically no such thing as a bad car these days'. We had a 1.3 Honda Civic as a replacement Company car for one of the consultants in my last company when his Golf got nicked. The Seat Leon brigade slated it, personally I thought it was a great car for what is was designed to do - shopping trips and school runs, it was nippy, easy to drive and relatively comfortable. Comparing it to a 1.9 TDi with 100+bhp is pointless and I think the same goes for most cars, compare it like for like - what's it like when compared with say, the 2.0 16v Omega or Scorpio?

Stu