Underwhelmed with T5 performance

[Pedro Fandango]

Hi Alastair,

i've had a lot of trouble with my cat, went though 2 in less than a year. Sorted now

[Ross9]

>As far as I know turbo Volvos are designed for motorway work.
> My 2.0T does about 8 secs for 0-60. However, it also takes
>about 8 secs to get from 75 to 100 (in 4th), or 80 to 110 (in
>5th), or 90 to 120 (in 5th). At motorway speeds you hit the
>loud peddle and the neddle moves quite nicely. In the car
>however you feel / hear very little. It's what scares my
>other half a bit as the speed can creep to quite a fun level
>without you realising it.
>
>Stu


8.5 0-60 is the official quote. Personally I find this pretty poor for a 2 litre turbo car, but that's just my opinion.

I'd also cast serious doubts on some of your figures, 80-110 for example in 8 secs, in a 165BHP car, or 160 in the later spec model after 2000, you do realise that the E46 M3 does 80-100 in top gear, which is 6th for the M3, in 8.3 seconds. This car has a peak BHP of 349 as standard, yes, thats right, more than double a 2.0T's power output. and yet the 2.0T takes less time to sprint from 80-110 in top gear than the M3 takes to do 80-100? Some reality checking is required here, your speedo is lying, or you are. I accept that the 6th gear on an M3, which tops out at 160mph at 6200rpm (with an engine limit of 8000rp so probably due to a speed limiter) will be much longer than a Volvo 2.0T's, after all the M3 is capable of making the same 80-100 sprint in 3rd gear, in which it takes a quite ridiculous 3.7 seconds.

My own car as standard takes 10.0 in top gear from 80-100, and I can quite confidently say a 2.0T volvo, exluding the T4 etc which is different animal altogether, is never getting near my car in standard form. it makes less power, less torque, and weighs more. Physics cant be argued with.

Did you find these figures on a site somewhere, or have a guess at them from your speedo?

The about is because it's me counting. I have no idea what is standard and what isn't on the car, when I test drove it I was told that it would be quicker than the other 2.0T's I tried, and yes it is. It seems to take about the same time to do the 25mph (40kmph - it's a Dutch car) sprints from just about whatever starting point - to the 120mph mark, not taken it about 190kmph yet - but it the acceleration wasn't dropping. If those are the times for the M3, then I guess my counting is out :) , the car is quick but I know what not to race..... I'll have to get a willing passenger with a stop watch at some point. The thing to remeber with the 2.0T though, is that the 160 / 165 bhp isn't the important bit at those speeds, its the fact that the max torque starts at 2500 and continues to 4500 / 5000 (if what I have read is true), at 190kmph I am not at the point where I run out of torque, or at the point that max BHP comes into play. Does a V40 weigh more than an M3? I'm surprised, I was quite amazed at how light a car they are (V40).

8.5 is poor for a 2 litre Turbo, but then as I said the in gear performance is where it's at, and where it's important - before top gear changed their format they had an interview with a few manufacturers who were cxomplaining about the 0-60 benchmark, as it's a pretty useless figure in day to day use of the car.

Happy Motoring

Stu

[Ross9]

Totally agree on the 0-60 etc bit, it's a **** poor way of timing a car's overall performance. 0-100, standing km, and in gear and through gear sprint intervals, 30-70 is a good one through the gears. A guy sends me photocopies of various cars autotest results from time to time, that are of a similar standing to the Rover, so I can compare, makes for interesting reading, a RWD Sierra Cossie does the same standing km time as my car as standard, but the Rover has 3mph more at the km line so is overtaking the cossie at that point.

Torque curve is also very important as you say, a good high line through a lot of the rev range makes for easy motoring, turbo cars always produce this sort of graph.

As for knowing what not to race, thats no fun, the funs in the taking part, winning is a bonus, I chased a Ferrari F40 once to see if he would go for it, and go he did, awesome car, and left me sitting like I was parked, but it was still fun. ;)

The fun is takin part - I applogise unreservedly for that stupid comment :P. I don't mind something that's going to beat me, but I try not to make too serious a show of it (and look like a Nova driver I once knew). Must admit I challenge anything in my Spit just to see what happens (incidently what happens is you ruin your shells when beating A4's - yes i know he could have wupped be if he wanted, but then the driver is as important as the car). But a new engine for the Spit is far, far less than for the Volvo....

What Rover d'you drive then? Sounds like a fun toy!

Stu

[Ross9]

It's a 220 Coupe Turbo, Jap import one bizarely enough lol. Which just means it's an import and has all the options, it isnt any different performance wise from the Uk one.

I've fitted an Intercooler spray for 1/4 miling to get rtid of the heatsoak before running. DIY at a total cost of £20. Pillar pod boost guage to monitor boost, and a GBE valve to adjust it, runs at 12/13Psi as opposed 8/9 as standard. Cone filter rated to 350BHP (but Im not ever going to make anywhere near that, lol) Battery moved to the boot as the cold air box is due any day, it boxes in the cone filter in the space the original small airbox and battery sat, with only one channel that the air is sucked up from under the car from, keeps the intake air as cold as possible. Next thing are the 2.5" exhaust and de-cat which will make a 2.5" system running from the turbo exit to the back, noticable gains to be had from this. Then its bigger brakes, and better suspension, two areas that let the car down badly at the moment.

It is fun, I'm thouroughly enjoying the car, had it for 4 or so months now and still smiling when I drive it. :)

Hi Alistair,
Glad to hear you may be hanging onto the car a little longer,i started out with my 850 t5 standard i would recommend if you are going to modify the car start with a bigger downpipe and decat also a remapped ecu,these two alone should give you very noticeable increase in power.

regards

jason

[T5_TAXI_DRIVER]

Hi all
This is the first time I’ve bothered to type anything. Good to see different opinions and some well educated replies to peoples problems. This will be my second T5 first was the 225 bhp 850 (which was always ahead of a friends civic Type R) and now a 250 bhp V70. When I first had my T5 I loved the performance. it was more than enough to see off people spoiling my day on A & B roads and a bit more for laughs. However I was and have never been under the impression that I own a super car. It is what it is, a quick, stable, usable and very versatile high performance estate car. If performance is all you want get yourself a top-end EVO or Subaru or better still, like me cover yourself in leather and get on a superbike not much can keep with you going up through mid wales apart from the RAF! My bike used to scare the S##T out of me but now I’m used to it and even that feels calm at times. We also have a MINI Diesel it’s not a slow car but if I’ve been out on the bike and then drive that it really feels broken. And that’s the problem you can’t always trust your senses.

I love my T5 though the sound is enough for me but being able to fill the boot and still overtake easily just makes it worth it. It has enough power for fast road use but next time I will be getting an AWD R.

[iGGy]

Holly thread resurrection Batman!

[DSK]

I have owned the likes of Supra TT, 325i, BMW 3.8 M5, GT4 etc in the past. Now run a BMW 328i, Jag XKR 4.2 and the C70 T5.

Whilst I appreciate that there differences between some T5 models, my T5 runs A1 and its actually not that much slower at all than the 4.2 XKR!!! My friend who has had an 96' 850 T5 estate had a go in mine and was gob smacked at how it went compared to his.

I'd like to mention, that I had a Celica GT4, which felt like something was holding back the power, the acceleration felt flat. Had it on rolling road tuning machines etc and no faults were found except a faulty igniton lead and the power despite that was 236bhp (about 204bhp standard), more than standard and mine had no modifications. No one could explain why the engine was producing so much more bhp than expected but the car accelerated slower than a normal Celica GT non turbo. Mine turned out to be a MAF sensor.

In my experience, if you car feels a bit flat or slow, then you have issues. Jod T5 has a good stage 0 tune up list, checking (and replacing) major ignition components, vaccum lines, breathers etc. These niggly issues never get traced by most garages. Also, MAF sensors start to wear casuing a drop in performance so I'd be sure to get a read out on that. 02 sensors are another issue as well but they usually tend to be robust but can show up as a fault if other fuel injection components are not functioning correctly. Chances are that ist a one of those things that you have to spend time to find the fault, but when you do it wont be something too drastic to put right.