V50 - which one?

[Flanaia1]

Originally Posted by 6moe66

I have to agree. I do prefer the 1.6d over the 2.0d. Currently i have the 1.6d R-design(with mods ) and upon my first service i got the 2.0d R-design as a courtesy car : I thought 'great, same car-more power '

I am quite a heavy footed driver and like to put cars through their pr paces (on closed private roads of course ). First impressions were good-with a little more power i was in my element but as soon as i came to a corner the car just seemed soo much heavier at the front and wanted to understeer like a b*tch. This was the case threefold later when it began to rain.

One of the reasons may be i've the 18" Medusa's on my 1.6d and they were the standard 17" R-design 5 spokes on the 2.0d but the difference was unbelievable.
I thought i had a different suspension set-up or something along those lines but the dealer confirmed this was not the case. BTW guys this was before my mods so mine was also completely standard bar the wheels and some heated seats (oh how i'm glad of them at the moment!!!).

I can confirm 0-62 is sub 10seconds and the car is good for 125mph, well thats what the speedo said, without red lining.

I feel the 1.6d to be more responsive both through throttle response and steering and due to staying in northern Scotland most roads are single carriageway so 60mph which the car runs brilliantly at (also geting some nice mpg figures +55). Though i find constant driving at 70-80mph to be a bit of a fuel guzzler(still +45mpg) since the smaller engine is now at 2.5 to 3K rpm and a little noisier.

I am unsure if my engine is the new Drive but it is a 2008 R-design 1.6d and i love it!!

Hope this helps anyone looking and everything written is from a personal point of view so no smarties!

I agree totally with your comments the understeer on the 2.0d is shocking and could easily catch you out if you were pressing on, particularly on those Scottish roads. (Used to live on the west coast and done my fair share of time in Aberdeen) Easy to tell if yours is the drive engine or not if you have modded it. The drive engine cannot be remapped or accept tuning boxes as it as an encrypted ECU. The heated seats this weather a godsend heard it was -15 in Aberdeen earlier this week ouch !!!!!

[Harvey1512]

The best piece of advice someone gave me was that if you are buying a car with leather seats, eg the R-Design, the you MUST have heated seats. I was not too bothered but went along with it. Boy was that advice good. Could I ever go back to a world without them?

If anyone is looking to get the R-Design then pay for the heated seats. There is not a day in winter where you will regret that decision.

(Incidentally the dancing smilie in the kilt is a work of genius. Makes me smile every time.)

[Dave Brown]

Just for reference guys the DRIVe is only available in S, SE & SE LUX trim levels, the R-Design 1.6d is the normal engine and transmission.

Dave

[kirium]

Hi, Get the 2.0 D, i have one in the R Design Se spec and am very pleased with it.
The performance isn't far off the D5 but economy and tax costs are much better. The engine is a lot quieter and smoother than the D5 as well.
The 1.6D is a nice drive but doesn't have the in gear acceleration the 2.0 has, you can definatley feel the power difference.
I haven't noticed any wayward understeering lunacy ? you really do have to be suicidal to get near the handling limits of this car, especially on a public road imo.
As for anything petrol, thats so last year

[Flanaia1]

Originally Posted by kirium

Hi, Get the 2.0 D, i have one in the R Design Se spec and am very pleased with it.
The performance isn't far off the D5 but economy and tax costs are much better. The engine is a lot quieter and smoother than the D5 as well.
The 1.6D is a nice drive but doesn't have the in gear acceleration the 2.0 has, you can definatley feel the power difference.
I haven't noticed any wayward understeering lunacy ? you really do have to be suicidal to get near the handling limits of this car, especially on a public road imo.
As for anything petrol, thats so last year

The new 1.6d engine & gearbox is actually faster through the gears than the 2.0d. Top end slightly less. I am a racing driver instructor and advanced driver and regularly test cars for magazines & manufacturers. When the weather gets better I will run a full performance test on the new 1.6d and will combine the dyno results with real life driving with the g meter and test instruments strapped on board. I think a lot of people are going to be in for a shock with just how good this new 1.6d is. This is also the same engine thats going in the Gen 3 Focus. I'm afraid the 2.0d is a bit Grunt & Fart by comparison

[kirium]

Originally Posted by Flanaia1

I think a lot of people are going to be in for a shock with just how good this new 1.6d is. I'm afraid the 2.0d is a bit Grunt & Fart by comparison

I think your on another planet. The 1.6drive is a bit weedy i'm afraid, I think you do come away with the feeling thats its quick because it sounds so interminably slow, therefore upon exiting the car you have a warm glow of "well that wasn't so bad !!"

However, having driven both cars, I can reliably inform that the 1.6drive is indeed slower than the 2.0d. Off the line it's ok, about the same as other small engined diesels, for example the 1.5d megane:
0 - 62 = 10.9 for volvo 11.4 for renault, top speed = 118mph for volvo and 115 for renault, though for a 1.6d in gear acceleration is good.

Ultimately, when compared to the 2.0d, the 1.6d has less power (by 27ps), less torque (by 80nm) and therefore is slower flat out and takes longer to get there. It does do more to the gallon though.

I would imagine that the 1.6drive is slower than the 2.0d in much the same way as the 2.0d is slower than the d5, the figures between each are pretty much the same. Judging by the figures you have given I can only imagine they have fitted the wrong engine to your car , as those figures are nigh on exactly the specs for the 2.0d...

I refuse to believe Volvo are under selling the 1.6drive - if they have developed a 1.6d car with performance figures that better their 2.0d model whilst giving 14 mpg more i'm sure they would be screaming that fact from the rooftops. If, by chance, they are doing that I'm sure their stated C02 figures for the 1.6drive are also wildly low, which i'm sure would be of interest to HM Customs & Excise and the Inland Revenue.

I would suggest you have a "1 in a million" car and you should be thankful for that. I know i would be happy if my 136ps 2.0d turned out to "actually" have 168ps - I certainly wouldn't tell the taxman and i certainly wouldn't get peoples hopes up.

[Flanaia1]

Originally Posted by kirium

I think your on another planet. The 1.6drive is a bit weedy i'm afraid, I think you do come away with the feeling thats its quick because it sounds so interminably slow, therefore upon exiting the car you have a warm glow of "well that wasn't so bad !!"

However, having driven both cars, I can reliably inform that the 1.6drive is indeed slower than the 2.0d. Off the line it's ok, about the same as other small engined diesels, for example the 1.5d megane:
0 - 62 = 10.9 for volvo 11.4 for renault, top speed = 118mph for volvo and 115 for renault, though for a 1.6d in gear acceleration is good.

Ultimately, when compared to the 2.0d, the 1.6d has less power (by 27ps), less torque (by 80nm) and therefore is slower flat out and takes longer to get there. It does do more to the gallon though.

I would imagine that the 1.6drive is slower than the 2.0d in much the same way as the 2.0d is slower than the d5, the figures between each are pretty much the same. Judging by the figures you have given I can only imagine they have fitted the wrong engine to your car , as those figures are nigh on exactly the specs for the 2.0d...

I refuse to believe Volvo are under selling the 1.6drive - if they have developed a 1.6d car with performance figures that better their 2.0d model whilst giving 14 mpg more i'm sure they would be screaming that fact from the rooftops. If, by chance, they are doing that I'm sure their stated C02 figures for the 1.6drive are also wildly low, which i'm sure would be of interest to HM Customs & Excise and the Inland Revenue.

I would suggest you have a "1 in a million" car and you should be thankful for that. I know i would be happy if my 136ps 2.0d turned out to "actually" have 168ps - I certainly wouldn't tell the taxman and i certainly wouldn't get peoples hopes up.

As I posted earlier

when I challanged volvo about the figures they said the brouchure figures were based on a pre production model with the old 1.6d engine and it was decided to change the turbo spec and gearbox on the final production car.

The new brochures and literature will reflect the changes in bhp, you have to remember this is not the old 1.6d engine its the all new alloy unit so weight is well down, however if you are selling a car based on its ECO credentials and economy the last thing you do is brag about it's power and speed, simple marketing.

As regards how quick the car is then I reckon I am better qualified than most to judge, I have been an advanced driver trainer for the last 15 years and a racing driver instructor for the last 10 years. My own road car is a Brabus Mercedes capable of 200 mph, My race car is a Subaru Impreza WRC and I have just sold a 300 bhp Subaru Legacy Sport Tourer to get the Volvo V50 which is my Work wagon.

As a performance tester for several magazines and shows, I'll tell you what I'll do when the weather gets better I'll back to back test my 1.6d Vs a 2.0d even use yours if you want so you know it's not biased. Will run them on the dyno and on the airfield test strip with the g meters and speed/bhp/torque recording gear attached and see whaat happens, they will be a lot closer than you think I tell you.

The reason the 2.0d is slow is it has a 6 speed box, if you want to kill the performance of any car you fit 6 speed box, a five speed is much quicker as you don't have to change into 3rd to reach 60 mph, ask Subaru or visit the Scoobynet forum and see for yourself.

You might think your 2.0d R Design is a nice car and I agree it is, but we have our cars for different reasons, My Volvo is a work wagon and does not get used for anything else and sits on my drive all weekend, all I ask of it is it is reliable reasonably quick to make progress and fairly economical.

If I want a quick performance car full of luxury kit to take the family out in then I have the Brabus for that and that is what I drive for personal use at the weekends.

If I feel the need for speed and a blast then I take out the Impreza either on the test strip or local race circuit and have some fun, so I have all my car needs catered for.

At the end of the day the 2.0 litre Volvo diesel is a grunt and fart engine not up to modern standards, its technology Ford were using over 5 years ago things have moved on significantly since then in the 2.0 league and even more advancements have been made with the 1.6 & 1.4 Diesels.

As regards your last point of getting peoples hopes up I have suggested no such thing and as always people should test drive before they buy, but apparently you belong to the 1.6 bashers brigade claiming technology that is over 5 years old to be more superior ! You are right I am on a different planet to you this is the real world I live in.

Also read 6moe66 earlier post on the subject, again from someone who obviously knows what they are talking about when it comes to judging performance and rating cars. If a car is good on Scotttish roads then it will be even better elsewhere hence the high proportion of Scottish race/ rally drivers who hone their skills on such roads.

[christhesham]

and breathe...

[dodgyken]

Have you managed to dial the understeer out of the Scooby???

You've not lived unless you have turned into Paddock Hill on a slight trailing brake

[Flanaia1]

Originally Posted by dodgyken

Have you managed to dial the understeer out of the Scooby???

You've not lived unless you have turned into Paddock Hill on a slight trailing brake

It's just about there has full pro drive comp suspension but is still quite a handful