Back in a T5 again...MPG=woeful.

T5R92011 · Jul 26th, 2018, 15:38

I had forgotten just how horrendous these 2.5 low pressure turbo engines are on fuel around town. I last owned one in 2011 and remember it being heavy on juice but didn't really have anything similar to compare it to power wise.

Having owned a heavier S60 2.0T (180bhp) for the last 3 years, and given they are both 5 pot low pressure turbos with an emphasis on midrange torque, I thought MPG for both cars would be similar.

It isn't. I feel like I've just doubled my fuel bill.

This engine is the arch nemesis to today's fuel efficient "ecoboost/skyactive /bluemotion" save the planet campaign.

I have a sneaking suspicion that it's actually worse on fuel than the more powerful 2.3 and 2.4 T5 Volvo engines. Can anyone confirm this?

I love the engine. Not sure how long I'll be able to run it for (again!).

For reference, my S60 2.0T would average 25mpg with a heavy right foot in town, and easily hit mid 30s on a run.

colnet · Jul 26th, 2018, 16:08

It doesn't get any better, my v50 t5 is horrendous on petrol, drive on a motorway all day and it's great, drive on a A road B road in a town, village, on a country lane then take a petrol tanker with you and that's driving like an old woman, wait till you give it some wellie that will make your eyes water and your wallet as light as a feather. My v40 2.0t is like a camel compared to my t5

foneman · Jul 26th, 2018, 16:42

Think this was one of the main reasons that Volvo killed the 5 pot engine off,it has some wonderful characteristics but fuel economy wasn't one of them..

LizardOfBodom · Jul 26th, 2018, 17:33

True, I am getting like 23MPG average with traffic and 25MPG without it, but iwth my pretty heavy foot. Apparently its pretty normal, plus not that far off 2.4 non turbo.

Yobbo · Jul 26th, 2018, 17:39

Thought the 2.5 T5 was a high pressure turbo?

Anywho, this is the main reason I didn't swap my V50 D5 for a well modified V50 T5 as my fuel bill would have gone from about £2500 per annum to about £5500-6000!

The car in question was 320bhp, shot flames out of the exhaust, and tuned to run off high-octane fuel, while it would have been a lot of fun I'd miss going on holiday and would fear explaining why Christmas was cancelled

!!

StatusRed · Jul 26th, 2018, 17:44

Interesting.. my 9-5 Aero (2.3l turbo charged) on 275BHP seems to be alright... haven't driven it much though I must admit and don't intend driving it around towns for the majority of its life.

andy_d · Jul 26th, 2018, 18:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by LizardOfBodom

True, I am getting like 23MPG average with traffic and 25MPG without it, but iwth my pretty heavy foot. Apparently its pretty normal, plus not that far off 2.4 non turbo.

very similar traffic figs here with the 2.4i non turbo 5 pot.

FunkyMelon · Jul 26th, 2018, 21:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yobbo

Thought the 2.5 T5 was a high pressure turbo?

Older 2.3 T5 was a high pressure turbo, the newer 2.5 T5 is a low pressure. The older T5 is far more rewarding to drive IMO, the newer T5 just drives like a fast diesel, no turbo spool up, instant power, very linear power band....It's just there all the time, boring

The older T5 did nothing till 3.5k revs then it really shoved you in your seat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy_d

very similar traffic figs here with the 2.4i non turbo 5 pot.

I never understood why Volvo released the 2.4i (no offence). It just seems completely pointless, slow, just as thirsty and expensive to run as the T5.....There's just no good logical reason for it IMO.

StatusRed · Jul 26th, 2018, 21:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunkyMelon

I never understood why Volvo released the 2.4i (no offence). It just seems completely pointless, slow, just as thirsty and expensive to run as the T5.....There's just no good logical reason for it IMO.

They have no risk of the cost of a turbo going bang to be fair.

Tannaton · Jul 26th, 2018, 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yobbo

Thought the 2.5 T5 was a high pressure turbo?

Anywho, this is the main reason I didn't swap my V50 D5 for a well modified V50 T5 as my fuel bill would have gone from about £2500 per annum to about £5500-6000!

The car in question was 320bhp, shot flames out of the exhaust, and tuned to run off high-octane fuel, while it would have been a lot of fun I'd miss going on holiday and would fear explaining why Christmas was cancelled

!!

Christmas is overrated....

Jul 26th, 2018, 15:38	#1
T5R92011 FCW Auto Service Last Online: Apr 22nd, 2024 19:40 Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Gloucester	Back in a T5 again...MPG=woeful. I had forgotten just how horrendous these 2.5 low pressure turbo engines are on fuel around town. I last owned one in 2011 and remember it being heavy on juice but didn't really have anything similar to compare it to power wise. Having owned a heavier S60 2.0T (180bhp) for the last 3 years, and given they are both 5 pot low pressure turbos with an emphasis on midrange torque, I thought MPG for both cars would be similar. It isn't. I feel like I've just doubled my fuel bill. This engine is the arch nemesis to today's fuel efficient "ecoboost/skyactive /bluemotion" save the planet campaign. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's actually worse on fuel than the more powerful 2.3 and 2.4 T5 Volvo engines. Can anyone confirm this? I love the engine. Not sure how long I'll be able to run it for (again!). For reference, my S60 2.0T would average 25mpg with a heavy right foot in town, and easily hit mid 30s on a run. __________________ FCW Auto Service (Gloucester) https://www.fcw-autoservice.com Last edited by T5R92011; Jul 26th, 2018 at 15:43.

Jul 26th, 2018, 17:33	#4
LizardOfBodom WowIcanwriteAnythingHere! Last Online: Mar 26th, 2024 16:05 Join Date: May 2016 Location: Dublin/Meath	True, I am getting like 23MPG average with traffic and 25MPG without it, but iwth my pretty heavy foot. Apparently its pretty normal, plus not that far off 2.4 non turbo. __________________ 2005 V50 T5AWD M66, Stage1 Hilton tune E-focus torque mount, E46 bi-xenon retrofit v2 , (also available in PDF form), DTSC fully-off mod, Brembo discs+ATE ceramic pads

Jul 26th, 2018, 17:39	#5
Yobbo Dave Last Online: Sep 7th, 2023 11:33 Join Date: Apr 2016 Location: East Yorkshire	Thought the 2.5 T5 was a high pressure turbo? Anywho, this is the main reason I didn't swap my V50 D5 for a well modified V50 T5 as my fuel bill would have gone from about £2500 per annum to about £5500-6000! The car in question was 320bhp, shot flames out of the exhaust, and tuned to run off high-octane fuel, while it would have been a lot of fun I'd miss going on holiday and would fear explaining why Christmas was cancelled!! __________________ V50 D5 'Thor'

Jul 26th, 2018, 17:44	#6
StatusRed Premier Member Last Online: Yesterday 19:16 Join Date: Jul 2015 Location: Glasgow	Interesting.. my 9-5 Aero (2.3l turbo charged) on 275BHP seems to be alright... haven't driven it much though I must admit and don't intend driving it around towns for the majority of its life. __________________ 2009 S40 SE Lux 2.0i \| 2022 Suzuki V-Strom 650 \| 2002 Audi TT 225 Previous: C70 Coupe 2.4i \| Saab 9-5 Aero \| Daihatsu SporTrak

Jul 26th, 2018, 16:08	#2
colnet Senior Member Last Online: Mar 23rd, 2024 18:41 Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Aylesford, SarFeast	It doesn't get any better, my v50 t5 is horrendous on petrol, drive on a motorway all day and it's great, drive on a A road B road in a town, village, on a country lane then take a petrol tanker with you and that's driving like an old woman, wait till you give it some wellie that will make your eyes water and your wallet as light as a feather. My v40 2.0t is like a camel compared to my t5

Jul 26th, 2018, 16:42	#3
foneman foneman Last Online: Oct 22nd, 2023 22:40 Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: STONE	Think this was one of the main reasons that Volvo killed the 5 pot engine off,it has some wonderful characteristics but fuel economy wasn't one of them..

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)