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

[andy_d]

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.

its an oddity ,,it Is volvo after all ,
not everyone wants a turbo for lots of reasons, turbo repair costs As well as the rest, and with an autobox your going to need autobox work on a turbo before a n/a engine,, add in insurance costs ,,etc etc,

2.4 V 2.5t ,, about the same mpg,, both get to 70 "fairly speedy" or "bloody speedy",, one comes with less repair bills / aggro with all the turbo pipework , etc


for me, i wanted
a volvo
auto box
petrol
estate shape If possible
anything else was "see whats there" S60 2.0Ts were looked at,
but the low seat height + parents in there 70s - nah
this V50 popped up @ a price that was Very reasonable / cheap,, and auto/petrol And estate,, And parents can get in/out of the front or rear without issue
other folk choose cars for different reasons

[Sysyphus]

Was wondering how you were all getting such great mileage from your T5's compared to the 18-19 I get on my daily commute, 30 on a good clean but not too vigorous highway run...

I had temporarily forgotten that just like the pints, the gallons are 20% smaller over here

[FunkyMelon]

Realistically turbos don't go very often if they are properly warmed up/cooled down and oil changes are regular. I just couldn't justify such awful MPG with no grin factor that comes with the 2.4 but I guess some like it.

MPG wise, driven fairly hard most days on a short 6 mile commute to work I average around 25-26mpg.

On a long motorway drive at around 70mph (this engine seems to be more efficient at around 70-75mph than 60-65) I can get between 34-36 which isn't bad at all.

[Welton]

I have owned my T5 for 9 years, at first petrol was 90p/ltr (remember that?) but gradually as fuel became more expensive it did start to cost more to run when I was doing 10,000 miles per year.

Now though the T5 is my second car and only takes me to work and back doing 4500 miles per year, I pay something like £19.00 per week in super unleaded and have averaged 25mpg for years now.

I must say though the 5-Cylinder engine is supremely reliable and very 'lazy' in standard form, this means it costs nothing in repairs apart from routine servicing. Also as an example I have NEVER had an engine management light or any electrical faults and those are expensive once they start.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you can keep the mileage down they do use a bit of fuel but also save you money in other areas.

[domhart10]

Do you buy a T5 for the mpg? I know I didnt

I get 32mpg out of mine now, just dont hit the boost or that will turn to 3.2. I had a 2.0D S40 and the T5 wasnt that far different on mpg there on both motorway or country, you just have to be more careful with your foot.

How you drive the car will make a huge difference to your mpg in these! On a run to Prague with me driving I had to stop an additional 2 times for fuel ... than my dad driving back who was just trundling along .... absolutly huge difference, was completly gobsmacked.

[LizardOfBodom]

Originally Posted by FunkyMelon

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.



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.

By "old T5" you are referring to 850's era? That was a totally different design in mind, I think. Also T4 on prev gen was hp turbo and mas meant to be a bit "scary" machine, where P1 T5 was designed as high power highway cruiser, I think. Everything, from turbo type to engine optimisation screams "I want smooth torque, not to have my face ripped off"

AFAIR 2.4 was released mostly for US market due to emmision and taxes, as it was the "basic" model there and T5 being the high power option. I dont think they had any other available engine types there.

[FunkyMelon]

Originally Posted by LizardOfBodom

By "old T5" you are referring to 850's era? That was a totally different design in mind, I think. Also T4 on prev gen was hp turbo and mas meant to be a bit "scary" machine, where P1 T5 was designed as high power highway cruiser, I think. Everything, from turbo type to engine optimisation screams "I want smooth torque, not to have my face ripped off"

AFAIR 2.4 was released mostly for US market due to emmision and taxes, as it was the "basic" model there and T5 being the high power option. I dont think they had any other available engine types there.

Yep, a standard T4 would spank a standard T5, as someone who owned both, the T4 was so much more fun to drive.

I remember reading when the P1 T5 originally came out and a lot of owners who currently had T4's traded them in for the T5 as an upgrade only to feel quite underwhelmed by it. It just doesn't feel like a quick car.

I've been told Volvo switched to a LPT design to make the car more drive-able, these P1 T5's don't struggle spinning on the spot, suffer much from wheel spin and can put the power down better than the older T4/T5's - That's what made the older ones so fun though!

[domhart10]

Originally Posted by FunkyMelon

Yep, a standard T4 would spank a standard T5, as someone who owned both, the T4 was so much more fun to drive.

I dont know by spank but looking at the figures the T4 has less power and is slower to 60 than the T5? probably feels more aggressive maybe? as the T5 might have a smoother power delivery making it more managable through the range.

[FunkyMelon]

Originally Posted by domhart10

I dont know by spank but looking at the figures the T4 has less power and is slower to 60 than the T5? probably feels more aggressive maybe? as the T5 might have a smoother power delivery making it more managable through the range.

I recorded via GPS a 6.3 to 60 in my T4 in bog standard form. I know I'm not the only one who finds them faster.

Maybe spank was the wrong choice word, it's as quick is not slightly quicker than a standard T5. It's also about 300kg lighter.

Lacks that T5 growl though

[LizardOfBodom]

Originally Posted by domhart10

I dont know by spank but looking at the figures the T4 has less power and is slower to 60 than the T5? probably feels more aggressive maybe? as the T5 might have a smoother power delivery making it more managable through the range.

I think its the combination of P1 feeling like a tank compared to old S40 (I remember this as my exact thought when sitting on my V50 seat for the first time). On paper T5 looks quicker for acceleration and speed when retaining almost the same weight, but I totally get what FunkyMelon is saying. I think its down to subjective feeling and T5's are really good in not showing off the potential of 220HP. (compare P1 to ST with same engine and ST will feel much quicker due to its boy-racer purpose :P)