40 series performance table

[fergus]

Oh The Agony of reading about other people's rockets. I have a 1998 2.0 CD S40 whose performance is nothing like that of my wife's Audi 1.8. Its plain 0-60 on the straight and level is only made respectable by spending "a lot of time" in 3rd gear, and its 50-70 seems pathetic even in 3rd. The Audi will push you into your seat if the accelerator is pressed at 70 in 5th, while the S40 doesn't even seem to notice.

I know it's heavy (a recent posting to this forum referred to "such a heavy" car) and maybe the leather weighs a lot (but the "wood" certainly doesn't). Is the 2.0 the only version that hasn't been breathed on? All 1.6s and 1.8s seem to be "turbo" this or "i" that. I assume the 2.0 CD is turbo-no i-yes but doesn't bother to say so. Certainly everybody but me seems to have alloy wheels, surely a boast that under _their_ bonnet it's not just Meccano.

I don't mind possessing the sedate member of the family if it is sedate by Gothenburg design; nor do I mind if somebody (a more experienced owner-driver than I am) says "Oh it's fast enough, it's just that none of them feel that way".

At the moment the car (old in years, still new to me) is the best thing on 4 wheels, and I hate even to whisper the suggestion of an anxiety. Can anybody put this niggling disappointment to sleep? Maybe with a small table of model/bhp or even model/bhp/torque, or a reference to such a thing?


Thanks.

Fergus

Is your wifes 1.8 Audi the 1.8T or the standard 1.8? The 2.0 V40 has 140bhp, not sure about the torque though.

As for the turbos, it's only the 2.0T and the T4 that have Turbos. My 2.0T doesn't feel fast at all - until you look at the speedo. There is little noise, and the speed comes with minimum effort / fuss.

Regards

Stu

[Dan F]

Funny you should say that the 2.0 is surprisingly sluggish.
I found the 1.8 GDi engine to be a LOT more perky than the 2.0i.

Perhaps it just feels slower becuase the engine in the 2.0 is more relaxed....

The turbo cars are very quick, and it is easy not to know what speed you are going until you look at the speedo. ;-)

Dan.

[Ross9]

MAX
cyl/cc BHP SPD 0-60 MPG
Volvo 1.8 (-99) 4/1731 115 121 11 35.4
Volvo 1.8 (99-) 4/1783 122 124 10.5 34.5
Volvo 1.8 GDI SE 4/1834 125 124 10.5 40.9
Volvo 1.9 TD (-99) 4/1870 90 112 12.6 44.8
Volvo 1.9 TD Common Rail (2000-) 4/1870 115 121 10.5 52.3
Volvo 1.9D Common Rail (2000-) 4/1870 102 115 12.0 52.3
volvo 1.9D Direct Injection (99-00) 4/1870 95 112 12.5 50.4
Volvo 2.0 4/1948 136 127 9.7 33.6
Volvo 2.0T (2000-) 4/1948 165 137 8.5 34.0
Volvo 2.0T (to 2000) 4/1948 160 133 8.5 32.5
Volvo T4 1.9 4/1855 200 146 7.3 30.7
Volvo T4 2.0 4/1948 200 146 7.3 31.7

S40/V40 range, looking at the performance, it's true the 2.0 isn;t that great my old Rover 214 was quicker than that to 60, audi wise, the 1.8T will not surprisingly be noticably quicker, the 1.8 is probably still faster off the top of my head, figurativly speaking of course.

Hope this helps.

I certainly remember reading an autocar review of the S40 T4 and 0-100mph it was the fastest Volvo they had ever tested, something like 0-100 in 16seconds, which would give an Imprezza a good shock on a dry road.

Performance wise, the T4 doesnt feel especially fast, until you look at the speedo, I also have a 1989 Starion turbo, modified to 270bhp and the Volvo feels slow, but, on the road isnt that much slower at all, certainly once up to motorway speeds.

[Ross9]

Would definately agree with that.

Have driven a T4, and to be honest it felt slightly slower, or perhaps refined rather than slower is a better word, it was more civilized, than my Rover Turbo, quick glance at the speedo shows a different story.

Rover is 0-100 in 15.4 according to autocar, and I've modified mine above standard. Lost 0-100 to an S40 T4 last night, I probably didnt do it in the low 15's as it was damp and didnt get the best of launches, but then the T4 was on the same section of private drag strip and under the same conditions, so it didnt affect the outcome, on paper I should have won, after the 3 fig mark there was nothing in it, the Volvo had about a foot of a lead by the 100 mark. So, either this Volvo is especially quick, no 2 models off the line havce identical performance, those who use their cars a lot and work the engine tend to have faster cars, that perhaps dont last as long before repairs, I've seen this in Impreza P1's, Rovers, etc, standard car vs standard car, the more used one was always quicker. Coupled with the fact that Jacq is very good at the wheel of the car, and certainly gets the best out of it, and it's a very potent car. It's all about the cars torque, if mine was standard it would have the same T4, but yet a lot less torque, only a measly 174 lb/ft as standard, whereas the volvo is what, 220/230 lb/ft? Glad I nver tried it with the car standard, could see me taking a bit of a beating actually, lol. Knowing how fast my car is, and having had it timed etc on the 1/4 mile and on track, theres no way Jacqs T4 is as slow as the Volvo figures would indicated, I'd definately peg it under 15.5 to 100 and 6.5 to 60 at the very most. Was very impressed. A real street sleeper.

Out of interest, anyone know how much Boost an S40 T4 runs as standard, oh, and how much it can take on the standard internals? Oh, and does it have an ECU boost cut? what is the ECU mapped up to, for instance the Rover doesnt have a fuel map for anithing over 14.7 psi (1 bar), after that it has no map and runs lean, which isnt any good. I'd like to see the T4 running a few more Psi, doesnt cost much to do as long as you know what not to set it above. Cheers if anyone can help me with this info.

[Dan F]

Hi.

I have never had a 0-62 time of over 6.9 seconds in my old T4.
It was a stormer!
Once I tuned it mid sixes was the worst I got!

>Out of interest, anyone know how much Boost an S40 T4 runs as
>standard,

0.9 Bar. 13psi

>oh, and how much it can take on the standard
>internals?

It can take a lot on standard internals as long as temps are kept down, not sure of exact figures though but have read of 22psi before. A guy in (I think) Sweden has 305BHP out of his T4 using only a remap and a 19T turbo from a V70R 2.4 AWD Auto and an exhaust and downpipe.

>Oh, and does it have an ECU boost cut?

Yes it does, more of a fuel cut actually.
The boost control on the 2T and T4 are quite sophisticated as the ECU doesn't employ an inlet pressure sensor.
It calculates the boost by extrapolating from the inlet temp, exhaust temp and MAF readings. So keep your temps down in a T4 and they are very tunable!!

>what is the
>ECU mapped up to, for instance the Rover doesnt have a fuel
>map for anithing over 14.7 psi (1 bar), after that it has no
>map and runs lean, which isnt any good. I'd like to see the T4
>running a few more Psi, doesnt cost much to do as long as you
>know what not to set it above. Cheers if anyone can help me
>with this info.

I wouldn't set it above 1.1bar (15.5psi) to be safe, but 1.2bar (17psi) at a push, certainly no more than that without a remap.

I had mine max at 1.2 bar and it really flew.

Later,
Dan.

[v6en]

i have noted all the above with interest, thanks dan ;)

I drive an S40 2.0 and was anticipating that it would be quite like my manic little Clio 16V to drive in terms of taking off at only high revs. On the contrary - it has nothing to give after 5000rpm!

Not the fastest car I've ever had then, but that's not why you buy a luxury spec rather than sporting S40.

I personally can't see how a 1.8 normally-aspirated Audi A4 would bash a 2.0 S40, but then if one did, I'd go straight home and wheel out my garlic-smelling weapon of choice.