Why 2.5

[Alpine]

Originally Posted by Clan

Volvo have not overstated capacity , they use the 2.4 badge for the B5244
( 2435 cc )
and the 2.5 badge for the B5254 ( 2521 cc )

The reason the T5 is 2300 is due to the bore being 1mm less than the 2.4 it would have been to make the liners thicker hence stronger , the 2300 was only used for the high boost engine . The 2300 came long before the 2.4 ...

but my 2.5 has the B5254 and its a 2435cc according to my handbook

[Clan]

Originally Posted by Alpine

but my 2.5 has the B5254 and its a 2435cc according to my handbook

I wouldn't believe everything in the handbook , although it is a source of some information you will not find anywhere else . Only the B5244 is 2435 cc otherwise it makes a mockery of the engine designation system . Are you sure you have the original engine or someone hasn't put a second hand cam belt cover on? What is the VIN ?

[Richard_TD]

My son has just bought a 1994 850 2.5 10V and both its V5 and Autodata have it as 2435cc.

[DaveNP]

Originally Posted by Clan

I wouldn't believe everything in the handbook , although it is a source of some information you will not find anywhere else . Only the B5244 is 2435 cc otherwise it makes a mockery of the engine designation system . Are you sure you have the original engine or someone hasn't put a second hand cam belt cover on? What is the VIN ?

As others have already said, car manufacturers have historically rounded up when describing their engines, when they rounded up from 1984cc to call it a 2.0L it wasn't so bad but Volvo got called out for rounding up from 2435cc to 2.5L, even a non mathematician would say 2435 is closer to 2400 than 2500. The engine stayed the same they just had to change the 'badge' even though a lot of Volvos didn't have an actual 2.5 or 2.4 badge on the boot anyway.
When I was a lot younger I was also told it was due to historical taxation arrangements where a car was taxed by its engine size with the bands starting at the round figure (up to 1999cc, 2000cc and over), it would make sense from a tax point of view for the 2litre to actually be 1984cc so as to get it into the lower tax bracket, not many people would want to buy a car with an engine at the bottom of the size and still pay the higher tax.
As you say it did make a bit of a mockery of the engine designation system, but the engine was defined as a B5252 not as a B52.4352, the 25 in the middle was just a convenient shorthand.

[Tetleysmooth]

I have a P reg 2.5T.
Would that be a 2435cc or a 2521cc?

I am confused.com

[sdg1970]

Originally Posted by Richard_TD

.0

Something I've been wondering is why the T5 is only a 2.3, why didn't they base it on the 2.4/2.5 engine?

I must say that my standard 1997 V70R, is no quicker than my standard 1999 V70 2.4T (lpt). Admittedly, I haven't had the R very long and Im hoping things will change for the better when I put a decent MAF on it....

[960kg]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Quite so, 'Richard_TD'!

From 1956 until 1964, the Morris Minor '1000' used the 948 cc 'A' series engine, thereby over-stating it's capacity. Later cars were fitted with the larger 1098 cc variant, thus (unusually) understating it; the '1100' being a totally different car altogether!

Regards, John.

With your Volvo overstatements you are really talking peanuts.....

I think Mercedes would win the overstatement competition as my V6 C320cdi is about 3cc short of 3 litres and probably should be 3,200cc as the straight 6 is.