CarWow made an acceration and braking test against S4, E53 and S4. Unfortunately the Volvo lost.
S60 Polestar drag race against German competition
1 reading
Piotrunho
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
That 13.8 quarter mile time is slower than the previous gen S60 Polestar cars (the previous models are in the 13.2 to 13.6s range). Also that exhaust sound is a huge step backwards.
Problem is the weight, and the fact that it doesnt really have over 400HP. You cant just add the power values since they dont all operate throughout the rev range, at certain RPM and speed you are only really running off the turbo and the 4 pot which really hurts the car thats carrying the extra weight of the batteries and electric motors.
Lots of people really dont understand the twincharged engine and I blame Volvo marketing for that. The supercharger does very little in these cars, in fact almost nothing in a drag race. The reason they have it was because when they decided to go for this stupid one engine for everything strategy they needed to figure out how they would be able to move cars as heavy as the XC90 with any kind of pace that was going to be competitive with other vehicles in that price range.
They couldnt just strap big turbos an call it day, the lack of toque in the low end for a heavy car would mean it would feel utterly gutless on a daily drive. They added the tiny supercharger to make it feel more lively at low RPM, and it works, but it was more of a necessity rather than Lancia Delta S4 Rally car inspired twin charging.
The harsh reality is the VEA platform is just not a good performance platform, not for anything over 1500KG IMO, but hey thats life, and its basically end of the line for Volvo anyway until everything goes full electric. It didnt need to be class leading, it just needed to be good enough on paper so that its at least in the ball park with the Germans.
If you want Volvo performance, stick to the 5 and 6 cylinder cars and upgrade the turbos.
Problem is the weight, and the fact that it doesnt really have over 400HP. You cant just add the power values since they dont all operate throughout the rev range, at certain RPM and speed you are only really running off the turbo and the 4 pot which really hurts the car thats carrying the extra weight of the batteries and electric motors.
Lots of people really dont understand the twincharged engine and I blame Volvo marketing for that. The supercharger does very little in these cars, in fact almost nothing in a drag race. The reason they have it was because when they decided to go for this stupid one engine for everything strategy they needed to figure out how they would be able to move cars as heavy as the XC90 with any kind of pace that was going to be competitive with other vehicles in that price range.
They couldnt just strap big turbos an call it day, the lack of toque in the low end for a heavy car would mean it would feel utterly gutless on a daily drive. They added the tiny supercharger to make it feel more lively at low RPM, and it works, but it was more of a necessity rather than Lancia Delta S4 Rally car inspired twin charging.
The harsh reality is the VEA platform is just not a good performance platform, not for anything over 1500KG IMO, but hey thats life, and its basically end of the line for Volvo anyway until everything goes full electric. It didnt need to be class leading, it just needed to be good enough on paper so that its at least in the ball park with the Germans.
If you want Volvo performance, stick to the 5 and 6 cylinder cars and upgrade the turbos.
The boat I have has a supercharged and turbocharged engine, a Volvo Penta, not Volvo anymore ! It's a 4 cylinder diesel, I think it's about 3.6 litre capacity. The supercharger boosts low down power/ torque, the turbo kicks in for higher end power. Only 300HP. Huge torque though. Quite economical but it sound awful.
In a big heavy car that engine would work well !
I much preferred the sound of the 5.7 V8 petrol engines in our previous boats though !
In a big heavy car that engine would work well !
I much preferred the sound of the 5.7 V8 petrol engines in our previous boats though !
Joined
·
263 Posts
The 2017 Volvo V60 P* has a quarter mile time of 13 seconds flat @ 108mph and 0-60 of 4.4sec as tested by Car & Driver (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15098019/2017-volvo-v60-polestar-test-review/). That's great for a stock wagon with AWD that can hit over 30mph hwy all covered by factory warranty.
But yeah, I'm not a fan of the new Polestar direction. This is likely my first and last Volvo.
But yeah, I'm not a fan of the new Polestar direction. This is likely my first and last Volvo.
Car and driver always post absolute best case times. I dont think many people are getting 13 or sub 13s quarter mile times on any stock twin charged V60 polestar. Especially with warm ambient temps.
I definitely dont get anywhere near 13s in my S60, granted its hot in my country and we only have 95RON fuel ( US 91 ). Though actual 3.0L engines dont seem to suffer as much from lower quality fuel and higher air temps. In fact thats the problem with small heavily boosted engines is that they need a lot of things to be perfect for them to hit their peak performance, whereas the bigger engines plod along happily.
The C30 T5 and the S60R really punched above their weight in their class, modern Volvos are struggling in performance compared to cars in lower categories.
I definitely dont get anywhere near 13s in my S60, granted its hot in my country and we only have 95RON fuel ( US 91 ). Though actual 3.0L engines dont seem to suffer as much from lower quality fuel and higher air temps. In fact thats the problem with small heavily boosted engines is that they need a lot of things to be perfect for them to hit their peak performance, whereas the bigger engines plod along happily.
The C30 T5 and the S60R really punched above their weight in their class, modern Volvos are struggling in performance compared to cars in lower categories.
Joined
·
64 Posts
Here in San Diego we don't have a close 1/4 mile event but we do have 1/8 mile stuff. The best I did in my V60 Polestar on 95 octane (half tank with a mixture of 100 and 91) was an 8.2 seconds Compared to other cars the Polestar launches off the line better than 90% of the other cars. For example me and my buddy in his 400 tuned Focus RS would always match up and we would switch cars to see if we could make his RS get off the line faster. It never happened. Although if it were a full 1/4 the RS would take the Polestar. But for the 1/8 it was always 50/50 on who would win depending on how this shifts went and heat soak was.
Yeah the launch of the twincharged car is probably its strongest area, whatever they tuned on the haldex for these cars really worked because off the line i can leave most things behind, short of a Nissan GTR, but after about 30 meters or so any car with around 300HP+ or so will reel me in.
The car is particularly strong on acceleration from low speed roll or without launch control, i think thats because the supercharger helps get the car off the line. I know that most of the pure 2.0L turbo cars ( like the Merc A45 and the Audi S3 ) stand no chance off the line against me without using launch control.
It kinda sucks though that pretty much all the 3.0L cars will reel me in on a straight line, Audi S4, BMW 340i, Merc C43. And the pre facelift versions of those cars make less power than the Volvo does. On top of that they have tons of options for tuning, we have basically nothing.
I find the closest rivals for this car seem to be other 2.0L cars, like the WRX STI, Audi S3 Sedan, and the VW Arteon 2.0L R. Sure those are decent cars but the Twincharged cars were supposed to be competing in a higher category and they are priced for that category too.
Joined
·
383 Posts
Typically I've been the first to bash the 2.0L motor but this time I'm going to head in a different direction... I wonder if there will be some sort of decent aftermarket emerging since this is really the only motor that Volvo is using for the near future. What would be needed to get 400+hp out of this motor short of more air (bigger turbo) and fuel? Is the motor capable of that type of power level? I cannot see why it wouldn't be. And you have the supercharger there to allow low end grunt while the bigger turbo spools up. Correct me if I'm wrong but this motor should be able to create a solid 400hp on its own without the help of electric motors. I say all this owning the 3.0L motor that I desire much more than the 2.0L. Still, I just don't understand why the aftermarket hasn't really jumped at this.
All that said, the stock Polestar S60 really isn't all that great in terms of performance. I don't know if the standard Volvo buyer really cares or would notice. But, to me, it's really unacceptable to put the Polestar badge on it. Maybe call it "Polestar tuned" instead. Just embarrassing to the company to be way behind all of the other Euro competitors in terms of performance.
All that said, the stock Polestar S60 really isn't all that great in terms of performance. I don't know if the standard Volvo buyer really cares or would notice. But, to me, it's really unacceptable to put the Polestar badge on it. Maybe call it "Polestar tuned" instead. Just embarrassing to the company to be way behind all of the other Euro competitors in terms of performance.
There's news this week that Geely is using its Volvo ownership and its ownership share of Mercedes to have them work together on future ICE design. I'm wondering if this might mean that Mercedes will simply get super- and turbo-charged engines, or if Volvo might get 6-cylinder engines back. Or if it has something to do with PHEV (dual-train) design.
Yes it is aactually a common engine for Volvo, in fact even some cars badged as T3 (such as manual T3 V40s) use essentially the same engine. Though I do not see much of an aftermarket for it. Just not enough people in the industry have done much with the engine, in fact try and find one thread of a built engine...youll find one for pretty much any car, but not these.
Most tuners havent even seen what the block of one of these engines look like, nobody knows the exact turbo specifications for some of the models, nobody knows the injector specs, nobody knows much of Cyan racings engine changes for the VEA engine TC1 car so we cant even try apply to the road cars. Volvo has no affiliates or tuners actively doing anything for the platform or providing remotely any support to anybody. Compare this to Ford, or BMW or Toyota who constantly are working on projects with small tuner companies at shows like SEMA.
Its just a whole lot of nothing at the moment and theres nobody high up in Volvo or Polestar that seems to be enthusiastic enough about performance to get the ball rolling on anything new. The days of the S60 and C30 Polestar concepts are long dead.
Also speaking to mechanics at Volvo, these engines dont have much headroom in them anyway, engine knock and heating issues as well as cylinder lining wear issues are already a problem STOCK.
Its been what, over 3 years now and the only real kit is a Heico piggy back ECU that ships with an existing Do88 Intercooler and a BMC filter, that gets you just short of 400HP ONLY if you have access to 98RON+ fuel and less than 10c outside air temps.
There are no major manufacturers even making downpipes for these engines despite there being 10000s of them around.
Its the reality unfortunately, the problem is mostly related to Volvo and their decisions to distance themselves from their performance and racing heritage. And theres just no sign of that changing soon. There needs to be some level of compliance coming from them otherwise the ECUs will stay under lock and key and nobody will put the level of reverse engineering into these to get just 30-40HP more. Extensive engineering effort is needed to make big leaps, but Volvo VEA platform is just seen as being unapproachable and not worth the effort by every major tuner even those that historically did a lot for Volvo cars.
Yeah of course, S60 isnt a great platform, it a big heavy barge with horrible weight balance, but then...so is a Merc E class, so is a Ford mustang, and so was the Volvo 850R Wagon. A companies top tier performance car really needs to have some level of enthusiast passion, trying to get the absolute most out of them, that just hasnt been happening with Polestar of late.
They have constantly been going backwards instead of forwards, i can tell you for a fact that my tuned C30 T5 was a better car than the 2.0L S60 on almost every level, and if you bought a norma old 6 pot S60 T6 and did a bit of modding youd utter embarrass the new Polestar cars. That really shouldnt be the case.
Joined
·
20,164 Posts
Probably too small a market for any tuner to dedicate resources ($$$). That's always been the challenge for Volvo.
Joined
·
753 Posts
Locked ECUs preventing meaningful remaps, so only piggybacks exists. This allows for Volvo to sell Polestar upgrades.
People are putting a lot of weight on what a 'Polestar' should be. In reality it was a niche sub-brand that basically existed for one model run. There is no big history here to compare it to. If i was a Volvo lover, id be more concerned about what happened to the 'R' brand!
Breaking Polestar off into its own brand was the smartest thing Volvo could do. Letting them touch one of the standard models with gold tinges was the dumbest thing they could do.
Yes, thats right, losing the R cars was actually a much bigger deal but i think most of us didnt worry that much because we thought Polestar was going to pick up that segment and run with it. In retrospect we know that the Polestar cars that ended up reaching production werent really comparable to R models. From an engineering standpoint, an S60R was quite a bit different from a normal S60 T5, most of the parts are different or upgraded. The mk2 S60 Polestars did have some hardware changes from normal S60 T6 but very few compared to an S60R.
Then you get to the current Mk3 engineered S60 Polestar cars and they are basically stage 1 bolt on cars with some yellow trim. Which would have been fine if they had either 1. Competitive performance or 2. Value for money. But they are neither, and Volvo i think were well aware that it wasnt a great product, hence online orders being the only option to buy them initially. Overproduction was too big of a risk.
Joined
·
6,048 Posts
Twin big turbo's would've provide plenty of torque - turbo's make big torque in small engines, and more than the SC does. The main issues with this setup are big turbo lag, weight and fuel consumption. Turbo's on the boil devour fuel. A smaller SC does enough to get the car off the line without killing the MPG, then hands-off to the turbo where it is more efficient and producing power. I was hoping that the P* cars in sport would allow all power bolt-one's to run together, achieving that combined power number.
Thats the problem though, they dont really work together, its a hand off like you say.
And putting twin turbos on an inline 4 engine just isnt practical, you only have one bank and as a result of the firing order of an inline 4 you cant really run parallel turbos without having massive lag. The ideal layout will be having the entire banks exhaust manifold going into a single turbo. In the old days what they would have done is run a sequential turbo setup, but modern day twin scroll systems help achieve the same lag reduction but with better efficiency and a less complicated design.
In the case of the Polestar/VEA inline 4 the turbo is just a standard turbo since because of the supercharger handling low end rpm boost, a twin scroll setup is unnecessary and you can just go for a simple possibly bigger single scroll setup.
Problem is other manufacturers are achieving these numbers (and more) with just normal 4 cylinder twin scroll setups without the extra complication Volvo added to their engine. Personally i just don't see what advantages the twin charged setup offers over the competition. Also the weight saving over the 6 cylinder unit is huge overstated by volvo. Its something like 19KG difference, thats nothing for something as large as the S60, its like having a thin vs fat driver, or taking a small dog out of the car.
All the extra performance comes mostly from the new 8 speed gearbox ratios and the adjustments to the haldex AWD calibration.
With the same tweaks the 6 cylinder would have been faster, even with less power.
The twincharged 2.0L engine is just not the right engine for this car, it needs a lot more real world torque than this engine platform offers.
Im not trying to bad mouth the car i own, it is a good car. Though i think Volvo could have done much much better here given the pricing and competition, but instead in the new S60 its even worse.
Joined
·
20,164 Posts
Like somebody said in one of these threads, it's just about branding, performance was secondary.
Nobody's really talked about the weight gain - hard to find official specs (not listed on Volvo's website for some reason, lol) but this thing has to be 800-900 lbs heavier than the P3 car.
Nobody's really talked about the weight gain - hard to find official specs (not listed on Volvo's website for some reason, lol) but this thing has to be 800-900 lbs heavier than the P3 car.
Joined
·
383 Posts
800-900lbs heavier??? Oooof. How much more could the S90 and V90 variants weigh then?
There was a point where I really wanted a V90 prior to getting my 2016 V60 P*. It's actually kind of comical... there was definitely a short stint of buyer remorse after I got the P*… I thought that I made the wrong decision... but those thoughts quickly evaporated once I realized the 90 is restricted to the 2.0L motor. Volvo almost had me... I was confused by their continued use of the T6 naming nomenclature not realizing that it is only a power level now and not indicative of the engine size. :/
Not that it matters now but in terms of deciding to have only one engine powering all of their models here in the US, how difficult would it have been for Volvo to use a different motor or make the displacement of the 4-cylinder motor a little bigger (say 2.4L)? That may have helped bridge the performance disparity. I'm very interested in seeing how Volvo fares in the upcoming few years. There seem to be quite a few issues with the Drive-E motor already. It's gotten to the point where I recently told a friend of mine to not look at the new Volvos when shopping for cars.
There was a point where I really wanted a V90 prior to getting my 2016 V60 P*. It's actually kind of comical... there was definitely a short stint of buyer remorse after I got the P*… I thought that I made the wrong decision... but those thoughts quickly evaporated once I realized the 90 is restricted to the 2.0L motor. Volvo almost had me... I was confused by their continued use of the T6 naming nomenclature not realizing that it is only a power level now and not indicative of the engine size. :/
Not that it matters now but in terms of deciding to have only one engine powering all of their models here in the US, how difficult would it have been for Volvo to use a different motor or make the displacement of the 4-cylinder motor a little bigger (say 2.4L)? That may have helped bridge the performance disparity. I'm very interested in seeing how Volvo fares in the upcoming few years. There seem to be quite a few issues with the Drive-E motor already. It's gotten to the point where I recently told a friend of mine to not look at the new Volvos when shopping for cars.
Joined
·
263 Posts
I've had no issues with the Drive-E motor. The Polestar S60 TC1 engine is based off the Drive-E. The not-so-secret Sport+ mode is a variant of the anti-lag system in the TC1. If anything, the P* using the heavily modified Drive-E is much closer to the P* WTCC-winning race car technically, which is really cool and actually has direct motorsport lineage.
Joined
·
91 Posts
What quite a few issues with the twincharged engine are there? Yea at full MSRP I don't understand this car. At the nearly 30% off I got on it, it's fine for what it is.
Joined
·
20,164 Posts
There are a few supercharger problems that are affecting quite a few owners over on the FB page. I don't pay as much attention because I have the older model.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
