SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am having trouble finding out what the 0-60 time for a NA 2.4 auto is? I know this is supposed to be a slow car but i'm trying to find out how slow. This is for someone used to driving a 1999 Mazda Protege LX 1.6L 108hp Auto.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,831 Posts
just my guess....but 8-8.5 seconds
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
has anyone ever seen a test of this model?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Re: (iggy637)

2.0 litre 180bhp manual: 0-60 8.6 seconds; top speed 140mph; combined mpg: 30.7; CO2 emissions: 220g/km.<br>2.0 litre 180bhp automatic: 0-60 9.3 seconds; top speed 134mph; combined mpg: 28.0; CO2 emissions: 242g/km.<br>2.4 litre 200bhp manual: 0-60 7.5 seconds; top speed 143mph; combined mpg: 30.7; CO2 emissions: 220g/km.<br>2.4 litre 200bhp automatic: 0-60 7.8 seconds; top speed 140mph; combined mpg: 28.2; CO2 emissions: 239g/km.<br>2.3 T5 250bhp manual: 0-60 6.7 seconds; top speed 155mph; combined mpg: 30.4; CO2 emissions: 222g/km.<br>2.3 T5 250bhp automatic: 0-60 6.9 seconds; top speed 152mph; combined mpg: 27.4; CO2 emissions: 246g/km.<p><A HREF="http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=9" TARGET="_blank">http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/ro...?id=9</A><br>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I was referring to the naturally aspirated 2.4 L, the one that porduces 168hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,019 Posts
Re: (iggy637)

It's probably more towards the nines. Really, most people buying this engine are getting it for the mpg's not the ET's, so it is almost irrelevant--as long as it's not 14 secs...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,166 Posts
Re: (phuz)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>phuz</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">just my guess....but 8-8.5 seconds</TD></TR></TABLE><p>I would guess a bit higher considering my 2000 S40 with similar torbo'd HP was in that range....and lighter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Re: (MagoonR)

It'll be faster than your Protege. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/wink.gif" BORDER="0"> My girlfriend has a 626 2.0 auto and it's around 11 seconds. It's quite slow. She's doing this for not getting a standard. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vortexmediagroup.com/images/banghead.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Re: 0-60 time in 2.4 auto (iggy637)

It is around 10 +/- .5 seconds but it feels like 20. Look for a turbo model, the difference in price is not that much and you will be much happier with the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
643 Posts
Re: 0-60 time in 2.4 auto (iggy637)

<A HREF="http://www.volvocars.com/models/s60/techSpec.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://www.volvocars.com/models/s60/techSpec.htm</A><br>this is the international website, where you can choose from the model range and compare spec-wise.<br>as far as i can see, there are two different models with 2,4 liter n/a engines. i'm guessing that they would have the 170 bhp version on the US market. <br>according to the factory specs, the 2,4 liter 170bhp 5speed geartronic (auto) version has a 9,6 sec acceleration in 0-100km (which is like 0-62mph). the max speed is 135mph.<br>i don't know the prices in your country, but i too, would strongly suggest that you go for one of the the turbo versions if any of them is close to your price range. <br>it makes a huge difference to the n/a with even the LPT. (for an idea, the 2,5 LPT 210bhp geartronic hits 100kmh (62mph) in only 7,4 seconds. and the max speed is 142mph. apart from the 40bhp, there's also like a 75lbs/feet torque more. in the tests the LPT received many <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://********************/smile/emthup.gif" BORDER="0">s from most mags for very good low end torque, driveability, fun and so on... <br>if you lined up these cars and did a 0-60 sprint, the LPT will probably smoke the n/a with like 10 car lengths.<br>+if you give both cars $1000.- for upgrades, that difference will increase to 12-13 cars at least.<br>good luck. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/smile.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>ps: man i'm reading what i wrote now and geeez!.. one would think i work for volvo marketing department or something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
972 Posts
Re: (MrTippy)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>MrTippy</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It's probably more towards the nines. Really, most people buying this engine are getting it for the mpg's not the ET's, so it is almost irrelevant--as long as it's not 14 secs...</TD></TR></TABLE><p>People who buy this model only want to get from point A to point B<br>
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top