Looks sexy!

 

Someone asked a really good question about engine variants appropriate for a P2R.

"What constitutes a 4T5 engine, you just take a 4T3 and put it in an R?"

Bottom line is Volvo white block engines after MY2000 are physically interchangeable, but not universally appropriate to maintain performance of a P2R. Main points: 93.2mm stroke (most models are (90mm), improved cylinder head design for HPT cooling (longer spark plug), stronger connecting rods, and teflon coated piston skirts.

The B5244T5 is a specific engine model that was only installed in 2005 - 2007 V70T5 and 2005 - 2009 S60T5 cars. The engine is identical to the B5254T4 in the P2R's except for 81mm bore (83mm in 4T4) and the oil level sensor in the oil pan, both engines use the K24 turbo.

The T3 is a much different engine…. Shorter stroke, weaker rods, less efficient cylinder head cooling. Its a Low pressure turbo engine.

Us this for reference:

Volvo Modular engine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I hope this helps.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

The T3 is a much different engine…. Shorter stroke, weaker rods, less efficient cylinder head cooling. Its a Low pressure turbo engine.

'03+ T3 and T9's stroke is better for higher power. Rods are forged and built exactly the same as the ones in the 4T4 and 4T5. The 4T3 and 4T9 are both very much HPT engines - not LPT engines in any form.

2.5T/R rod:

4T3/4T9 rod:

Same thing. Same thickness. Same forge. No difference in construction. Only difference is the length (147mm) to account for the better stroke in high-power scenarios.

 

I saw your video post on IG. Is this going in your wagon?

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

 

My old P2R, yes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

@ScottishBrick - thoughts?

 

The 93.2mm stroke motors have 143mm rods.

The -02 90mm stroke motors have 139.5mm rods.

The 02-05 90mm stroke motors have 147mm rods. The pistons are lightened, top ring moves up 2mm (5mm from top, 7 previously), shorter skirts, cast in steel ring glands, graphite coating. NOT Teflon.

The torque of the 4T2/4T4/4T5 comes from having dual vvt and aggressive use of it PLUS the heavier car/driveline load allowing the engine to develop load against that resistance.

The port volume of the RN, RNC prepped head is the same. It is the internal cooling passages that are larger.

The B5244T5 and B5254T4 are not as identical as everyone assumes. Just enough to be interchangeable.

In addition to the street knowledge (greens, pan)

-Water pump on the R motor has less teeth and spins 20% faster. As built.

-R engine uses graphite coated NA model main rod bearings, T5 did not.

 

The torque of the 4T2/4T4/4T5 comes from having dual vvt and aggressive use of it PLUS the heavier car/driveline load allowing the engine to develop load against that resistance.

Interesting discussion. I'm confused by this, intuitively it makes sense, but it sounds like you're saying if the car was lighter it wouldn't make as much torque.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I have never heard that water pump thing. Do you have any part numbers for those water pumps. I didn't see any differences when i changed my 4t4 to 4t5

 

Have seen plenty, it may have been an early run item. There's no specific PN for it in vida but it's missing 2 teeth.

 

Interesting. Also btw some 4t5 engines have oil level sensor in oil pan. Maybe somekind of continental difference there because my engine came from sweden.

 

@ScottishBrick - you're right on the 93.2mm stroke rod length, I mis-spoke.

I believe @SilverStreak177 was looking for your input on which combination is better for making HP.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Subjective.

Just stopped by to post those facts.

 

The 2003-2004 T9 is a special case, longer rods but the 90 mm stroke. This improves the rod stroke ratio and results in less piston sidewall loading. Piston acceleration rates e.g. to/from bottom dead center and top dead center are reduced, favoring high rpm operation, reduced piston stresses. Stresses on rods are lower due to reduced angularity, not sure where some of the comments there are coming from.

But, as AustinV70R and I have discussed, on another thread, the downside is that the T9 piston spends a greater amount of time at TDC thus at high boost there is more risk of detonation, at least I >think< that might be the case. Generally speaking higher rod to stroke ratios are less timing sensitive but ignition timing should change to account for the slower piston approach (to TDC) speeds. The other risk is piston to valve clearance upon valve opening, as Porsche found on the very early 4 valve motors combined with high lift cams.

On all the other Volvo motors (exceptions late (post 2009) in the B5 engine series when they played with greatly reduced stroke) the rod to stroke ratio is actually pretty bad, 1.55:1 or maybe 1.65:1.

 

I'll leave the performance capability of a short stroke 2.3 vs a long stroke 2.4 with these graphs; the 2.3 is the top graph and the 2.4 is the bottom. Both engines have comparable turbos (GTX3071R vs EFR7163 and both are tuned by excellent tuners. The 2.4 is running 93 octane with help from an advanced water / methanol system.

Ignore absolute numbers and focus on the torque band of each, this is where performance is truly felt.

2.3L 90mm stroke, 3071R, gasoline and E85

2.4L, 93.2mm stroke, EFR7163, 93 octane & W/M

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Energy density E85 vs 93 octane is pretty different. Interesting graphs though I always thought that class of turbos was oversized for the displacement.

 

Energy density E85 vs 93 octane is pretty different. Interesting graphs though I always thought that class of turbos was oversized for the displacement.

A bit big for street driving but then again the graph shows that.

Comes down to:

Do you want a turbo car that pushes like a V8?

Or do you want a turbo car that drives like a turbo car? I'll take the latter every time.

 

As a general rule, high rev, lower torque engines are a poor choice for AWD cars that have higher drivetrain loss than FWD cars.

The Audi RS3 curves should be the goal for the ideal 5 cylinder AWD car.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

I think of the corollary perspective... high revving engines are easier to "pedal" with a low traction front wheel drive car. All wheel drive gives you GRIP, so you can exploit an explosive mid range torque setup.

I used to rallycross my S40 (the 1.9l four, front drive) and I used a manual boost controller to turn the boost DOWN to about 5psi, because it made the car easier to drive since you didn't have to modulate throttle at all. Be nice if Volvo inherited the AWD aspects of the Evo III chassis, but nooooo It had the wide tunnel for driveshaft clearance and everything.

 

Longer strokes, in a forced induction engine, are easier on the rods and the bottom end in general. If you accept that "torque" will be the same whether it is 5 pounds of push on a 100 inch long crank or 100 pounds of push on a five inch long crank, you can see that the longer stroke requires less compressive force on the rod for the same output. This makes life easier on the rod, and it also makes life easier on the block, which is what is resisting the piston so all that push goes toward turning the crank instead of blowing the mains out the oil pan. (Or the top half of the block through the hood, like a tractor pull engine explosion)

I stuck my B5244T5 pistons/rods up against my Audi MC2 pistons/rods. Same 81mm bore but the MC2 engine is generally accepted to only be good for 80-85ft-lb per hole before the rods get bent. Imagine my surprise when the MC2 rods were actually beefier looking! The difference is the MC2 has an 86.4mm stroke, so it takes more compression on the rod to make the same torque at the crank.

1989 vs 2007. What I found really interesting is that both pistons have the same distances between the rings in the ring packs.

 

Very nice!

To being up another age old question: what are people's thoughts on cost/power/reliability of a 4t5 vs a 5t4 with sleeves?

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

 

Thats really the point of the original post&#8230;. 81mm or 83mm with shims is irrelevant; shims work. Spend the $$ if it makes you feel better, but I'd rather put the $2 elsewhere.

Don't forget that shims have been known to have their own issues.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

I think everyone’s getting too hung up on the stroke. It’s only 3.5% more.

Look at the power bumps to the RN evolution engines as the cams get more aggressive.

 

I think everyone's getting too hung up on the stroke. It's only 3.5% more.

Look at the power bumps to the RN evolution engines as the cams get more aggressive.

It is without a doubt true that dual VVT has allowed a significant advancement in cam profiles that a good tuner can exploit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

BTW - I’ve never said there’s anything wrong with an 81mm X 90mm 2.3L, 81 X 90 or 81 X 93.2 just represents a trade-off. I have an 81 X 90 in my 850 track car and love it. Its a 3000lb car and the engine is always spinning 4000 - 6500 RPM. It works awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

BTW - I’ve never said there’s anything wrong with an 81mm X 90mm 2.3L, 81 X 90 or 81 X 93.2 just represents a trade-off. I have an 81 X 90 in my 850 track car and love it. Its a 3000lb car and the engine is always spinning 4000 - 6500 RPM. It works awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Chicks dig the longball!
keeps posted….

 

^ You've been lied to, it's the motion of the ocean, not the size of the ship.

 

A hotdog down a hallway, regardless of the ocean motion….. I’ve got a pretty good idea who’s being lied to…..

I was merely pointing out how the thread was derailing….salut

 

I didn’t like the crush of the Glyco rod bearings I was supplied with the build kit, so I’ve been waiting for the Volvo bearings that just arrived.

In the mean time I’ve been filing 2nd rings that were all too tight at .012” - .014”.

Ready for assembly next week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Are Volvo rod bearing big ends select fit, or are they available in 0.25 mm increments?

Not too late to cheater stroke or cheater destroke for that matter . . . what is quench distance on this particular engine

 

Volvo bearings are only available in a single thickness.

This block was decked to achieve zero quench.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Progress…. Should have it wrapped up this week and ready to be reunited with the V70R.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Any plans to coat the outside of the block and head with silver paint (heat resistant obviously)? Would make it look factory fresh.

 

It would look nice, but I’ll leave that to the owner if he’s interested. I’ve got a Ford 331 stroker 302 for my sons 245 waiting for this engine stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

I see no point in wasting money on a forged motor unnecessarily. If the engine block is B5244T5, with original pistons, the Swedes have 830 forces on the E85 for 5 years. All you need is a forged connecting rod. And the block in races holds 1200+ forces.

 

Totally agree!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Volvo's problem is not power, the problem is its implementation. The transmission is very weak

 

@SilverStreak177 Sorry to bring an old thread back to life guys but im having a dilemma for my turbo setup I have a 03 B5234T3 V70 T5 and want to run a gtx3076 on the stock internals Is it thru that the rods are the same forge and strength as the B5244T5 ? Like SilverStreak177 mentioned earlier in the thread.... Is it safe to run lets say 450bhp on the stock internals?

 

I'd defer to Will (@ScottishBrick) and Austin (@Austin V70R)!