SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner
21 - 26 of 26 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
9,296 Posts
Re: (pie_ya)

Benefits:
- more torque on the road (quicker takeoff)
- quicker turbo spool (torque available earlier)
- shorter ratios (tighter powerband gearing)

Drawbacks:
- more torque on the road (wheelspin)
- quicker turbo spool (on/off behavior)
- shorter ratios (more shifting)
- reduced top speed
- reduced fuel economy
- need for other adjustments

It would completely change the car, that's for sure. Whether for the better, that's unclear. This is why I suggested prototyping it with smaller tires first.

I was considering the reverse, taller gearing, primarily for the fuel economy. The V50 T5 FWD gets significantly better fuel economy than the AWD, and it isn't (all) the additional weight and rotating mass. Just a thought experiment for now however.

Tom.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,470 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
i could care less about gas mileage. I'm paying to put 100 octane in my car....

if i wanted economy..i'd sell the R and get somethign else.

not to change the topic of the thread...but if my R gets 20 miles to the gallon and a civic gets 40 miles to the gallon... Assuming 15,000 miles per year (typical for average person) a car getting 40 mpg will go through 375 gallons. the car geting 20mpg will go through 750 gallons.

At 3.50/gallon, the 20 mpg driver pays $1300 more than the 40mpg car. Divided by 12 months, that's about $110/month.

I'd GLADLY pay an extra $110 month to drive an R vs. a civic or some other high mpg POS econobox/deathbox/etc. Practically every car that gets 40+ mpg is a piece of you know what. I'd rather not be seen it, and I sure as heck wouldn't want to get hit by a Hummer in it.

as gas prices continue to get worse, it will make more sense to drive an efficient car...but they aren't htere yet. it amazes me how the average person will happily pay $3.00 a gallon, but when it goes to $3.50 a gallon they have fits and whine about it. If they thought about it, there are plenty of other areas wehre they are getting raped in terms of finances....but say nothign about. how about most of these idiots who whine about gas prices..ask them waht rate they have on their visa card and i'll bet half say 19% APR. ask them their average monthly balance..and it's probably thousands of dollars.... yeah...those peopel are rocket scientists....

back to the thread....

i just want my car to be faster. If I can change my gears at a reasonable price, and gain acceleration that would be as if I had added 30-40 hp....I'd be all over it.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
9,296 Posts
Re: (23109VC)

Quote, originally posted by 23109VC »
If I can change my gears at a reasonable price, and gain acceleration that would be as if I had added 30-40 hp....I'd be all over it.

And I agree with you and say again, change your tires for ones that reduce the circumference by 6% and you can see for yourself. While it doesn't solve the problem of recalibrating the car, it's a) relatively inexpensive (compared to rebuilding whole drivetrains) and b) reversible.

Just a suggestion! Of course, the car might look a little silly, but actually the wheels would be lighter, and if it goes!? Well, it would prove quite a lot...

Tom.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,791 Posts
Re: (23109VC)

It would seem to me you would probably get a good increase in performance if you just got and ECU that will take advantage of the 100 your are putting in there already.
The final drive change will be a BIG and LONG involved job. It likely can be done, could just get custom gears made.
Best thing to do would be to get some really small tires for 17" pegs and see what you think of the change, figure out the percent change from the oem tire size and see how close you are to your targeted percent change in final drive from 3.77 to 4.0 or what ever you choose.
Just my thoughts.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,470 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Re: (vintagemilano)

you guys are all probably right.

if it could be done, ti would cost too much. and be a PITA.

it might just make more sense - if i wanted to go faster - to get a bigger turbo or FMIC.

thanks for the input. i just wondered if it could be done, and if so, if it woudl be cheap enough...looks like it's a negative!!

thanks
 

· Registered
Joined
·
11,962 Posts
Re: (23109VC)

Quote, originally posted by 23109VC »
Practically every car that gets 40+ mpg is a piece of you know what.

Not in Europe. They get Audi A8s with turbo-diesel V8s that do close to that MPG on the highway. And also do 0-60 in like 6 sec or so.
 
21 - 26 of 26 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top