Re: Geartronic: R vs 2.5T AWD (Ozvol)

Quote, originally posted by Ozvol »

Where is the R's main advantage over the 2.5T AWD. Obviously its faster, but where do you really notice it? People go on about the GT being slow, on the figures it is relatively slow compared to the manual, but where does it feel its best?

Braking, it is still slightly better and the handling...no other Volvo handles like the R. Seats are a more supportive and the R gives you certain features standard, such as DSTC, Bi-xenon lights, 17" alloys, etc. Plus the R's highway acceleration is way ahead of what the 2.5T LPT engine provides (whicb is very good, I have to say).

Yannis

 

Re: Geartronic: R vs 2.5T AWD (Ozvol)

If by chance you do get the 2.5T AWD, I recomend that you get the sport package (17" Thors, Speed Sensitive Steering, Sport Seats). The 17" thors really make the car look alot better.

 

Re: Geartronic: R vs 2.5T AWD (bigtomhammer)

Thanks for your replies.

We're still waiting on the New S40 to decide whether we'll get an S60 or S40.

 

Re: Geartronic: R vs 2.5T AWD (Ozvol)

Quote, originally posted by Ozvol »

People go on about the GT being slow, on the figures it is relatively slow compared to the manual, but where does it feel its best?

I agree with what Yannis said. The strengths of the GT lie in the other things that make an R an R, and not at all with the engine and transmission.

As for where the GT feels its best, I'd have to go with 2nd gear. Torque is reduced, but at least you can spool it out to about 6700 in manual shift mode. It gives me an idea of what the car should be like all the time.

 

Re: Geartronic: R vs 2.5T AWD (DF)

How does the R GT compare to the T5 GT?

 

Re: Geartronic: R vs 2.5T AWD (Ozvol)

I have both (V70R 6 speed & an'02- 2.4T S60AWD) and trust me between those, there is a huge difference.
Now the 2.5T is supposed to be a bit faster but I really haven't spent any time in one to make any statements about it.
GT v GT, I think the R strengths are at higher speeds but huge difference in suspension brakes, ride, interior etc.
JRL

 

Re: Geartronic: R vs 2.5T AWD (JRL)

Yannis, are you saying that the bi-xenons are a plus?! from what I've heard they're a real disadvantage! All people do is complain about them

 

Re: Geartronic: R vs 2.5T AWD (895meztz94)

He forgot!
JRL

Quote, originally posted by 895meztz94 »

Yannis, are you saying that the bi-xenons are a plus?! from what I've heard they're a real disadvantage! All people do is complain about them

 

Re: Geartronic: R vs 2.5T AWD (Ozvol)

Quote, originally posted by Ozvol »

I've just been looking at some Volvo specs and the R doesn't seem to have much of an advantage over the 2.5T AWD in Geartronic form for standing start acceleration based on 0-100km/h. Here are the figures: R - 7.5s (some quote 7.4s) 2.5T AWD - 7.7s This 0.2s is a tiny gap for an extra 66kW/90HP.

What is even more interesting is that the 2.5T AWD has a lower final drive ratio, meaning that it runs about 400 - 600 rpm lower than the R at the same speed. The R should be significantly quicker for this reason alone, even if it didn't have such a power advantage. The geartronic tranny is a strange beast and we all know that the torque has to be limited in the R to prevent shredding the transmission over time.

But still, 258 lbs.-ft. of torque at 1900 rpm with shorter gearing vs. 236 lbs.-ft at 1500 rpm and longer gearing should result in more of a difference in 0-60 acceleration. The extra power of the R will come in at higher speeds. The extra HP doesn't help you much at launch, but the closer you get to the aerodynamic limits of the car, the more the 300 hp will help you. Acceleration from 100 mph+ will be significantly better in the R I would assume.

Bottom-line: don't buy the GT R for performance. Buy it because of all the other lovely unique to the R features. I just took delivery of my V70 2.5T AWD with all options because the lease financing is wildly better on the non-R models. I am putting Eibach springs on and already have changed the wheels. If I were purchasing, I would have gone with the R because you are getting very good value for the incremental price increase. I loved the seats in the R. The 4C isn't actually that big a deal for me, but I wouldn't turn it down

What bothered me was the higher revs in the R. One of my favourite features in a car with lots of guts is having a top gear that you can cruise at insanely high speeds without taxing the engine. If the R had really good 6 speed fully manually-shifting option auto, I would have gone with the R for sure. As it stands, I can enjoy my GT AWD at 1600 rpm legal speeds on a two-lane highway and cruise....cruise being the keyword...at 100 mph barely touching 3000 rpm. I know I am a bit weird, but that is a big part of my definition of a nice car.

And by the way, should I need more pep, the PPC upgrade system will give me 302 lbs.-ft of torque and 250+ hp. (Of course, you could push the R up the scale, too, but I think these numbers would be more than adequate!).

 

Re: Geartronic: R vs 2.5T AWD (Marc R Collins)

How can the drivetrain in the 2.5T AWD withstand an upgrade to 302 lbs-ft? It's pretty much identical to the one in the R.

 

Re: Geartronic: R vs 2.5T AWD (Marc R Collins)

Quote, originally posted by Marc R Collins »

But still, 258 lbs.-ft. of torque at 1900 rpm with shorter gearing vs. 236 lbs.-ft at 1500 rpm and longer gearing should result in more of a difference in 0-60 acceleration.

You're forgetting that the R GT's are further torque limited in 1st and 2nd gears (than 258). More than likely it's somewhere around 240 lb-ft. Also, you'll find that the R GT will easily meet (and beat) Volvo's rated 0-60 times, repeatedly (as opposed to the 6mt's requiring brutal, clutch-burning launches that still don't meet rated times at rated conditions, i.e. 77F weather).