SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 20 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,028 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Let see I’ve owned the S40 for um9 months, chipped for about 8 months. Went through one clutch, have SSS, got way better mpg, did the mpg mods, like now iridium plugs, air filter, 44 PSI, and for some reason even the Pirelli performance tires seem to have helped. <p>So where do I stand. <br>My first thought and this was when Mistral was on his BSR can’t add xyz HP crusade was. Sure BSR adds lot of HP, BUT my personal thoughts and I never posted it the stock HP is or can be WAY under what Volvo claims. Well I unchipped today and ran my GTECH which is reasonably accurate. Stock = 155 WHP chipped 186 WHP. So there are stock road test of T5 doing so 15.0 or even 14.9 or 14.8s which is about 185 WHP or there abouts. Same goes for chipped, I ran an actual as measured no correction factor 236 WHP, so why am I at 185 WHP now. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/confused.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>I conclude via 9 months of butt dyno, one nigh of ¼ mile and a bunch of reading that this is one finicky engine and stock WHP can varry from say 150 WHP to 185 WHP and chipped WHP can varry from say 180 WHP to 235 WHP, <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/zeroforum_graphics/screwy.gif" BORDER="0"> depending on the phase of the moon, the temps, what color bibs I have on, type of fuel pretending to be premium and the like. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/mad.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>So a chipped S40 really just only guarantees you at least the factory HP <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/rolleyes.gif" BORDER="0"> , and depending if you got red bibs on backwards maybe a lot more and factory HP can range from Wow <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/eek.gif" BORDER="0"> this is great to what the Heck? I just got blow by a stock Camry <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/mad.gif" BORDER="0"> .<p>So it is kind of frustrating to fry a clutch on a car that was performing slightly better then stock on the first trip down the tracks, even more frustrating to have HP vary +/- 25 WHP for no know reason.<p>So I’m into this:<br>Car 25.3K<br>Tires $700<br>Drag tires and rims $600<br>Clutch $1055<br>BSR $836<br>BSR upgrade that has not come in 6 weeks $195<p>Oh and the clutch kit, did not come with pilot tool, slave, and had a solid hub even though it was suppose to have springs and was 1.5 days late.<p>That is a lot of money for a car that maybe slightly faster then a Civic SI, or maybe depending on bibs much faster and BTW a whole LOT of work. Needless to say for $2500.00 I should have kept my car stock and looked for an older Civic with VTEC DOHC engine swap…<p>So the limited demand for parts leads me to belive, that ANY performance from this car is going to be: expensive, a long frustrating wait, and even if you do get the part it may or may not perform upto expectations and since there are so few doing it you will be at the bleeding edge like a spec clutch that suppose to have springs but does not so it has even poorer performance on the street then wanted or desired. Like I would have just waited to see if an R spec would fit..<p>Oh well, I may just put the car back to stock chip so I can run regular and look for a stock R disk to swap out and take another 4 days of pain in the butt work.. All to have a car that I could have had day one.<p>My advice right now would be to put so good tires on a sports suspension, maybe rear bar, don’t race it, don’t autoX<br>Or<br>If chipped or if you want to ¼ or autoX then you probably gonna need a clutch and if we can really confirm the R clutch would fit I’d do that.<p>But be warned engine performance on this car and it would appear clutch performance is all over the place.<p>Now to take my over frustration with the S40 and just about every vendor part and figure what I’m going to do about my lack of sub woofer as I don’t want to get raped anymore. I think I’m going to be sick.<br><BR><BR>
<i>Modified by Oldman at 5:36 PM 3-23-2006</i>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Re: S40 after 9 months.. (Oldman)

Thats lame. I do agree with the odd performance of the car on full moons low tides. Mine all over the place. However I do know it runs better with 87 than 91 all the time and thats about it. I've wanted a bsr chip ever since you got one but now I'm not sure. I'll wait till the first oil change to make up my mind. By then everone who has run one should be able to report back. Oh well.<p>Chad B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
Re: S40 after 9 months.. (BlackT5)

I also agree with you, for some reason my car feels quick as hell one day and slow as poop another and the temps are not drastically different, so I am not sure what is going on.<p>I have also had many reliability problems, everyday I am debating a trade-in for something else….I just don’t know where I stand, this car confuses me.<br>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,424 Posts
Re: S40 after 9 months.. (awd)

I believe the R have been experiencing the unexplained slowness problem for a while. I believe it boils down the cars are tuned for 94 octane ( 98 RON ). Most of the R crowd get the best results when they blend grades to achieve 94.5 octane. Maybe sometimes we get lucky and get a high octane at pump which makes the car go fast.<p>One such R discussion is as follows:<br><A HREF="http://forums.swedespeed.com/zerothread?id=54575" TARGET="_blank">http://forums.swedespeed.com/zerothread?id=54575</A><p>Does anybody know a place to get race gas in Dallas? If not, how about toluene or xylene?<p>In another topic, I tested using GTech too. I got 173 HP for stock. Tried 3 times and got the same reading. After BSR, I got 186 HP. I only tried post BSR once.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,028 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Re: S40 after 9 months.. (volvoNB)

<A HREF="http://www.vpracingfuels.com/vp_01_fuels.html#unleaded" TARGET="_blank">http://www.vpracingfuels.com/v...eaded</A><p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,028 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Re: S40 after 9 months.. (volvoNB)

your stock reading for an auto is not too bad, I read the link and except for a few weeks during the Katrina my car has been 93 only. It would near kill me to buy 5 gallons of VP racing fuel every week and do a mix. That would be $1200 of fuel every year...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Re: S40 after 9 months.. (Oldman)

Poor you. That 1200$ for fuel is like my fuels for two or three months here in Finland
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,424 Posts
Re: S40 after 9 months.. (Oldman)

That's why I fill up at Chevron stations where the Premium unleaded has its own hose now. I was filling up one day at a Chevron where all three grades share the same hose and noticed how long the hose was and how far the it has to travel until it reaches the part where the grades switch. To me it looks like it can at least fill up one gallon of fuel. Figuring most people pour regular unleaded, I don't want to mix one gallon worth of 87 octane with my 93. Then the next wazoo gets one gallon of my super.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,028 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Re: S40 after 9 months.. (bbb)

um that is in addition to my normal fuel bill, and it ain't my fault socialist run your country. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/rolleyes.gif" BORDER="0"> but hey at least the girls are fine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,028 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Re: S40 after 9 months.. (volvoNB)

so your saying someone is using my hose? <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
180 Posts
Re: S40 after 9 months.. (GoSwedeRacer)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>GoSwedeRacer</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I also second, third and forth the feeling of inconsistent performance... I thought it was just me.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>I fifth that!<p>I am really close to getting rid of mine
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
662 Posts
The same goes with my 2.4i, sometimes I feel like it wasn't a bad buy, but some days I feel like the car is slower than a geo metro.<p>I think that it could be because of the car "learning" how you drive. This car has so many aspects controlled by electronics. I still like the car though. Gets me from point A to B smoothly and safely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
Re: (VolvoINSIDE)

My 2006 V50 T5 AWD has been totally consistent according to my butt dyno.<p>Also, the suspension with IPD rear sway bar and strut tower brace (the latter which probably does very little) is awesome. Stiff as a brick, for what is really not supposed to be a real sports car.<p>Somehow I thought oldman liked this car, at least the suspension.<p>Anyway, I use 91 octane (highest I can get in California). I'm loving this car so far, personally. Not sure if I'm relating relevant stuff here. I don't have an ECU change. Also, this is the most powerful car I've owned, so I might not be as capable of comparing this car to others. I know I'm lame, but to me who wants something practical, it's a practical powerhouse at reasonable cost, maybe not on a track, but more than adequate for sporty driving in traffic or without traffic.<p>I've driven new TSX. I've driven new A3. I've driven countless Civic and Accords since 1990. The Hondas are appliances - they do the job, but there is no fun. The TSX is Mozart symphony number 41 - pretty much perfect but doesn't REALLY have a Beethoven type punch. A3 - not sporty.<p>The T5 is not a GTO for power.<p>Anyway, oldman is more of a car expert than I am. Maybe this car is not as capable of being aftermarketed. Sorry if I'm rambling too much. <p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,028 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Re: (bassman)

suspension is good, better with good tires. rear bar maybe prefect.<p>It is the engine HP that is +/- 20 HP stock and +/- 30 HP with chip, that is a huge change and easy to show on the GTech. To my mind it is not worth $$$$ on ECU, high test fuel, and clutch for me, only to NOT know if you can beat down a V6 Accord wich runs on regular fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Re: S40 after 9 months.. (Oldman)

This is a most interesting post, and mine is long, but I believe necessary in the face a harsh criticism of the Volvo S40 T5. There is much criticism around the stock performance capabilities in the car, yet there appears to be very little stock in the car we are discussing. Manufacturers' software, etc, are optimized for the stock settings. While most modern cars allow for modification parameters (because of over conservative parameters), there are not created to be boosted, re-chipped, flashed etc. like many here do. It is unfair to criticise a Volvo which has been modified as heavilly as some here have.<p>The Volvo B52xx variants have always enjoyed stock plugs. In fact, on multiple occasions we have seen instances where fancier plugs (be them Bosch platinum, iridium, etc.) have actually yeilded a <I>decrease </I>in performance. On many occassion we have seen evidence that traditional Copper core plugs yeild the best performance<p>The clutch issue has been dealt with in another post. I remain adament in my belief that stock clutches are MORE than adequate to handle the power of the T5. However, as indicated here multiple times, this car has been boosted and raced. If this is anyones intention with any new car you must make the committment to higher clamping force. Simple.<p>Getting large performance from any modern car is more difficult that it used to be. Gone are the days where you could simply shorten the rod on the wastgate and adjust with a pressure gauge. Those day ended in the Volvo world with the 850. Cars have evolved since then and the S40 is no exception. For such evoloution we have better performance, better mileage, smoother rides etc.- The downside- computer power is necessary to optimize ignition and fuel mappings for performance, and this is not a DIY project anymore- on any car.<p>The performance in the car is quite consistant in most cases. But there are numberous outside factors which will effect performance:<p>a) The ECU's learns driving patterns and selects a ratified routine based on past history. This optimization began with the Jetronic 2.4 system in 1990, and has evolved to today more sofisticated systems. Different cars will learn different patterns. If you don't like yours (because there are multiple theories on break-in for this reason) have the adaption reset by your dealer.<br>b) DSTC will intervene during any type of slippage, and will not always illuminate the lamp, but will retard timing. Remember you can NEVER over-ride the AYC function, which on the track could kick-in<br>c) Fuel quality- there is more to the science of combustion than octane- and yes, different fuels will make a difference in performance<p>Please don't ever make the mistake of comparing this car to a Honda. The engineering is light years ahead, the price point is drastically different and the cars are both built to appeal to very different clients.<p>Niether clutch or engine performance are all over the place. You are simply asking to much of simple engineering. Increased power necessitates increased clutch power. Engine performance is optimised for street driving and is done with multiple safety products which will scale engine power back for control OR longevity reasons. The ECU is programmed to be very sensitive to spark knock, and given that more consumers are beginning to use 87 AKI fuel due to price, manufacturers have to take this into consideration if they are going to sell cars. This is one of the biggest reason around software upgrades- to enhance the ability of the motor to run consistantly on an ever degrading fuel quality. North American fuel is amongst the dirtiest in the world- it is a major factor in ECU calibration. Again there is way more to the science of fuel than an AKI rating.<p> If it your decision to race your S40 than the car will take the abuse, but you have to give it a fighting chance. Please to criticise the car because a clutch burnt out on the drag strip, or because the engine is scaling back power because traction control or some other aid is working in the background. Remember what the purpose of a production car is- I believe in the performance Volvo, but I also know what draw 99% of people to a showroom- and its not racing, but it is those people who pay the bills.<br>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,028 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Re: S40 after 9 months.. (mcvolvo)

mcvolvo wrote <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> This is a most interesting post, and mine is long, but I believe necessary in the face a harsh criticism of the Volvo S40 T5. There is much criticism around the stock performance capabilities in the car, yet there appears to be very little stock in the car we are discussing. Manufacturers' software, etc, are optimized for the stock settings. While most modern cars allow for modification parameters (because of over conservative parameters), there are not created to be boosted, re-chipped, flashed etc. like many here do. It is unfair to criticise a Volvo which has been modified as heavilly as some here have. </TD></TR></TABLE><p>“Heavilly” what are you smoking? A chip Volvo goes to the tracks and the clutch smokes on the first pass. I can tell you the downloaded software weighs almost nothing. I did have K&N filter, aftermarket rims and tires, and spark plugs. I think any reasonable person would say this is a stage 1 modification, or <b> mildly </b> modified.<p>Plus I put the car back to stock out side of the panel filter, tires, engine oil and spark plugs oh and light bulbs, so now it would be MINIMALLY modified and my GTEC shows 155 WHP which is way way way under what a stock T5 should do.<p><br>mcvolvo wrote <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The Volvo B52xx variants have always enjoyed stock plugs. In fact, on multiple occasions we have seen instances where fancier plugs (be them Bosch platinum, iridium, etc.) have actually yeilded a decrease in performance. On many occassion we have seen evidence that traditional Copper core plugs yeild the best performance </TD></TR></TABLE><p>Well I can put my stock 1000 mile plugs back in, care to lay any money on my power gain? I bet my bib color is more pertinent.<p><br>mcvolvo wrote <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> The clutch issue has been dealt with in another post. I remain adament in my belief that stock clutches are MORE than adequate to handle the power of the T5. However, as indicated here multiple times, this car has been boosted and raced. If this is anyones intention with any new car you must make the committment to higher clamping force. Simple. </TD></TR></TABLE><p>It is my opinion that the clutch is hopelessly weak, and marginal at best even in a stock T5. “Raced” means less abuse then my stock GS-R got every single day for years before I went to turbo. BTW. <p><br>mcvolvo wrote <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Getting large performance from any modern car is more difficult that it used to be. Gone are the days where you could simply shorten the rod on the wastgate and adjust with a pressure gauge. Those day ended in the Volvo world with the 850. Cars have evolved since then and the S40 is no exception. For such evoloution we have better performance, better mileage, smoother rides etc.- The downside- computer power is necessary to optimize ignition and fuel mappings for performance, and this is not a DIY project anymore- on any car. </TD></TR></TABLE><p>right, I doubled the HP on my last VW, 50% on my LS1 Camaro, tripled the HP on my GS-R Integra and I’ve heard that it is far too complicated for DIY for each and every car going back to my 69 Camaro. Like I’m sure I got more education, more mechanical experience and more DIY then just about anybody on the face of the planet.<p>mcvolvo wrote <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The performance in the car is quite consistant in most cases. But there are numberous outside factors which will effect performance: <br>a) The ECU's learns driving patterns and selects a ratified routine based on past history. This optimization began with the Jetronic 2.4 system in 1990, and has evolved to today more sofisticated systems. Different cars will learn different patterns. If you don't like yours (because there are multiple theories on break-in for this reason) have the adaption reset by your dealer.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>If the dealer could fix my SSS I’d me more then happy, getting my car to behave like it should if that can’t be done by unhooking the battery for a few minutes then maybe I need a new car that does not learn how to lose 30 HP. <br>mcvolvo wrote <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> b) DSTC will intervene during any type of slippage, and will not always illuminate the lamp, but will retard timing. Remember you can NEVER over-ride the AYC function, which on the track could kick-in </TD></TR></TABLE><br>I have STC which I disable during performance testing. I have not a clue what AYC is. But if I have AYC at the whole whopping 155 WHP maybe something is wrong with the car design? <br>mcvolvo wrote <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> c) Fuel quality- there is more to the science of combustion than octane- and yes, different fuels will make a difference in performance </TD></TR></TABLE><br>93 octane here for life except a few ½ fills of cheap stuff during Katrina and the car was dynoed after that at 236 WHP. <br>mcvolvo wrote <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Please don't ever make the mistake of comparing this car to a Honda. The engineering is light years ahead, the price point is drastically different and the cars are both built to appeal to very different clients. </TD></TR></TABLE><br>V6 Honda Accord 30 MPG highway, regular fuel, 244 HP, 0-60 in 6.9 seconds, 14.5 in the ¼ mile. There is no comparison. The Accord is offering far better, far more consistent performance on cheaper fuel and I’d bet my bottom dollar the clutch would last longer then the first ¼ mile run.<br>mcvolvo wrote <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Niether clutch or engine performance are all over the place. You are simply asking to much of simple engineering. Increased power necessitates increased clutch power. Engine performance is optimised for street driving and is done with multiple safety products which will scale engine power back for control OR longevity reasons. The ECU is programmed to be very sensitive to spark knock, and given that more consumers are beginning to use 87 AKI fuel due to price, manufacturers have to take this into consideration if they are going to sell cars. This is one of the biggest reason around software upgrades- to enhance the ability of the motor to run consistantly on an ever degrading fuel quality. North American fuel is amongst the dirtiest in the world- it is a major factor in ECU calibration. Again there is way more to the science of fuel than an AKI rating. </TD></TR></TABLE><br>Obviously the first statement is your opinion and my fried stock clutch says otherwise, and people on this board who drive stock T5 everyday will disagree about performance and my GTECH on my near stock T5 shows performance far BELOW factory quote and I doubt it will be rising anytime soon, but to make you happy I’ll put the stock plugs back in. unless you think my tires, air filter or oil effect my HP?<br>The rest of the statement I agree with, but this is not an R, it is a low boost car and I should be able to expect the full 218 BHP or at least 185 WHP every time as long as I’m at or in my case above the 91 octane required for the car. I run 93 octane. If Volvo can’t deliver that under just about ANY condition then they should publish what I should be able to expect. My GTECH says stock 155 WHP, there are dyno runs that show the same. My butt dyno says the same. I’m sure the Accord puts out consistent HP on 87 octane.<br>mcvolvo wrote <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> If it your decision to race your S40 than the car will take the abuse, but you have to give it a fighting chance. </TD></TR></TABLE><br>Yes I had some expectation that mild drag use equivalent to two stop light challenges would not lead to failure of the clutch. Why don’t you substitute the words a few short burn outs for race as that is what it took to fail the stock clutch. You sound like the dealer, you raced it your fault, you RACED, RACED, you can’t expect your car to work if you RACED it.<br>mcvolvo wrote <TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Please to criticise the car because a clutch burnt out on the drag strip, or because the engine is scaling back power because traction control or some other aid is working in the background. Remember what the purpose of a production car is- I believe in the performance Volvo, but I also know what draw 99% of people to a showroom- and its not racing, but it is those people who pay the bills. </TD></TR></TABLE><br>You ain’t reading the post are you. My car is back to STCOK and the power is way way way down from what it should be. STC is turned off and as far as I know there is no other traction control and plus I’ve tried 3rd gear runs and there is no traction issues on a smooth dry road, my high performance tires and the measly 155 WHP my GTEC shows… so there. Oh yeah I know must be my plugs…<br><BR><BR>
<i>Modified by Oldman at 9:40 AM 3-25-2006</i>
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
Top