SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Autogefuehl got 7.0 secs in it's 0-100 kph XC90 T6 run--probably 6.8 secs 0-60 mph. The video showed the XC90 driving around mountainous terrain after the test run, so I asked about the altitude during the test run. Was it in mountainous Bavaria???, and they admitted that it was. Munich, Bavaria is at 1,700 ft, and the higher the altitude, the poorer the power, therefore, the higher the time for the 0-100 kph run. And if it were a warm day, it might yield a much higher time than a cold day in Sweden at close to sea level. Just sayin' these 0-60 times can be widely variable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRwp6KwaXFc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Yeah, but altitude isn't quite as big a deal with a forced induction engine, especially a high-pressure one like the T6e. At 1700ft atmospheric pressure drops by "0.8psi. If the ECU controls boost to a gauge pressure then you only lose a straight 0.8psi vs. manifold absolute pressure somewhere in the 30's. (I'm having trouble finding specs but my understanding is that gauge pressure breaks into the 20s on that engine.) I doubt that's worth more than a tenth or two to 60 by itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,972 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Yeah, but altitude isn't quite as big a deal with a forced induction engine, especially a high-pressure one like the T6e. At 1700ft atmospheric pressure drops by "0.8psi. If the ECU controls boost to a gauge pressure then you only lose a straight 0.8psi vs. manifold absolute pressure somewhere in the 30's. (I'm having trouble finding specs but my understanding is that gauge pressure breaks into the 20s on that engine.) I doubt that's worth more than a tenth or two to 60 by itself.
But that is my point. 0-100 kph in 7.0 secs = 0-60 mph in 6.8 secs, then altitude of 1,700 ft = 6.6 secs, 0-60 mph. Independent testing from automotive journalists have yielded anywhere from 6.4 secs to 7.3 secs in the 0-60 mph run for the XC90. Quite a disparity! And Volvo says 6.1 secs. Just trying to reconcile the differences. Since the XC90 doesn't seem to get the rated mpg until it is well broken-in, maybe that's part of the explanation for the disparity in the 0-60 times?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
But that is my point. 0-100 kph in 7.0 secs = 0-60 mph in 6.8 secs, then altitude of 1,700 ft = 6.6 secs, 0-60 mph. Independent testing from automotive journalists have yielded anywhere from 6.4 secs to 7.3 secs in the 0-60 mph run for the XC90. Quite a disparity! And Volvo says 6.1 secs. Just trying to reconcile the differences. Since the XC90 doesn't seem to get the rated mpg until it is well broken-in, maybe that's part of the explanation for the disparity in the 0-60 times?
Lets just face the facts here, no one besides Volvo has been able to achieve the 6.1. So what this proves is basically whatever conditions Volvo was achieving said numbers were quite favorable to the t6s max potential. Everyone does it, why not Volvo. Probs brake torquing to generate boost, and maybe 1 gallon of fuel at sea level on a nice cold rainy day LOL.

However I doubt at this point by the overwhelming majority opinion on these forums anyone frankly cares that the t6 cannot achieve its stated 6.1 number.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
About the only concern is that it will get on the highway without disrupting traffic, or make a right on the red and be able to pull away quickly, Nobody that gets this car is going to be upset that the mustang beside them beat them to the next light. Regardless of the time I think we can all agree it's competent for a 2.0 engine hauling this much weight.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top