SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi SS! First post here, long time reader. I'm in the market to move to a bigger car (currently have an Gen 1 Acura TSX) to a wagon for the space and nice ride/features (have 2 kiddies, drive a lot and have to carry a boatload of stuff for work).

My question is about the 2 engines offered I see, the 2.4 and the 2.5T. I imagine with the non-turbo, the performance is less, but has less maintenance and the MPG is better. Am I correct? What are the pro's and con's to each engine?

I'm looking at lower mileage (>75K) P2 V70's. I've seen a few nice ones with this criteria between 2004-07.

Best!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
T5 came with the 2.3L engine (high pressure turbo).

2001-2004 low pressure turbo cars came with the 2.4L engine (2.4T).
2005+ low pressure turbo cars came with the 2.5L engine (2.5T).

The 2.5T low pressure turbo engine, is a much better engine than the 2.4T in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63,541 Posts
Wrong
2004s came with the 2.5, not 2005 (I Just bought one)
The difference is not even close.
A 2.4 non turbo is a complete slug, it can't get out of it's own way.
The 2.5T is a very nice engine with good driveability all throughout the rev range
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,778 Posts
I happen to have owned BOTH V70 2.4 Naturally Aspirated and 2.5T. The 2.4 NA was a 2000MY and the 2.5T is a 2007. Both were / are similarly equipped.

The difference in gas mileage between the two varies by how hard you drive. I typically got 30mpg on the highway with my Naturally Aspirated one, PROVIDED that I kept it below 75 miles per hour. I have found that at 80 mph indicated that the 2.5T gets about 2-3 mpg less than the Naturally aspirated one. I find that the gas mileage in the 2.5T naturally goes down if I act like I'm driving NASCAR.

So far, the 2.5T has been the more reliable car but I attribute that to it being a 2007 instead of a 2000 MY. Volvo has a history of getting "bugs" out of cars the further along they get in production.

THE BIG QUESTION: How are you going to use the car? The 2.4 NA is perfectly acceptable performance wise on sea level, flat terrain. Although it wasn't what I would call a rocket. I went to the 2.5T because I go to the NC Mountains a couple times per year and I find the 2.4 to be gutless past about 3500 feet altitude.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Thanks guys, good info. I was confused for a bit reading about the 2.4 having a turbo, glad I understand. I guess I need to get some seat time with both power plants to decide. I dread going to any used car dealer and these are almost non existent from private sellers (that meet my lower mileage and condition criteria).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Wrong
2004s came with the 2.5, not 2005 (I Just bought one)
OOPS, I thought the 2.5T came out in '05, but I was wrong.

To summarize:

V70R (AWD) better than T5
T5 better than 2.4T or 2.5T
2.5T better than 2.4T and 2.4 NA
2.4T better than 2.4 NA
2.4 NA better than the 240 LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
955 Posts
I went with the 2.4 na for that exact reason, it is slow and gets great gas mileage. The fast car was the stg3+ B5 S4 ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
I used to have a 2001 V70 2.4 NA that I used mainly for highway trips between central Georgia and southeastern North Carolina. I had that car for a bit less than two years and 32,000 miles. The power for the car is adequate, but nothing to sing about. I never felt that it was dangerously slow, but it certainly wasn't fast either. I would routinely get 30mpg when cruising at 70mph. However, if you pushed into the higher speeds, the mpgs went down significantly.

My wife currently drives a 2004 C70 with the 2.4 turbo engine, but I haven't had it long enough to give an opinion about the maintenance differences between turbo vs. non-turbo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Wrong
2004s came with the 2.5, not 2005 (I Just bought one)
The difference is not even close.
A 2.4 non turbo is a complete slug, it can't get out of it's own way.
The 2.5T is a very nice engine with good driveability all throughout the rev range
And to be more specific...

All the AWD's got the 2.5T in '03. The rest in '04.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,511 Posts
Both the 2.4T and the 2.5T are more than capable to do the job. The 2.5T is bit more better all rounder but not by much. My '02 V70XC has the 2.4T before they switch to 2.5T for MY2003. Great reliability and good fuel economy too if you drive sensibly. The 5AT Geartronic helps too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63,541 Posts
I just did a 400 mile round trip with some stop and go, I averaged 28.7 in a V70 2.5T.
80 miles were in hills and I was not hypermiling it at all, doing 75+ all the way
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,511 Posts
Sensible driving and at constant speed is great for gas mileage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63,541 Posts
Sensible driving and at constant speed is great for gas mileage.
Driving on the NJ turnpike and the Garden State Pky is anything but "sensible"
If you're not going 75-80 you will get run over, double fines be dammed!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,511 Posts
Gotta go with the flow then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,555 Posts
I went with the 2.4 na for that exact reason, it is slow and gets great gas mileage. The fast car was the stg3+ B5 S4 ;)
Nice thing about the NA is that, just like the T5 and R, one can get it with the manual trans. Although MT is a "driver's" car, it is also a "miser's" car too, as the torque converter on an AT has natural slippage until "locked" at cruising speeds, so gas mileage is down, esp in stop/go situations. MT=direct drive & no loss. Our 2 2.3MT cars get 3-4 mpg city over the 2.2AT cars they replaced.

The turbocharged engines are a bit more "needy" in that the oil also goes to the turbo to keep it spinning freely and the turbo is picky about its oil quality. When it starts to sheer, it affects turbo longevity, so keeping up on oil changes is a must. Going full synthetic is a plus (and with the price of raw oil, dino motor oil can't be much cheaper than synth anymore anyway)

IDK the ages of your kids, but the V70 and XC70 have optional back seat built in boosters. Best option ever, IMO. Occasionally a car will show up in Autotrader where they took pics of the boosters in place & you can see how great they really are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I've seen the booster seats and definitely think they would be handy. At ages 1 & 3, I still have the full kids seats now though.

I'm off to test drive an '07 with the 2.5T right now, though I don't think I'll like the color (Lunar Gold) and they want an arm and leg (almost $19K).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,367 Posts
2007 for the win. Hope the test drive went well, but sorry to hear it's gold. =(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,555 Posts
Better be uber-low miles and loaded to the hilt.

booster, HU 850, heated seats, 3rd row, driving lights, parking sensors, nav, but we home no Nivomats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
2007 for the win. Hope the test drive went well, but sorry to hear it's gold. =(
Well, I got to the dealer and it was....SOLD. Hadn't even been on their show lot yet. They said they put it online and it was gone it 2 days.

I wasn't upset, I wasn't going to buy, I just wanted to give it a go on the highway. It looked like brand new (from the outside) though!
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top