after being a volvo owner of 10 months and trying to get all I can get for my T5, I've come to realize that Volvo aftermarket isn't quite up to VW/Audi or all the others. the "Best" magazine test we got doesn't even yield a 2 digit hp gain with 5 k mods. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/zeroforum_graphics/screwy.gif" BORDER="0"> don't want to cry, and wish I was old enough to pretend I was snob enough to not care but hey , what's up? Evolve never offered a larger turbo, a lot of people with bsr s aren't happy, vp can't get the deals right or volvo can't get it right to vp??? the 5/108 bolt pattern is somewhat unique , I believe volvos, and more volvos share this this bolt pattern but almost nobody else , don't know seems like us volvo folks could use some real aftermarket .
Volvo aftermarket suck???
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Re: Volvo aftermarket suck??? (gdogg16)
not necessarly, and not quite ready to TOTALLY give up (make the wife sell her car) but it just seems we should deserve the same aftermarket quality as others. had I known , probably would have got that 1.8 Vw jetta wagon 3 yrs ago.
not necessarly, and not quite ready to TOTALLY give up (make the wife sell her car) but it just seems we should deserve the same aftermarket quality as others. had I known , probably would have got that 1.8 Vw jetta wagon 3 yrs ago.
Re: Volvo aftermarket suck??? (V50_T5)
There's only so much you can do. And what do you do? You look at the one tuner who is offering overrated numbers based on 98 RON . Next thing that happens is that US folks go out and buy that chip tune and run 91 AKI with it and wonder where the power went... A stock ECU will do better in that situation..<p>If all tuners say 255 max for the T5 and one says 285 who do you think is right?<p>LPT's can't be tuned that well mainly because of the miniscule turbine on that engine which is blocking the whole engine. No DP can get you past that. Also the block casting is weaker compared to that of an R so you will run in to limits at that end after changing the turbo so why bother?<p>A solid and proved 255 at the crank using a Ferrita DP, maybe an exhaust and a nice chip is all that gives.<p>Big brake kits can be found, coil over suspension can be found, rims are available etc. etc. etc.<p>
There's only so much you can do. And what do you do? You look at the one tuner who is offering overrated numbers based on 98 RON . Next thing that happens is that US folks go out and buy that chip tune and run 91 AKI with it and wonder where the power went... A stock ECU will do better in that situation..<p>If all tuners say 255 max for the T5 and one says 285 who do you think is right?<p>LPT's can't be tuned that well mainly because of the miniscule turbine on that engine which is blocking the whole engine. No DP can get you past that. Also the block casting is weaker compared to that of an R so you will run in to limits at that end after changing the turbo so why bother?<p>A solid and proved 255 at the crank using a Ferrita DP, maybe an exhaust and a nice chip is all that gives.<p>Big brake kits can be found, coil over suspension can be found, rims are available etc. etc. etc.<p>
Joined
·
116 Posts
I think that you know what you get to when you buy the car. Why not buy a different car if this one doesn't meet your performance needs? <br>I also don't see a point in buying a car and changing suspension, brakes, etc, etc as soon as you get it....enjoy it a little the way it comes.<br>If you want more power why not get a TL, or a 330, or a G35?<br>Just my thoughts!<p>
Re: (Imtheweezel)
yes I know a turbo car puts out more HP when cold, but I'm thinking -30 HP from cold to Texas hot, maybe more. What does that have to do with BSR not being able to call me and tell me where my stage III upgrade is after two and a half months? <p>BSR is designed for 94 octane, but can work on less, I run 93 so it ain't like I'm pumping in 91 or ethanol bull. I understand a LP is going to be pushed and will be much better off when cold and with 94 or better. I may even mix fuel if I knew I could get some consistent performance.<p>Now back to the stock car's performance, I have not heard, not seen, nor do I think my car stock could cut a 14.9, in the 1/4 mile. Maybe a magazine test before a snow storm in Denver, that gets altitude corrected. Sorry but I did not read any where that Volvo states 218 HP on 93 fuel just before a snow storm. Other car companies and Volvo itself with the T5 S60s can get the performance from a 2.5 liter engine under most conditions. <p>IMO the little turbo just runs too hard and too hot even stock and has hence the ecu has to yank a lot of timing out for any fuel (once again I’m on 93 octane). We know that small turbos driven hard produce lots of hot air which leads to detonation. The intercooler is small too, much smaller then my V40. So IMO only under optimal conditions with optimal fuel does an S40 see 218 HP stock, conditions that don’t happen in Texas. Maybe in Sweden, but see I purchased the car in Texas, and I would expect the OEM to design enough size and efficiency in the turbo and intercooler to provide acceptable levels of performance all the way up to 110 degrees. As we have seen in the magazine test of the R under hot conditions, Volvo seems unable to do so, and I’m sure the S40 performance would be just as poor. I live in Texas and you can believe me, that there will be lots of chip guys complaining of performance in the next month or so.. <p>I would note that IMO even stock perforce suffers due to fuel quality and temperatures. Volvo recommends 91 octane minimal, I run 93 octane, I should expect the engine to run as advertised… I highly doubt a stock S40 t5 will take down a stock Civic SI in the summer time. You need a chip just to maintain near stock rated HP at any temperature above say 80 degrees… <p>My dyno run at 27X engine HP was done at about 50 degrees. It’s been in the 100 degree range here and my car with chip is maybe doing 240 engine HP…. So yes I agree a LP turbo, chip, small intercooler, Texas heat, your going to be lucky to say much gain. I think that is acceptable given the nice linear driving behavior of the car and the good MPG. <p>What is not acceptable is that BSR has had my money for months and has no reply and charges TRIPPLE what I paid for my VW chip. <br> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://********************/smile/emthdown.gif" BORDER="0">
yes I know a turbo car puts out more HP when cold, but I'm thinking -30 HP from cold to Texas hot, maybe more. What does that have to do with BSR not being able to call me and tell me where my stage III upgrade is after two and a half months? <p>BSR is designed for 94 octane, but can work on less, I run 93 so it ain't like I'm pumping in 91 or ethanol bull. I understand a LP is going to be pushed and will be much better off when cold and with 94 or better. I may even mix fuel if I knew I could get some consistent performance.<p>Now back to the stock car's performance, I have not heard, not seen, nor do I think my car stock could cut a 14.9, in the 1/4 mile. Maybe a magazine test before a snow storm in Denver, that gets altitude corrected. Sorry but I did not read any where that Volvo states 218 HP on 93 fuel just before a snow storm. Other car companies and Volvo itself with the T5 S60s can get the performance from a 2.5 liter engine under most conditions. <p>IMO the little turbo just runs too hard and too hot even stock and has hence the ecu has to yank a lot of timing out for any fuel (once again I’m on 93 octane). We know that small turbos driven hard produce lots of hot air which leads to detonation. The intercooler is small too, much smaller then my V40. So IMO only under optimal conditions with optimal fuel does an S40 see 218 HP stock, conditions that don’t happen in Texas. Maybe in Sweden, but see I purchased the car in Texas, and I would expect the OEM to design enough size and efficiency in the turbo and intercooler to provide acceptable levels of performance all the way up to 110 degrees. As we have seen in the magazine test of the R under hot conditions, Volvo seems unable to do so, and I’m sure the S40 performance would be just as poor. I live in Texas and you can believe me, that there will be lots of chip guys complaining of performance in the next month or so.. <p>I would note that IMO even stock perforce suffers due to fuel quality and temperatures. Volvo recommends 91 octane minimal, I run 93 octane, I should expect the engine to run as advertised… I highly doubt a stock S40 t5 will take down a stock Civic SI in the summer time. You need a chip just to maintain near stock rated HP at any temperature above say 80 degrees… <p>My dyno run at 27X engine HP was done at about 50 degrees. It’s been in the 100 degree range here and my car with chip is maybe doing 240 engine HP…. So yes I agree a LP turbo, chip, small intercooler, Texas heat, your going to be lucky to say much gain. I think that is acceptable given the nice linear driving behavior of the car and the good MPG. <p>What is not acceptable is that BSR has had my money for months and has no reply and charges TRIPPLE what I paid for my VW chip. <br> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://********************/smile/emthdown.gif" BORDER="0">
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Join the discussion
SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum
A forum community dedicated to Volvo owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, builds, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, new releases, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
Join now to ask and comment!