I"ll be looking for another vehicle this summer as we discuss putting the wive's 2001 V70 T5 out to the pasture...
I love the 2.5L engine, know it well, looks like there is room to work in the engine bay, ect.
Seems the only concern voiced is the power for this engine in such a heavy vehicle. I won't be towing and we are pretty flat in Ohio...who is very happy with their 2.5L? Any other concerns with the 2.5L in this vehicle?
Lastly what power did they rate the XC90 and the 2.5L at? I"m looking in the 04-06 range.
thanks.
Shawn
who is happy with the power of their 2.5L?
who is happy with the power of their 2.5L?
Shawn F.
2001 V70 T5
2003 XC70
1996 Vw Passat Tdi
1999 Porsche Boxster
2004 Chevy Suburban LT 5.3L
2013 & 2015 S60 T5
2008 Vw Touareg T2 V6
1989 Sea Ray 340 Sundander
2007 Sea Doo Challenger 180 SE
2001 V70 T5
2003 XC70
1996 Vw Passat Tdi
1999 Porsche Boxster
2004 Chevy Suburban LT 5.3L
2013 & 2015 S60 T5
2008 Vw Touareg T2 V6
1989 Sea Ray 340 Sundander
2007 Sea Doo Challenger 180 SE
-
The Blue Whale
- Posts: 87
- Joined: 13 September 2010
- Year and Model: 06 xc90, 2011 xc60,
- Location: Amory, MS
- Been thanked: 1 time
I have an 06 FWD xc 90 with 5. I think it is as quick as my 98 v70 that I still drive to work.
I have an 06 2.5t FWD- 105k miles. Plenty of power, 208hp/236ft-lb- it drives well in city traffic, freeways or mountain passes. It's no rocket, but but if I wanted that I wouldn't have bought the xc90. It's been easy to maintain & trouble-free. I really don't think the 8 is necessary unless you'd be doing frequent heavy towing. And the T-6, of course, is only for those hardy souls who enjoy rebuilding trannys.
I recently bought an 04 2.5t awd and find it pretty reasonable. It doesn't feel underpowered at all. I probably wouldn't tow anything heavy with it and don't expect extraordinary acceleration if you are already going at 60mph, but otherwise I find it plenty of power.
The other day I drove friend's compact sedan (a 1.5 liters I think), and that felt underpowered. After trying that, my XC90 felt very powerful.
Bottom line. If I had to choose, I would buy a 2.5t again. It's a well proven engine, lots of info and parts, and I'm happy with its performance. I wouldn't buy the t6 for the transmission issues. The v8 is probably very fast, but it's an overkill.
The other day I drove friend's compact sedan (a 1.5 liters I think), and that felt underpowered. After trying that, my XC90 felt very powerful.
Bottom line. If I had to choose, I would buy a 2.5t again. It's a well proven engine, lots of info and parts, and I'm happy with its performance. I wouldn't buy the t6 for the transmission issues. The v8 is probably very fast, but it's an overkill.
I'd agree on the comment about proven and parts...that is why I'm getting input.
From what I understand the T6 issues were only on a couple years models, correct? The siter-in-law has a 2008 T6 and says they told her no issues...
From what I understand the T6 issues were only on a couple years models, correct? The siter-in-law has a 2008 T6 and says they told her no issues...
Shawn F.
2001 V70 T5
2003 XC70
1996 Vw Passat Tdi
1999 Porsche Boxster
2004 Chevy Suburban LT 5.3L
2013 & 2015 S60 T5
2008 Vw Touareg T2 V6
1989 Sea Ray 340 Sundander
2007 Sea Doo Challenger 180 SE
2001 V70 T5
2003 XC70
1996 Vw Passat Tdi
1999 Porsche Boxster
2004 Chevy Suburban LT 5.3L
2013 & 2015 S60 T5
2008 Vw Touareg T2 V6
1989 Sea Ray 340 Sundander
2007 Sea Doo Challenger 180 SE
Technically the T6 (2.9L) only went from 03-05, 06 only offered the 2.5 and V8. In 07, the 6cyl was an inline (3.2L). That's why hers is not giving her problemscarboncow wrote:From what I understand the T6 issues were only on a couple years models, correct? The siter-in-law has a 2008 T6 and says they told her no issues...
. I had an 850 for a while (still have it) before deciding to get an XC90 and wanted the 2.5 mainly because of the tried and true aspect of the engine. It is so similar to the 5 cyl they have been perfecting since 93 or so...
As for power, I think you'll be fine, I test drove a T5 wagon and it did have a bit more pep than my XC90, but I don't race and it has plenty of power for what I need, I don't tow either and have the FWD. If you really want to feel some more zip, for around $1K you can get an ipd CPU upgrade that takes if from 208hp to around 250 and tourqe to around 300 I think. They also have an HD turbo vavle that I have read helps. Haven't done either myself yet, but it's on the list for one day. I am in the mountains and with a full load and CC set to 60-65 through the canyon it doesn't ever downshift to get up the hills.
I have made a number of entries regarding my XC90's performance on this site if you want to look some of them up.
BTW, I fly into Columbus, OH tomorrow morning.
Good luck!
05 V70R TiKap (so happy) 91K
05 XC90 2.5T FWD TiBlak 97K
94 850 wagon 2.4 (N/A) 155K (Sold running like a champ)
05 XC90 2.5T FWD TiBlak 97K
94 850 wagon 2.4 (N/A) 155K (Sold running like a champ)
-
outrigger777
- Posts: 73
- Joined: 1 November 2010
- Year and Model: 2006 xc90 1998 v70xc
- Location: Evergreen, Colorado, USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Found this interesting article about the power (and torque) of the 2.5T xc90. Hope you enjoy. From 2004.
I�ve looked at the V6 Cayenne prior to deciding to buy the XC90 2.5T and the Cayenne had a sticker price at $54,000. Porsche claims their VW Cayenne does the 0-60 in �a remarkable 9.7 seconds� (see link). Motor Trend tested the 2.5T and reports 9.9 seconds. I don�t know how many of you can tell the difference in 1/5th of a second, but I can�t.
The VW Porsche has 3.2 liters and a V6 configuration. The XC90 has 2.5 liters but uses an equalizer called a turbo.
The VW Porsche produces 247 hp at 6000 rpm, advantage VW, but you must get to 6000 RPM in order to realize that number., while torque is only 229 footpounds at 2500 RPM. In contrast the 2.5T �only� produces 208 hp but it produces an outstanding 236-footpounds of torque way down at 1500 RPM. This means in normal driving, the smaller Volvo motor actually has more usable torque down low where it�s needed, and it comes on at an outstanding low 1500 RPM.
The VW is rated at 5300 pounds of towing, while the Volvo at 5000 pounds.
After driving both the 2.5T and the T6, and then further driving the 2.5T we opted to buy, I find the engine to be quite adequate. Yes, everyone would prefer to have more power, but the article below recommends the 2.5T over the T6, and gives great reasons why.
As for the �remarkable� acceleration of the VW Cayenne in 9.7 seconds to 60-mph, I�d suggest that with manual shifting the Volvo could equal that number. Quite remarkable eh?
The Cayenne is roughly 5200 pounds which is 21 pounds per horsepower.
The Volvo is roughly 4400 pounds, which is 21 pounds per hoursepower.
Add the advantage of better torque for the Volvo, I�m surprised the Volvo didn�t actually beat the Cayenne performance numbers, but they are from Porsche, and the Volvo numbers are from an independent source. http://www2.us.porsche.com/eng...e.htm
For all practical purposes, the 2.5T is the equal of the VW Cayenne when it comes to power to weight and acceleration. VW, er Porsche, quotes their top speed as 133, while I see independent tests in UK showing the 2.5T at 130, with factory numbers saying 128. In any case, fast enough to do serious jail time!! I like the fact that the Volvo motor was built by Volvo, tee hee, and Porsche had to buy theirs.
Later on when we have a Japanese Yamaha Volvo to talk about, perhaps the numbers will be even more encouraging.
http://www.automotive.com/volv....html
2004 Volvo XC90 Driving Impressions
The standard Volvo XC90 and the T6 model have surprisingly different character. Our highest praise is reserved for the model with the base five-cylinder engine.
Volvo's 2.5-liter five-cylinder engine produces 208 horsepower and 236 foot-pounds of torque at 4500 rpm. We found the five-cylinder's 208 horsepower to be plenty for the real world, and the 24 mpg EPA Highway rating is excellent for that much power in a vehicle as heavy as the XC90.
But engines only produce power. Transmissions transmit the power to drive wheels, and the transmission in the five-cylinder XC90 is very sweet. It's a Geartronic five-speed automatic with a manual mode. We used manual shifting to test the engine's torque, which seems a little lacking at low rpm. However, it generates good acceleration when you floor it in automatic mode. We floored the gas at 1500 rpm in fifth gear and, in manual mode the XC90 accelerated ever so slowly. Then we tried automatic mode, and when we floored it at 1500 rpm the transmission downshifted all the way to third, the tach jumped and XC90 eagerly zoomed away. Obviously, the electronic transmission sensor didn't believe there was enough torque at 1500 rpm. Moral to the story: avoid manual mode for full acceleration, and trust the transmission to shift itself. And if you just want pulling power without full throttle, you can use the manual mode to downshift, if you need to.
The T6 model also uses a Geartronic transmission, but it's only a four-speed. The T6 transmission must handle a lot more torque, and beefing up the five-speed to that level would leave no room in the engine compartment to fit it. As it is, the heavier four-speed transmission shifts more slowly and less smoothly than the 2.5's five-speed.
Nor is the six-cylinder engine is as smooth or quiet as the five-cylinder. There was a distinct engine vibration between 45 and 50 mph in third gear, at about 2000 rpm. And although 268 horsepower and twin turbos sounds hot, we weren't impressed. With the four-speed, the engine sometimes feels like it's working hard, and the T6's lower mileage rating means about 60 fewer miles per tank.
Regardless, we were impressed with how silky smooth the XC90 felt at 80 mph. Its chassis closely follows the design of the V70 wagon, but it's wider and the components are beefier. Our route included one long and remote leg of rough, narrow and twisty pavement, and, with two passengers, we fairly thrashed the five-cylinder XC90, and it eagerly ate up the road.
Here, we used the big ventilated disc brakes hard, and manual mode in the transmission a lot, upshifting and downshifting as if it were a regular five-speed. A few times we flew into gullies that might have bottomed the nose of other SUVs, but the XC90 took that too. The XC90 didn't quite handle at the near sports-car level of a BMW X5 or Infiniti FX35. Its power rack-and-pinion steering is on the heavy side, and not as quick in the really tight stuff, but it feels reasonably tight in general, with decent feedback to let you know how the front tires are gripping. There's minimal body sway under hard cornering. We activated the DSTC electronic stability control a few times, and the system applied the brakes at one wheel without cutting the throttle, although we aren't sure if it was the gyroscopic roll sensor or traction sensors that triggered its operation.
The XC90's ride is very good, maybe even unique: stiff at the wheels, but not in the cabin. It didn't exactly absorb the ridges and bumps, because you could feel the suspension working over them; but it didn't transfer any harshness to the arms or seat of the pants at all. Speed bumps in particular were interesting; it was as if the suspension challenged them and hammered back, protecting us from jouncing even when we hit them at 15 mph.
The XC90's all-wheel-drive system is effective, too. It operates seamlessly, and the driver will almost never know when it's working. In normal, good-traction conditions, 95 percent of the engine's power goes to the front wheels. If the front wheels lose traction, a multi-plate clutch begins routing power to the rear, to a maximum split of 65 percent to the back tires. This frontward bias leaves the XC90 with a default understeer condition, or a sliding at the front tires near the limits of handling. This push is much easier to handle than a skittish rear end, because a driver's natural instinct is to slow down, and that basically solves the problem.
The T6 has stiffer front springs than the five-cylinder XC90, and speed-sensitive steering. These are supposed to give it more of a true high-performance feel. To some extent they do, but mostly they detract from the XC90's overall balance and introduce some mildly annoying handling characteristics. Unless you need bragging rights about ultimate horsepower, we highly recommend the XC90 with the standard five-cylinder engine.
submitted for your reading enjoyment.
I�ve looked at the V6 Cayenne prior to deciding to buy the XC90 2.5T and the Cayenne had a sticker price at $54,000. Porsche claims their VW Cayenne does the 0-60 in �a remarkable 9.7 seconds� (see link). Motor Trend tested the 2.5T and reports 9.9 seconds. I don�t know how many of you can tell the difference in 1/5th of a second, but I can�t.
The VW Porsche has 3.2 liters and a V6 configuration. The XC90 has 2.5 liters but uses an equalizer called a turbo.
The VW Porsche produces 247 hp at 6000 rpm, advantage VW, but you must get to 6000 RPM in order to realize that number., while torque is only 229 footpounds at 2500 RPM. In contrast the 2.5T �only� produces 208 hp but it produces an outstanding 236-footpounds of torque way down at 1500 RPM. This means in normal driving, the smaller Volvo motor actually has more usable torque down low where it�s needed, and it comes on at an outstanding low 1500 RPM.
The VW is rated at 5300 pounds of towing, while the Volvo at 5000 pounds.
After driving both the 2.5T and the T6, and then further driving the 2.5T we opted to buy, I find the engine to be quite adequate. Yes, everyone would prefer to have more power, but the article below recommends the 2.5T over the T6, and gives great reasons why.
As for the �remarkable� acceleration of the VW Cayenne in 9.7 seconds to 60-mph, I�d suggest that with manual shifting the Volvo could equal that number. Quite remarkable eh?
The Cayenne is roughly 5200 pounds which is 21 pounds per horsepower.
The Volvo is roughly 4400 pounds, which is 21 pounds per hoursepower.
Add the advantage of better torque for the Volvo, I�m surprised the Volvo didn�t actually beat the Cayenne performance numbers, but they are from Porsche, and the Volvo numbers are from an independent source. http://www2.us.porsche.com/eng...e.htm
For all practical purposes, the 2.5T is the equal of the VW Cayenne when it comes to power to weight and acceleration. VW, er Porsche, quotes their top speed as 133, while I see independent tests in UK showing the 2.5T at 130, with factory numbers saying 128. In any case, fast enough to do serious jail time!! I like the fact that the Volvo motor was built by Volvo, tee hee, and Porsche had to buy theirs.
Later on when we have a Japanese Yamaha Volvo to talk about, perhaps the numbers will be even more encouraging.
http://www.automotive.com/volv....html
2004 Volvo XC90 Driving Impressions
The standard Volvo XC90 and the T6 model have surprisingly different character. Our highest praise is reserved for the model with the base five-cylinder engine.
Volvo's 2.5-liter five-cylinder engine produces 208 horsepower and 236 foot-pounds of torque at 4500 rpm. We found the five-cylinder's 208 horsepower to be plenty for the real world, and the 24 mpg EPA Highway rating is excellent for that much power in a vehicle as heavy as the XC90.
But engines only produce power. Transmissions transmit the power to drive wheels, and the transmission in the five-cylinder XC90 is very sweet. It's a Geartronic five-speed automatic with a manual mode. We used manual shifting to test the engine's torque, which seems a little lacking at low rpm. However, it generates good acceleration when you floor it in automatic mode. We floored the gas at 1500 rpm in fifth gear and, in manual mode the XC90 accelerated ever so slowly. Then we tried automatic mode, and when we floored it at 1500 rpm the transmission downshifted all the way to third, the tach jumped and XC90 eagerly zoomed away. Obviously, the electronic transmission sensor didn't believe there was enough torque at 1500 rpm. Moral to the story: avoid manual mode for full acceleration, and trust the transmission to shift itself. And if you just want pulling power without full throttle, you can use the manual mode to downshift, if you need to.
The T6 model also uses a Geartronic transmission, but it's only a four-speed. The T6 transmission must handle a lot more torque, and beefing up the five-speed to that level would leave no room in the engine compartment to fit it. As it is, the heavier four-speed transmission shifts more slowly and less smoothly than the 2.5's five-speed.
Nor is the six-cylinder engine is as smooth or quiet as the five-cylinder. There was a distinct engine vibration between 45 and 50 mph in third gear, at about 2000 rpm. And although 268 horsepower and twin turbos sounds hot, we weren't impressed. With the four-speed, the engine sometimes feels like it's working hard, and the T6's lower mileage rating means about 60 fewer miles per tank.
Regardless, we were impressed with how silky smooth the XC90 felt at 80 mph. Its chassis closely follows the design of the V70 wagon, but it's wider and the components are beefier. Our route included one long and remote leg of rough, narrow and twisty pavement, and, with two passengers, we fairly thrashed the five-cylinder XC90, and it eagerly ate up the road.
Here, we used the big ventilated disc brakes hard, and manual mode in the transmission a lot, upshifting and downshifting as if it were a regular five-speed. A few times we flew into gullies that might have bottomed the nose of other SUVs, but the XC90 took that too. The XC90 didn't quite handle at the near sports-car level of a BMW X5 or Infiniti FX35. Its power rack-and-pinion steering is on the heavy side, and not as quick in the really tight stuff, but it feels reasonably tight in general, with decent feedback to let you know how the front tires are gripping. There's minimal body sway under hard cornering. We activated the DSTC electronic stability control a few times, and the system applied the brakes at one wheel without cutting the throttle, although we aren't sure if it was the gyroscopic roll sensor or traction sensors that triggered its operation.
The XC90's ride is very good, maybe even unique: stiff at the wheels, but not in the cabin. It didn't exactly absorb the ridges and bumps, because you could feel the suspension working over them; but it didn't transfer any harshness to the arms or seat of the pants at all. Speed bumps in particular were interesting; it was as if the suspension challenged them and hammered back, protecting us from jouncing even when we hit them at 15 mph.
The XC90's all-wheel-drive system is effective, too. It operates seamlessly, and the driver will almost never know when it's working. In normal, good-traction conditions, 95 percent of the engine's power goes to the front wheels. If the front wheels lose traction, a multi-plate clutch begins routing power to the rear, to a maximum split of 65 percent to the back tires. This frontward bias leaves the XC90 with a default understeer condition, or a sliding at the front tires near the limits of handling. This push is much easier to handle than a skittish rear end, because a driver's natural instinct is to slow down, and that basically solves the problem.
The T6 has stiffer front springs than the five-cylinder XC90, and speed-sensitive steering. These are supposed to give it more of a true high-performance feel. To some extent they do, but mostly they detract from the XC90's overall balance and introduce some mildly annoying handling characteristics. Unless you need bragging rights about ultimate horsepower, we highly recommend the XC90 with the standard five-cylinder engine.
submitted for your reading enjoyment.
That' si good reading!
Shawn F.
2001 V70 T5
2003 XC70
1996 Vw Passat Tdi
1999 Porsche Boxster
2004 Chevy Suburban LT 5.3L
2013 & 2015 S60 T5
2008 Vw Touareg T2 V6
1989 Sea Ray 340 Sundander
2007 Sea Doo Challenger 180 SE
2001 V70 T5
2003 XC70
1996 Vw Passat Tdi
1999 Porsche Boxster
2004 Chevy Suburban LT 5.3L
2013 & 2015 S60 T5
2008 Vw Touareg T2 V6
1989 Sea Ray 340 Sundander
2007 Sea Doo Challenger 180 SE
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post