S70 T5 -- softer ride? tires?

[abscate]

I need to do a well-controlled test and see if the MUCH more powerful T5 gets better highway fuel economy. I suspect that it does.

ITs about 20% worse with the T5. I think I titled the comparison post 'the painful 5mph above 60 or something like that.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69979&p=367856&hili ... ph#p367856

Remember, though

XC and AWD Volvos are Low Pressure Turbo - lots of low rpm boost, but top out at ???? 3500 rpm ???

HPT (T5 and R models) - no low rpm boost, but then comes on with a kick above 3000 rpm

They drive very differently

[Rattnalle]

Yes, in both auto and manual configuration. To use the low rpm torque of the turbo better. The NA would require a lot more shifting with the same gearing.

It is most apparent in highway driving when you go up a long hill. Even with the gearing it has, the non-turbo will often downshift from "top gear" in order to maintain speed in a position. I believe that you are right to reference torque, but it is definitely a "more power is better" situation. The turbo can gut out the hills, even at a relatively low rpm. If anyone is choosing between a turbo and non-turbo car, it's relevant that the turbo cars will be a little less strained at good highway speeds and run at a slightly lower rpm than the non-turbo cars. It's not a huge difference (a few hundred rpm) and the non-turbo is still a good highway car, but it is a few hundred rpm and the downshifting can be annoying (even if understandable).

I need to do a well-controlled test and see if the MUCH more powerful T5 gets better highway fuel economy. I suspect that it does.

I don't know about the P80s but on the P2s my current V70 2.5T does a hundred kph at 2000 rpm rather than 2300 or so for the previous NA. It gets significantly better mpg at highway+ speeds (120 kph and above) but the sleeker NA S80 was better at lower steady speeds where the revs were still reasonable. Cruising the V70 at ~160 kph at just 3000 rpm gives quite reasonable mpgs.