2000 s70 NA manual transmission acceleration

Post by **j-dawg** » 28 Oct 2014, 13:37

The ETM is really not that bad for driving manual. You just have to get used to it. Downshifts require really exaggerated throttle blips, that's all. Once you get the hang of that you'll be swinging through the gears like a champ.

Another thing: I really recommend the Snabb short-shift kit. Best $50 you can spend upgrading a manual P80 car.

Post by **abscate** » 28 Oct 2014, 14:21

If you buy a stick shift in turbo and NA you can choose which one every morning......

Post by **JRL** » 28 Oct 2014, 15:20

jblackburn wrote:The 5-speed NA's are roughly on par with a modern midsized 4-cyl car (Camry, Accord, what have you). It's enough to get you up to speed without an issue and not much more.

I think they're good fun to drive, and no annoying turbo lag to wait around on.

(Official times for a 4 cyl)
2012 Toyota Camry LE (2.5L) 0-60 mph 8.7 Quarter Mile 16.0

Post by **jblackburn** » 28 Oct 2014, 15:32

JRL wrote:
jblackburn wrote:The 5-speed NA's are roughly on par with a modern midsized 4-cyl car (Camry, Accord, what have you). It's enough to get you up to speed without an issue and not much more.

I think they're good fun to drive, and no annoying turbo lag to wait around on.
(Official times for a 4 cyl)
2012 Toyota Camry LE (2.5L) 0-60 mph 8.7 Quarter Mile 16.0

Yep, it's slow. We've got one.

I'd say it's roughly on par - around 9 seconds for the S70 with a manual, not 10. There's no way it's slower than a Cruze.

Post by **precopster** » 28 Oct 2014, 17:03

The T5s, Rs and LPT turbos are not the G force creating speedsters that most forum members here would have us believe (unless modified of course and this is where the gap widens markedly)

They suffer from lack of low rev range torque and when balanced with a taller differential & the extra goodies that a turbo car has (electric seats, the turbo itself, heavy thick walled manifold and heat shields and AWD in some cases) the difference between a stock standard T5 and a base model is less than we might believe.

You can probably shave 0.8 secs from these times below when comparing manuals:

1992 Volvo 850 GLT 0-60 mph 9.0 Quarter mile 16.4

1993 Volvo 850 GLT 0-60 mph 9.3 Quarter mile 17.1

1994 Volvo 850 Sportwagon Turbo 0-60 mph 7.3 Quarter mile 15.3

1994 Volvo 850 Turbo Sedan 0-60 mph 7.0 Quarter mile 15.1

1995 Volvo 850 T-5R 0-60 mph 6.5 Quarter mile 15.0

1996 Volvo 850 GLT 0-60 mph 8.7 Quarter mile 16.4

1996 Volvo 850 R 0-60 mph 6.8 Quarter mile 15.1

Post by **jblackburn** » 28 Oct 2014, 19:48

The T5s, Rs and LPT turbos are not the G force creating speedsters that most forum members here would have us believe (unless modified of course and this is where the gap widens markedly)

They suffer from lack of low rev range torque and when balanced with a taller differential & the extra goodies that a turbo car has (electric seats, the turbo itself, heavy thick walled manifold and heat shields and AWD in some cases) the difference between a stock standard T5 and a base model is less than we might believe.

Agreed. The 0-60 time on the turbos with a 4-speed auto is crap. Don't forget the torque limiting in 1st gear

They REALLY pick up pace through the 1/4 mile and 50-80 though, but they're terrible in DC traffic when you need to dart out across intersections or into other lanes that are moving.

Post by **abscate** » 28 Oct 2014, 21:05

The T5 with the IPD boost spring and 5 speed will make you smile , especially if you keep the tach up above 2500.....

Post by **matthew1** » 28 Oct 2014, 21:25

Up to '98 MY, throw $20 of hardware store hardware (MBC) on a T5 and you have a rocketship. I need to benchmark my T5 with the MBC, I still haven't recorded 0-60, which I do have (video) from before the MBC.

MBCs don't fix the low RPM problems the LPT solves, but rather it doubles down on the HPT strengths.

BTW, this is the Volvo version of "Beatles or the Stones" argument. LPT or HPT...

Sorry, off topic.

Post by **j-dawg** » 28 Oct 2014, 23:52

matthew1 wrote: BTW, this is the Volvo version of "Beatles or the Stones" argument. LPT or HPT...

Sorry, off topic.

And here I thought that was RWD vs FWD/AWD.

precopster wrote:The T5s, Rs and LPT turbos are not the G force creating speedsters that most forum members here would have us believe (unless modified of course and this is where the gap widens markedly)

I've been under the impression that modifications involving bigger snails tend to exacerbate, rather than alleviate, the lag and peakiness of the turbo setup. Faster, but the power is still not really usable in day-to-day traffic.

I don't mean to talk smack about T5s, by the way - I like the way boost builds - but it's definitely a highway motor.

Post by **precopster** » 29 Oct 2014, 05:26

I was referring more to software upgrades than bigger turbos. Good tunes can flatten out those power curve spikes.

Of course a bigger turbo brings on more boost at higher revs but we're now dealing with more low speed inertia as the heavier impeller takes more time to spool up at lower revs.