RE: 450hp Volvo S60 Drive-E Concept: Driven

[deadtom]

blade7 said:

Tuners were getting 450 bhp out of road going 2.0 Cosworth engines 25 years ago, and Lancia had a smaller engine with a bigger output twincharger setup before then.

did they also have manufacturer warranty, good reliability, low NVH, reasonable service intervals and (relative) affordability?

[gumsie]

I’ll pass thanks.
Am I the only one who doesn’t mind spending more, (on petrol, road tax, and outrigh cost), to get the niceness a few extra cylinders and volume provide?

[Axionknight]

gumsie said:

I’ll pass thanks.
Am I the only one who doesn’t mind spending more, (on petrol, road tax, and outrigh cost), to get the niceness a few extra cylinders and volume provide?

No, but sad to say - enjoy it while it lasts!

[samoht]

The benefit of this for PHers, over a V8, is that it's smaller and lighter so could make for a more agile car. Imagine this in an MX-5


I have to say that my experience with complex turbo setup (sequential twin turbos) at 18 years old has been, shall we say, 'high maintenance'. Hopefully Volvo will engineer it for better durability.

[anonymous-user]

blade7 said:

Tuners were getting 450 bhp out of road going 2.0 Cosworth engines 25 years ago, and Lancia had a smaller engine with a bigger output twincharger setup before then.

Edited by blade7 on Friday 5th December 18:55

How many EU6, sub 150g/km Cossies have you ever seen??? Engine power is, and always has been, the easy bit to get sorted........

[SteveSteveson]

I think its a pritty safe assumption that Volvo would not have spent millions of pounds developing a new engine and a complex turbo/supercharger system unless they could make it reliable, legal and drivable. What people were doing with massive turbos, huge turbo lag and short engine life as almost no relationship to this.

[JMo22]

Volvo are owned by the Chinese as well. Can't be long until we'll be seeing some great competition for the EU/US makers coming out of there.

[After_Shock]

09dfearon said:

Who would buy this? 450bhp in a car that doesn't have any steering feel and doesn't handle well? Good job they are good in accidents!

Audi seem to sell enough cars so why cant another manufacturer.

[blade7]

SteveSteveson said:

I think its a pritty safe assumption that Volvo would not have spent millions of pounds developing a new engine and a complex turbo/supercharger system unless they could make it reliable, legal and drivable. What people were doing with massive turbos, huge turbo lag and short engine life as almost no relationship to this.

I don't see any of that plastered 2ft high on the side of the car.

[Axionknight]

After_Shock said:

Audi seem to sell enough cars so why cant another manufacturer.

[daytona365]

blade7 said:

Tuners were getting 450 bhp out of road going 2.0 Cosworth engines 25 years ago, and Lancia had a smaller engine with a bigger output twincharger setup before then.

Edited by blade7 on Friday 5th December 18:55

.....Quite right, group B Monte Carlos were getting 490bhp from 1400cc over 30 years ago......But fuel economy ? Well, there wasn't any !!

[Terminator X]

samoht said:

The benefit of this for PHers, over a V8, is that it's smaller and lighter so could make for a more agile car. Imagine this in an MX-5

I have to say that my experience with complex turbo setup (sequential twin turbos) at 18 years old has been, shall we say, 'high maintenance'. Hopefully Volvo will engineer it for better durability.

The words "high boost" and "reliable" can't be used in the same sentence

TX.

[blade7]

daytona365 said:

blade7 said:

Tuners were getting 450 bhp out of road going 2.0 Cosworth engines 25 years ago, and Lancia had a smaller engine with a bigger output twincharger setup before then.

Edited by blade7 on Friday 5th December 18:55

.....Quite right, group B Monte Carlos were getting 490bhp from 1400cc over 30 years ago......But fuel economy ? Well, there wasn't any !!

You're collectively missing my point, how much fuel do you think this engine will be using at 6000 rpm/450 bhp ?

[Clivey]

After_Shock said:

Audi seem to sell enough cars so why cant another manufacturer.

Well played Sir!

[dc2rr07]

blade7 said:

Tuners were getting 450 bhp out of road going 2.0 Cosworth engines 25 years ago, and Lancia had a smaller engine with a bigger output twincharger setup before then.

Edited by blade7 on Friday 5th December 18:55

+1

and lets not be forgetting Mitsubishi who have been manufacturing various versions of the EVO with this sort of power in cars for years.

[After_Shock]

dc2rr07 said:

+1

and lets not be forgetting Mitsubishi who have been manufacturing various versions of the EVO with this sort of power in cars for years.

Very true, but with 3000/5000 mile service intervals, utterly sky high CO2 figures and fuel consumption which lets be realistic are down in the single digits at times.

For an everyday family car that's useable everyday without ruinous running costs its a slight difference to be able to offer something along those lines with this power from such a small capacity.

[blearyeyedboy]

blade7 said:

You're collectively missing my point, how much fuel do you think this engine will be using at 6000 rpm/450 bhp ?

Flipping loads!

But that's not the point. Most BMW M3's/Audi RS4's/Mers C63's don't drive around continually using their full power output. At full chat, this will burn as much fuel (or thereabouts) as a V8, but it'll burn far less trundling along at 30mph in cities.

Even if you don't care about the green issues involved here and you get free petrol from your vice-presidency of BP, the nose will be lighter than if you put a V8 in there and hence more agile.

If a supercharger is electrically driven then turbo lag isn't an issue. If reliability can be sorted- and that remains to be seen in unusual mixed turbo/supercharging when VW is clearly drawing back from its far less ambitious 1.4TSI engine- then there would little to dissuade me from using one.

I'm fond of V8's and they can be magical but the New Order brings benefits with it too. My main doubt is about longevity though.

[V8RX7]

samoht said:

The benefit of this for PHers, over a V8, is that it's smaller and lighter so could make for a more agile car. Imagine this in an MX-5

The LS1/2 V8 is also small and light and is already fitted in MX5s

This won't sound as good and as stated has issues below 2000rpm - whilst this won't matter on track in daily use it matters a lot.

Hence why I prefer large engines and/or superchargers over turbos

[SteveSteveson]

blade7 said:

I don't see any of that plastered 2ft high on the side of the car.

And? Or do you really Volvo would waste millions developing an unusable engine or that a $300billion car company might just be doing something a little better than a bloke in a shed 30 years ago?

[RichB]

Mike Duff said:

Boobonman said:

Can we have a pic of the 164 you sighted in please?

Certainly - here's the beast in question; straight from the museum and with something like 500km on the clock from new...

As stately as the elegant Mercs of that era yet the Merc saloons curry far more favour.