Killed a Volvo S60 R Automatic
08-20-2005, 08:28 AM
#1
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Age: 42
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Killed a Volvo S60 R Automatic
Just wanted to share my experience with you guys.
I was going about 70 when a silver Volvo S60 sat on my back. I engaged 3rd and continued to roll at that same speed. When the Volvo was at my driver's door I gunned it down. IT was actually very very close. But after 90-95 TL keeps pulling away. All I have as far as performance is only a Weapon R short ram which is good for not more than 5 hp.
Later I asked the guy and he said that his Volvo is Automatic and had it been a manual I would never have caught him. Probably he's right. Manual has 300hp instead of 250 or 260 that auto has.
Nonetheless, my first kill in a TL
I was going about 70 when a silver Volvo S60 sat on my back. I engaged 3rd and continued to roll at that same speed. When the Volvo was at my driver's door I gunned it down. IT was actually very very close. But after 90-95 TL keeps pulling away. All I have as far as performance is only a Weapon R short ram which is good for not more than 5 hp.
Later I asked the guy and he said that his Volvo is Automatic and had it been a manual I would never have caught him. Probably he's right. Manual has 300hp instead of 250 or 260 that auto has.
Nonetheless, my first kill in a TL
08-25-2005, 03:13 AM
#4
05/5AT/Navi/Silver/Ebony
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: CT.
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah know I drove the 6-speed and it aint that much faster than the automatic. Maybe a little, but not that much to wish you had one. Just my opinion. BTW- Good job kickin that volvo's ass.
09-21-2005, 08:58 PM
#6
Youse Gots Sacked
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Morristown, NJ
Age: 36
Posts: 2,930
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
good kill...but thats very hard
my friend has a Volvo S60R with body kit and suspension and its an AUTO and that thing fucking FLIES.....you must be a talented driver to beat those things, or the other driver must have been terrible cause those turbos will rape anything in its class.
my friend has a Volvo S60R with body kit and suspension and its an AUTO and that thing fucking FLIES.....you must be a talented driver to beat those things, or the other driver must have been terrible cause those turbos will rape anything in its class.
09-21-2005, 09:13 PM
#7
I need 2 more gears
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springvale, Maine
Age: 45
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
i don't think so. in this month's C&D they have am 8 car camparo which includes the S60R auto and TL 6speed and TL 6speed teested 0-60 in 5.9 and volvo was 0-60 in 6.4 that's a pretty big difference. I bet a stock TL 6 speed could beat a S60R auto no problem.
Trending Topics
09-21-2005, 09:20 PM
#8
Youse Gots Sacked
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Morristown, NJ
Age: 36
Posts: 2,930
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
was it the S60 or the S60R? also....the TL for its size and catagory is quite fast off the line....but the S60R and its turbos will rape a TL 6speed or not
09-21-2005, 09:57 PM
#9
professional TL driver
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Age: 42
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it was an s60r, awd drive turbo
but it was a comparo in the desert, and the temp hovered aroud 110 degrees, they said the computer was pulling the boost and the timing back, so it wasnt making full power... they said it was almost a full second in the 1/4 slower then the last one they tested....
still it was good to read about the tl stomping it
but it was a comparo in the desert, and the temp hovered aroud 110 degrees, they said the computer was pulling the boost and the timing back, so it wasnt making full power... they said it was almost a full second in the 1/4 slower then the last one they tested....
still it was good to read about the tl stomping it
10-27-2005, 01:17 PM
#10
Cruisin'
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FYI about the volvo...
just cruising around on your site...checking it out...not trying to be a troll or anything... but I can fill you guys in the the S60R....
1) the S60R is FAST. It is EASILY capable of demolishing a stock TL.
Here is the reason why you see such different times in the various articles. While the S60R makes AWESOME power and HUGE torque - it it VERY VERY VERY (let me repeat VERY) finicky about temps. I have a 2004 S60R with an ECU and exhaust. I have eaten Audi S4s - the 340hp V8s in my car. I have also had my ass handed to me by cars that I should have killed. BIG BIG factor - outside temps.
If the temps are in the 50-60 degree F range - the R is a beast. a BEAST.
If temps go above 70...power starts dropping off quick. In 90 degrees or more the car is a slug. The car can't handle the higher intake temps, the ECU sees ANY detonation and it starts pulling boost and timing and car loses big big power.
The ECU tuner I talked to said that once you can easily have a 30-50 hp difference based on 50 degress - 90 degrees.
Another big factor is the tranny. the 04/05 R's with autos, have a torque limitation in the first two gears. so on the freeway they should be quick, but off the line, they will be a LOT slower.
the sticks are much quicker for 04/05 models. the 06 R's do not have such a limitation.
so that C&D article where the R only did 6.4 was probably accurate...since the temps outside during that test were 116 degrees. A lot of the guys on the volvo board joked that C&D did that on purpose, because they KNEW if they had done it in 50 degree cool weather the Volvo would have OWNED them all..even the "holy" 330 that C&D loves so much.
Bottom line - your cars are cool. I think the TL is a sweet looking car, so I'm not tryin to rag on it. In hot weather, you guys might hang iwth or beat a stock R.
In cool weathe ra stock R should get you. In cool weather an R with some basic bolt ons will leave you in the dust.
There are a lot of guys on the R forum who have upgraded their cars with ECUs, exhaust, downpipes, and some are going to custom turbos and intercoolers.
the R, with an aftermarket turbo will put 400 hp to the pavement and get into the 12s. basic bolts ons like ECU upgrades, downpipe and exhaust will probably make them 350-360 hp cars, (engine, not wheel hp) and probably get the cars into the low to mid 13s. once the turbo is swapped out these things go insane and start making 400-450 crank hp easy....you just don' tsee many of them cause the volvo is not a tuner friendly market...but that's changing.
check www.evolvecars.com for some trick looking Rs.
just wanted to shed some light on why one of you might have roasted an R and another one might have been trounced. The R shines in cool weather and is a pig in the heat.
also - gas. in CA, where we only get 91 octane...the R is a lot slower. in other states where they can get 93-94 the car is a LOT faster. for some reason the R was tuned to run on 93+ octane...dyno tests have shown a 30hp gain ONLY by running 93+ octane gas vs 91...yeah...30hp....
so an R on 93 octane in 50 degrees would probably have 50 hp more than one runnin 91 in the heat...big big differences. that's one of the sucky things about the car..when it gets hot..the car is not so much fun...but when it's cool out...oh wow.
just cruising around on your site...checking it out...not trying to be a troll or anything... but I can fill you guys in the the S60R....
1) the S60R is FAST. It is EASILY capable of demolishing a stock TL.
Here is the reason why you see such different times in the various articles. While the S60R makes AWESOME power and HUGE torque - it it VERY VERY VERY (let me repeat VERY) finicky about temps. I have a 2004 S60R with an ECU and exhaust. I have eaten Audi S4s - the 340hp V8s in my car. I have also had my ass handed to me by cars that I should have killed. BIG BIG factor - outside temps.
If the temps are in the 50-60 degree F range - the R is a beast. a BEAST.
If temps go above 70...power starts dropping off quick. In 90 degrees or more the car is a slug. The car can't handle the higher intake temps, the ECU sees ANY detonation and it starts pulling boost and timing and car loses big big power.
The ECU tuner I talked to said that once you can easily have a 30-50 hp difference based on 50 degress - 90 degrees.
Another big factor is the tranny. the 04/05 R's with autos, have a torque limitation in the first two gears. so on the freeway they should be quick, but off the line, they will be a LOT slower.
the sticks are much quicker for 04/05 models. the 06 R's do not have such a limitation.
so that C&D article where the R only did 6.4 was probably accurate...since the temps outside during that test were 116 degrees. A lot of the guys on the volvo board joked that C&D did that on purpose, because they KNEW if they had done it in 50 degree cool weather the Volvo would have OWNED them all..even the "holy" 330 that C&D loves so much.
Bottom line - your cars are cool. I think the TL is a sweet looking car, so I'm not tryin to rag on it. In hot weather, you guys might hang iwth or beat a stock R.
In cool weathe ra stock R should get you. In cool weather an R with some basic bolt ons will leave you in the dust.
There are a lot of guys on the R forum who have upgraded their cars with ECUs, exhaust, downpipes, and some are going to custom turbos and intercoolers.
the R, with an aftermarket turbo will put 400 hp to the pavement and get into the 12s. basic bolts ons like ECU upgrades, downpipe and exhaust will probably make them 350-360 hp cars, (engine, not wheel hp) and probably get the cars into the low to mid 13s. once the turbo is swapped out these things go insane and start making 400-450 crank hp easy....you just don' tsee many of them cause the volvo is not a tuner friendly market...but that's changing.
check www.evolvecars.com for some trick looking Rs.
just wanted to shed some light on why one of you might have roasted an R and another one might have been trounced. The R shines in cool weather and is a pig in the heat.
also - gas. in CA, where we only get 91 octane...the R is a lot slower. in other states where they can get 93-94 the car is a LOT faster. for some reason the R was tuned to run on 93+ octane...dyno tests have shown a 30hp gain ONLY by running 93+ octane gas vs 91...yeah...30hp....
so an R on 93 octane in 50 degrees would probably have 50 hp more than one runnin 91 in the heat...big big differences. that's one of the sucky things about the car..when it gets hot..the car is not so much fun...but when it's cool out...oh wow.
nice write up!
10-27-2005, 05:20 PM
#14
6MT & LSD
Join Date: Apr 2005
Age: 39
Posts: 1,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike
^^^ spoken like a true automotive enthusiast 
I posted my comment, because all he's basically stating is that, in optimal condition for the R, it would've left the TL or any 14+ sec car in the dust. That's like a guy w/ an STi saying that at 15000 ft. altitude, he could spank a C6.
Who cares, anyway. Almost all 3G owners bought the car for what it is - not for its modability to turn a sedan into a f'ing racecar, or leave a TL/S4/M3 in the dust with a few bolt ons at the optimal temperature of 50 degrees.
10-27-2005, 05:53 PM
#15
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 43
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ndx2
I'm actually a big fan of the S60R. There's nothing he posted that I didn't already know about (well, maybe a couple of minor details).
I posted my comment, because all he's basically stating is that, in optimal condition for the R, it would've left the TL or any 14+ sec car in the dust. That's like a guy w/ an STi saying that at 15000 ft. altitude, he could spank a C6.
Who cares, anyway. Almost all 3G owners bought the car for what it is - not for its modability to turn a sedan into a f'ing racecar, or leave a TL/S4/M3 in the dust with a few bolt ons at the optimal temperature of 50 degrees.
I posted my comment, because all he's basically stating is that, in optimal condition for the R, it would've left the TL or any 14+ sec car in the dust. That's like a guy w/ an STi saying that at 15000 ft. altitude, he could spank a C6.
Who cares, anyway. Almost all 3G owners bought the car for what it is - not for its modability to turn a sedan into a f'ing racecar, or leave a TL/S4/M3 in the dust with a few bolt ons at the optimal temperature of 50 degrees.
A 6 speed TL is a low 14 second car, so is a 6 speed s60r.
An auto TL is a high 14 second car, so is an auto s60r.
He isnt telling us anything worthwhile and obviously came here to talk shit.
10-27-2005, 06:34 PM
#16
I need 2 more gears
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springvale, Maine
Age: 45
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
my 99tl w/I/H/spacers 115k, very well maintained and on original tranny is also finicky regarding the weather. when it is 60 and not bright sunshine it pulls very very hard. when its 90 it is sluggish but still quick. I think all cars are like this though, but not to this extreme.
10-27-2005, 06:46 PM
#17
Youse Gots Sacked
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Morristown, NJ
Age: 36
Posts: 2,930
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
i kinda have to agree with my "guest" as much as i love my TL, the S60R auto or 6 speed will beat an Auto TL a 6 Speed TL is capable of keeping up but in the end will lose. my friend has a black S60R with body kit and light weight wheels, and if we drag....he is a sure winner....even tho its an automatic, you don't lose 80 HP especially won't pull away from him at 90 with the turbo. the stock auto TL puts out about 220hp.....sometimes even less...sometimes even a little more...the 6 speed puts out about 230-235...sometimes less sometimes more....so im sorry but the S60R is a better car when it comes to speed. ive driven the S60R and it handles terribly...the wheel turn on the car is absolutely horrible and going around turns just dosn't feel so great. but i do love the 3 button suspension....my cousins Audi S4 had that too...AWESOME FEATURE.....but when it comes to styling....exterior and interior...the TL ass rapes the S60R...this is one thing that pushed me away from getting an S60R and at the time i didn't know so much about cars where i didn't realize the TL only dynos around 220 as opposed to the advertised 270....but still i love my TL and the styling...and not even those cool blue guages and the nice sporty seats could make up for that.....
10-27-2005, 09:10 PM
#19
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 43
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NFLblitze1
i kinda have to agree with my "guest" as much as i love my TL, the S60R auto or 6 speed will beat an Auto TL a 6 Speed TL is capable of keeping up but in the end will lose. my friend has a black S60R with body kit and light weight wheels, and if we drag....he is a sure winner....even tho its an automatic, you don't lose 80 HP especially won't pull away from him at 90 with the turbo. the stock auto TL puts out about 220hp.....sometimes even less...sometimes even a little more...the 6 speed puts out about 230-235...sometimes less sometimes more....so im sorry but the S60R is a better car when it comes to speed. ive driven the S60R and it handles terribly...the wheel turn on the car is absolutely horrible and going around turns just dosn't feel so great. but i do love the 3 button suspension....my cousins Audi S4 had that too...AWESOME FEATURE.....but when it comes to styling....exterior and interior...the TL ass rapes the S60R...this is one thing that pushed me away from getting an S60R and at the time i didn't know so much about cars where i didn't realize the TL only dynos around 220 as opposed to the advertised 270....but still i love my TL and the styling...and not even those cool blue guages and the nice sporty seats could make up for that.....
270 is the crank horsepower that was advertised, not the dyno numbers. NO CAR DYNO'S THE CLAIMED HORSEPOWER BECAUSE THEY ARE SOLD WITH CRANK NUMBERS. (I have to refrain from making fun of you for this comment because it's absolutely retarded)
-Although the new sae net numbers are not quite "crank numbers" because they take into account other variables.
You're opinion is great but when stock for stock 6 spd. vs. 6 spd. and auto vs. auto, the s60r and the TL run the same times, you just lose your argument.
10-27-2005, 09:21 PM
#20
Youse Gots Sacked
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Morristown, NJ
Age: 36
Posts: 2,930
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by SuperSteel
270 is the crank horsepower that was advertised, not the dyno numbers. NO CAR DYNO'S THE CLAIMED HORSEPOWER BECAUSE THEY ARE SOLD WITH CRANK NUMBERS. (I have to refrain from making fun of you for this comment because it's absolutely retarded)
-Although the new sae net numbers are not quite "crank numbers" because they take into account other variables.
You're opinion is great but when stock for stock 6 spd. vs. 6 spd. and auto vs. auto, the s60r and the TL run the same times, you just lose your argument.
-Although the new sae net numbers are not quite "crank numbers" because they take into account other variables.
You're opinion is great but when stock for stock 6 spd. vs. 6 spd. and auto vs. auto, the s60r and the TL run the same times, you just lose your argument.
10-27-2005, 09:34 PM
#22
2400 Watts in a TL...Why?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Age: 44
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by NFLblitze1
and at the time i didn't know so much about cars where i didn't realize the TL only dynos around 220 as opposed to the advertised 270.........
Aditionally, no company tells you what drag the accessories and/or transmission put on an engine. It is technically found out when the car's actual dyno is compared to the OLD HP rating standards, engine power without any accessories. The new HP rating includes the accessories but not the transmossion. One step closer to the truth, however not quite there. Ideally, The car should come with an actual wheel horse power rating, including an industry standard temp and humidity controlled test, making the playing field even.
I guess I wasn't too tired..
10-27-2005, 09:39 PM
#23
Youse Gots Sacked
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Morristown, NJ
Age: 36
Posts: 2,930
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
i understand that...i don't want this to look like im just a 17 year old who thinks he knows what hes talking about....im firmiliar with what goes on and why acura wouldn't advertise their wheel horsepower. it was the way i worded what i said....before i came to these forums i had no idea what FWD or RWD was....but what im getting at...is when you buy a car....you expect the car to use most of its power....a 50hp "loss" is just unfathomable. there are a few threads that talk about this issue im sure uve read them.
10-27-2005, 10:45 PM
#24
Cruisin'
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry, I'm not here to talk smack. I honestly like the TL. I"m in the market for a second car and I'm giving the TL a hard look. It's an awesome combo of power, handling, hi tech features, and value. Acura makes nice stuff.
I've never driven a TL, so I can't say how it drives compared to an R...but I"d bet stock vs. stock, the TL is a more fun car to drive. One thing the Volvo lacks is driver feedback/involvement like many sports cars give
I'm just saying that the car has 300 hp AND a key point many of you may be missing is the torque. the car makes ilke 295 lbs of torque at about 3500 rpm.
There is NO WAY the TL makes close to that...yes the TL has a solid respectable hp rating...but when you mash the gas at 4000 rpm....that thing that shoves you back in your seat and gvies you that sensation of acceleration is NOT hp..it's torque. the R kills the TL in that dept......under the right conditions.
that's key wtih the volvo.
I really wasn't here to talk smack...I"m researching TL's cause I might buy one...not to talk smack to TL owners.
I own an S60R, and saw a post where there was comment about the variation in reported performance figures. I own an R, so I know why that occurs. It's gas and outside temps. That C&D article was done in 116 degrees..the R had no chance. I wouldn't want to race a TL in 116 degrees!! My car in 50-60 degress is NOT the same car compared to 116 degress..and I know..I've drivein in AZ/CA desert heat in my car....116 degress means my car is pulling timing/boost like nuts and I have NO POWER....NONE...which is why C&D got the crummy 0-60 number...and why in other tests...it runs 5.4 or 5.5
the TL is a great car. it has strengths over the R.
but in terms of power/acceleration - an S60R should beat a TL.
with minor mods, and S60R can be VERY fast. an ECU upgrade + dp + exhaust can be bought for $3000 and that will bump an R from 300 to 350-375. A guy I know has those mods and dynos at about 300 WHEEL hp..
add an ECU/headers/exhaust to your TL and you will NEVER put 300 to the pavement.
I"m not say9ing an R is a better car...i bet the stering feel is better on the TL....you have BT..we don't....
each has its strengths...
my wife LOVES the TL and maybe I'll own one in the future....
I've never driven a TL, so I can't say how it drives compared to an R...but I"d bet stock vs. stock, the TL is a more fun car to drive. One thing the Volvo lacks is driver feedback/involvement like many sports cars give
I'm just saying that the car has 300 hp AND a key point many of you may be missing is the torque. the car makes ilke 295 lbs of torque at about 3500 rpm.
There is NO WAY the TL makes close to that...yes the TL has a solid respectable hp rating...but when you mash the gas at 4000 rpm....that thing that shoves you back in your seat and gvies you that sensation of acceleration is NOT hp..it's torque. the R kills the TL in that dept......under the right conditions.
that's key wtih the volvo.
I really wasn't here to talk smack...I"m researching TL's cause I might buy one...not to talk smack to TL owners.
I own an S60R, and saw a post where there was comment about the variation in reported performance figures. I own an R, so I know why that occurs. It's gas and outside temps. That C&D article was done in 116 degrees..the R had no chance. I wouldn't want to race a TL in 116 degrees!! My car in 50-60 degress is NOT the same car compared to 116 degress..and I know..I've drivein in AZ/CA desert heat in my car....116 degress means my car is pulling timing/boost like nuts and I have NO POWER....NONE...which is why C&D got the crummy 0-60 number...and why in other tests...it runs 5.4 or 5.5
the TL is a great car. it has strengths over the R.
but in terms of power/acceleration - an S60R should beat a TL.
with minor mods, and S60R can be VERY fast. an ECU upgrade + dp + exhaust can be bought for $3000 and that will bump an R from 300 to 350-375. A guy I know has those mods and dynos at about 300 WHEEL hp..
add an ECU/headers/exhaust to your TL and you will NEVER put 300 to the pavement.
I"m not say9ing an R is a better car...i bet the stering feel is better on the TL....you have BT..we don't....
each has its strengths...
my wife LOVES the TL and maybe I'll own one in the future....
10-27-2005, 10:52 PM
#25
Originally Posted by NFLblitze1
i understand that...i don't want this to look like im just a 17 year old who thinks he knows what hes talking about....im firmiliar with what goes on and why acura wouldn't advertise their wheel horsepower. it was the way i worded what i said....before i came to these forums i had no idea what FWD or RWD was....but what im getting at...is when you buy a car....you expect the car to use most of its power....a 50hp "loss" is just unfathomable. there are a few threads that talk about this issue im sure uve read them.
I don't know what you're complaining about.
10-27-2005, 11:02 PM
#26
Originally Posted by guest
add an ECU/headers/exhaust to your TL and you will NEVER put 300 to the pavement.
We could compare it to an S40 and say that with just an intake and exhaust, it will never put down 235 fwhp like the TL would.
The S60R is a sweet car, though. The info you've posted about the effects of ambient temperature on the performance is not in question here. That's one of the downsides of going turbo.
My friend's S4 put down 371 awhp on the first run, and 2 minutes later on the second run, it put down like 340 awhp... a few seconds of WOT run caused heat soak costing over 30 awhp.
.02
10-27-2005, 11:06 PM
#27
Boomer SOONER
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: McKinney, TX
Age: 41
Posts: 3,729
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
14 Posts
to the "guest", we all know the differences between the S60 and the TL....but my comment is why the hell would someone want a car that is so touchy to the temperature change??? I mean that car would be worthless where I live half the year. I would be pissed if I got that car thinking it had good power, and right when I wanted to get it out on a 80 degree spring day, it doesnt have anything like it should.
I mean every car reacts to the temperature some - I can tell in my car also - but the amount you are describing just seems like a very bad design from Volvo.
I mean every car reacts to the temperature some - I can tell in my car also - but the amount you are describing just seems like a very bad design from Volvo.
10-28-2005, 05:24 AM
#28
2400 Watts in a TL...Why?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Age: 44
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by guest
with minor mods, and S60R can be VERY fast. an ECU upgrade + dp + exhaust can be bought for $3000 and that will bump an R from 300 to 350-375. A guy I know has those mods and dynos at about 300 WHEEL hp..
my wife LOVES the TL and maybe I'll own one in the future....
So your friends car has 350-375hp but puts 300hp to the floor in a dyno.... so he's getting 14.3 - 20% loss due to transmission..
The TL is 270 at the crank, and dynos 220 ... giving it 18.52% loss...
It looks like the trannie on the volvo robs just as much if not more power from the engine than the TL does....
Don't worry, we've got a turbo in the making for the tl... Turbo the Type-s engine and your beloved volvo engine won't have a chance.
10-28-2005, 07:06 AM
#29
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 43
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NFLblitze1
i understand that...i don't want this to look like im just a 17 year old who thinks he knows what hes talking about....im firmiliar with what goes on and why acura wouldn't advertise their wheel horsepower. it was the way i worded what i said....before i came to these forums i had no idea what FWD or RWD was....but what im getting at...is when you buy a car....you expect the car to use most of its power....a 50hp "loss" is just unfathomable. there are a few threads that talk about this issue im sure uve read them.
Learn about the mechanics of a car, then post your comments. Until then you sound like a 17 year old without a clue.
10-28-2005, 07:07 AM
#30
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 43
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by guest
sorry, I'm not here to talk smack. I honestly like the TL. I"m in the market for a second car and I'm giving the TL a hard look. It's an awesome combo of power, handling, hi tech features, and value. Acura makes nice stuff.
I've never driven a TL, so I can't say how it drives compared to an R...but I"d bet stock vs. stock, the TL is a more fun car to drive. One thing the Volvo lacks is driver feedback/involvement like many sports cars give
I'm just saying that the car has 300 hp AND a key point many of you may be missing is the torque. the car makes ilke 295 lbs of torque at about 3500 rpm.
There is NO WAY the TL makes close to that...yes the TL has a solid respectable hp rating...but when you mash the gas at 4000 rpm....that thing that shoves you back in your seat and gvies you that sensation of acceleration is NOT hp..it's torque. the R kills the TL in that dept......under the right conditions.
that's key wtih the volvo.
I really wasn't here to talk smack...I"m researching TL's cause I might buy one...not to talk smack to TL owners.
I own an S60R, and saw a post where there was comment about the variation in reported performance figures. I own an R, so I know why that occurs. It's gas and outside temps. That C&D article was done in 116 degrees..the R had no chance. I wouldn't want to race a TL in 116 degrees!! My car in 50-60 degress is NOT the same car compared to 116 degress..and I know..I've drivein in AZ/CA desert heat in my car....116 degress means my car is pulling timing/boost like nuts and I have NO POWER....NONE...which is why C&D got the crummy 0-60 number...and why in other tests...it runs 5.4 or 5.5
the TL is a great car. it has strengths over the R.
but in terms of power/acceleration - an S60R should beat a TL.
with minor mods, and S60R can be VERY fast. an ECU upgrade + dp + exhaust can be bought for $3000 and that will bump an R from 300 to 350-375. A guy I know has those mods and dynos at about 300 WHEEL hp..
add an ECU/headers/exhaust to your TL and you will NEVER put 300 to the pavement.
I"m not say9ing an R is a better car...i bet the stering feel is better on the TL....you have BT..we don't....
each has its strengths...
my wife LOVES the TL and maybe I'll own one in the future....
I've never driven a TL, so I can't say how it drives compared to an R...but I"d bet stock vs. stock, the TL is a more fun car to drive. One thing the Volvo lacks is driver feedback/involvement like many sports cars give
I'm just saying that the car has 300 hp AND a key point many of you may be missing is the torque. the car makes ilke 295 lbs of torque at about 3500 rpm.
There is NO WAY the TL makes close to that...yes the TL has a solid respectable hp rating...but when you mash the gas at 4000 rpm....that thing that shoves you back in your seat and gvies you that sensation of acceleration is NOT hp..it's torque. the R kills the TL in that dept......under the right conditions.
that's key wtih the volvo.
I really wasn't here to talk smack...I"m researching TL's cause I might buy one...not to talk smack to TL owners.
I own an S60R, and saw a post where there was comment about the variation in reported performance figures. I own an R, so I know why that occurs. It's gas and outside temps. That C&D article was done in 116 degrees..the R had no chance. I wouldn't want to race a TL in 116 degrees!! My car in 50-60 degress is NOT the same car compared to 116 degress..and I know..I've drivein in AZ/CA desert heat in my car....116 degress means my car is pulling timing/boost like nuts and I have NO POWER....NONE...which is why C&D got the crummy 0-60 number...and why in other tests...it runs 5.4 or 5.5
the TL is a great car. it has strengths over the R.
but in terms of power/acceleration - an S60R should beat a TL.
with minor mods, and S60R can be VERY fast. an ECU upgrade + dp + exhaust can be bought for $3000 and that will bump an R from 300 to 350-375. A guy I know has those mods and dynos at about 300 WHEEL hp..
add an ECU/headers/exhaust to your TL and you will NEVER put 300 to the pavement.
I"m not say9ing an R is a better car...i bet the stering feel is better on the TL....you have BT..we don't....
each has its strengths...
my wife LOVES the TL and maybe I'll own one in the future....
10-28-2005, 07:30 AM
#31
05 C230K & 09 135i 6MT
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: GA
Posts: 3,732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car and Driver (mag racing... I know) clocked the S60R at 5.5 to 60 and 14.0@101 in the 1/4 mile. I've not seen these results for a TL 6MT anywhere. Sure, close... but not the perfect match some say it is.
Edit: Should it come as any surprise that the S60R is faster than the TL? With 295TQ (6spd) available at 1950rpm, it would only make sense.
Edit: Should it come as any surprise that the S60R is faster than the TL? With 295TQ (6spd) available at 1950rpm, it would only make sense.
10-28-2005, 08:45 AM
#32
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 43
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 03CoupeV6
Car and Driver (mag racing... I know) clocked the S60R at 5.5 to 60 and 14.0@101 in the 1/4 mile. I've not seen these results for a TL 6MT anywhere. Sure, close... but not the perfect match some say it is.
Edit: Should it come as any surprise that the S60R is faster than the TL? With 295TQ (6spd) available at 1950rpm, it would only make sense.
Edit: Should it come as any surprise that the S60R is faster than the TL? With 295TQ (6spd) available at 1950rpm, it would only make sense.
No one said "perfectly match" but when 6 spd TL's are pulling 14.0-14.2@99, I'd say that's neck and neck with 14.0@100-101.
The s60r should be a little faster, it has more power but weighs a little more.
The issue is this clown and his "s60R KILLS YOU TL'S."
10-28-2005, 12:52 PM
#33
Originally Posted by ResidualFreedom
Don't worry, we've got a turbo in the making for the tl... Turbo the Type-s engine and your beloved volvo engine won't have a chance.
419 hp at the wheels, anyone?
11-03-2005, 09:12 AM
#34
Intermediate
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Blowing by you
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry, but I have testdriven an S60R and ridden in a modded TypeS (all the comptech goodies minus blower, with UR crank pulley), and they Volvo was a good bit faster everywhere.
I am sure that anything can happen on the streets which is why I am not rasing a flag, but just stating it as I experienced it. They are pretty damn potent, and more so that the usual TypeS. I am sure that with a supercharger the Type S will blow ahead, but without one, it could get ugly for a typeS driver without some significant mods.
Some talk about the AWD drivetrain loss, but if you research Volvo's system, it runs in FWD most of the time, then sends power back as needed..
The Volvo is just plain quicker everywhere.. sorry... It is odd because it has a relatively tiny turbo that seems to kick in just over 2K rpms (as opposed to around 4K for my car), and the power seems to hold up high as well. Not sure how much boost it runs, but it is a quick car...
I am sure that anything can happen on the streets which is why I am not rasing a flag, but just stating it as I experienced it. They are pretty damn potent, and more so that the usual TypeS. I am sure that with a supercharger the Type S will blow ahead, but without one, it could get ugly for a typeS driver without some significant mods.
Some talk about the AWD drivetrain loss, but if you research Volvo's system, it runs in FWD most of the time, then sends power back as needed..
The Volvo is just plain quicker everywhere.. sorry... It is odd because it has a relatively tiny turbo that seems to kick in just over 2K rpms (as opposed to around 4K for my car), and the power seems to hold up high as well. Not sure how much boost it runs, but it is a quick car...
11-03-2005, 09:15 AM
#35
Intermediate
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Blowing by you
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 03CoupeV6
Car and Driver (mag racing... I know) clocked the S60R at 5.5 to 60 and 14.0@101 in the 1/4 mile. I've not seen these results for a TL 6MT anywhere. Sure, close... but not the perfect match some say it is.
Edit: Should it come as any surprise that the S60R is faster than the TL? With 295TQ (6spd) available at 1950rpm, it would only make sense.
Edit: Should it come as any surprise that the S60R is faster than the TL? With 295TQ (6spd) available at 1950rpm, it would only make sense.
I own neither car (although my good friend owns a TL-S with the comptech goodies on minus blower), and have nothing to prove here (although the TL looks better).
11-03-2005, 12:21 PM
#36
"Joe Cool"
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: So. Cal
Age: 57
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That reality here is that even if the Volvo does have more HP, the right driver in a TL could indeed smoke the Volvo.
And if you buy a car solely based on its ability to perform, Who wants to buy one that will only perform under so called "perfect conditions".
If you are the type of person to pull up to someone on the street and take them on in a street race.
You can't tell em, " hey, yeah I'll race you but can we meet somewhere later after the temperature is perfect for my car"
"Cuz its feeling a little sluggish right now."
And Guest though I do respect your opinion, and i did go to the site you posted to see the Volvos (evolved) the bottom line is that the A-spec TL is way better looking than any of those cars.
Face it your gonna spens alot more time driving at normal speeds and even cruising around, than you will be gunnnig it down the Highway.
Just my
And if you buy a car solely based on its ability to perform, Who wants to buy one that will only perform under so called "perfect conditions".
If you are the type of person to pull up to someone on the street and take them on in a street race.
You can't tell em, " hey, yeah I'll race you but can we meet somewhere later after the temperature is perfect for my car"
"Cuz its feeling a little sluggish right now."
And Guest though I do respect your opinion, and i did go to the site you posted to see the Volvos (evolved) the bottom line is that the A-spec TL is way better looking than any of those cars.
Face it your gonna spens alot more time driving at normal speeds and even cruising around, than you will be gunnnig it down the Highway.
Just my
11-03-2005, 03:34 PM
#37
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 43
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jigga009
sorry, but I have testdriven an S60R and ridden in a modded TypeS (all the comptech goodies minus blower, with UR crank pulley), and they Volvo was a good bit faster everywhere.
I am sure that anything can happen on the streets which is why I am not rasing a flag, but just stating it as I experienced it. They are pretty damn potent, and more so that the usual TypeS. I am sure that with a supercharger the Type S will blow ahead, but without one, it could get ugly for a typeS driver without some significant mods.
Some talk about the AWD drivetrain loss, but if you research Volvo's system, it runs in FWD most of the time, then sends power back as needed..
The Volvo is just plain quicker everywhere.. sorry... It is odd because it has a relatively tiny turbo that seems to kick in just over 2K rpms (as opposed to around 4K for my car), and the power seems to hold up high as well. Not sure how much boost it runs, but it is a quick car...
I am sure that anything can happen on the streets which is why I am not rasing a flag, but just stating it as I experienced it. They are pretty damn potent, and more so that the usual TypeS. I am sure that with a supercharger the Type S will blow ahead, but without one, it could get ugly for a typeS driver without some significant mods.
Some talk about the AWD drivetrain loss, but if you research Volvo's system, it runs in FWD most of the time, then sends power back as needed..
The Volvo is just plain quicker everywhere.. sorry... It is odd because it has a relatively tiny turbo that seems to kick in just over 2K rpms (as opposed to around 4K for my car), and the power seems to hold up high as well. Not sure how much boost it runs, but it is a quick car...
The beauty of your opinion is that the facts show that STOCK vs. STOCK tranny vs. tranny, they run nearly identical times.
Thanks again.
04-16-2007, 10:19 AM
#39
WILL PLAY POOL FOR CASH
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: N. VA
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SuperSteel
You're obviously new to cars. The percentage drive train loss the TL has is NOT abnormal nor is it Unfathomable.
Learn about the mechanics of a car, then post your comments. Until then you sound like a 17 year old without a clue.
Learn about the mechanics of a car, then post your comments. Until then you sound like a 17 year old without a clue.
I was thinking 19...
04-17-2007, 11:19 AM
#40
lurker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SoCal
Age: 49
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted my dyno sheets before...but just to clear up some question about power loss through the AWD tranny, here it is again.
FWHP on the S60R AWD = 300
AWHP on DynaPack = 240.8 (on my car with an intake and exhaust)
That's a loss of 59.2hp or 19.7%.
The funny thing is....the car is rated at 295 ft/lb of torque at the flywheel, but I dyno'd 300.4 at the wheels. Could be the DynaPack though.
Coming from a Mitusbishi 3.0L, that's pretty good hp loss through an AWD trans.
I was running a supercharger, headers, 330cc injectors, walboro fuel pump, JE Pistons, and an ECU piggy back. About 8-9 lbs of boost. That was supposed to be 335 fwhp and it dyno'd at 272whp. Thats about 18% loss on a FWD.
FWHP on the S60R AWD = 300
AWHP on DynaPack = 240.8 (on my car with an intake and exhaust)
That's a loss of 59.2hp or 19.7%.
The funny thing is....the car is rated at 295 ft/lb of torque at the flywheel, but I dyno'd 300.4 at the wheels. Could be the DynaPack though.
Coming from a Mitusbishi 3.0L, that's pretty good hp loss through an AWD trans.
I was running a supercharger, headers, 330cc injectors, walboro fuel pump, JE Pistons, and an ECU piggy back. About 8-9 lbs of boost. That was supposed to be 335 fwhp and it dyno'd at 272whp. Thats about 18% loss on a FWD.