S60R vs S60T5???

[RUSCHEL]

Hi everyone. I have been looking at the acceleration videos of both S60t5 and the S60r. It seems to me that the t5s are faster than the R's. The s60t5 acceleration when chipped seems alot faster than my chipped R. In fact for some reason I barely can tell a difference between my stock and chipped R (acceleration wise). Although I feel higher torque and more power all the way to red line. Well I can tell that t5 has longer gears. When I shift from third into fourth in my R, Im going about 85-90 mph, while t5 shifts into fourth at 95-100 or so.

Did anyone ever notice this?

Don't get me wrong I love my R I just want to see if anyone else noticed this and what you guys think.

[reward2]

In an 8/2003 edition of Car and Driver, they were delivered a Passion Red 2004 S60R for testing. According to them it stickered for $37,510 which was $14,610 more than a 247HP T5. The R they tested stickered at $41,550 and was a MT 5 speed. They talked about the larger KKK turbo (eliminating the Mitsubishi turbo) which doubled the boost to 14.7 psi.
This is a direct quote from the article: "Zero to 60 mph comes at just 5.5 seconds, which is a full second quicker than the S60 T5, nearly two seconds faster than the S60 AWD, and most notably, only 0.3 and 0.5 second slower, respectively, than the Mercedes C32 AMG and the 340-hp Audi S4. Reaching the quarter-mile marker takes another 8.5 seconds, to 14 flat at 101 mph, trailing the two Germans by 0.4 but dusting the T5 by 0.9 and the AWD by 1.8."
It is a good, comprehensive article about the R and compares it to the A4, the M3, and others. They were impressed. It was written by Arron Robinson and Ron Kiino. I hope this helps.

[iwant one]

Maybe your R isn't running as it should. Never driven a T5 so I don't know but I highly doubt it should be faster then an R.

[Vio-TT-R]

R's are cooler....you wanna be cool right?

[jstro]

I've owned both, 2001 T5, & 2004 R, both stage 2, R is faster& handles better, the torque steer inthe T5 was not fun...

[R.Photo]

In an 8/2003 edition of Car and Driver, they were delivered a Passion Red 2004 S60R for testing. According to them it stickered for $37,510 which was $14,610 more than a 247HP T5. The R they tested stickered at $41,550 and was a MT 5 speed. They talked about the larger KKK turbo (eliminating the Mitsubishi turbo) which doubled the boost to 14.7 psi.
This is a direct quote from the article: "Zero to 60 mph comes at just 5.5 seconds, which is a full second quicker than the S60 T5, nearly two seconds faster than the S60 AWD, and most notably, only 0.3 and 0.5 second slower, respectively, than the Mercedes C32 AMG and the 340-hp Audi S4. Reaching the quarter-mile marker takes another 8.5 seconds, to 14 flat at 101 mph, trailing the two Germans by 0.4 but dusting the T5 by 0.9 and the AWD by 1.8."
It is a good, comprehensive article about the R and compares it to the A4, the M3, and others. They were impressed. It was written by Arron Robinson and Ron Kiino. I hope this helps.

Well that's just incorrect....

[reward2]

Well that's just incorrect....

Sharp eyes. I reread the article and it does say it was a 6 speed MT. Thanks for correcting.

[prienzo]

In an 8/2003 edition of Car and Driver, they were delivered a Passion Red 2004 S60R for testing. According to them it stickered for $37,510 which was $14,610 more than a 247HP T5. The R they tested stickered at $41,550 and was a MT 5 speed. They talked about the larger KKK turbo (eliminating the Mitsubishi turbo) which doubled the boost to 14.7 psi.
This is a direct quote from the article: "Zero to 60 mph comes at just 5.5 seconds, which is a full second quicker than the S60 T5, nearly two seconds faster than the S60 AWD, and most notably, only 0.3 and 0.5 second slower, respectively, than the Mercedes C32 AMG and the 340-hp Audi S4. Reaching the quarter-mile marker takes another 8.5 seconds, to 14 flat at 101 mph, trailing the two Germans by 0.4 but dusting the T5 by 0.9 and the AWD by 1.8."
It is a good, comprehensive article about the R and compares it to the A4, the M3, and others. They were impressed. It was written by Arron Robinson and Ron Kiino. I hope this helps.

The T5 was only $23k???

[Vio-TT-R]

Sharp eyes. I reread the article and it does say it was a 6 speed MT. Thanks for correcting.

.3 seconds slower than the c63?

.5 seconds slower than the Audi?

The Audi figures seem correct but I have witnessed the c63 in action and it SPANKS the R in almost any way....aside from the bucket seats

[DevolvR]

.3 seconds slower than the c63?

.5 seconds slower than the Audi?

The Audi figures seem correct but I have witnessed the c63 in action and it SPANKS the R in almost any way....aside from the bucket seats

Read Vio, C32! Audi should be a B6 at best.

[reward2]

.3 seconds slower than the c63?

.5 seconds slower than the Audi?

The Audi figures seem correct but I have witnessed the c63 in action and it SPANKS the R in almost any way....aside from the bucket seats

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...-awd-road-test

[R.Photo]

Nice upgrade under the old username Alfred! Cheers

[crazyace1104]

Awd vs fwd! I'd personally rather have awd over fwd regardless of power....better handling more control. Peace of mind I guess? R is definitely faster stock. My buddy has a T5 that's faster than my R(only for now )...it's scary. Ha.
Also depends on your finances. If you have a lower budget and can find a T5 go for it. Or if you want the ride of your life grab an R!

Good luck

[Vio-TT-R]

Read Vio, C32! Audi should be a B6 at best.

Tee hee silly Vio.

[tspot]

Awd vs fwd

this. or something is wrong with your R

[broinkrist]

I dont think the T5 is faster than an R. I have a 2005 T5 6-speed with 270hp and 270tq. Less than the 300hp and 300tq of the R but also only 2wd, so less drivetrain loss. Transmission is the same I believe M66.

The R should be faster, as well as more balanced. Maybe there is something wrong with your R? Boost leak?

[vLGrok]

Anyway, if you're only comparing straight line, S60R isn't your ideal choice.

[jordanwlevesque]

Comparably fast depending on mods, but lets take this test through a New England snow storm... No chance T-5.

[omv2009]

R's are cooler....you wanna be cool right?

LOL i like that



VOLVOS4LIFE

[05BruzaS60r]

R's are cooler....you wanna be cool right?

Agreed. Nothing else to discuss here.

[lyleclyde]

Worked fir Volvo. T5 is quite a bit slower. The reason the gears seem to ride out longer is because less power. It takes longer to accelerate and change to the next gear. I was under the impression t5's were 225 or 230 HP back in 04. Not even a comparison. Ecspesially with a slush box.

[d3box1]

Worked fir Volvo. T5 is quite a bit slower. The reason the gears seem to ride out longer is because less power. It takes longer to accelerate and change to the next gear. I was under the impression t5's were 225 or 230 HP back in 04. Not even a comparison. Ecspesially with a slush box.

246HP and a stage one re-flash makes around 300hp/310 tq. It all depends if your from a dig or have a rolling start. I will put my money on a 300hp 04' T5 5 speed VS an R 6 speed from a roll.....

[tspot]

the OP was comparing two chipped vehicles.

[d3box1]

the OP was comparing two chipped vehicles.

got to even the odds a bit......

[R.Photo]

I'd still take the R if it weren't tuned vs a tuned T5. No wheel spin, more gears to gather speed, turbo would be working well within its efficiency zone if it weren't tuned.

[fallenfenix87]

The interior alone makes this a no contest.

[inteller]

walked a turd in a T5 with a bunch of mild mods....and I didn't even do a skyhook takeoff.

[volvodrummer]

6 of one, Half dozen of the other..... interiors vs wheelspin, vs brakes, vs handling/4C/Non 4C
01-04 T5s had the 2.3 motor with 247hp, 05 + T5s got the same motor as the R (and the same K24 turbo)
The earlier T5s are def slower, even with a tune, the later are pretty damn awesome (if you can find one, they kinda disappeared when the R's came out)
All I can say is that I LOVE my R.

[cuseR]

Is your R a GT? If it is you probably don't have your torque limiter removed, which makes a huge difference and is probably why your R feels the about the same stock vs. tuned.

[LTA]

walked a turd in a T5 with a bunch of mild mods....and I didn't even do a skyhook takeoff.

That's funny!

Using a g-meter I managed a clutch burning high 6 seconds once in my T5 but usually could only muster low 7sec 0-60 (MY02 S60 T5 5MT). Using the same g-meter my stock R was no less than 1.5 sec quicker without breaking a sweat.

LTA

[colin2211]

don t buy a T5 man....they suck and there are many disadvantages if you are trying to mod it
the t5 has a smaller turbo
****ty intercooler
no brembos
no 4c chassis control
no volvo r style bucket seats
smalls rims and tires

[broinkrist]

I don't know about you, but my T5 has the same Turbo as an R, same Head/Valvetrain, 0.1L extra displacement, bucket seats, spaceball shifter, 4c comfort/sport...no angle gear, EBD,...

stage 2 with dp, exhaust, intake, and tune on a T5 would be pretty awesome...

Why all the hate?

don t buy a T5 man....they suck and there are many disadvantages if you are trying to mod it
the t5 has a smaller turbo
****ty intercooler
no brembos
no 4c chassis control
no volvo r style bucket seats
smalls rims and tires

[R.Photo]

I don't know about you, but my T5 has the same Turbo as an R, same Head/Valvetrain, 0.1L extra displacement, bucket seats, spaceball shifter, 4c comfort/sport...no angle gear, EBD,...

stage 2 with dp, exhaust, intake, and tune on a T5 would be pretty awesome...

Why all the hate?

The t5 was a 2.3l with a smaller turbo.

[inteller]

actually I thought it was a 2.3 and then later a 2.4 (never a 2.5)...but because of that you can take a T5 block and boost it up a lot more like those crazy Germans are doing.

[DevolvR]

actually I thought it was a 2.3 and then later a 2.4 (never a 2.5)...but because of that you can take a T5 block and boost it up a lot more like those crazy Germans are doing.

Exactly. Volvo S60 T5s never came with the 2.5L engine, in the earlier years of 2001-2004, the T5s had the old trustworthy 2.3L 850 design. It was later in 2005 where they needed to refresh their lineup(cosmetically) with a bit more power, they upped the engine by displacement to the 2.4L engine with the same turbo configuration. The 2.5L AWD sported a similar engine to the R, but it had a low pressure and smaller turbo.