9th Jan 2007, 09:36
The above comments are all and well, but the driver misses the point of the car entirely. The car is quick - but it's not a hot hatch. The car is designed more for comfort as they usually cover a vast mileage. Perhaps he only had the 2.5t (not 2.3 t T5). How can the 5 -cylinder engine sound poor - it sound great. I have driven both the T5 and Golf Gt-Tdi 130 and agree that the golf has more 'punch' - however, the 'punch' comes and goes just as quickly! Very few (Japanese engines excluded) have much power above 5000rpm anyway. The trick with the T5 is to buy the estate and a dog guard - then no one will expect it when you beat them from the lights!!!
29th Aug 2007, 09:50
The T5 is not a sports car, only a fast limousine.
You cannot compare it to a Golf TDI in any way. The Volvo is bigger, it has more options available and it is more comfortable.
You also cannot compare torque of T5 and a diesel engine. Diesel's have got more torque as standard.
8th Sep 2007, 03:59
To the person from the 28th August:
Yes sir, you're damn right I had a bad experience!! My original review of my own car is in the 1999 section entitled 'An Expensive Disappointment' if you're interested.
I know the turbo was working properly because I had repeated other problems with the engine management during which it was checked over several times and repaired by a Volvo main dealer.
If you read my other comments above, you may realise that I'm not saying the car was slow, just that it's engine was not very sporty or satisfying in the WAY it delivered it's power, and as a result did not feel as quick as I was expecting.
I fully understand that the car is not a hot hatch or sports car, and I have said so several times in my comments above and on those attached to my original review - BUT!! It WAS marketed as a SPORTS SALOON - I still have the brochures to prove it!
And again, if you read what I've actually said, my main criticism was actually not the engine, but the chassis / suspension. Whatever you want to call the car, sports or otherwise, if a manufacturer is going to give a car 240 bhp, it should ensure the chassis can handle it.
I'm understand that this is a big, heavy car and you cannot expect it to be as agile as a smaller car, but that's not my point.
I don't wish to keep repeating myself endlessly, I've said all this in some detail before, but even allowing for the above, there were serious flaws with the chassis setup on this model. It was far too softly sprung and under-damped. The steering was too slow, to much body roll, understeer, instability, etc, etc.
A car that is this quick in a straight line should have a setup that can cope - plenty of other manufacturers manage it!
I am not a Volvo hater - it's just I had such a poor experience with mine.
8th Sep 2007, 04:30
To the person from 29th August:
Respectfully, did you actually properly read what I've written above?
I disagree; I still have the original brochures for the car, and Volvo DID market it as sports saloon. I fully realise it is a big executive car, not a hot hatch, but even so, as I've already said, the suspension was seriously lacking for a car with so much power.
And I have not COMPARED the Golf to the Volvo. OF COURSE they are completely different cars. I used it as an EXAMPLE when discussing my thoughts on my Volvo's engine / performance.
I used the Golf for no other reason that I drove one for 6 months, so knew what it felt like. It could have been any good diesel. The point I was making is that I found the T5 engine disappointing.
Having first had a hot hatchback that had lots of top-end power, but lacked torque, followed by the Golf which had loads of torque, but not great power or rev-range, I thought when I bought my T5 that I would get the best of both worlds.
I.E. a car that had great low and mid-range torque (like the Golf or other TDi's - that's the EXAMPLE - not a COMPARISON), but would ALSO have good top-end power.
I have clearly said that the T5 IS very quick in a straight line, but it does not deliver that performance in at all a satisfying way. THAT'S my point, and my reason for using some other cars that would never be compared like for like with the Volvo - to illustrate that A + B should have equalled C in the Volvo, but ultimately did not.
Oh, and by the way the T5 actually has more torque (249 lb ft) than the Golf 130 TDi (229 lb ft). Diesels usually have more torque than most mainstream non-turbo petrols, true, but the T5 had both a larger capacity and is turbocharged.
And before anyone else jumps in, yes I know the current T5 has a still higher torque output, but that is the correct figure for mine (1999 model)
Of course weight factors into things as well but this could go on all day!
Please take the time to re-read my comments carefully if you want to, hopefully my points will become clearer.
But in closing, it is not just what something does, but HOW it does it...
8th Sep 2007, 12:11
I agree. Performance that the T5 engine delivers, is not fully satisfying. That's because you get full turbo kick a bit too late as it is HPT and it has got rather big turbo lag. To avoid this, go with 2,4 Turbo (LPT with 200hp).
I agree with our comment on suspension. A car of that amount of power should have better suspension. With standard suspension the handling is not the best.
10th Sep 2007, 10:57
Thanks for your comments (I'm the person above arguing against the car). You are absolutely right about the HPT vs LPT versions, I have read comments in various buying guides and reviews that say that the 2.4T and 2.0T are 'sweeter' engines.
In practice, I used to find that you didn't get a particularly great torque 'rush' at lower revs, but that when the turbo hit full boost, you were at around peak torque revs and that partly masked the feeling of the turbo coming on boost.
I'm afraid my problem is, I was seduced by the headline power figure!! I think if I'd have bought a 2.4 or 2.0, I also wouldn't have had such high expectations of the chassis either, but at the time, the T5 was marketed as a sports saloon, so I did.
It's interesting that with the current generation '70' (mine was a previous gen 1999) they no longer seem to market it as a sporting variant. That now seems to fall solely upon the 'R' version.