I have the older style beetle, with the 150hp engine, I though it was fairly quick. We also had an old Volvo 240 wagon, which is officially the slowest car on earth. But after 170,000 miles the Volvo hasn't given us the first hint of trouble. Now that my son is turning 16 we decided to give him the old Volvo and buy a newer car, it was between another Volvo wagon or a Passat Wagon. We bought a used Volvo wagon, with a 2.4 liter 5cyl intercooled turbo engine. HOLY COW is that car fast, my poor Beetle which isn't even in the ballpark performance wise, is no longer is the Alpha Male in the garage.
I thought my beetle was fairly quick
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Joined
·
567 Posts
Yep they have tons of torque and 500 rpm sooner so if your Bug is not chipped you are going to see tailights all the time.... also those Volvos Turbo are quite gas guzzlers if driven hard (so youllknow your son has been behaving BAD) 
Joined
·
309 Posts
The 2.4L is a low pressure turbocharger, but even that engine is close to 200hp and 200ft.lb. torque versus a 1.8T NB which is at 150hp and around 160ft.lb. Sure, the Volvo weighs more, but its speed/weight ratio is still 20% higher than a NB.
Chip the NB, and it'll be even.
My fiancee just purchased a used T5 wagon, which is the 2.3L high pressure turbo. Even with all the modifications on my car, on a straightaway the Volvo keeps up. A simple chip will jump that car from 230hp to 300hp, and after that, the only chance I'll have is with a big turbo setup.
Let me add that I pushed for the T5 wagon (she was thinking of just getting the 2.4T, which was way easier to find in a lot), but in the end she's so in love with the car that on weekends where she used to make me drive her old car I find myself sitting on the passenger side, moping.
Chip the NB, and it'll be even.
My fiancee just purchased a used T5 wagon, which is the 2.3L high pressure turbo. Even with all the modifications on my car, on a straightaway the Volvo keeps up. A simple chip will jump that car from 230hp to 300hp, and after that, the only chance I'll have is with a big turbo setup.
Let me add that I pushed for the T5 wagon (she was thinking of just getting the 2.4T, which was way easier to find in a lot), but in the end she's so in love with the car that on weekends where she used to make me drive her old car I find myself sitting on the passenger side, moping.
Joined
·
309 Posts
Keep the revs at 3000 before stomping and the NB will go.
If the 850 is 222HP, it's the 2.3L high pressure turbo. Be glad and rejoice, you have a T5. Or rather, be sad and mourn, for now even a basic remap/chip of the NB won't get it to compete with it.
If the 850 is 222HP, it's the 2.3L high pressure turbo. Be glad and rejoice, you have a T5.
Or rather, be sad and mourn, for now even a basic remap/chip of the NB won't get it to compete with it.You are correct, I was wrong, it is a 2.3 litre, it doesn't say T5, only "TURBO". And yes, it is in a different ballpark from my Beetle, the good news is, the Volvo seems to have become the everyday driver, because of the room, which means my '00 Beetle which has only 60K on it, will get very few miles put on it
Joined
·
309 Posts
At 222HP, the only way the NB can catch up is a chip AND an exhaust, then you'll get close. Of course, you can chip the Volvo up to 290-300 HP... so, uh... enjoy the Volvo.
Joined
·
1,746 Posts
Don't know what to say about your 2.4T Volvo wagon being faster than your 1.8t Beetle.
A friend of mind had a turbo charged 5 cylinder Volvo "C70" and he couldn't even get close to my 1.8t, now he has a 220hp 2005 Audi A4 3.0L V6 with a six speed and even that can't get the job done with my Beetle.
Hummm.
except, very interesting.
A friend of mind had a turbo charged 5 cylinder Volvo "C70" and he couldn't even get close to my 1.8t, now he has a 220hp 2005 Audi A4 3.0L V6 with a six speed and even that can't get the job done with my Beetle.
Hummm.
Joined
·
1,746 Posts
When my 2000 New Beetle 1.8t (150chp APH) was stock, it was still much faster than his C70 Volvo. I spent a lot of time behind the wheel of a friend's stock 2001 New Beetle 1.8t (150chp AWV) and the Volvo could do anything with that either.
Possible something is ailing your Beetle and you're not aware of it.
Possible something is ailing your Beetle and you're not aware of it.
Joined
·
309 Posts
Again, let's not confuse the issue. Volvo has two turbo engines for the C70 and V70: a 2.3L high pressure turbo and a 2.4L low pressure turbo.
The 2.3L has 222-240HP, depending on MY. The 2.4L has 168-200HP, depending on MY. If you're friend had a 2.4T, then yes, a stock NB can beat it, especially if it was the convertible. If it was the 2.3L model, your friend is a horrible driver. I'd go with your friend being a horrible driver relative to you (he could be average and you superior, or you average and he ridiculously bad), seeing as he can't even trounce you with an Audi A4.
Also, the 850 T5 is a 200-400 pounds lighter than the C70, making it closer to the weight of the NB.
Here's a fun try, try and find someone with a modern V70R (new V70s no longer use the T5, sad to say), a 3600 lb. 300HP all-wheel drive monster of a wagon. True, if your NB's pretty tweaked and can belt out 240+HP crank, the specs would make it fairly close and interesting. The rest is up to the driver.
The 2.3L has 222-240HP, depending on MY. The 2.4L has 168-200HP, depending on MY. If you're friend had a 2.4T, then yes, a stock NB can beat it, especially if it was the convertible. If it was the 2.3L model, your friend is a horrible driver. I'd go with your friend being a horrible driver relative to you (he could be average and you superior, or you average and he ridiculously bad), seeing as he can't even trounce you with an Audi A4.
Also, the 850 T5 is a 200-400 pounds lighter than the C70, making it closer to the weight of the NB.
Here's a fun try, try and find someone with a modern V70R (new V70s no longer use the T5, sad to say), a 3600 lb. 300HP all-wheel drive monster of a wagon. True, if your NB's pretty tweaked and can belt out 240+HP crank, the specs would make it fairly close and interesting. The rest is up to the driver.
Joined
·
1,746 Posts
It is what it is, believe it or not.
1. Since you don't know my friend or myself, you really shouldn't "speculate" about the level of either of our driving skills.
2. I've spent many miles on the road behind the wheel of the C70 hard top, the 2005 A4, 2001 New Beetle 1.8t and both a stock and modified 2000 New Beetle 1.8t, I think this qualifies me to know the performance differences between these vehicles.
What the majority of people fail to realize is just how detrimental even an additional 50Lbs. of weight can be to a cars over all performance, when you get to a 200Lb. and up difference, the effects can be phenomenal.
A vehicle that loses or has less weight (mass) in essence gains hp & tq hince the frase, addition by subtract. The opposite is also true, when the weight (mass) of a vehicle is higher or increased the frase would be reversed, subtraction by addition.
My original posts were in response to mysticbus and what he experienced between similar vehicles, I found our different results kind of interesting, however there is no intent or desire on my part to get into an argument with anyone about their adverse opinion and whether or not they believe my experience on this subject, as I said, believe it or not, it makes no difference to me.
1. Since you don't know my friend or myself, you really shouldn't "speculate" about the level of either of our driving skills.
2. I've spent many miles on the road behind the wheel of the C70 hard top, the 2005 A4, 2001 New Beetle 1.8t and both a stock and modified 2000 New Beetle 1.8t, I think this qualifies me to know the performance differences between these vehicles.
What the majority of people fail to realize is just how detrimental even an additional 50Lbs. of weight can be to a cars over all performance, when you get to a 200Lb. and up difference, the effects can be phenomenal.
A vehicle that loses or has less weight (mass) in essence gains hp & tq hince the frase, addition by subtract. The opposite is also true, when the weight (mass) of a vehicle is higher or increased the frase would be reversed, subtraction by addition.
My original posts were in response to mysticbus and what he experienced between similar vehicles, I found our different results kind of interesting, however there is no intent or desire on my part to get into an argument with anyone about their adverse opinion and whether or not they believe my experience on this subject, as I said, believe it or not, it makes no difference to me.
Joined
·
309 Posts
I don't know you, I don't know your friend, but the comparison of driver skill is not unfounded, particularly if your friend's Volvo was a T5. You could both be superior to my own modest skills, but relative to you, he couldn't be better than you if he lost to a stock APH with a T5, or he was just as good as you only he had a 2.4T and not a T5.
And of course I am speculating, I'm going over the possible ways your APH can go up against a C70 without knowing all the facts. All you said was C70, I had to start somewhere.
I still don't know if it's a 2.3L or a 2.4L, but at least now I know it's a hard top and not a convertible, meaning the C70, while still heavier than the NB, is not as heavy as the convertible. Like you said, weight is important.
None of this is about opposing your experience or about starting up an argument or accusing your friend of being a horrible driver. It's about finding out what kind of C70 was involved in your experience where your APH had no problems up against a C70.
And of course I am speculating, I'm going over the possible ways your APH can go up against a C70 without knowing all the facts. All you said was C70, I had to start somewhere.
I still don't know if it's a 2.3L or a 2.4L, but at least now I know it's a hard top and not a convertible, meaning the C70, while still heavier than the NB, is not as heavy as the convertible. Like you said, weight is important.
None of this is about opposing your experience or about starting up an argument or accusing your friend of being a horrible driver. It's about finding out what kind of C70 was involved in your experience where your APH had no problems up against a C70.
My Volvo beat a strangers GTI 1.8 today at lunch, it didn't even seem fair, if it weren't for the screaming coming from his loud rice boy exhaust, I would have thought he wasn't trying. By the far side of the intersection, I was handily leaving him behind.
Just a thought, maybe my Beetle isn't slow, but my Volvo is fast?
The Beetle feels quick and nimble, but the Volvo... that is entirely different, it is an auto, it has no problem burning tires at 25MPH, and if you roll the throttle to control wheelspin, it pins you in the seat pretty good.
The Beetle feels quick and nimble, but the Volvo... that is entirely different, it is an auto, it has no problem burning tires at 25MPH, and if you roll the throttle to control wheelspin, it pins you in the seat pretty good.
Joined
·
309 Posts
Welcome to driving a T5.
Joined
·
1,746 Posts
2.3hpt I5 236chp/243Lbft. ctq. 2001 C70 Coupe, curb weight of over 3375Lbs.
1.8t I4 150chp/162Lbft. ctq 2000 New Beetle, curb weight 2964Lbs.
I've driven both cars extensively and the Beetle had much better rolling acceleration/response so that should eliminate any question of comparable driving skills, besides, we're not talking about Laguna Seca or an I6 3.2L 340hp M3 here.
What we are talking about is the following:
C70 over Beetle
+86chp
+81Lbft. tq.
>> +411Lbs. curb weight << Now this is where great attention should be placed, the Volvo is substantially heavier and doesn't have enough "juice" over that of the Beetle to support that weight difference.
This is why after driving the Beetle 1.8t, the C70 felt sluggish.
This is also a very common result in many cases when compairing more compact cars with smaller forced induction engines against bigger cars with normally aspirated V6/V8 engines.
"With some exceptions", most of the production cars out there with V6/V8 engines really don't have a power to weight ratio to speak of. This is a major reason why in my current far from stock New Beetle 1.8t, only a small number of vehicles give me any trouble on the highway, V6 or V8.
1.8t I4 150chp/162Lbft. ctq 2000 New Beetle, curb weight 2964Lbs.
I've driven both cars extensively and the Beetle had much better rolling acceleration/response so that should eliminate any question of comparable driving skills, besides, we're not talking about Laguna Seca or an I6 3.2L 340hp M3 here.
What we are talking about is the following:
C70 over Beetle
+86chp
+81Lbft. tq.
>> +411Lbs. curb weight << Now this is where great attention should be placed, the Volvo is substantially heavier and doesn't have enough "juice" over that of the Beetle to support that weight difference.
This is why after driving the Beetle 1.8t, the C70 felt sluggish.
This is also a very common result in many cases when compairing more compact cars with smaller forced induction engines against bigger cars with normally aspirated V6/V8 engines.
"With some exceptions", most of the production cars out there with V6/V8 engines really don't have a power to weight ratio to speak of. This is a major reason why in my current far from stock New Beetle 1.8t, only a small number of vehicles give me any trouble on the highway, V6 or V8.
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!