posted by
someone claiming to be Nathan
on
Sun Mar 18 03:03 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
Volvo 850 Turbo Sportswagon ( automatic transmission)
Date Tested : 3-94
Horsepower: 222
0-60: 7.4 seconds
Quarter Mile Time: 15.5
TOP SPEED : 155 MPH
Braking from 60: 130 feet
Braking from 80: 245 feet Skid Pad G's : 0.80
Slalom (MPH): 61.2
Fuel Mileage: 23.5 MPG
The sedan is slightly faster 0-60 as I remember (probably due to aerodynamics).
As I said, the 155 MPH was "electronically limited". Wonder what the real top speed is??
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Yannis Alatzas
on
Sun Mar 18 07:30 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
Nathan,
the wagosn were ALWAYS measured with a slightly quicker acceleration (0.1 sec) due to THEIR better aerodynamics...
Yannis
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Ray Niblett
on
Mon Mar 19 05:04 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
As I understand it, the wagon has more downforce (due to
aerodynamics) at high speed making it handle better (again,
at high speed). A wagon should be faster around a road
course (which is why they were using wagons in BTTC racing).
On a drag strip, the sedan probably wins due to weight.
In any case, driver skill is probably a bigger factor
then anything else listed here.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be derspi
on
Sun Mar 18 23:03 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
Come on, just because you own a wagon doesn't mean it's automatically faster than the sedan version of the same car. Regardless of the fact that both the 850/S70 wagon & sedan have a coefficient of drag roughly equal that of a brick on wheels, the 100 pounds or so of extra weight hanging out back definitely won't do the wagon any good for any acceleration tests.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Yannis Alatzas
on
Mon Mar 19 01:14 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
Are you serious? I could care less if my car is faster than an S70 or an S60...I am just stating a FACT! Are you a little kid or what?
Yannis
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be dave
on
Mon Mar 19 12:30 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
> Are you serious? I could care less if my car is faster than an S70 or
> an
You say you could care less when you mean you could NOT care less?
Please be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth/keyboard into gear...
- Dave; '95 854T, 111K mi, DRLs have never been on...
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be derspi
on
Mon Mar 19 10:25 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
Get real man, at least my post has some logic and a good understanding of mass vs. acceleration behind it--so who's the kid now? Don't sulk over it. As you can see from some of the other posts, your "FACTS" just aren't very well proven I'm afraid.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be dave
on
Sun Mar 18 12:39 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
Yannis Alatzas wrote:
> the wagosn were ALWAYS measured with a slightly quicker acceleration
> (0.1 sec) due to THEIR better aerodynamics...
wrong, wrong, wrong....
Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth (or keyboard) into gear.
One more and you'll be disqualified from the consolation round, Yannis.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Yannis Alatzas
on
Mon Mar 19 01:21 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
Hey,
and I was wondering where had you disappeared with your half-assed comments...
Don't worry about my brain and look to take care of your misery. Obviously I never reply to your (original) assinine posts but you find it worthy to reply to mine...can you say LOSER, with a capital "L"???
Enjoy!
Yannis
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Kosmas Moutis
on
Sun Mar 18 10:50 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
I would think that the wagon's better aerodynamics would give it the edge in top speed (unless e-limited), while the sedan's lighter weight would give it the edge in the 0-60 sprint. No?
Koz.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Uncle Olaf
on
Sun Mar 18 11:43 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
...(of Kamm tail fame) which was unproven here, the back-on-back actual tests of the 222HP 855 Turbo and 854 Turbo in March and April 1994 by Road & Track revealed better acceleration numbers for the sedan than for the wagon, for all speed intervals measured.
The 100 pound weight advantage of the sedan makes the difference!
-Uncle Olaf
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Yannis Alatzas
on
Mon Mar 19 01:25 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
I don't remember where I saw it, uncle Olaf, I think it was in a Car & Driver article and that is also what was told to us by Volvo trainers when we went to school for the 850 Turbo wagon, that the wagon was always .1 sec quicker and always had a slightly better top speed due to its lower Cd.
I have not measured them myself (they both FEEL the same to me) so I am just trasnferring info that I had been given from Volvo plus from what I remember reading in one of the magazines...
Yannis
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be dave
on
Mon Mar 19 12:39 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
> I don't remember where I saw it, uncle Olaf, I think it was in a Car
> & Driver article and that is also what was told to us by Volvo
> trainers when we went to school for the 850 Turbo wagon, that the
> wagon was always .1 sec quicker and always had a slightly better top
> speed due to its lower Cd.
...excuses, excuses; in the future kindly spare us your faulty
recollections and gossip, or at least do not try to pass them off as
facts (as you no doubt sometimes get away with [and are thus rewarded
for] on the showroom/salesroom floor).
Salesmen...!!!
- Dave; '95 854T, 111K mi
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be derspi
on
Mon Mar 19 22:47 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
hahahhahahhaahh
No doubt!!
Too many people just believe whatever is handed to them...now THAT'S a fact, jack!
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Yannis Alatzas
on
Mon Mar 19 16:01 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
Tsk, tsk, tsk....the resident "expert", er MORON from the Rockies has reappeared (out of his cave) again...
Yannis
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Nathan
on
Sun Mar 18 08:02 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
Road & Track tested the 4 door sedan 850 turbo - as I recall, it ran 0-60 in under 7 seconds besting the turbo wagon by 1/2 seconds.
If I should ever find my copy of R&D I'll post its test results of the 4 door.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be derspi
on
Sun Mar 18 23:21 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
Test numbers don't always tell the complete picture. Yes, the wagons weigh more and in all likelihood, under most conditions, will lose an acceleration test to a comparably equipped sedan. But don't forget that there are always production differences between samples tested by the magazines and tuners. Differences between the individual testers play a huge role in publications like Road & Track, Car & Driver. Finally, test conditions also play a role, considering these are turbocharged cars. To illustrate my point, you should check out some of the numbers Car & Driver extracted from a bone stock, auto-equipped '94 850 Turbo:
HP: 222
0-60: 6.1 seconds
0-100: 16.0 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.6 seconds @ 96 MPH
top speed: 150 MPH
Awesome numbers that definitely got my attention but I doubt many can ever duplicate these types of numbers on their own bone-stock 850 Turbo. Just something to think about.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Yannis Alatzas
on
Mon Mar 19 01:27 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
I know,
that was the quickest 850 ever tested by anyone (I mean stock), even Volvo has not produced such 0-60 numbers.
Yannis
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Uncle Olaf
on
Sun Mar 18 08:58 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
I find the idea that the wagons are quicker than the sedans implausible. They weigh more. If they were quicker, TWR would have continued to race the wagons. They didn't start winning races with the 850 until they switched to the sedans. But don't believe me. Go to R&T!
Volvo 850 Turbo Sedan ( automatic transmission)
Date Tested : 4-94
Horsepower: 222
0-60: 7.1 seconds
Quarter Mile Time: 15.3
TOP SPEED : 155 MPH
Braking from 60: 126 feet
Braking from 80: 215 feet Skid Pad G's : 0.80
Slalom (MPH): 61.1
Fuel Mileage: 21.8 MPG
Volvo 850 R Sedan ( automatic transmission)
Date Tested : 5-96
Horsepower: 240
0-60: 7.2 seconds
Quarter Mile Time: 15.5
TOP SPEED : 150 MPH (electronically limited)
Braking from 60: 130 feet
Braking from 80: 227 feet Skid Pad G's : 0.80
Slalom (MPH): 62.4
Fuel Mileage: 20 MPG
Interesting that those extra 18 horses don't seem to be anywhere that anyone can find them. that, or the alcantra seats and power gizmos must weigh a lot. Also interesting that the manual transmission seems to be worth over a second in 0-60 times (see my previous S70 post).
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Ping Shen
on
Mon Mar 19 04:40 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
TWR switched to the sedans in the BTCC because the wagons were made illegal after their first season because they had an aerodynamic advantage.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be René Huiskamp
on
Fri Mar 23 03:30 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
Hi guys,
First of all many of you are behaving a bit childish and over agressive all of you are right in some of their points. Read well all postings and you will have the answer.
Back to the subject:
Accelaration:
Basically weight will have a bigger effect than aerodynamics here.
We are talking about 0-60. Another story would be 0-120, as there we would have another component to measure; aerodynamics.
So as the sedan is lighter, the sedan wins.
Top speed:
Once the car is at higher speed, aerodynamics start playing a very importante role. Both the sedan and wagon are no aerdynamic vehicles but the wagon is better in this aspect because of it's longer body.
Sharp cuts /as in the sedan are worse.
If you would continue the shape of the wagon body, somewhere behind the car it would convert and you would have a (very long) torpedo shaped body.
There are some design drawings of Volvo which show this idea, of course shortened.
Ask any engineer about air / water resistance and he will tell you that long smooth shapes are what they are looking for.
Fast sail ships are always have a long flowing shape but as you also want something as manoeuvrabilaty, the boats are shortened and you will have a compromise.
Remember we are talking about Volvo, so we are talking a bout a long "brick" (wagon) or a short "brick". Still the wagon is slightly better.
But we have roof racks on it and that again disturbs.
As long as I recall the wagons used in the BTCC did not have roof racks.
Another important item would be:
aire pressure, air temperature and humidity.
To run fast you need cool humid air to have a high air density (oxygen in air. Some race engines even go so far top pulverise water in the intake.
As the circumstances will never be exactly the same, the results will be slightly different every time you try.
Cheers
René
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Yannis Alatzas
on
Mon Mar 19 01:32 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
Uncle Olaf,
that is indeed interesting! I am surprised that the R came "behind" the 850 Turbo...The weight difference MIGHT be a reason but I suspect there are other reasons (like temperature, altitude, different test driver, etc.)...I am not sure about the EXACT weight of the two cas but the R could be heavier....I don't think it is the alcantara seats but things like the 17" alloys and tires vs. 16" alloys and tires, the SIPS side airbags found in the R but not in the 850, the extra front and rear spoilers found in the R, etc...
Braking distance also surprised me.
Yannis
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be derspi
on
Sun Mar 18 23:19 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
Test numbers don't always tell the complete picture. Yes, the wagons weigh more and in all likelihood, under most conditions, will lose an acceleration test to a comparably equipped sedan. But don't forget that there are always production differences between samples tested by the magazines and tuners. Differences between the individual testers play a huge role in publications like Road & Track, Car & Driver. Finally, test conditions also play a role, considering these are turbocharged cars. To illustrate my point, you should check out some of the numbers Car & Driver extracted from a bone stock, auto-equipped '94 850 Turbo:
HP: 222
0-60: 6.1 seconds
0-100: 16.0 seconds
1/4 mile: 14.6 seconds @ 96 MPH
top speed: 150 MPH
Awesome numbers that definitely got my attention but I doubt many can ever duplicate these types of numbers on their own bone-stock 850 Turbo. Just something to think about.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be ifm
on
Sun Mar 18 10:36 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
TWR had no choice in switching to the saloon version of the 850 as the rules were changed disqualifying the estate from the BTCC.
Though i agree it can't be faster than the saloon.
Ian
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Uncle Olaf
on
Sun Mar 18 04:09 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
European Car:
Volvo S70
Date Tested : 4-99
Horsepower: 285
0-60: 5.8 seconds
Quarter Mile Time: 14.2
TOP SPEED : 162 MPH (indicated)
Braking from 60: 112 feet
Subsequent to 1994 or 1995 model years, 850s and 70s utilizing the factory programmed ECU had top speed limited even further. I believe it had to do with the speed rating on the tires delivered with the particular car.
In comparison....Road and Track:
Volvo S70
Date Tested : 2-99
Horsepower: 236
0-60: 6.1 seconds
TOP SPEED 130 MPH (electronically limited)
Quarter Mile Time: 14.7
Braking from 60: 138 feet
-Uncle Olaf
'98 V70T5M 62.5k mi. "unchipped except for all the stone chips"
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be Rade
on
Mon Mar 19 18:23 CST 2001 [ RELATED]
|
|
My 850 turbo sedan mystifies me as it is an obease turd one minute and a speedy family sedan the next. I love her and hate her at the same time. Why, oh why, must I adore this car???? Repairs galore and crap leather; She dances like a little feather. He He. Boy am I WACKY tonight!!! PS That yannis guy never gives up even when he has no ground to stand on. You gotta give him credit for that!!! PPS, when is volvo going to come out with a "ranchero" style car/truck. Talk about a MONEYMAKER!!!!!
YEAH FOR ME!!!!!
96 850 turbo sedan ALLL THE OPTIONS (OH YEAH, OH YEAH!!!!) INCLUDING the Climate control that is no longer satisfied with its job in life and a fog light that fills up with water. Talk about luxury. OHHHHHHHHHHH MAMA!!!!
Rade
weep,weep.
|
|
|
|
|
