Quote:
Originally Posted by Daim
I never liked the 5 cylinders... Always thought they sounded broken and had no benefits compared to equal sized 4/6 cylinders.
My Mum's S80 2.0T (B5204T8) runs more rough, than my 2.0l 4 cylinder. It doesn't have the exhaust note (stock) which my (stock) engine has.
Also, I never thought of the I5 as a Volvo engine. Volvo engines have 4 or 6 cylinders (my opinion) and had a smoothness, which was hard to beat at the time of development (i.e. as the redblocks came).
|
Then I would venture that your mum's car is knackered!
As much as I love my 240, the fives are smoother any day (though the sixes are even more so), and the normally aspirated 2.5 20Vs' in particular have a wicked exhaust note, personally, I think better than the turbos - very reminiscent of a Cosworth BDA,
As for not having advantages, you're wrong there too: they save weight and size over a six, and give you more bang for your buck over an equivalent four.
The engines may have some inherent weaknesses, or bits of design that could have been done better; but there are very few engines that don't, and few that can take power increases the way the fives can - remember most of the guts of the 2.3 turbo are the same as the n/a 2.5 20v; and that very understressed motor gives 170bhp. In turbo form with basically just smaller diameter, lower compression pistons can go to 350 bhp with generally the same internals - and reliably, not noticeably compromising service life.
And if that's not a good motor overall, then bite me!
'Nuff said
Cheers,
T