2006 Volvo S40 2.0D SE Fuel Consumption

[IRES40]

hello
i have a 2006 volvo s40 diesel 2.0 , at the moment i am on my second tank of diesel from new and have 1030 km on the clock.


my first tank of diesel returned 578km and on the trip computer its normally around 7.0L per 100km...

is this normal? i expected better fuel comsumption..

my dring is normally motorway driving between 100km -110km per hr max
in 6th gear.

my second tank of diesel looks like it will return similar kms per tank..

is this normal?

if you drive a 2.0d volvo s40 2006 model what mpg are you getting?


thanks

[Boost]

Hi, I'm thinking of buying a 2.0D S40. Fuel ecomomy will be important for me so reading with interest. If I convert your units to the more familiar (for me!) miles per gallon then you are getting about 40mpg. Volvo quote about 50mpg for the 2.0D IIRC. Based on what I have seen in other cars as you get a few more kilometers on the clock the engine will loosen up and fuel economy will increase. I had a VW Golf 2.0 GT TDi which averaged 40mpg right up to its first service then suddenly improved to 50 mpg under the same driving conditions which is what VW quoted for it.

[Marmoset]

My V50 is getting 42-43mpg at the moment in the cold weather and gets about 1-2mpg more in warmer weather. Currently has 20,000 miles on it.

70mph on the motorway in 6th gear equates to just over 50mpg so if you drive with a lighter foot than I then improvements on teh above firgures are possible.

[dennisl1]

My 2005 V50 2.0D gives 45 mpg travelling between my home in Devon and London. I use the M5 and M4 and generally run with the 'brisker' traffic. I complete the journey in the same time as I did in my 2003 V70 T5 but my wallet certainly notices the difference!

[Northview]

I've had an S40 2.0D SE (2006) for about 3 and a half months. I bought it nearly new (ex-demonstrator) with only a few hundred miles on the clock. So far it's consistently averaging 39 mpg on a route on which my previous car (Audi A3 2.0D) averaged 50mpg.

To me, that suggests there's a problem with my car. I know diesels don't return their best performance until about a year/10,000 miles, but in my experience, a new diesel shouldn't be anywhere near this far off the pace.

[IRES40]

i have my s40 2.0 D since feb 06 bought it new ,,,if i get 650 km (400 mile approx) from 45 euros (full tank) of diesel im doing well. i got that a few times, but thats with easy driving. if i drive it fast 75mph on motorway, it drinks!! i have to admit the car has oodles of power.

i found that after about 10000 km the fuel economy improved.. but not by much.. the volvo brochure figures for fuel economy are way off, and i got no where near their stated fuel economy ratings, even with easy driving.


i find the s40 2.0D to be a hard car on diesel compared to other diesel cars i drove. also when the car is at idle, i sometimes can feel vibration through the drivers seat !!! on the odd occasion the s40 would cut out with a huge bang, if i let the clutch out a bit too quick in first gear.. having owned this car since feb 06 ,from new... i was concerned about reliability , and depreciation i heard that the residual values were crap.. i hear they loose a lot of value and depreciate fast.

also the view from the joe soaps perspective is that the s40 is a focus gone wrong. that is not my opinion, i like the car design, and think its great... but the fact that people say its a focus gone wrong, this also has a negative impact on resale. i would imagine.....


anyways sold my s40 today, and bought the new avensis 2.0Diesel 126bhp...

on the way home from the garage the trip computer was showing 5.0L / 100KM ,, this is a great sign as the car is brand new! so i suppose it will get a bit better, the engine is quieter and more refined than the engine in the s40 2.0 D..... and a far bigger car...and has cruise control also.! also it is a good bit bigger than the s40 ....

i dont think i would buy another s40 2.0 Diesel....
if i want a car with a PSA citroen/Peugeot engine in it, then ill buy it from them.. i think volvo made a mistake in not putting their own engine in the s40 2.0 D...

just my 0.01 worth.....

[Jet2 D5]

How much of a reduction in mpg relates to the carbon filter regeneration system, a keen eye on the info centre and the time will make a calculation possible.

I consider the system on my 2006 D5 185bhp (which unlike the latest V40/S50 does not have an additive/catalyst) reduces the overall mpg by 4-5. The car can spend anything from 10-15% of the time regenerating the filter during which fuel consumption doubles. This appears to be one penalty of Euro IV compliance, yet to be determined is the effect of getting the engine very hot.

[treidlia]

I have a Feb 2006 2.0D, and keep a fuel log.

Over 22,000 km it has averaged 6.6 l/100km 42.85 mpg
I'm not happy with the mpg, but see it improving gradually.

I agree with the notion of the particulate trap effecting fuel economy.
Moreover the particulate trap's reduction in fuel tank space, coupled to poor economy results in simply appalling range (600km in V50 2.0D compared to 600 miles in V40 1.9D)

[Northview]

Agreed, the particulate trap will have a negative impact on fuel economy, as I think it effectively uses fuel to burn off the soot particles (or something like that). I think Volvo actually state somewhere in the brochures the fact that economy will be affected. As far as I know, this device isn't fitted to my car - it certainly wasn't mentioned by the salesman, not that that's any guarantee.

I've seen many references around the web of people getting no more than 39/40 mpg from the S40 2.0D. WhatCar.com reader reviews has quite a few, for example. My local dealership simply recites the line that "it's a new car, and economy is never as good when it's new". Maybe so, but this is the third diesel I've owned from new, and I've never seen economy this far off the mark.

My view is that if it is normal behaviour (for whatever reason) for the S40 to have, frankly, dire fuel economy for the first 12,000 miles or so, but it should then improve to give something close to the quoted figures, Volvo should make that clear. Quite obviously, it's something which is of concern to a great many of their customers. As it is, I'm more inclined to believe WhatCar who list the V50 2.0D (and by extension the S40 2.0D) in their 'rip-off' report on cars which come nowhere near their advertised mpg.

[Marmoset]

I average about 42mpg which ain't bad IMO. I had a mk1 Mondeo TD whihc did about 39mpg in my hands, a few years ago. Later I got about 29/30 mpg out of a MkII 2.0l petrol Mondeo.

The Volvo is about 150kg heavier so the improvement in fuel consumption is quite marked when that is taken into account.

[Northview]

That's a good point, Marmoset. The degree to which the fuel economy issue is seen as a problem will depend to at least some extent on the expectations of the individual owner.

My dissatisfaction is based on two things. Firstly, Volvo claim that the S40 2.0D should return 48.7 (?) mpg on the combined cycle - in my experience, driving in conditions which should approximate to the combined cycle I only get 39 mpg. I wouldn't be particularly happy with 42 mpg either. Secondly, my previous car (Audi A3 2.0TDI Sport), was averaging 50 mpg in the exact same conditions - not far off the advertised combined cycle figure for that car. True it was 3 years old, but it wasn't much less economical when it was brand new! So I was expecting marginally lower economy - in fact I've got (in my opinion) abysmal economy.

[mnchianu]

Hello
I understand your concern on fuel consumption. however you need to have a better knowledge of how many liters your tank can contains. If you cover a distance of 100 km with 7L, it means your car is making an avg. of 14.2 km/L which is not bad.
Mine is 740 turbo 1990 5-speed manual petrol engine series, makes at a speed of 100 - 120 kmph 12 km/L. and 8km/L at 140-180km. so the option is mine.
you are still better off.

MNCHIANU
Nigeria

[Northview]

Hi MNCHIANU,

7l/100km equates to 40 mpg (I can only think in mpg!). I agree that's not bad in general terms, but for a 2.0 diesel it's pretty poor. Volvo claim it can deliver over 48 mpg on the combined cycle. A difference like that over three years or so, particularly with fuel costs being what they are, adds up to a significant amount of money.

[craigyt4]

I am in complete agreement about the fuel consumption being pathetic. I have had the car for now 6 months and have never seen the figures quoted by volvo. The car has had 2 "software" upgrades and engine mount done and various rattles and squeeks it has gone through a set of front tyres so overall the car is very poor compared to my last 3 (940 se, v70 t5 and a V40 T4) the issue with the fuel tops it all. It still runs on and gets "chuggy" even after the upgrades so will be going back in for a third time!!

[7050man]

My my06 V50 E4 engine: Total mileage now at 21734, in 11204 miles, put in 1008.11 litres = 11.11 miles per litre or 50.51 mpg.

Best economy was a 250 mile trip on motorway where I achieved an indicated 70mpg (probably nearer 66mpg in real terms)

I should add that Volvo figures in my experience are optimistic to say the least, but if careful in driving style then good figures are attainable. My car is bettering Volvo figures.

Remember that extra urban does not mean 70mph, but nearer 60mph. Also if you spend half your journey in traffic before joing m'way, then extra urban figure will not be near or above 50mpg for quite a while.

RE all above comments, ie new engine, running in etc, yes I agree with everything said.

BY the way, loan car that I borrowed this week, achieved 61mpg over 200 miles and car was loaded and had bigger 18"wheels.

[Northview]

Yes, a lot depends on the actual driving conditions. 'Combined cycle' is, I believe, an attempt to emulate typical extra-urban driving conditions, replacing the less realistic 'steady 55 mph' of a few years ago.

The thing is, with my two previous diesels, it wasn't necessary to 'nurse' the car in order to get good economy. I found that I could drive fairly aggressively without hurting fuel consumption.

As I say, my previous car (also a 2.0 diesel) effortlessly achieved 50 mpg, day in day out on the exact same route I'm driving now in the S40 (which only just tops 39 mpg.

There's a lot to like about the S40 - it's a very handsome car, quiet and comfortable, handles well. But the minor faults, which the dealer seems unable to fix, plus the ridiculous fuel consumption undermines the good points.

[Northview]

The sales information I was given by the dealer when I was deciding whether to buy the S40 suggested that the particulate filter was an option, costing something like £500 (I think). I assumed this was current info and the subject never came up during discussions with the salesman, perhaps because I was buying an ex-demonstrator rather than ordering a new car. As a result, I assumed that the car I bought didn't have the particulate trap fitted.

However, a month or two back, I happened to notice that the inside of the tailpipe was completely clean - no trace of soot. I also checked in my rear view mirror when accelerating hard at night (any trace of smoke usually shows up pretty well in the following car's headlights) - again nothing.

I've since found a note elsewhere on the web saying that particulate traps would become standard equipment on all Volvo diesels from around 2005. Can anyone confirm that?


As for fuel consumption, I got some slightly odd readings at the end of last week. Driving home from work on Friday, I reset the average fuel comp. after about the first mile of my journey. By the time I was about two thirds of the way home, the computer was reading 57mpg. When I got home it was still reading around 50mpg - an enormous improvement on what I've been seeing (averaging 39mpg). Now it may be that the first mile of my journey is so heavy on fuel that it explains the difference, but that seems unlikely.

I'll check the readings again today and see what happens.

[7050man]

Particulate filter is to enable engine to meet Euro 4 complience. This is the way that Ford have decided to meet this requirement, ie with a filter. Therefore until Volvo or Ford redesign their engines to meet this spec in a different way, then they will have no option but to use filter.
Volvo however were offering this option fairly soon into the V50/S40 program and gave their customers the option of a "greener" engine. That is why it was an option a couple of years back. Now it is not, as the cars can't be sold without it. They simply wouldn't comply. Compare it to petrol models with a cat filter. If manufactures could make a car with zero emmissions without a cat filter, I'm sure they would.

Somebody in a previous post mentions that the filter takes up fuel tank space. This is incorrect as filter is an exhaust filter. What does take up some space near the fuel tank is the fluid that is used to clean the particulate filter periodically. However I'm not aware that tank on E4 is any different in size to E3.
Final point, is that to get a top economy figure on the computer, then a high proportion of the total driving since resetting must be under optimium conditions. Eg if you fill up, reset mpg figure, do two or three journeys of local stop start driving and then cruise down the motorway for say 30 miles you are unlikely to get figures in the mid or even low 50's.
On the other hand if you reset whilst on the motorway and drive for the same 30 miles, then figures will be good.

Im sure that other vehicles will be similar. AS I've said before, I do accept that Volvo figures are to say the least optimistic.

[treidlia]

The E4 diesels do have different fuel tank size, checkk the standard spec sheet, its 55 vs 62 litres on paper. This is just too small for any reasonable range. Yeah,,of course its not the actual filter,, but the presence of a ilter results in an encroachment into fuell-tank capacity due to the additive tank.

Moreover the load cells are hopelssly pessimistic. Even if if I run mine as dry as I dare even by the computer's reckoning I can only get 48 litres in. That involves letting it go into its silly limp-home mode.

The figure I quoted (6.6 l/100km or 42.8mpg over first 22k km) is an accurate reflection of an accuate fuel log. Peak or once-off figures are fairly meaningless IMHO.

I reset the computer every fill, and compare the figure to the brim-to-brim figure. In my car the computer is realtively consistently too optimstic under-reading consumption / overreading economy by 0.2 l/100km

I'm very very dissapointed with lots of aspects of this engine, particularly economy. This is my 6th turbo diesel and easily the worst direct-injected fuel economy I've ever had.

[Northview]

On the subject of how to assess fuel consumption as accurately as possible, I don't rely on the in-car computer for the comparative figures. Obviously a reading from the computer will have meaning in so far as (a) the computer is measuring accurately, and (b) the period over which the reading is taken is meaningful. For that reason, I also maintain a record of fuel consumption per tank.

I always fill the tank right up, and record the quantity of fuel bought (litres), and the mileage. Subtracting the mileage from the previous time I filled up from the current mileage gives me the distance covered since the last fill, and the quantity bought gives me (approximately) the amount of fuel used over that distance - hence my mpg. With a few very minor variations, I've averaged 39.3 mpg since I got the car. That is, frankly, very poor for a 2.0 diesel whether it has a particulate filter or not. (Incidentally, VW/Audi engines have been EuroIV-compliant since about 2003 without particulate filters!)

I use the average mpg reading from the computer to assess fuel economy over a given journey, typically my daily commute. Comparing like with like is perfectly valid. Again, my previous car (also a 2.0 diesel) averaged 50mpg on the commute. The S40 has been averaging around 40mpg.

[7050man]

Northview, yes I agree and do the same, ie don't rely on the computer but do my own calculations. By the way I also do the same as you, ie fill up and measure mpg over a full tank along with keeping accurate fuel records (when, where, brand, how much and cost). If you are coming out with about 40mpg, then maybe your car does have a problem.
You mention that VW/Audi engines have been E4 without the use of filter since 2003. I was aware that these engines met the spec without the use of a filter, but I am amazed that they do, as most VW/Audi cars that I see, smoke like chimneys under hard acceleration. I thought that the E4 spec hinged around particulate emmission as well as C02. Perhaps someone here can explain this.

[Northview]

According to Wikipedia, Euro IV standard...

"limits diesel passenger car emissions to 0.25 g/km of NOx and 0.025 g/km of Particulate Matter (PM)"

So presumably the Audi/VW engines, while still producing visible smoke, are nevertheless producing no more than 0.025 g/km of particulates. If the particulate filter was needed on the Volvo 2.0D to comply with Euro IV, then it must have a tendency to produce more particulates than the VAG engines do - perhaps something to do with the higher injection pressure in the VAG TDI unit injector system.

Either way, I think particulate filters will probably become increasingly widespread even before the Euro V standard is defined, which will probably make it mandatory to fit them in any case.

Incidentally, I mentioned last week that I'd recently seen some surprising readings from the on-board computer for individual journeys. I've since tracked that a little more closely on my daily commute and there is certainly an improvement, although it isn't perhaps clear cut. I don't have the details with me (I'm currently at work), but I'll post them when I get home. Basically, I tested by doing the journey twice each way per day (normally I only do it once each way). The afternoon/evening run showed much better mpg than the morning run - in fact, close to the 'combined cycle' figure quoted by Volvo! The morning run wasn't quite as good.

[jazzyr1]

northview,can i just say,not all emision 4 dw 10 engines need or use d.p filters or the fuel additive that goes with them,the engine in current 40's/50's isnt a volvo engine at all,and before anybody shoots the ford messenger it aint ford motor either its an old peugeot engine as is 1.6 dv6 diesel engine,pug' as far as i know use d.p filters,but ford dont on all focus/cmax dw 10 engines,prob because of cost(ford being a bit tight),oh and if i had a quid for everyone who i talk to not happy with fuel consumption on dw 10 engine.........jazz

[Northview]

Hi Jazz,

Yes, I think the fact that the 2.0D in the S40/V50 is sourced from PSA was mentioned earlier in this thread. In fact I have read that it was developed jointly by PSA and Ford, so there is a Ford connection. I believe it's the engine used in the current Peugeot models, including the 407, and as you mentioned, Peugeot were among the first to install particulate filters as standard.

To be honest I'm not concerned with who developed the engine, except in so far as it allows me to compare the performance of my car against another make using the same engine. I've not seen much evidence of people complaining about poor fuel economy in the Peugeot like they have for the Volvo, so there seems to be something Volvo-specific about this problem.

Mine has been consistently poor until about 2 weeks ago, when I noticed a significant improvement. In the past few days, it seems to have dropped back to the level I was seeing before. My journey and driving style hasn't changed, so this seems to strengthen my view that the poor economy is not 'normal' behaviour - even though it does seem to be widespread. I've also seen comments from some owners saying that they're getting excellent economy from their S40 2.0D, so clearly it is capable of better things.

[jazzyr1]

the fuel consumption issue is not just limited to volvo,as any focus/cmax driver will tell you,economy is ,i think,poor.And as been mentioned here ,poss' causes are injectors,egr valves(caused by blocked egr coolers), and cracks in metal intercooler pipes,leaking turbo boost control valves,all these are common,and all effect consumption.so get these checked, you may be lucky,and find something . jazz

[Aardvark S60]

My 2005 V50 2.0D gives 45 mpg travelling between my home in Devon and London. I use the M5 and M4 and generally run with the 'brisker' traffic. I complete the journey in the same time as I did in my 2003 V70 T5 but my wallet certainly notices the difference!

Cripes, my SEAT Alhambra people carrier aka a Ford Galaxy does 45mpg at brisk motorway speeds ie. 75/80mph average, 60mpg at 60mph and 75mpg at 50mph!!

No wonder the VW 1.9 TDi engine is universally regarded as one of the best engines ever built.

[mark2jag]

I had a volvo s40 2.d, quite bad fuel consumption, Winchester Volvo changed it for 1.6 Diesel (se spec). Can you imagine my shock, and horror to find that on the occasions when I use the car for urban work, I get as low as 32 M.P.G.

Does anyone else out there have a 1.6 Diesel, and would they be so kind as to let me know what they are getting to the gallon, urban preferably....

While on the subject would someone be so kind as to dispel the following myth:
OK, the story goes that Volvo are forced to produce engines which do not deliver all the power (and economy????) that they could (in effect restricting them) to take account of the xxx number of people who do not or will not service them regularly/often/at all. My information suggests that if I bought a "tuning box" which plugs into the end of the common rail, then i would see improvements to the fuel economy in the region of 5-10 MPG??????. They also claim to take a 110BHP up to the heady heights of 140 BHP. I was under the impression that you cant go far and fast both at the same time, so Is it the truth or artistic licence on behalf of this VERY well known tuning box supplier???...

My last comment is on servicing costs. £330 for a basic 12.5k service (Kings Volvo Winchester again!!!!), Bl**dy H*ll!!!!!. I'm a lowly civil servant and I dont think I've ever had that much money left at the end of the month (what with the extortionate rates charged by MR Black Horse). Not exactly an auspicious start to my membership of this forum, but I'm rather peee-d off with what Volvo SAY their cars can do, and what they can ACTUALLY do!!

Thanks all for taking the time to read this, lets hope it gets posted and that I get some useful feedback apart from stop moaning and go away,haha!!!.:mumbles:

[bircham]

when I use the car for urban work, I get as low as 32 M.P.G.

Hi Mark

I think that 32 mpg for urban work is excellent. Remeber that any engine is far less fuel efficient trundling around city streets constantly accelerating etc than on a steady 60 mph run. Is it definitely urban you mean because if it is normal day to day driving on a roads then yes I would agree it is poor.

Jon

[Marmoset]

Mine climbed up to 45mpg last (2.0d) - trip up to Scotland and back and the new work location involves more motorway work than A road. It is the urban grind and the stop start stuff that really takes the mileage down.


Just booked my 36k service at £360 :( It doesn't seem to get any cheaper.....

[Alec Dawe]

Therre seems to be a huge difference in fuel consumptions fpr S40/V40 2.0D's.
Mine is another ex demo car, bought december last year with just about 6000 on the clock. Now has 26,000 miles, and the average consumption for that lot is a tad over 46mpg. I get at least 52mpg on long motorway/dual carriageway journeys, down to about 42 with more town driving. (To give you an idea of my driving style, long A road journey is Mid Norfolk to Morpeth in Northumberland in 4.5 hours, thats A11/A14/A1, always 52mpg or better).
I have a diesel tuning box on the car, which does produce more power (25bhp according to the blurb) but also makes the engine much smoother and quieter, also reduces the visible smoke ( best seen at dusk in the headlights of a car following), and I think is probably worth 2 to 3 mpg.
I most certainly have found that different fuels make a difference to the fuel consumption. ASDA's cheapo diesel is worth a 4mpg reduction! Fancy BP Ultimate diesel didn't seem to give any improvement.
A weeks driving round London brought the consumption down to about 38/39mpg, my old Saab 95 2.2TiD did 22mpg in similar circumstances.
So far I have had none of the trim problems that seem to afflict some cars, nor any engine problems, perhaps being the chief salesman's car for the first six months of its life meant that any problems were fixed?
Overall, I love it, very happy. Only gripe is that the narrow spoke alloys are a bu88er to clean between the spokes!

[Northview]

I've said several times that I would post more information about my S40's fuel consumption, but have never got around to it.

I still don't have the data to hand, but what I've noticed lately is that while the fuel consumption used to be uniformly bad, now it varies dramatically. This variation can even be between separate journeys over the exact same route at different times of the day!

For example, a few weeks ago I tried an experiment for a few days. I drove to my work in the morning (as normal) then during my lunch break I drove home again, then back to the office. Finally, I drove home at the end of the day (of course!). What I noticed was that the journey to the office in the morning tended to be much less fuel-efficient than the same journey in the afternoon. The same applied to the return journeys - lunchtime was less efficient than evening.

Since driving conditions were roughly the same for all journeys (including traffic), I'm not at all sure why I was seeing such a significant difference. The only conclusion I could come up with was that the first pair of journeys were both preceded by a longer idle period in which the engine could cool down (i.e. overnight and 2/3 of the working day). The second pair were after much less cooling time (almost none, and 2-3 hours at most).

Of course it wasn't quite that simple. There are other variations which I can't explain. However, the good thing is that this proves that the engine is at least capable of fuel consumption closer to Volvo's claims under some conditions. On the down side, the overall average (per tank of fuel) is only very slightly improved on what it was a month or so ago.

(Mileage now around 5500).

[brewsta]

On my second tank ever with my new 2007 V50 2.0D, I drove 400 kilometers, only highway driving, with changing elevations at 120-130 kms/hour on cruise control.

I calculated the consumption based on the fuel pumped at the end and the numer of kilometers.

Came up with 6.7/100 kilometers

I really hope this gets better as the engine "loosens up" a bit. If this is the best this particular motor can do under optimum conditions, I won't be happy.

[i saw it first its mine]

the petrol engine wouldnt have the particulate trap so this would give it an advantage,yes?what would a 2 litre petrol engine return fuelwise.

if volvos so keen on protecting the environment why doesnt it give a monkeys about burning fossil fuels