Questionable S40/V50 performance data?

[RJF]

Was wondering if any new shape S40 / V50 owners would like to contribute the actual performance data of their vehicles?

The reason I ask is that although the engine in my 2.4i V50 is super-smooth and pulls very well in the lower rev range, the acceleration and particularly the fuel consumption doesn't exactly square with the official figures.

I have owned two previous Volvo's from new. A V70 Classic 2.4 (140) and a S60 2.0T - both manual. My driving style is very relaxed (boring!) and I'm one of the minority who on the whole, stick to speed limits. I don't think I've exceeded 3000rpm since I got the car. Thus my average mpg figures normally exceeded those quoted by the manufacturers. And on occasions, I can approach or even exceed the very best mpg figure quoted. (I 24hr test-drove a 2.0 diesel Skoda Octavia prior to purchasing the V50 - managed 63.2mpg!). So how have I faired after 1000 miles of caressing a V50 accelerator pedal?

Vehicle --- (0-62) - Official - My Worst - My average - At best
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
V70(140) -- 10.5 ---- 32.8 ---- 30/31 ----- 34/35 ----- 39/40
S60 2.0T --- 8.8 ----- 31.7 ---- 29/30 ----- 32/33 ----- 37/38

V50 2.4i ---- 8.3 ----- 32.8 ---- 27/28 ----- 29/30 ------ 32.0

As you can see, even driving with the lightest right foot, I cannot reach the official combined mpg figure. I would have expected to achieve around the 38-39 mpg mark under these conditions. Moreover, Volvo quote an extra-urban figure of 41.5 mpg. Even sitting at 45mph in 5th on a flat / slight decline section of road today, my fuel computer read 34mpg? (Thinking the fuel computer may possibly be at fault I reverted back to the good old pencil and paper to work out mpg. All I discovered was that fuel computer works pretty efficiently).

As for the 0-62 time... Obviously I have no intention of ever testing this out, but I find this figure absurd. The S60 was much more responsive off the mark than the V50. In fact as far as I can remember, the V50 may well have been on par with my V70, which was officially quoted at 10.5 secs. (The V50 supposedly has 170bhp somewhere).

My average mpg figures for the BMW 318 that I also have use of, relates to my experience with all other vehicles - I either match or exceed the official figures. The thing is, the BMW has a 0-62 official time of 9.3secs - exactly 1 sec slower than the official V50 figure. However the BMW is definitely much, much quicker off the mark than the V50.

Irrespective of engine type, does anyone else have similar reservations regarding the official S40/V50 performance figures?

[Marmoset]

I've had my V50 2.0D for a couple of weeks now and done about 1100 miles in it. The trip computer average mpg is now at 44mpg. I don't expect it to get better until a few thousand miles more has gone under the wheels as the engines take a lot longer to loosen up. I notice that you don't get over 3000 revs, this could be a major cause of poor consumption, you have to use the motor over its rev range to effectively run it in. My brother sells cars and says that as long as you don't labour the engine in the lower gears you should use it fairly hard. I found that on my previous car - Ford Mondeo - that it wasn't really run in until the 10,000 mile mark and it still kept improving up to about 70k.

[RJF]

I've read for years that fuel consumption improves through time. 'Once the engine loosens up' or 'when the engine has been run in' is the usual term. I've never experienced this phenomenon myself in all the years I've been driving or certainly not by any appreciable amount. Way back I owned from new a Cavalier 1.7tdi, and more recently an A4 1.9tdi. As I say I test drove a Skoda 2.0Tdi prior to purchasing the V50. With my lethargic driving style, I managed quite easily to exceed the manufactures figures in all these cars.

My driving style in the V50 is no different to any other car I've driven, therefore unless there is something peculiar to the new 2.4i engine, I'd have expected the fuel consuption figures to be consistent with previous experience.

At the time of writing, my fuel computer is reading 33.2 mpg average.
However I had just reset the computer, and bar the 4 miles to my home / the garage, have travelled 120 miles on motorway at 60-65 mph. The mpg should have been in to the high 30's if not more based on the official data. I find it very difficult to believe the figures Volvo are claiming.

Has anyone actually acheived / exceeded Volvo's claimed performance figures for the V40/V50?

[followtheox]

Why don't you sell the 2.4 fuel guzzler and by a Fiat Cinquicento or a Smart car if you are not going to use any power? You are right though, the fuel consumption is very poor and the power doesn't seem to be there for the fuel used

[RJF]

Both the Cinquicento and the Smart were on my shortlist when I was looking for a small local run-a-round. But based on performance and safety, in the end I decided to opt for a push bike.

Seriously, due to back troubles there are only a few cars I can drive for more than 1hr at a time without the need to get out and stretch. Volvo really do excel in seat comfort.

Incidentally, I say there are only a few cars I can drive for any length of time... I haven't had the pleasure of experiencing the Cinquicento, but incredibly I include the Fiat Punto in my list of acceptable cars. The basic looking seats are actually v. good. I may take issue with the remainder of the car, but the seats are v. good!

But this is going off subject...

Does anyone have any data for their S40/V50 fuel consumption? Or perhaps their 0-62 time? (get those stop watches out).

[followtheox]

I have a 53 plate V40 sport 1.8. I don't know about actual 0-60 times but it feels very slow. The fuel consumption is quite high at 30 mpg, despite the computer saying 33.5 mpg and the first half a tank from full always does more than the second half! I don't think these things are very accurate but I agree the seats are comfy.