V70: Engine - Realistic MPG for 2.0D and 2.4 - Page 3

Chris Parish · Feb 22nd, 2009, 17:49

My S80 D5 2002 (163bhp) does 38-45 mpg actual, tankful to tankful although the computer says 48-55 mpg, which I think is p**s poor accuracy! My motoring is probably average 15,000 miles per annum mix of motorway and side roads.

Ian Green · Feb 26th, 2009, 13:07

Understand the point about official figures - but it doesn't hide the fact that the new shape V70 is much poorer than the old - at least in my case. My old V70 D5 managed 42 mpg average over it's life, measured brim-brim (agree the computer is way off) - so close to the official figure. New shape has a higher official figure and yet is struggling to get 35 mpg average - same driver, same mix of journeys.

To put that in context, that's a 17% under-performance... so about the same as a car advertised with 5 seats and only coming with 4! Extra fuel costs over expected 70,000 miles over next three years is approx. £1,700 at todays pump prices. Also, think of all that extra CO2...

Ian.

dodgyken · Feb 26th, 2009, 13:32

But how many miles have you done so far???

Also remember the new V70 is quite a lot heavier than the old car!!!

Mine (now with 21500km on the clock) posted 37.5mpg for the last tank - instead of the official figure of 38.2mpg - measured brim to brim worth worrying about? I don't think so. And I wasn't even trying to get the best figures - spending a lot of time cruising at 85mph.

And my car is the SE Lux version (of Swiss version of SE Lux) which makes the car heavier than the one that would have been tested - which would have been on 16" wheels - mine is on 17" - AND winter tyres.

And maybe the pump was a little tight/generous.

Can you imagine how much extra fuel would be needed if the new cars turning circle was as bad as the old one?!?!?

Ian Green · Feb 27th, 2009, 12:04

Hi Dodgy Ken!

I've done about 3,500 miles. My old V70 D5 averaged 43 over the same period from new. If the new car is heavier then why is Volvo claiming an improvement in economy and emissions over the old model? My beef is that I made a buying decision on data that appears to be false when you look at the actual vs. claimed numbers for the old model and the actual vs. claimed for the new. I feel sligted and the manufacturer seems entirely uninterested despite the claims to green-ness.

Ian.

GMcL · Feb 27th, 2009, 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Green

I feel sligted and the manufacturer seems entirely uninterested despite the claims to green-ness.

Ian.

Annoying though it is, these figures are not on the road figures but those required for buyers to make comparisons ensuring ALL manufacturers use the same criteria in the test. I can't imagine anyone living in Sheffield is going to get the same consumption figures as someone living in Boston.

If you feel strongly about this then take the manufacturer to court. This guy took Mercedes to a higher regional (appeal) court in Germany and won 2,500€ from Mercedes Benz on a car with a list price of 62,000€ he was also awarded his costs of 2,400€. His car was 9.1% out on the published figures.

rick250561 · Feb 27th, 2009, 12:34

I run an S60, 2004 2.4 D5.

My last job had me covering approx 25k miles per year as you, I averaged around 45MPG. This was without having to drive economically, and using the power to overtake. On some long runs where I drove economically I could achieve around 50MPG

Now I dont do many miles at all and it averages about 39MPG, and that pottering around home and no log runs.

dodgyken · Feb 27th, 2009, 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Green

Hi Dodgy Ken!

I've done about 3,500 miles. My old V70 D5 averaged 43 over the same period from new. If the new car is heavier then why is Volvo claiming an improvement in economy and emissions over the old model? My beef is that I made a buying decision on data that appears to be false when you look at the actual vs. claimed numbers for the old model and the actual vs. claimed for the new. I feel sligted and the manufacturer seems entirely uninterested despite the claims to green-ness.

Ian.

I don't have to hand the old V70 numbers - but Volvo claim 38.2mpg combined for a Volvo V70 D5 Geartronic - I suspect this is lower than the old car - any my 37.5mpg on winter tyres, in a model heavier than the base model, with bigger wheels, in cold conditions may well be a very good figure.

dodgyken · Feb 27th, 2009, 13:06

Ian - quick update - because edit won't run on this machine.

V70 P2 D5 - 163PS - combined 43mpg
V70 P2 D5 EUIV - 185PS - combined 35.8mpg

So, "Yes" the economy is better than the older model, according to official figures. However you need to make sure you are comparing like for like. The EU4 units are tight when new - and do drink more fuel than the official figures. But it will improve.

Ian Green · Mar 2nd, 2009, 13:52

DodgyKen,

Thanks once again for the info. Heartening that it will improve - goes some way to offset the appalling treatment by so-called "Volvo customer care" when I wrote to take issue with them !

According to my brochure the D5 manual is listed as 42.2 mpg combined (same as 2.4D). My old one was 42.

dodgyken · Mar 2nd, 2009, 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Green

manual is listed as 42.2 mpg combined

Manual??? Geartronic - makes life a whole lot smoother

Although I do stir the box myself when "driving" or pulling on to motorways.

Currently sitting at 800km from the tank - and the light isn't on yet - so around 37mpg - and I do use the loud pedal

Feb 22nd, 2009, 17:49	#21
Chris Parish Large Member Last Online: Jun 2nd, 2013 14:25 Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Rochester	My S80 D5 2002 (163bhp) does 38-45 mpg actual, tankful to tankful although the computer says 48-55 mpg, which I think is p**s poor accuracy! My motoring is probably average 15,000 miles per annum mix of motorway and side roads. __________________ Currently: S60 T S 2001 and S80 D5 2002 Previously: 245 and V70 T5

Feb 26th, 2009, 13:07	#22
Ian Green New Member Last Online: Mar 12th, 2009 11:19 Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Milton Keynes	Understand the point about official figures - but it doesn't hide the fact that the new shape V70 is much poorer than the old - at least in my case. My old V70 D5 managed 42 mpg average over it's life, measured brim-brim (agree the computer is way off) - so close to the official figure. New shape has a higher official figure and yet is struggling to get 35 mpg average - same driver, same mix of journeys. To put that in context, that's a 17% under-performance... so about the same as a car advertised with 5 seats and only coming with 4! Extra fuel costs over expected 70,000 miles over next three years is approx. £1,700 at todays pump prices. Also, think of all that extra CO2... Ian.

Feb 26th, 2009, 13:32	#23
dodgyken Master Member Last Online: May 13th, 2014 14:41 Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Zollikon	But how many miles have you done so far??? Also remember the new V70 is quite a lot heavier than the old car!!! Mine (now with 21500km on the clock) posted 37.5mpg for the last tank - instead of the official figure of 38.2mpg - measured brim to brim worth worrying about? I don't think so. And I wasn't even trying to get the best figures - spending a lot of time cruising at 85mph. And my car is the SE Lux version (of Swiss version of SE Lux) which makes the car heavier than the one that would have been tested - which would have been on 16" wheels - mine is on 17" - AND winter tyres. And maybe the pump was a little tight/generous. Can you imagine how much extra fuel would be needed if the new cars turning circle was as bad as the old one?!?!?

Feb 27th, 2009, 12:04	#24
Ian Green New Member Last Online: Mar 12th, 2009 11:19 Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Milton Keynes	Hi Dodgy Ken! I've done about 3,500 miles. My old V70 D5 averaged 43 over the same period from new. If the new car is heavier then why is Volvo claiming an improvement in economy and emissions over the old model? My beef is that I made a buying decision on data that appears to be false when you look at the actual vs. claimed numbers for the old model and the actual vs. claimed for the new. I feel sligted and the manufacturer seems entirely uninterested despite the claims to green-ness. Ian.

Feb 27th, 2009, 12:34	#26
rick250561 VOC Member Last Online: Dec 24th, 2009 14:28 Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Wakefield	I run an S60, 2004 2.4 D5. My last job had me covering approx 25k miles per year as you, I averaged around 45MPG. This was without having to drive economically, and using the power to overtake. On some long runs where I drove economically I could achieve around 50MPG Now I dont do many miles at all and it averages about 39MPG, and that pottering around home and no log runs.

Feb 27th, 2009, 13:06	#28
dodgyken Master Member Last Online: May 13th, 2014 14:41 Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Zollikon	Ian - quick update - because edit won't run on this machine. V70 P2 D5 - 163PS - combined 43mpg V70 P2 D5 EUIV - 185PS - combined 35.8mpg So, "Yes" the economy is better than the older model, according to official figures. However you need to make sure you are comparing like for like. The EU4 units are tight when new - and do drink more fuel than the official figures. But it will improve.

Mar 2nd, 2009, 13:52	#29
Ian Green New Member Last Online: Mar 12th, 2009 11:19 Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Milton Keynes	DodgyKen, Thanks once again for the info. Heartening that it will improve - goes some way to offset the appalling treatment by so-called "Volvo customer care" when I wrote to take issue with them ! According to my brochure the D5 manual is listed as 42.2 mpg combined (same as 2.4D). My old one was 42.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)