D5 (2005 on) Fuel Consumption

[RoyMacDonald]

Originally Posted by Rich5ltr

Can't agree with that. I have had numerous V70 T5s over the years and they always return about 25mpg. And that's never re-setting the trip computer so is for all types of driving. The D5 is by comparison very disappointing...

With the difference in price between oil and petrol I will certainly return to a V70 T6 in a few months time...

I'm far from dissapointed with my D5. 37 to 40 from a car weighing close to 2 and a half tons is good in my book. It should be good in a lightweight like the V70, so I'm not sure where the problem lies.

Roy

[couch2906]

Originally Posted by Rich5ltr

Can't agree with that. I have had numerous V70 T5s over the years and they always return about 25mpg. And that's never re-setting the trip computer so is for all types of driving. The D5 is by comparison very disappointing...

With the difference in price between oil and petrol I will certainly return to a V70 T6 in a few months time...

Evening all,

I do a 50 mile commute daily, mostly on the dreaded A14 and M11.

Had a 95 T5 auto with about 90k averaged 27

Followed this with a 96 TDi that averaged 41 (passed over to eldest daughter who loves it, now on 177k)

Currently have a 2004 D5 (163) on 103k that is currently averaging 46ish. But I've only had it a short time and am still revelling in the big fat torque curve. : ) Hopeless steering lock though.

Cheers

c2906

[v70-xc90man]

Originally Posted by tingymagig

i average 28-30 combined which i still think is great if i had the T5 id be averaging 10-12

i have a v70 t5 2001 y reg auto 170k miles i use for work- last week i got 19.8 mpg on the calculator,but this was mainly town driving,and bootin it a lot,but i normally get 24-25 on the calc combined- if i drive normally for me(which is lead foot)i can and have got 28-29 mpg on the motorway most of the week,and if im grandad driving i have at my best got 32mpg,but with 250bhp on tap 24 ish is the normal as i love the power,but do miss my 850 tdi estate which no matter how i drove it was always 39 mpg around 560 miles and 65 ish litres when on red light,and it was not a slug with that audi diesel lump.
i also have a 54 xc90 d5 and now its chipped at 204 bhp,its manual and in 3rd and 4th gear now flies and is much better on fuel i can get 37-40 on a run where as before got 30 on a run-must be the extra torque?- jason at more-bhp tuned it and its a different car especially when i tow me caravan
i love my v70 t5 but admitally miss the economy of the diesel,but hey you only live once so i op for the adrenaline rush,even though it costs me just over a third again

[DieselDoNicely]

Originally Posted by toymaker

My 2007 new model D5 (185hp) V70 Geartronic is only returning 32MPG on a run. Its been back to have updated software but with little effect.Is anyone else experiencing this problem? Literature claims 39MPG.

The "new" shape V70 has taken a hit on the fuel consumption. I had a Saab 1.9 Tdi last week, that only returned 40 mpg driving the same as my 850 Tdi(also 40 odd).

The 2005 shape should return better than 40 mpg unless you have a heavy right foot, the 2005 D5 in out house records 52 on the computer, and thats geartronic.

DDN

[Pete-V70 D5 2003]

Originally Posted by toymaker

My 2007 new model D5 (185hp) V70 Geartronic is only returning 32MPG on a run. Its been back to have updated software but with little effect.Is anyone else experiencing this problem? Literature claims 39MPG.

I recall hearing somewhere the newer D5 (2004 on) has some sort of recirculating catalyst or something that burns off all the soot deposits etc, but in doing so uses lots of fuel in itself. Hence lower MPG.

I dont think I would touch anything Volvo past 2004 these days.

[Turbo Tom]

Originally Posted by toymaker

My 2007 new model D5 (185hp) V70 Geartronic is only returning 32MPG on a run. Its been back to have updated software but with little effect.Is anyone else experiencing this problem? Literature claims 39MPG.

My 2008 V70 (185bhp manuel) is quoted as 43.5 MPG combined,so far we can only get 32MPG, and thats on motorway running!!! which is quoted as 51.4. I was also very disapointed with the performance, the local dealer uploaded
the "poor performance complaint upgrade" with no noticable improvement
I had the car tested on a rolling road before trying to push the complaint
further and found to my suprise 195bhp & 423n torque, considerabley up
on the OE figures?
After a lot of testing we have come to the following conclusion:-

1- the tyres are to big and create too much drag
2- the car is over geared (top speed of 160mph in theory)
3- the torque is produced to far up the rev range, and has to be reved
harder to make progress thus useing more fuel, notice Volvo have now
copied BMW and moved to the use of sequencial turbo`s to enable them
to provide low speed and wide spread of torque which is what diesel`s
are all about.
Now if I could get one of these latest engines installed in my V70!!!
My S60 163 pulled like a train from 1200rpm and averaged 44mpg

Tom.

[oilburner]

Originally Posted by Turbo Tom

I had the car tested on a rolling road before trying to push the complaint
further and found to my suprise 195bhp & 423n torque, considerabley up
on the OE figures?

No surprises there. For some reason Volvo consistently underrate the power of their engines. The old D5 was the same, quoted 163bhp, more like 176bhp in real life.

Why they do this, I don't know, because it obviously makes them look behind compared to BMW et al.

[dodgyken]

Originally Posted by oilburner

Why they do this, I don't know, because it obviously makes them look behind compared to BMW et al.

Porsche horses are known to be stronger than your average horse - I don't see a problem with Volvo following the same philosophy

[brumgav]

Hi,

Just wondered if anyone has made any progress on the topic of the D5 poor economy subject.

A few years ago I had a new S40 2.0D Manual (with about 9k miles on the clock) which was getting about 36 MPG combined which was really poor, but I swiftly traded that in for a different car (BMW).

Anyway, last year I purchased 2005 Range Rover 4.4 Petrol which would achieve 18mpg combined (which was good as they quote 17.8 combined) but recently I have started doing alot more mileage so I was spending £450+ per month on petrol. So I decided to trade in for an S80, nice, big, comfortable car and looking at the official figures looked like a good idea with the combined quoted at 38mpg.

Since picking up the S80 last week, its a 2007 D5 SE Lux Geartronic with 40k miles on the clock) I have done 392 miles on 59.58 litres which equates to about 29mpg. The computer states average speed of 34 mph and average consumption 32.8mpg!!!!


I would say a good 75% of those miles were done on motorways/dual carriageways at 70 mph with the other 25% a mixture of rural and town driving but no real stop start driving.
So I'm not really all that impressed as this car was supposed to be saving me money on fuel, but with Diesel fuel being slighly more expensive it makes the gap from 18 mpg in the Range Rover to 29mpg in the volvo even smaller.

So really, I wanted to know what people have done to get their consumption sorted?

I have read on here some people getting really good economy in the D5 so its not like all the D5 engines are rubbish.

Maybe we should collate a list with the engine number and chassis number of those who feel their consumption is more than it should be, I would be happy to collate this list if everyone can send me their details (use ### to hind the important digits in your VIN so noone can clone your car, maybe someone can let us know which digits refer to the build date or something like that)

Maybe a pattern will emerge and collectively we might be able to get our cars sorted but with consumption figures so far out (like mine) we should get together to get something sorted.

Hope to hear from you all soon.

Gavin

[foggyjames]

I think the "conclusions" reached so far is that the P3 cars (new S80, V70, etc) are worse than the old ones because they're heavier. Cars with diesel particulate filters (later P2s...185bhp D5s, or "2.4D"s, I believe) are also poorer than their older counterparts.

Of course why they're not meeting the specified figures is a different matter...

cheers

James