Late XC90 advice please?

[cbv8]

Hi,
I have been looking at a later XC90 ie a 2011 a 2.4 D5 auto a 200 bhp model i am noticing it is more fuel efficient than the 163 and 184 variants surely this must be a selling ploy or is this in fact true. I am not too bothered as the 163 bhp one i had a few years ago was manageable on mpg any info or buying advice on the later models is very much appreciated

[SwissXC90]

It is in fact true.

Continuous improvement of engine and transmission meant that they could reduce fuel consumption and improve emissions under their test conditions.

Real-World driving is always a bit different to the test conditions though.

And the emissions management is much more complex and effective on the later cars than the early cars.

And it is absolutely a selling ploy, as any vehicle improvements are selling ploys

[owenfackrell]

I have just jumped from a 163 to the 200 and whilst right now the MPG is worse part of that is the fact it’s a new car and enjoying it. Also I have gone from a manual to an auto and I had got very good at getting the best out of the manual and need to adapt to the auto. Currently it is only a few mpg worse based on mileage between fill ups, of which has only happened twice since purchase at the beginning of December. I’m expecting to get the same as time goes on. I can’t speak for the 185. It reports on here state it is worse than the 163.

[cbv8]

Originally Posted by owenfackrell

I have just jumped from a 163 to the 200 and whilst right now the MPG is worse part of that is the fact it’s a new car and enjoying it. Also I have gone from a manual to an auto and I had got very good at getting the best out of the manual and need to adapt to the auto. Currently it is only a few mpg worse based on mileage between fill ups, of which has only happened twice since purchase at the beginning of December. I’m expecting to get the same as time goes on. I can’t speak for the 185. It reports on here state it is worse than the 163.

I remember my old 163 was frighteningly slow when say pulling out of junctions etc so i presume the 200bhp should be much better in this respect?

[owenfackrell]

Again hard to tell as the 163 is a manual rather than auto, so noticeable delay in pulling off. It does feel faster but not much traffic around to test against. Certainly once moving in the more than quick enough.

[Tannaton]

I think the later 200 BHP car is a very different engine so the MPG comparison to the 163 will depend on your driving style, if you only use 160 of the 200 BHP or less then it might be as good or even an improvement, etc.

But it is better than the 185, no doubt, and the later 6 speed gearbox with better torque converter locking will improve the MPG as well.

[cbv8]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

I think the later 200 BHP car is a very different engine so the MPG comparison to the 163 will depend on your driving style, if you only use 160 of the 200 BHP or less then it might be as good or even an improvement, etc.

But it is better than the 185, no doubt, and the later 6 speed gearbox with better torque converter locking will improve the MPG as well.

Unfortunately i can only drive autos so manual 6 speed out of the question for me

[eternal optimist]

Originally Posted by cbv8

Unfortunately i can only drive autos so manual 6 speed out of the question for me

The six speed gearbox with locking torque converter referred to is an auto

[cbv8]

Originally Posted by eternal optimist

The six speed gearbox with locking torque converter referred to is an auto

Oops

[XC90Mk1]

I have a 2012 in v.good condition.

I average 34mpg at constant traffic. 30 when mixed spirited driving. If I am doing really really short journeys and revving/not getting to temp it would still do close to 30MPG perhaps 28 or 29. I think that’s really good.

That’s also calculated and not from the computer which over reads.

I will say it feels very very punchy and you are not left wanting. I love it!