V50 Engine 2.0D : Software Updates for Economy?

[Fast Reg]

Hi Chaps,

Have been trawling through various online resources for info about the V50 2.0D.

One of the things that I notice coming up often is criticism of the poor fuel economy, especially with the Euro IV spec (mine's a Euro IV). However, one nugget of information did catch my eye. According to a member on the Honest John forum, Ford have been issuing software updates for this engine, one of which was to address the poor fuel consumption. Is there any truth in this? If so, are these updates also available through Volvo or could I find them elsewhere?

Would there be any benefit in "chipping" this engine? All the ads promise the apparently contradictory benefits of an approx 20% hike in bhp and torque while also delivering better fuel economy. Surely this can't be right...?

Thanks in advance.

[kirium]

Hi, there are many, many threads on a few forums about the fuel economy. Personally i don't think there is anything wrong with it. Yes, volvo states 48mpg ave, (which i haven't seen yet) but it really does depend what your road mix is and how heavy your right foot is.

My previous car, a Toyota stated 47mpg, and i never achieved that either, the Renault before that was 38mpg (petrol) and guess what - i never had that either. In fact i can say that for every car i have ever had.

Like you after reading threads on the subject i decided to experiment, for 1 tank (brim to empty) i drove pretty much as fast as was permissible all the time, hard acceleration and a steady 80-90 on the motorways where i could, i returned 40mpg. The next tank i drove like a nun, unfortunatley most of the miles were urban, a small amount (190 miles) on the motorway - where at a steady 60 i was around 62ish mpg on the instant reading ! The ave. for the tank was 46mpg.

Now i'm neither a nun or a nutter and i ALWAYS get 42 to 45mpg a month, it all depends on your road mix, style of driving and how much weight you carry.
I have to be accurate on my mpg because i claim back miles covered for work, so i am absolutley sure that my figures are correct as an average over a month.
As part of my job i manage the expense claims for our service engineers, they all run the exact same model of car: engine, spec, kit they carry and age are all the same. The only variant is the driver. Over 12 cars, over a year the average mpg variance is over 13mpg between cars.

I think for the performance the car has, especially for overtaking (fab torque level !) i am more than happy with the economy. As for the re-map - i wouldn't: i'm sure if the claims were accurate Volvo would have done it a long time ago, I really don't see how you can get another 20bhp, use the extra power and increase the economy. You may get an increase in economy if you drive like a nun but as soon as you use the extra power your economy will go in the opposite direction. More power = more fuel burnt = worse economy. I would also imagine any warranty you may have will be void.

If you really want to save fuel, slow down, a lot...

[7050man]

I generally agree with Kiium's post, but I have found that I can better the claimed figures, from two Volvos and on my last car, a Saab 95 3.0Tid estate.
V70 2.4 170 averaged 35mpg over 70k miles, Saab averaged 48.5mpg over 30k miles and the V50 is currently averaging 50.2 over 53k miles.

Interestingly the V50 is performing the worst of the three cars if you consider the percentage improvement on the official combined figure.
It does depend on how you drive, where you drive and when you drive.
I too use my car for business use, claim back from my employer and keep very accurate records.
I'm also an engineer and carry lots of kit in the car.
In fact I did a lot of analysis before opting out of a company car scheme, as I didn't want to have to incur business expenses which I wouldn't have had before.

Re a software upgrade or remap, I too am sceptical about improved performance as well as economy. I've yet to be convinced that one goes hand in hand with the other (except in an inversely proportional way).

Another consideration for the E4 engine is the extra amount of soot that the filter would have to deal with as more fuel is generally burnt to improve bhp.
Maybe this isn't a problem but again, I'd have to be convinced.

[Fast Reg]

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the replies.

I think you've just confirmed for me what I suspected about remapping and chipping. I think I'll just suck it and see with regards to the performance and economy for the time being and see how I feel about it once I've got a proper handle on it with this individual car.

I'm guessing that the Euro IV's problems are mostly to do with all the extra filters stiffling the engine's ability to breath. What is the expected life of these filters and is their any compulsion on the owner to replace them instead of just binning them? The reason that I ask is that you'd probably get better economy if the engine was just allowed to breath a bit more easily, even if the car's exhaust was a bit more sooty.

Any thoughts...?

Safe Roads!!

[kirium]

Hi, I seem to remember that a "liquid" in the DPF is replenished at the 72K service. Whether you can do this yourself i don't know. As i understand it the computer flashes a message when it needs to be replenished, i seem to remember its mentioned in the handbook.

As for removing them, again i wouldn't - warranty and all that

[Fast Reg]

Ah yes. The warranty.

I expect mine will be out of warranty by the time 72k miles comes around. I'm buying used.

[MavUK]

Extra porformance used does not equal exta economy... But the mapping that gives performance *when you want it* can / should also improve economy when you *don't*. It also increases the chance of something breaking - which is why Volvo don't give it too you. There is a large degree of tolerance in Volvo engines that means you can treat them mean and still get a long life (I still service mine regularly within schedule though) - when you increase the power / economy you have to service it more closely to the schedule (and for however more extreme you go you need to look at it more closely and expect it to break more etc).

I have a NA car as well as my T5 - a 1980 Spit - and it's tuned for performance - when you hit the throttle it uses fuel. When doing a constant 70 on the motorway it does more than 40 mpg though, as it's not 'working as hard'.

So it's not something for nothing, it's gain where you want it. Cruise economy, or foot to the floor power. You can have both, but not at the same time. If that makes sense... (It's late on a Friday night and I don't have Googel's maths to stop me dribbling on )

[bryand]

My 2.0D is in a C30, and doesn't have a DPF. What it did have, before it was remapped, was a set of flat spots between 2100 and 2800 RPM which coincide pretty much with motorway cruising revs and produced poor cruising economy.
Since the remap, economy is better (by up to 8%) and more predictable.

[Fast Reg]

Originally Posted by MavUK

I have a NA car as well as my T5 - a 1980 Spit - and it's tuned for performance - when you hit the throttle it uses fuel. When doing a constant 70 on the motorway it does more than 40 mpg though, as it's not 'working as hard'.

So it's not something for nothing, it's gain where you want it. Cruise economy, or foot to the floor power. You can have both, but not at the same time. If that makes sense... (It's late on a Friday night and I don't have Googel's maths to stop me dribbling on )

That makes sense.

I currently drive a SEAT Toledo 2.3 V5 170 that averages 35mpg, much to the amazement of almost everyone I tell. I think the reason is because I don't need to push it very hard. Naturally I could if I wanted to, but in everyday driving there just isn't the need. As a result it just sips petrol rather than guzzling it.

Thanks!!

[7050man]

Originally Posted by Fast Reg

Hi Guys,


I think you've just confirmed for me what I suspected about remapping and
I'm guessing that the Euro IV's problems are mostly to do with all the extra filters stiffling the engine's ability to breath. What is the expected life of these filters and is their any compulsion on the owner to replace them instead of just binning them? The reason that I ask is that you'd probably get better economy if the engine was just allowed to breath a bit more easily, even if the car's exhaust was a bit more sooty.

Any thoughts...?

Safe Roads!!

Yes breathing I suspect is the problem.

The first E4 cars had a particulate filter that has to be replaced as part of the cars service schedule at 75k miles.

The latest models according to Volvo, have a particulate filter that is rated as per the life of the car and doesn't need to go through the regeneration process periodically.
This means reduced service costs at 37.5k and 75k miles as additive top up and filter change is not necessary.

Recently I had a V70 2.0D as hire car and it felt quicker off the mark than my car does, which I wasn't expecting considering that it's a bigger heavier car. Fuel econopmy didn't seem to suffer either.

I guess that this is due to in part the fact that the car is indeed breathing more freely.