Fuel economy - 2.0d

[Harvey1512]

That is more likely to be the shape of the tank. Mine, when full, does not move for 80 miles, reaches halfway at 240 miles and then drops quite rapidly with the red light coming on at 420. It has followed that pattern since new. I think we have an image of a fuel tank being a regular shape, square or rectangular, but I suspect they are quite abstract so that they fit the rest of the car. That does not lend itself to a steady dropping of the fuel needle unfortunately.

[fenton_jd]

Originally Posted by Harvey1512

That is more likely to be the shape of the tank. Mine, when full, does not move for 80 miles, reaches halfway at 240 miles and then drops quite rapidly with the red light coming on at 420. It has followed that pattern since new. I think we have an image of a fuel tank being a regular shape, square or rectangular, but I suspect they are quite abstract so that they fit the rest of the car. That does not lend itself to a steady dropping of the fuel needle unfortunately.

Mine is different, itll drop at any given opportunity. very slight curve in the motorway, change in altitiute driving up the hill on my road for 5 seconds.

I have to sit there at the end of every journey and wait for the fuel gauge to "go back up".

I'd expect it on a 80s or 90's car.... but not on a modern one!.

My Grande Punto Fuel gauge...you could park the car vertically and it'd still give an accurate reading.

[Robbijay]

Dodgy sender unit?

[7050man]

Originally Posted by Harvey1512

That is more likely to be the shape of the tank. Mine, when full, does not move for 80 miles, reaches halfway at 240 miles and then drops quite rapidly with the red light coming on at 420. It has followed that pattern since new. I think we have an image of a fuel tank being a regular shape, square or rectangular, but I suspect they are quite abstract so that they fit the rest of the car. That does not lend itself to a steady dropping of the fuel needle unfortunately.

Could also be the type of pot used in the sender, ie logerithmic one as opposed to linear type.

This uneven rate of change is common.

[fenton_jd]

I honestly think I'd get better MPG out of the 1.6 or 1.8 petrol or even an M5

[gararrd]

Hi Fenton
Have you tried changing the fuel and air filter as Volvo recommend them to be changed at 37,500 miles as I worked for many years on HGV lorries and found that by changing the fuel filters the difference was 12 mpg to 8 mpg and that was after 12000 miles, so the filters were changed at 12000 to keep up the mpg.
I have a V50 2L Diesel and get on a long run 60 mpg but only doing between 60 and 65, don't forget if you change your fuel filter you need a primer pump.


Gararrd

[Mark Hygate]

Fenton,

Just had over 57mpg (C30) with my 2.0d this morning on the normal 80 mile drive, so am sure the car can do better...

Can you describe how you normally like to drive your 30.7 miles? Type of roads, speeds, rpm & traffic condictions (stop/start, etc). Those can make such a difference.

Regards

[Dreadnort]

I get between 51 to 57 to and from work and have had higher at a steady 65 on the motorway

[mybubba]

fuel filter should not impact that much if you use quality fuel btw.
in our v50 2.0d we manage as a top result 51mpg @ 65mi/hr. 46/70, 42/75 and below 40/80+

[Jonnieb2009]

Fenton: 31mpg in my 1.8 petrol - it could do better if I dont use the right pedal as much!

Reading the posts it does sound like a sensor (or two from what Guru says) needs changing as its obviously giving you false information on the trip