XC70: 2.0L - underpowered

[XC70Q]

I am considering buying either a D5 2.4L or D3(?) 2.0L XC70; and wonder how the 163 bhp 2.0L compares to the 163 bhp 2.4L.

Is the 2.0L underpowered?

I don't carry much weight in the car, nor haul a trailer/caravan.

And does the 2.0L really give 53 mpg?

[ampy]

They should be the same as they are both 163bhp. Volvo engines are capable of a lot more power than we ever get given. The power is controlled (and limited) by the software that Volvo put into the computer that runs the engine.
Ampy.

[Peter86]

2.4 D5 to me all the way in a phase 2 or phase 3. I drive a V70 but I'm sure the xc7o would feel very similar except a bit higher and softer on the bumps.

Test drove a v70 phase 3 D3 but it seemed sluggish to me. Wouldn't be to bad as a motorway cruiser in all fairness.

Test drive both if I were you.

Phase 2 D5 I was getting low 50s and in my phase 3 D5 I have manged to get 64mpg driving very gently and using start/stop otherwise high 40s usually. If its awd expect a bit lower on my figures. Hopefully someone on here may have better understanding of the xc model.

[flaggy]

We have a 2.0 XC 70 FWD manual and don't find it underpowered, but I,m an oldie and don't roar about. We tow a 1400kg caravan with it and find it's fine. It has shown mid 50s mpg on a solo run but I take the computer figure with a pinch of salt. I would say high 40,s on a run low 40,s around home. Its very comfortable and rides very well. Just my opinion and never had a bigger engine XC70.

[ampy]

I am a big fan of the D5 2.4L too. I have been tempted when a good deal is offered on the 2.0L but have not gone for it just yet. We had a 2.0L V50 that I am convinced must have been reprogrammed as it was a flying machine that was easily as quick as my 185 V70 which I find to be quicker than my wife's twin turbo 205bhp.
As you say, take it for a long test drive is the only way to know for sure. Anything over 150BHP should be pretty powerful.
My old V8 rover was 150BHP and that was awesome (until you came to a bend corner or had to stop fast)

[volvoid]

In my limited experience the displayed mpg figures are consitently very optimistic. Ignore them and work out the real numbers for yourself.

[volvoid]

In my limited experience the displayed mpg figures are consitently very optimistic. Ignore them and work out the real numbers for yourself.

Regards the current trend for ever smaller engines in ever bigger cars.
Seems that the power is there, mostly with foot down, the bigger lumps have more torque and are more pleasant to drive. Economy figures are heavily massaged, hopefully this will change as new rules come in, but the manufacturers have some bright people who will engineer around them. Real world perfomance and economy not what buyers have been led to believe.

More importantly perhaps from the point of view of the used car owner - how long will they last ? The engines are working harder than ever, use very thin oils with no advice as to using a thicker oil as they age. Are we getting into planned obsolescence here ? I suspect so. 10 years and its scrapped. Hardly eco-friendly is it.

[Dippydog]

Manufacturers figures are usually achieved under carefully controlled "ideal world"conditions.Ever smaller capacity engines with huge power outputs for any given size are all very well on paper but if you're using the power you're not going to get anywhere near the economy figures.Built in obsolescence has been something of a manufacturers mantra for a long long time with most[if not all]figuring the "lifetime" of a vehicle as 10yrs which is where at least part of the ruling that they have to make spare parts for at least 10yrs after a model has ceased production came from.A "sealed for life" gearbox for example is considered to last for that length of time-obviously some will fail sooner but most will do the distance so the manufacturers can afford to take a hit on the ones that don't-after which time[if not before then] it's not their problem.

[Bonefishblues]

Originally Posted by volvoid

In my limited experience the displayed mpg figures are consitently very optimistic. Ignore them and work out the real numbers for yourself.

Of course there was an era not so long ago when official combined were very conservative. I've never been able to get my consumption down to that number on my E3 S60

Just apropos of smaller engines etc. What I find puzzling is that one can dial in as much torque as one likes (oversimplification I know, but essentially true) into a turbo, so I'm not very clear why in the real world the likes of the Twin Air, EcoBoost etc are so very far short in the hands of the average driver.

[green van man]

Big engine lazy power, small engine working hard for same output. For me the 2.4 D5 is always going to be a better bet than the 2.0 D5. The new vea 2.0 engine while seems to have ample power is linked to an 8 speed auto box which may be the cleaver way to optimise the power to weight ratio, as no manual transmition is offered a direct comparison between the older engine and the new with the driver in charge is not possible. Certainly it was not my cup of tea, computer with a sofa is not my idea of driving enjoyment.

Paul.