|
C30 / S40 & V50 '04-'12 / C70 '06-'13 General Forum for the P1-platform C30 / S40 / V50 / C70 models |
Information |
|
V50 fuel consumption and tank size!Views : 36809 Replies : 103Users Viewing This Thread : |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Aug 7th, 2007, 20:44 | #21 |
New Member
Last Online: Jan 7th, 2009 19:07
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oslo
|
Well, that's the thing isnt it? Its all very well and good to compare the 1.6D to the 2.0D, but of course its not going to give you the same fuel usage - the 2.0D has 25% more horsepower and almost 50% higher torque.
|
Aug 8th, 2007, 13:33 | #22 | |
New Member
Last Online: Sep 12th, 2007 15:41
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Reading
|
Quote:
Well at the end of day you have to buy whats appropriate to your own needs and desires. If you want performance then your very unlikely to get excellent consumption. I just wanted to share my experience thus far on the forum. In fact I came here before buying the car, so I believe it may help some people make the decision which of the two engines to go for. |
|
Aug 8th, 2007, 13:50 | #23 |
Member
Last Online: Sep 22nd, 2017 10:46
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Peterborough
|
I've driven the C Max with both 1.6 and 2.0 and I think the better engine is the 1.6, it is smoother and only lacks the last bit of overtaking punch when on a motorway. Having said that I would probably still go for the 2.0. Looking at the fuel tank sizes it seems they are all over the place, the 1.6 and 2.0 have a smaller tank compared to the 2.4 D5
|
Aug 9th, 2007, 22:15 | #24 |
Mmm Beer
|
Unfortunately I do mind, planning on getting it remapped soon to give it an extra kick. Would have got a D5 but dont like the automatic geartronic thingy. Apparently the remap also gives more fuel efficiency on motorway type driving, but unfortunately the opposite on urban.
__________________
S40 SE SPORT |
Aug 28th, 2007, 23:07 | #25 |
New Member
Last Online: Apr 28th, 2008 22:13
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Albans
|
Interested to read these comments as I've just got a new V50 1.6 diesel (company car) and the fuel consumption is not as low as expected. Can anyone advise how long it takes for the engine to loosen up and give something like the advertised levels of consumption? I managed to get an average of 51.4mpg today on a 58 mile run, with some stop/start but with a longish stretch of motorway which I grannied along at just under 60mph.
Thanks in advance for your help. SR (no prizes for guessing what my previous runabout was!!) |
Aug 31st, 2007, 21:28 | #26 | |
Mmm Beer
|
Quote:
__________________
S40 SE SPORT |
|
Nov 1st, 2007, 23:40 | #27 |
Experienced Member
Last Online: Today 12:34
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: L/H side
|
I have just driven 450 miles in the last 2 days in a V50 2.0 D , 4 journeys back and forth from the midlands to south wales 50% motorway/dual carriageway and 50% A and B roads with a total of an hour in very slow moving traffic here and there . So i would say this was average use . the result ..54 mpg ... average speed 47 mph the average speed is important in getting good economy . Cruising at 50 mph in 6th gear when all fully warmed up was doing 84 mpg .. its the hills and slopes that kill the fuel consumption , down to mid 20's on the instantaneous read out . oh yes still 150 miles left to zero fuel :-)
__________________
My comments are only based on my opinions and vast experience . |
Nov 2nd, 2007, 12:28 | #28 |
Junior Member
Last Online: Dec 27th, 2007 19:55
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edinburgh
|
My experience of the 2.0 D is the same as many others on this topic: it's a disappointment. I don't think the weight of the S40 is justification either: not only is the weight not so much higher than some other cars, but Volvo claim that it should return 48 mpg (combined), and frankly it doesn't come close.
I've said it before, but my previous car - an Audi A3 2.0 TDI Sport - averaged 50 mpg on my daily commute, day in, day out, no matter how hard I drove it. The S40 2.0 D SE ('06) averages about 41 mpg on the exact same route. It's not down to my driving style; it's not because it's new; it's (apparently) not because of problems with the AGR valve (though goodness knows I'm still having misfire/stall problems after nearly 2 years): it just seems to be an inherently inefficient engine, and Volvo have made unrealistic claims for it's performance. I've had incessant niggling problems with my S40 ever since I bought it: clunking front seats; stalling; misfire/uneven running; poor fuel consumption - the list goes on. It's my first ever Volvo, and it will be my last. Today I had to divert from my journey to work, to take the car into my local dealership because the external temperature sensor reckoned it was -40 degrees! Actually it was about 14 or 15. As a result, the climate control had the heat on full blast at any setting other than 'Lo' (when it's on continuous maximum cooling). The dealership can't look at it until next Tuesday, and can't lend me a replacement car. I'm beginning to think about selling it earlier than planned and getting something reliable. |
Nov 2nd, 2007, 20:09 | #29 |
Experienced Member
Last Online: Today 12:34
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: L/H side
|
[QUOTE=Northview;312775] but Volvo claim that it should return 48 mpg (combined), and frankly it doesn't come close.
well this one does, It healthily exceeds volvo's claim i got 54 mpg and it has settled at that figure now not going up or down . I've said it before, but my previous car - an Audi A3 2.0 TDI Sport - averaged 50 mpg on my daily commute, day in, day out, no matter how hard I drove it. Im my experience with any diesel you start driving it hard and you are on par with the equivalent petrol powered engine re fuel consumption . Once the foot goes down it consumes a lot more fuel for obvious reasons . To put it another way if you DIDN'T drive it hard you should approach the figures i am getting. Why do you have a diesel in preference to a petrol anyway is it the economy ? If so you do need to drive it with economy in mind . How often do you exceed 2000 rpm ? The S40 2.0 D SE ('06) averages about 41 mpg on the exact same route. thats with quite a bit of hard accellerating i would guess Today I had to divert from my journey to work, to take the car into my local dealership because the external temperature sensor reckoned it was -40 degrees! Actually it was about 14 or 15. As a result, the climate control had the heat on full blast at any setting other than 'Lo' (when it's on continuous maximum cooling). The dealership can't look at it until next Tuesday, and can't lend me a replacement car. I think you will find there is a connector problem in the left door connector, they will know about this . QUOTE]
__________________
My comments are only based on my opinions and vast experience . |
Nov 3rd, 2007, 22:25 | #30 |
V40 Owner
Last Online: Dec 2nd, 2013 11:31
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sheffield
|
Poor fuel consumption
I`ve got a 99 plate V40 1.6 petrol and I`m getting 31 mpg back and from work and knocking about town. Is this about right. (I drive steady with the world on my rear bumper.)
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|