Reading the brochure !!!!

[julianps]

I spent the morning trying to compare the V40 to the Mazda3 and for my sins read the brochure/price list information.

I knew already the V40 petrol T2/T3 Auto models had different 1,498cc engines to the run of 1,969cc blocks seen elsewhere in Volvo's range.

I hadn't appreciated that the standard T2/D2 had a different chassis setup (Volvo calls it Comfort/Touring) to all other models where they call it a Performance chassis; note T2/D2 R-Design has a Performance chassis instead.)

It was also odd that although fuel-tank sizes seemed equivalent between petrol and diesel(1), Volvo lists different luggage compartment volumes between them. What's the story there do we think?

Note 1: all 2017MY cars have 62L tanks except the D2 that has a 40L tank; does the D2 have something else under the floor like and Adblue/additive tank that's using up the space?

As a foot note to that observation Volvo's service price indicator shows the 10year service cost the T2 and D2 are about the same (go back to 2010MY and the differences were material and painful and now coming home to roost; my PDF change is due in 2 months ;-((

Also, for the petrol engines, Volvo notes "For best performance and lowest fuel consumption 98 RON is recommended, 95 RON can be used for normal driving." So, unless you're using Super-unleaded don't moan about fuel consumption; Yet Super-unleaded is materially more expensive than diesel at the time of writing.

So if Super-unleaded todays costs £1.21 versus diesel at £1.15, and fuel consumption on petrol is 45mpg and on diesel is 55mpg the 8yr/100,000 difference makes the diesel £2,750 cheaper to run (service costs being almost equivalent). As the diesel engine costs a premium of £1,750 it looks like the old saw that "... diesels cost more to buy and to service so are only applicable to high-milage users" may be a thing of the past?



As a footnote on the Mazda3, I was surprised to see that both petrol and diesel engines both have compression ratio of c14:1, as opposed to a more typical 10:1 vs 18:1 of old. I wonder what the real-world impact of that is?

[H20 VOLVO]

Originally Posted by julianps

I spent the morning trying to compare the V40 to the Mazda3 and for my sins read the brochure/price list information.

I knew already the V40 petrol T2/T3 Auto models had different 1,498cc engines to the run of 1,969cc blocks seen elsewhere in Volvo's range.

I hadn't appreciated that the standard T2/D2 had a different chassis setup (Volvo calls it Comfort/Touring) to all other models where they call it a Performance chassis; note T2/D2 R-Design has a Performance chassis instead.)

It was also odd that although fuel-tank sizes seemed equivalent between petrol and diesel(1), Volvo lists different luggage compartment volumes between them. What's the story there do we think?

Note 1: all 2017MY cars have 62L tanks except the D2 that has a 40L tank; does the D2 have something else under the floor like and Adblue/additive tank that's using up the space?

As a foot note to that observation Volvo's service price indicator shows the 10year service cost the T2 and D2 are about the same (go back to 2010MY and the differences were material and painful and now coming home to roost; my PDF change is due in 2 months ;-((

Also, for the petrol engines, Volvo notes "For best performance and lowest fuel consumption 98 RON is recommended, 95 RON can be used for normal driving." So, unless you're using Super-unleaded don't moan about fuel consumption; Yet Super-unleaded is materially more expensive than diesel at the time of writing.

So if Super-unleaded todays costs £1.21 versus diesel at £1.15, and fuel consumption on petrol is 45mpg and on diesel is 55mpg the 8yr/100,000 difference makes the diesel £2,750 cheaper to run (service costs being almost equivalent). As the diesel engine costs a premium of £1,750 it looks like the old saw that "... diesels cost more to buy and to service so are only applicable to high-milage users" may be a thing of the past?



As a footnote on the Mazda3, I was surprised to see that both petrol and diesel engines both have compression ratio of c14:1, as opposed to a more typical 10:1 vs 18:1 of old. I wonder what the real-world impact of that is?

The D2 is a big fleet seller. The lowered Sports Chassis should return a lower CO2 figure and increased MPG figure, due to it's drag coefficient rating. That's why they come with small alloys, but lower suspension. This is no different to any eco-model by other manufacturers - most sit a little lower and have small wheels/bigger profile tyres. Also have smooothing panels below the chassis to lower wind resistance too.

In regards to boot space, this is due to the spare wheel included - again, a fleet preference. Without the wheel and with a can of foam, the boot is fairly bigger. It keeps staff mobile.

Any difference again in fuel tank size, can also be attributed to either Ad-Blu or again, lower weight level in car for official testing. Not sure if the D2 has the Ad-Blu feature?

The V40 D2 is a massive seller for Volvo, so they make it as competitive as possible in the marketplace, and this is done by a keen list price, low CO2 output, higher MPG and sensible service intervals. It's exactly what most other manufacturers do too.

[julianps]

Volvo offer a no-cost upgrade to a 62L tank on the D2 so, like H20 Volvo suggests, the original is smaller for official testing purposes. Selekt dealers make a big-thing of listing 62L tanks amongst the optional extras on these cars.

Regular D2/T2 still list Tempa Spare Wheel as a £140 option for non-fleet purchases.

[SwissXC90]

Smaller tank = better fuel economy

Reason: less weight to carry.

1L of fuel is approx 1kg of weight
So a 62L tank when full is 22kg heavier than a 40L tank

And thus has a detrimental effect on fuel economy.....