Our Volvo V50 1.6D SE Lux (drive e start/stop) is due its first checkup at 3000 miles.
It's supposed to be a "green" car and do 73 MPG (combined cycle). We got it because:
a) there was a great scrappage deal on new Volvos at the time and our old Fiesta needed rust repair at next MOT.
b) because it is less than 100gm CO2 it qualifies for enough tax relief to be financially worth it as a company car.
Don't get me wrong it's a lovely car and I am very happy with it. But if I had bought it on the premise of saving the environment I would have felt very let down. The start/stop seems to have stopped working and according to the on board computer I have never ever (even on long runs) averaged more than 53mpg. It settles at around 47mpg most of the time. Ok I know that new engines need some time to loosen up, but I can't see it getting better by enough to get anywhere near 73mpg. Are they serious?I mean it would have to do 80mpg+ on the flat to get that wouldn't it?
Any ideas?
|
the 73mpg cycle is a theoretical figure derived from testing under ideal conditions on a rolling road.
I doubt a heavyweight volvo will get anywhere near that figure in real life.
|
|
Id wait until theres 20k on the clock and see what its doing then.
|
The Official figures seem ever more optimistic these days. I used to go on the basis of the combined less 10%, which would give me a pretty good idea of what I could achieve real world. But that would give you 67 mpg, still highly optimistic I would think. Let's face it, a 1400 kg car with a 1.6 diesel is never going to average much more than around 50 mpg in the real world!
|
|
Cars with 'stop-go' give good figures for the official urban tests - however, if your driving is mixed/out of town, it will make little difference in 'real-world'. Don't despair, the first 2 tanks of my Laguna11 diesel gave just 30mpg - once loose'nd up, things improved significantly (thought never as good as a VAG 1.9 :-) )
|
|
The Prius III is meant to give 72mpg urban. Is that achievable? I usually achieve the urban figures for my type of driving plus about 5-10%. Do I think I would get 80mpg out of a Prius? - no way Jose!
|
>> Let's face it a 1400 kg car with a 1.6 diesel
>> is never going to average much more than around 50 mpg in the real world!
Thanks for all your comments. From a technical / scientific point of view I agree. However, it is advertised and sold as doing 73mpg combined, so as you say you would expect this within some reasonable tolerance for the real world. 10% sounds reasonable, but 46mpg real world is nearly 40% lower. It feels a bit like mis-selling to me.
It's booked in for it's first checkup tomorrow so I'll keep you posted as to what the garage have to say about it.
|
>> It's booked in for it's first checkup tomorrow so I'll keep you posted as to
>> what the garage have to say about it.
>>
They all do that, Sir !
|
>> They all do that Sir !
You have an S50 no? What is that officially supposed to do?
|
>> >> They all do that Sir !
>>
>> You have an S50 no? What is that officially supposed to do?
>>
Yes, I have an S60 D5 which Volvo claim should give 44.8 mpg combined. When I drive it in the UK at 70mph I get low 50's and overall mid to high 40's. That is an EUIII non-DPF car.
My wife has a C4 Grand Picasso which has a variation of the 1.6 engine you have with 6speed EGS. Citroën claim 49.6mpg I think it is for this car, we get 37mpg, on mostly short urban type journeys. We don't tend to venture onto the Autobahn in it very often.
I can understand why you are upset but that is not Volvo's fault. They, like all other manufacturers, produce the numbers as specified by the all knowing EU polticians.
Maybe you should be taking the issue up with your MEP ?
|
If I bought the car on the basis that it would do what Volvo said then naturally I would be very upset.
I only bought the car because it made sense financially:
1) good deal on scrappage.
2) 100% tax relief as a company car and lower personal tax for the privilege.
This is because the government (misguidedly IMHO) buy into all this green stuff and want to reward people who buy cars with lower than 110gm CO2. I don't, but basically company cars weren't worth it financially unless one could get one of these that fitted the bill. A year or so ago the limit was 120gm CO2, but then with too many cars fitting into that bracket they lowered it to 110.
Of course within the 110 bracket there aren't that many cars of any kind of size apart from the Prius. Then this thing came along in September last year. By adding the start/stop and fiddling with ride height, braking, transmission fluid etc. they managed to get it into that bracket. Or at least officially. This rather limited the car to either the C30, S40, or V50 in 1.6 Diesel all of which are a bit underpowered but manageable. It's certainly quicker than our 1.6L Petrol Focus.
Fuel consumption wasn't the deciding factor. If it were one would be pretty hacked off by now. To be honest if it weren't for the tax/green issue one would want the bigger engine because as you observe, your fuel consumption on the D5 isn't that bad.
So it comes down to the fact that for what we wanted there wasn't a huge lot of choice, but if one bought into the green mantra, then this car would leave one a bit disappointed.
For all the other things it does though I have been very happy with it.
|
>> This is because the government (misguidedly IMHO) buy into all this green stuff and want
>> to reward people who buy cars with lower than 110gm CO2. I don't but basically
>> company cars weren't worth it financially unless one could get one of these that fitted
>> the bill. A year or so ago the limit was 120gm CO2 but then with
>> too many cars fitting into that bracket they lowered it to 110.
>>
Don't get me started on this. In 2012 my S60 will be seven years old and will effectively be scrapped by the German Government as I will no longer be able to drive it in their environmental zones. Driven back to back with the C4 it will achieve 10mpg more which will surely produce less polution because it is not burning as much fossil fuel.
I can retro-fit a DPF and have it recategorised as an EUIV car but then it will burn more fuel generating more polution but will be welcomed back in the environmental zones.
Madness !
|
>However, it is advertised and sold as doing 73mpg combined
yes but common sense tells you that not likely, and I am sure you didnt take that at face value and you asked around a bit first.
|
>> Are they serious?I mean it would have to do
>> 80mpg+ on the flat to get that wouldn't it?
Official extra urban figure is 83.1mpg, which is a measured value, albeit on a rolling road as mentioned by others. Any idea what you get on a steady motorway run?
|
>> Official extra urban figure is 83.1mpg which is a measured value
From www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/faq/
Q: How is the fuel consumption test conducted.
A: The test is outlined in Directive 93/116/EC and provides results that are more representative of actual average on-road fuel consumption than previous tests. There are two parts: an urban and an extra-urban cycle. The cars tested have to be run-in and must have been driven for at least 1,800 miles (3,000 kilometres) before testing.
Urban Cycle:
The urban test cycle is carried out in a laboratory at an ambient temperature of 20oC to 30oC on a rolling road from a cold start, i.e. the engine has not run for several hours. The cycle consists of a series of accelerations, steady speeds, decelerations and idling. Maximum speed is 31mph (50km/h), average speed 12mph (19km/h) and the distance covered is 2.5 miles (4km).
Extra-Urban Cycle:
This cycle is conducted immediately following the urban cycle and consists of roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder accelerations, decelerations, and some idling. Maximum speed is 75mph (120km/h), average speed is 39mph (63 km/h) and the distance covered is 4.3miles (7km).
Combined Fuel Consumption Figure:
The combined figure presented is for the urban and extra-urban cycle together. It is therefore an average of the two parts of the test, weighted by the distances covered in each part.
|
>> Official extra urban figure is 83.1mpg
That's v interesting. Confirms what I say about it having to do an extraordinary mpg on some cycles to get combined 73.
>> Any idea what you get on a steady motorway run?
Reset the computer, did 80 miles from Oxford home via M25/A24, drove gently within limits, managed 54mpg average. Still way off 83mpg!
Last edited by: car4play on Mon 26 Apr 10 at 12:36
|
|
Surely we are ignoring the running in factor? Don't these engines need about 15,000 miles of hard driving to run in and get the best economy.
|
>> Surely we are ignoring the running in factor? Don't these engines need about 15 000
>> miles of hard driving to run in and get the best economy.
As stated above "The cars tested have to be run-in and must have been driven for at least 1,800 miles (3,000 kilometres) before testing", and the OP's vehicle has done 3000 miles. So they should be exactly the same :)
|
|
And while it may give some better fuel economy once the engine has loosend up I can't see it improving by anything like the difference.
|
Your link says they need to have been run-in for a minimum of 1800 miles but there is no maximum.
If the manufacturer knows he will get better figures at 20,000 miles what is there to stop him doing that?
|
>> If the manufacturer knows he will get better figures at 20 000 miles what is
>> there to stop him doing that?
I thought the VCA people choose the vehicles, but perhaps as you imply the manufacturer supplies them - anyone know?
|
|
The manufacturer and the certifying authority choose the vehicles.It would only be the VCA in the UK.The tests can be carried out by any approved authority in the EU and are then accepted by all EU territories.The manufacturer will supply a list of vehicles and options he requires coverage for.For example,different body styles,tyres,FDR,gearboxes and engines-they have the option of just testing the worst case and accepting the resulting test figure to cover the whole range or breaking it down in agreement with the certifying authority.The vehicles must have covered a minimum of 3,000 km. and this will be checked.The authority checks the specification of the vehicles and also satisfies themselves that the vehicle operates normally both hot and cold.Don't believe all the rubbish about "artificial" road loads-they are observed by the authorities as well.
|
>> Any ideas?
>>
Yes. To get a valid figure for your driving style and journeys, calculate the mpg as an average over a period of at least a month. Forget the onboard computer ~ they ought to carry a label saying "for amusement purposes only".
|
Yes indeed, the on-board computers are really an estimate too, although I find them reasonable indicators when taken over a few tankfuls. I've checked mine against brim to brim and find them reading about 5 to 10% optimistic, depending on the car. But I haven't adjusted for my mileometer error, so they may be worse or better than that.
I find the forums/readers reviews to be good sources of info for real world mpg. If you have a spare few minutes, take a look at something like the official figures for say, the MINI range, then have a look around the forums and see what owners are really achieving. From memory, I think the Cooper combined is 50+ mpg (yeah-sure!) but in real world very unlikely!
|
|
I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to get a validly calculated consumption in the region of the official combined cycle figure. The combined consumption for my 2 litre petrol Focus is 32.7 mpg and over its 52,000 mile life it has averaged 37.0 mpg driven spiritedly. In all my cars I've always been able to achieve the combined consumption. If you can't then I suggest it's down to your driving style and/or your journey pattern or your method of calculation.
|
I think the point about running in is a good one. Our Euro IV Toyota Verso (combined 44.something mpg) struggled for a long time to better 41. It's now approaching 20,000 miles and returning closer to 45. Still not as good as the 47 I regularly get from the bigger, heavier, faster, smoother and quieter Euro III S60 (combined 43.5 mpg) but respectable enough, especially since it does more short journeys than the Volvo.
Bear in mind that there are cars designed to work well and other cars designed to do well in the tests. Manufacturers are playing a game with these 'Eco' models to secure sales from the tax advantages the OP cites as the principal reason for choosing the car. That means compromising some real-road drivability (gear ratios, for example) to enhance performance in the tests. And, since the Eco car has been designed specifically for the test environment, it's that much more unlikely than an ordinary car to match its test results in the real world.
|
Those claimed figures for the Volvo are amazingly high aren't they... almost like a misprint.
I'm another driver of the same 1.6 diesel engine in my C5 Tourer. The C5 weighs 140kg more than the Volvo and is larger all round. My car was delivered in the Dec snow and that weather during the running in period saw 47mpg at the start and then after a while I could see it was about 50mpg but didn't bother to do a check.
Now it's warmer weather and the car has 4500mls on the clock I'm getting 53.2mpg on short rural runs... most trips just 10-20 miles. To be honest I'm very happy with that for such a large car with that use.
I did zero one of the trips the other day when the car was already warm and over a modest motorway run it exceeded 60mpg average for that journey.
End of May half term will see its first 90% motorway long run on our hols. I'm hoping for 57-62mpg..... we'll see.
|
|
just wondering can it be a case for misrepresenting or as sale of goods act not fit for purpose, if a customer was buying this car as advertised that it do a certain mpg offically can he reject the car on that basis?
|
>> Those claimed figures for the Volvo are amazingly high aren't they... almost like a misprint.
I totally agree.
The car got its first 3K miles look over by the dealership and I brought this issue up with them. The manager's initial response was that most users were getting between 40 to mid 50s mpg so what we were getting was quite typical and within the spec. I reminded him that the spec was 73 combined and 83 extra urban. "Oh" he said, dug through the book and saw that sure enough that is what it said. "Yes, er, that does look rather high". He then went on to say it was very susceptible to driving habits "With all due respect" .. basically I have been too heavy footed, was his claim. "Everyone is heavy footed even though they say they have driven carefully". Then it was the fact that the stop start wasn't working. I reminded them that we don't live in town so it doesn't really do anything anyway. Then it was that the model we have has the fancy sparticus alloys instead of the smooth ones of the test car.
Finally it was that the car wasn't run in fully and we need to wait until first to second service.
I did point out that we are some 45% or so down from the combined figure, which is a lot to account for. They did at least agree that.
When I collected the car they said the stop/start was now working (they removed and reconnected the second battery), although on arriving home it failed to stop on engaging neutral.
The also said that their test drive of 10 miles driving normally around the back road managed 59mpg and showed me the trip computer to verify this. Unfortunately the computer doesn't tell you how many miles it has been set. When I set off (as though one's delicate parts are attached to the accelerator) I noticed the average mpg falling rapidly. After 4 miles it was down to 53mpg. I somewhat doubt that they set the computer before setting off for the 10 mile trip. I could get 70 mpg by simply resetting the computer on the way back and effectively coasting the last mile or two. Without the computer telling you how many miles it had done since reset this one would be difficult to prove. However, the average mpg did move very quickly which it only does when the mileage it has run is very low.
All in all not much help. Maybe a letter to Volvo?
|
|
On second thoughts, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to get a validly calculated consumption in the region of the official combined cycle figure, unless it's a misprint
|
The online brochure says ...........
Urban 57.7 mpg
Extra urban 83.1 mpg
Combined 72.4 mpg
............. so all the figures tally. The Combined figure doesn't stand out as being a misprint.
|
If they claim 70 MPG and you get around 53 MPG, then the claim looks like a fraudulent one.
With careful driving, one should get 90% of quoted claims. It is even possible to better the figures in many cars.
|
I doubt a heavyweight volvo will get anywhere near that figure in real life.
I thought these are basically a ford focus and are in fact quite light in weight.
|
>> If they claim 70 MPG and you get around 53 MPG, then the claim looks
>> like a fraudulent one.
...although Volvo are only reporting the official VCA figures. The Volvo engineers probably couldn't believe their luck when they saw them - (in a Swedish accent) "Hey guys, look at these VCA figures! Quick, get them in the brochure before they realise they've got miles and kilometres mixed up".
Last edited by: Focus on Mon 24 May 10 at 21:23
|
I never believe manufacturer's claims, my personal experience is that high powered (so unstressed) cars tend to beat manufacturer's claims whereas low powered (so more stressed) variants struggle, goodness knows what a V70 with a 1.6D must be like, the very concept offends me....
My evidence ? A B7 Audi 2.0PD struggled to give 40mpg, a 330d easily does 45mpg and often beats 50mpg in my hands. The real 'problem' is that HMRC's approved mileage rates are based on the idealised figures quoted by manufacturers.
The moral of the story is to get a long test drive before you buy and don't be fooled by any dealer 'spin' along the lines of 'it must be that car' or 'it's your driving style' - whilst legitimate factors they may be used as an excuse. Google the model you're looking at and see whether there are complaints on fora - you'll never see adverse comments in road tests as far as I can see.
|
>> The real 'problem' is that HMRC's approved
>> mileage rates are based on the idealised figures quoted by manufacturers
(because they have to)
|
>>
>> (because they have to)
>>
I'm not entirely sure that I agree, I understood that HMRC do factor in some allowance for the idealised nature of the test figures versus 'real-world' motoring and that this 'could' therefore be more generous.
I also understood that these rates are being used as a tool to encourage business motorists towards more economical cars - not something I'd particularly argue with as an objective (although expecting people to fund their employers' business seems a little unfair).
My contention is that unstressed cars actually deliver better mpg (so lower emissions) in real-world driving than stressed 'economy specials' which are optimised for artificial consumption tests and don't deliver anything like their claimed mpg.
|
>> >>
>> >> (because they have to)
>> >>
>>
>> I'm not entirely sure that I agree,
All I was saying IC was that the manufacturers don't have any choice in the figures they quote - they can't be blamed for that.
|
We have two company cars for our sales team.
The Mazda 3 1.6 diesel gets 59mpg whereas the BMW320d gets 62mpg for very similar routes. Interesting that the larger, faster car is more economical.
|
|
Interesting posts! I have a 59 plate V50De SE Lux with approx 9000m all of my own driving. I don't drive like an eco warrior but I have passed the advanced driving test (IAM). I thoroughly understand the system and apply it all of the time. I cannot get mine to display more than 52mpg on the display in between full refuels, although oddly this maintained during a long drive to North Wales with a boat in tow. My start/stop recently stopped working and my average display shot up to 56-57 mpg on the same journeys as I always do. I collected it tonight from Volvo and they also said they had cleared the fault by disconnecting the second battery (as instructed by a Technical journal). After a 3 mile journey home in warm weather, it didn't stop when I did! Great. Brim to brim fuel comparisons also confirm 52mpg, so I cant work out why it has gone hypo optamistic. I still love it to bits if not slightly disappointed with mpg, but I have a long journey to Switzerand coming up soon and I am hoping for very good mpg that you can often get in Europe. Must call Volvo again......
|
Useful info V50DRIVe.
Funny enough my V50, with 4K on the clock, also stopped working on start/stop and the garage similarly fixed this by disconnecting the second battery.
The fuel consumption is slowly getting a bit better as it runs in. When I first got it, it returned around 46mpg on the display. Now it is averaging 53mpg which is similar to your figure. I read a few reviews on other sites where the test drivers there had also managed around 54mpg.
On a long run to Birmingham a while back I reset the trip computer beforehand and it managed 64mpg on the way there. I never exceeded 70mph and drove reasonably carefully. On the way back I was more anxious to get home and it only managed 57mpg average.
The 53 it reads now is a mixture of all the local trips and a few longer ones. It seems that it only takes one or two trips where one is heavy-footed to really lower the average. As I read elsewhere letting the rpm go above 2500 is when it really starts to drop in mpg.
|
|
Well, two days after start/stop was unsuccessfully reset, it started working properly again. The onboard average display is still showing better fuel consumption than before (56-57mpg, same driving style) but I will check it again by refuels. 2000m return journey from Cambs to Switzerland soon, that should be interesting.
|
>> We have two company cars for our sales team.
>>
>> The Mazda 3 1.6 diesel gets 59mpg whereas the BMW320d gets 62mpg for very similar
>> routes.
When people quote fuel consumption I'm always sceptical about their method of calculation. To get a reasonably valid average I think it has to be calculated over a period of a minimum of one month ~ the longer the better. Even then you'll get differences from one month to another, and from one season of the year to another.
|
Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Zero
