Technical Car/Motor Issues > Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined?
Thread Author: car4play Replies: 43
View Threaded 

 Thu 15 Apr 10 08:10 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - car4play
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?
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Thu 15 Apr 10 16:07 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Zero
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Thu 15 Apr 10 16:14 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Stuu
Id wait until theres 20k on the clock and see what its doing then.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Fri 16 Apr 10 19:26 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Baz
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!
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Fri 16 Apr 10 21:15 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - JohnM{P}
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 :-) )
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Sun 18 Apr 10 21:04 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Netsur
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!
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 11:16 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - car4play
>> 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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 11:28 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - ....
>> 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 !
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 12:33 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - car4play
>> They all do that Sir !

You have an S50 no? What is that officially supposed to do?
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 17:40 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - ....
>> >> 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 ?
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 18:30 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - car4play
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 18:53 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - ....
>> 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 !
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 18:08 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Zero
>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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 12:18 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Focusless
>> 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?
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 12:21 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Focusless
>> 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.
Reply to this message | Report message
      4  
 Mon 26 Apr 10 12:30 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - car4play
>> 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
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 14:06 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Netsur
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 14:16 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Focusless
>> 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 :)
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 14:28 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - car4play
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 14:29 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - crocks
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?
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 14:35 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Focusless
>> 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?
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 17:59 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - jc2
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 14:45 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - L'escargot
>> 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".
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 26 Apr 10 18:21 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Baz
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!
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Tue 27 Apr 10 07:39 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - L'escargot
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Tue 27 Apr 10 13:48 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - WillDeBeest
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Fri 30 Apr 10 12:55 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Fenlander
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Fri 30 Apr 10 13:07 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - sajid
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?
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Fri 30 Apr 10 13:27 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - car4play
>> 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?
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Sat 1 May 10 07:01 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - L'escargot
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
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Sat 1 May 10 09:22 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - L'escargot
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Wed 5 May 10 19:06 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - movilogo
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.

Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 24 May 10 20:50 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Collos
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 24 May 10 21:23 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Focusless
>> 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
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 24 May 10 21:42 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - idle_chatterer
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 24 May 10 22:05 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Focusless
>> The real 'problem' is that HMRC's approved
>> mileage rates are based on the idealised figures quoted by manufacturers

(because they have to)
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 24 May 10 22:20 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - idle_chatterer
>>
>> (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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Mon 24 May 10 22:40 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Focusless
>> >>
>> >> (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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Tue 25 May 10 07:24 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - L'escargot
It's all here. www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/consumption.asp
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Wed 26 May 10 09:18 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - Netsur
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Thu 22 Jul 10 19:55 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - V50DRIVe
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......
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Fri 23 Jul 10 13:19 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - car4play
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Sun 1 Aug 10 14:39 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - V50DRIVe
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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
 Fri 23 Jul 10 06:54 
 Volvo V50 - 99 1.6 73mpg combined? - L'escargot
>> 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.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
Latest Forum Posts
Tue, 8 Apr 2025 19:37
Non-motoring
by CGNorwich
Trump Vol 2
Yes he did, well at least to show that the ...
Tue, 8 Apr 2025 19:36
Non-motoring
by Biggles
Trump Vol 2
He can't stand as the vice-president candidate, either.
Tue, 8 Apr 2025 19:24
Non-motoring
by Manatee
Trump Vol 2
Unfit because the Chlorine treatment AIUI is to fix poor ...
Tue, 8 Apr 2025 19:20
Non-motoring
by James Loveless
Trump Vol 2
"Trump is apparently going to back Vance as the next ...
Tue, 8 Apr 2025 19:18
Non-motoring
by zippy
Trump Vol 2
>> https://verse.press/poem/the-heathen-chinee-24519 >> >> the dnagers of gambling with the ...
Tue, 8 Apr 2025 18:11
Non-motoring
by CGNorwich
Trump Vol 2
https://verse.press/poem/the-heathen-chinee-24519 the dnagers of gambling with the Chinese ...