Do Volvo just make thirsty engines? My V60 has never done more than 48mpg on a long run even when driven like a vicar. I grant you that it's got a torque converter, but it has a lockup in every gear.
This past year I've done the London - Leeds run in my V60 multiple times (48 mpg), a new Passat Bluemotion TDI thing (76 mpg), a Transit van(51 mpg!), and a Citroen A̶g̶a̶ Grand Picasso (58 mpg). All of which beat the V60...
Worth mentioning it to the dealer, or is it just a diesel guzzler by nature? Obviously tyre pressures all in the eco range.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Wed 11 Jan 17 at 20:30
|
Is yours a D4 190 bhp like mine? I've seen 50 mpg (measured brim-to-brim) on a run to Scotland, but 48 is about right when going to Berks from Dorset, as we do often, up and down the undulating A303 and A34.
I think a manual would do better than the torque-converter auto, as would a VW Group DSG - but that might cancel out the benefit by going wrong if I were to keep it longer than 3 years.
|
When I had my V60 1.6 "Drive" I don't think I got much above 44, but the Citroen C5 I had before with the same engine usually returned 50/52
The only real difference between them was the Volvo had bigger tyres
|
|
Best I ever got was 31mpg from my T5 - Man maths rounded this up to 35mpg
|
16 plate Merc E220 CDI auto estate, last night, fully laden ( to the roof and a humongous roof box on top too ) 200 mile journey in high winds and so on.
51 mpg on the trip computer.
Nae bad
|
>> 51 mpg on the trip computer.
>>
>> Nae bad
>>
Hows it comparing to the old LEC - IIRC it wasn't doing as well, but was still quite new
|
Much the same now on mpg, but definitely and noticeably less pep when it comes to acceleration. :-(
Very good otherwise. 23,000 miles on it already. ( new last June )
Must get a proper job.
|
|
How much AdBlue has it got through...??
|
It "asked" for a top up at 13,000 miles which was done free of charge and on the spot at an MB dealer I happened to drop in on because I was near them that day. No idea how much they put in. Then it had its first service at 16,000 miles when I guess it would have been checked again. So far it hasn't "asked" for any more.
So the short answer is, I don't know really !
;-)
|
I have to chuckle at the moans and groans about fuel economy, really I do. I hear folk griping about only being able to get 35mpg out of some fairly quick petrol motor. Any fairly quick petrol motor I've ever owned has done about 22 at best.
The current master van does 22-23 min and probably 28 on a gentle run.
The Pajero diesel does 17.5 on local road work with a bit of mud plugging thrown in? It managed 19.very little last week on a run to Exeter and back x2.
A mate has just acquired a shogun lwb V6 petrol. It leaves mine standing and is more economical too. Grrrrrrrrrr!
|
My LWB Shogun 3.2 TD (197bhp) managed 30mpg on a cruise, and averaged about 26mpg.
My petrol Forester (260bhp) managed 34mpg on a cruise and also averaged 26mpg.
I note that the current Shogun is no longer advertised as being able to manage 224g/km - smells like Mitsubishi were 'doing a VW'.
|
Hat, ring, throw - the S60 (it's the D3 163 bhp diesel) does about 55 on the motorway (seen it toodle along at 60 odd on the instantaneous for a little bit here and there), and about 40 urban I guess.
Trip computer is never reset and sits firmly showing 44, so reality is probably about 42 overall.
Won't talk about other car, you're all sick of it.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Fri 13 Jan 17 at 07:55
|
I have the 'new 181hp D4 with the 8-speed auto in the bigger V70 (2015 model on a 14 plate) and the fuel economy really varies according to the type of route and my inclination to drive with my 'fuel economy' head on - or not.
If I am truly in an ultra economical mood and have a long run (say from the South East coast on England to North Wales and back) then I have seen over 52mpg average. Same driving the boss to and from Paris from same location.
If however I have lots of commuting / stop-starting and congestion, then this can reduce to 44mpg. Still pretty good I think for a very heavy and substantial very safe automatic car.
Average on the trip meter now after not having been reset for the last 6 or 7000 miles states about 45.5mpg at present because in that time I have been mainly doing a horrible 45 mile round trip commute that by taking close to an hour each way shows I have little chance to be cruising at the 50-60ish mph where it is truly most economical.
My old 2005 S60 with the 163hp 2.4 litre D5 engine did early 40'smpg before getting better and better and over 50mpg average when I got rid at 90k miles which at the time I was well impressed with.
The 2008 BMW 520d Touring (manual) in between the two Volvo's averaged 46mpg, and so when I went for the heavier and automatic Volvo I expected to get less to the gallon and actually if I take it gently on a run then getting over 50mpg in the Volvo seems exceptional and was nigh-on impossible in the BM.
I look at this from the perspective of a company 'S-reg' Mondeo estate with 2.0 petrol engine that I ran from 2000 to 2005 which would do between 30 and 33mpg.
To have a bigger, heavier, better specced car with loads more heavier super-structure, crumple zones, airbags, electronic gubbins, plus a more powerful engine too; then to even consider that you could get 50 - 70% BETTER fuel consumption with more performance seems staggering.
That said, I completely understand that different cars will give different results in the real world with different drivers. I guess it could be considered that you might drive a different car differently too. A sportier car I am more likely to put my foot down in. A more sedate tourer will probably be driven as such too.....
|
Fuel economy on the V60 - Avant
