I noticed the demise of 'DRIVe' Volvo S80s a few months ago, and more recently mid-sized cars now have 2.0 litre D3 diesel entry motors - none of which have the 119g/m CO2 of the 1.6 HDi units.
Is this because there was a problem with the smaller unit in the bigger cars, or did the mareting guys decide it was bad for image/profit having the low-cost units?
Can't say I've noticed any comment by the journos, most of whom appeared quite ahppy with the DRIVe S80s.
|
>> Is this because there was a problem with the smaller unit in the bigger cars,
>> or did the mareting guys decide it was bad for image/profit having the low-cost units?
>>
It could be either of the above or, the market wasn't ready for it and no one was buying them.
|
I must admit I didn't know it had gone but if so, I'm inclined to blame the marketing. The idea seemed daft to me when I first came across it - how could such a small engine be adequate for a 1.7-tonne car? - but since I moved south and east last year I've seen the sense of it.
My 25-mile drive to work consists of seven miles of congested A-road, all but a mile or two with a 40mph limit, then a stretch of very busy dual carriageway takes me slowly up to the M4. 12 miles of that, another three of west London local roads and there I am. Some mornings, the needle never passes 60; I certainly never get to use the journey-shortening acceleration that so impressed me when my S60 D5 was new.
In conditions like that, the proverbial 'executive express' is entirely superfluous; what's required is a mobile sofa, and I reckon the S80 1.6 would do that rather nicely. Performance simply doesn't matter - if it goes at all it's fast enough - but the big seat, the calming, human-centred interior and the Dynaudio sound system all make the experience more bearable.
Here's where the marketing comes in - or should have done. People need convincing that the idea will work, which means customer days and test drives. I've filled in cards, had a couple of calls from Volvo's outsourced marketers, but received no contact at all from dealers to make anything happen. If that's the best they can do for a Volvo loyalist like me, how do they hope to win customers from the likes of BMW?
|
Ford is pushing a new 1.6 turbo petrol for the Mondeo.
I expect 160PS will drag the car along quite well.
Looks like the only diesel is now a 2.0.
Do Ford still own Volvo?
"The new Mondeo offers the new 1.6-litre 160 PS (240 Nm) EcoBoost engine with CO2 of only 149 g/km.
"This turbocharged petrol engine improves power and fuel efficiency with reduced emissions by up to 20% compared to conventional petrol engines of a larger capacity.
"Its responsiveness and broad spread of power at low rpm levels combined with reduced size, weight and fuel economy mean a more exhilarating driving experience with reduced emissions."
www.ford.co.uk/Cars/Mondeo/Performance
|
Iffy, the point is that Volvo have dropped the 1.6 Ford / PSA diesel form their larger cars, a 160 bhp 1.6 Turbo petrol will offer a good turn of speed in a Mondeo though a 110 bhp 1.6 diesel with a relatively narrow power band is probably to little for the avergae S80 / V70 buyer who has very efficient 2.0 ltr BMWs on his list.
I am sure the 2.0 Ford / PSA unit is fine in the cars though I can see why the 1.6 did not sell well.
|
None of the roadtests suggested performance shortcomings with the 1.6 diesel - 0-60 was 11.5s or so which is decent.
I don't think the S80 is hugely heavier than a C5/C4 Grand Picasso which I believe has the same engine.
Maybe after Volvo was sold by Ford the engine became unavailable to Volvo in such numbers?
Even if it wasn't selling I would have thought being able to boast about the 'eco-friendly' car would be worth it for marketing alone.
More likely someone decided that Volvo needed a more 'sporty' image and it was dropped from the larger cars.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 3 Mar 11 at 08:28
|
>> I am sure the 2.0 Ford / PSA unit is fine in the cars though
>> I can see why the 1.6 did not sell well.
>>
This is where it gets tricky with Volvo. It appears the bigger cars, 60, 70, 80 and 90 use their own 5 cylinder diesels (C70 being the exception). The D3 163PS being a 5 cylinder.
The smaller 30, 40 & 50 uses the Ford/PSA 4 cylinder diesel.
So you can have two 2.0 diesel Volvo's with different engines.
|
>> The smaller 30, 40 & 50 uses the Ford/PSA 4 cylinder diesel.
>> So you can have two 2.0 diesel Volvo's with different engines.
>>
That was true for a while, but I'm not sure that's the case now, on the Volvo website it appears all the old Ford/PSA 2.0 4 pot diesel units have been replaced with the new 5 pot Volvo unit, right across the range. If only Volvo could have used their own 2.0T 5 pot petrol instead of the characterless Ford 4 pot too!
|
...the characterless Ford 4 pot too!...
That's a good way of describing most Ford engines.
To some buyers, it's a benefit, although one they barely register.
|
Mine is the other way around, a Ford with a Volvo engine ...
|
|
The only kind of Ford I could like!
|
>> Ford is pushing a new 1.6 turbo petrol for the Mondeo.
>>
...and VAG's 1.2 & 1.4 turbo petrol's are appearing in more and more models Skoda Yeti, for example, is available with the 1.2TSi.
|
I don't think it's due to Ford selling Volvo off, as Volvo are introducing the Ford 4 pot ecoboost 1.6T and 2.0T units into Volvo models as T3, T4 and T5 engines. I guess there just wasn't enough demand for the DRIVe model. They still sell it on the smaller Volvo's as the D2, so it's not like Ford aren't letting them have it.
For the same reasons as WdB, I'd also have the S80 1.6 diesel. Perfect for modern roads. Of course, I haven't driven one, so maybe it was hopeless, despite what the journos said?
|
Lots of car for not much money, really.
Fake postcode used:
tinyurl.com/4wg739d
Quite like to the look of it, but would favour a V70 with 7 seats. Maybe if I decide to ditch the Galaxy in a few years, I'll look for one of those.
|
|
Scratch that. No Autos. Boo.
|
>> Fake postcode used:
Autotrader don't make finding alternate postcodes easy to find on their website.
In fact, I had to find the info via googling.
www.autotrader.co.uk/common/mytrader/valid_postcodes.jsp
|
There are two ways round this.
Buckingham Palace has the post code SW1A 1AA - its valid.
Or
Dont copy and paste the whole URL, just the part up to the end of the advert number
Like this
www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201051375853233
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 3 Mar 11 at 10:53
|
In France Volvo is advertising its new small(ish) wagon as 'the estate car from Hell'.
I don't think anyone has told them yet...
|
I wonder how long car makers will bother offering anything other than very economical models if petrol goes up much further - who would go out today and buy a petrol Mondeo or any other margish car unless you had a whole lot of spare cash about?
Even my wealthy customers are going diesel, so it seems they are still the marketing direction to go.
|
It's even made the blogs on the Evo magazine website. This from a magazine which traditionally didn't even publish fuel economy results in their tests.
It's hurting almost everyone now. And it's going to get worse.
|
I think they're reintroducing the DRiVE to the S60, V60 models with the 1.6 Diesel engine.
Personally I wouldn't touch any big bodied car with so little power and the idea of a 1.6D V70 simply appals me, I sincerely hope they don't sell any of these abominations.
My practical experience is that unstressed engines deliver better real world economy than over-stressed engines and (in the end) driving should offer some pleasure and not be a frustrating / painful experience. Imagine a 1.6D V70 with 5 people plus their luggage trying to go up a motorway incline. I'll bet you have to change down and rev it hard - so negating the supposed benefit of the small engine - just horrid.
I'll get off my soap box now.... the D3 (2.0L) looks like a perfectly sensible engine for a Volvo as do it's more powerful brethren.
|
>>> I wouldn't touch any big bodied car with so little power and the idea of a 1.6D V70 simply appals me.
>>> Imagine a 1.6D V70 with 5 people plus their luggage trying to go up a motorway incline. I'll bet you have to change down and rev it hard - so negating the supposed benefit of the small engine - just horrid.
>>> unstressed engines deliver better real world economy than over-stressed engines
As someone who has owned/driven a huge number of cars over the years and now has *chosen* to drive a 1.6HDi C5 Tourer I can say for certain there's no problem. I'm probably the fastest rural A/B road driver here and never grumble about the power.
As an example in a real life situation I came up behind a Land Rover with trailer doing 50mph a couple of days ago. Saw an average gap and passed it. Happy to admit to changing from 5th to 4th but that's no hardship. In the short distance I was passing my speed rose to 75mph before I pulled in front, eased my speed and changed into 5th. So how much faster do you want to go in that overtake on a 60mph country road....80-90-100mph??
Another recent situation was a holiday the other week using motorways. Car loaded with 4 folks, big mower, petrol hedge cutter, weeks luggage, roof bars with two mountain bikes on top.... never changed down on the motorway and kept up with all the sensible traffic.
In truth about the only thing you don't get is that willy waving impress a mate surge of mid range power a larger diesel would have..... power that due to traffic and limits you can't use for more than a few seconds.
Regarding economy I'm happy with 50-56mpg depending on use/conditions.
BTW don't think I'm against high power cars as such.... just that they aren't always faster overall.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Sat 5 Mar 11 at 08:36
|
Are Citroens still light for their size?
The CC3 is quite a heavy car and needs a 2.0litre diesel with turbo surge to lug it along.
|
I drove a number of Volvo's yesterday (new thread to come when I have time), a C30 D3 and D4, a C70 D4 and an S60 D3 auto. The C30 D4 (177 bhp 2.0ltr 5 cyl) is nice and punchy though the torque comes in with a thump, could be more progressive, my ST (same basic chassis and a Volvo petrol engine) has more go below 1800 (or perhaps simply less lag) and of course more rush at the top end. I would consider one though.
Strange badging, the C30 D3 is 150 bhp and 350nm the C30 and C70 D4s are 177 bhp and 400nm however the S60 D3 is 163 bhp and 400nm.
|
Imagine a 1.6D V70 with 5 people plus their luggage trying to go up a motorway incline...
That's my point about the marketing effort - or rather, the lack of it. I had difficulty with the concept too, but I suspect a test drive would have proved the 1.6D surprisingly adequate. After all, it must have comparable torque to the old 2.4 petrol that used to be the base option in the V70. My old 2.0 petrol Saab occasionally required a change down if baulked on a motorway gradient.
In any case, most people, me included, look at estates to carry volume rather than weight - you very seldom see one loaded with five adults and some bags of cement, do you? Sure, a five-cylinder 2.0 or 2.4 would quicker, but I suspect the 'underpowered' objection is an emotional one, rather than practical. And that's what good marketing ought to overcome.
|
>> Imagine a 1.6D V70 with 5 people plus their luggage trying to go up a
>> motorway incline...
>>
>> That's my point about the marketing effort - or rather, the lack of it. I
>> had difficulty with the concept too, but I suspect a test drive would have proved
>> the 1.6D surprisingly adequate. >>
I drove a 1.6D C4 Picasso (same engine) in the Pyranees 18 months or so ago, five up it was more than adequate though needed lots of gear changing due to lack of torque below 2000, either than or after a hairpin bends the revs built slowly until the torque kicked in. The 2.0 would have been quicker, more relaxed and just as economical under such conditions.
|
90bhp was adequate in the old Passat TDs
110bhp is adequate in a newer car that is 200kg heavier.
|
Received wisdom used to be that a bigger engine in the same size of car (e.g. 2.0 litre Mondeo v. 1 6 Mondeo) would give better performance with little or no fuel consumption penalty. This was because the smaller engine would have to work harder, with greater throtle opening, than the bigger to achieve the same level of performance.
Is this still true, or am I behind the times?
I'm sure that the DRIVe 1.6 engine is modern and efficient and can propel a big Volvo adequately - but is it any more economical than the bigger engines?
One also needs to bear in mind that a big lazy engine will last longer than a smaller, more highly-stressed one.
|
Recieved wisdom was, and is, wrong; particularly for petrol engines.
>>with greater throtle opening
Oddly, most engines are *vastly* oversized, and at cruising conditions are running far too lightly to be efficient - the most efficient part of their operating map being at about 70% of maximum load.
To see this, consulting a performace map of the engine is the best way the data are presented - I've linked to them in previous economy discussions.
As an example, at 70 mph on a level road, SWMBO's Astra needs 21kW at the wheels to overcome drag. It's the lowest powered Astra available at the time, and has a 62kW engine!
|
For an example of an engine performace map, see here;
www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=144109&page=9
The engine produces most power per unit fuel when it operates at the "centre of the onion" - which is, in this case at 2500 rpm, and 70 of max load - the x axis of the graph being engine speed, and the y axis torque with the full load torque curve being the thick blue line which forms the upper boundary of the map.
Interestingly, the red line represents a line of constant power - which equates to a constant cruise speed - the red dots represent available gear ratios, and the red dot closest to the centre of the onion represents the most economical gear to be in at that speed.
Note also how the contours at low loads aren't particularly speed sensitive - people worrying about keeping engine speed low at low loads aren't making much of a gain.
I wish more manufacturers would produce a proper performance map for their engines - it would enable more informed usage of the engines.
|
Volvo - Engineering problem or marketing fail ? - ....
