2.4 D vs D5
 

Hi

I am about to upgrade my V50 to a S80, and I am a little confused as to the difference between the 2.4D and the D5. I know the D5 is is the quicker car, but it seems to have the same mpg as the slower 2.4. How is this possible?. I want to know this as I am trying to choose which engine to go for. I am aware that the 2.0D is the most economical, but you cannot specify the ACC system (which is fantastic as I do tons of motorway driving) with this engine?
so I am forced to go for the 2.4, but I am concerned about the poor mpg

This is my first post so apologies if this has been answered elsewhere.

Regards

Martin

Martin - the mpg is ghastly, many of us are disappointed after Generation 2 V70 D5s. Read the posts and then decide if you want to go into a Volvo EuIV.

The 2.4D and D5 have differ power outputs (163 vs 185 if I remember correctly) plus the D5 is the torquier of the two. The 2.4D is business user friendlier version. The 2.0D is a little gutless at motorway speeds in 6th.

Note - why not go for a pre-owned S80, 07/02007 cars at £10K whilst 08/2008 at £13.5K. Would make up for the woeful mpg.

It's a company car and I'm not allowed to go second hand.

Whats the real world mpg of the 2.0D, and does anyone know why Volvo don't offer the impressive ACC system with the 2.0D?

Martin

without trying myself but comparing with the same engine in V50 and going by consumption of D5 i'd guess for mid to upper 30's to the gallon ..

Martin, to answer your original question, the 2.4D and D5 give the same economy because they are identical engines.

The only difference is the software, the 2.4D is a detuned D5. Mechanically, they are identical. Detuning will rarely, if ever, give improvements in fuel economy, it simply stops the engine from producing its full power output.

This is a common trick by manufacturers to sort out who really wants the extra power and is prepared to pay for it. They all do it.

A 2.4D with a tuning "chip" will give the same BHP as a D5 with the same "chip".

I wouldn't trust the 2.0D to be much better economy wise in the real world, it has been said that on a cruise the Volvo 2.5 five pot diesel is more economical than Ford's 2.0 four pot diesel. I haven't experienced the 2.0D myself, so can't say for sure.

On a motorway run with the cruise set to around 80mph I can achieve around 45mpg according to the OBC. Around town it is bad. With the geartronic box high 20s although it could be improved by using the manual box.

I had an 04 D5 (163) and the mpg on a long run was regularly in the low 50's. I now have a 56 D5 (185) and the mpg struggles to get to 42 for the same journey, 36-37 local running. Volvo tell me that this is quite normal.

not a lot will beat the old 163 bhp D5244T engine for the best mix of power and fuel consumption , unfortunatley emission regulations take their toll .. burning more fuel .
The new 175 bhp 2.4D is better on fuel than the old 185 bhp ...

I have only had my V70 2.0D for three weeks from new. Volvo engines seem to take a good few thousand to achieve their best results (my D5 XC90 took 8-10,000 miles before it really achieved what it should), though I am not sure this will apply to the 2.0D.

So far I have averaged 42MPG on mostly short journeys. With the six speed box, the car seems to cruise effortly at 75mph and on some shortish 20 mile motorway trips, 45-48mpg seems to have been a rough average. If this improves after a few thousand miles I shall be very happy.

I must confess, I don't find the 2.0D a problem for lack of power. It effortlessly achieves legal speed limits (and just above) and on the motorway, the spped is just nicely in the peak torque area and so accelerations seem more than adequate. I suppose it depends on your driving styles etc. but as a Father of three who needs a dependable, safe, stylish, reliable and reasonably economical estate; it fits the bill perfectly.

If I wanted to go faster and drive in a more spirited fashion, I wouldn't buy a V70 at all, regardless of the engine, so for me the 2.0D is ideal.

2.4D consumption
 

I had a MY 2007 2.4D automatic for 3 years. On the motorway it took only 6 litres of diesel, this is not poor at all. While ate a strong 10.6 litres in the city, but ok. However with automatic it's disappointing how powerless and noisy it was in town. No experience with the 185-HP model but I read somewhere that it's much better: more torquey, quick, turbo cools by water... But for now one can also chose the 205 HP new D5 (twinturbo), or the new 2 litre D3 with 163 HP (remained as of 5-cylinders), this latter takes much less fuel in city as 2.4D and not worse even on motorway. And seems much more civilized and silent than old-fashioned 2.4Ds.