With our V40 my wife gets 57 mpg but I get 68 mpg. It is the computer reading I use nowadays by the way. I used the top up method with the XC90 but even with the older technology the computer was not far out. I have driven over 700 miles on a tankful with the XC60 and I couldn't do anything like that with the XC90.

Roy

Drove a Citroen Grand Picasso from London to Leeds today at 75mph into a 40mph headwind and it averaged 58mpg. My V60 can't come close; in fact doing a miserable 45mpg last time and that was being driven like a vicar.

What are Volvo getting wrong? If Citroen can do it in something that has the aerodynamics of a brick; VW can get 76mpg AFTER the software fix, and a bloody Transit van can do 51mpg in the same conditions, Volvo must be able to bring it up to scratch.

You need to say what year the cars are and the engine to be able to answer.

A 2002 V70 D5 will do 65 mpg with 320k on the clock.

Roy

I guess some of you will think me quite sad for doing this but here we go anyway.
When ever I buy fuel I always record my mileage on my receipt, I then put miles, fuel and cost into a app called FUELIO. This works every thing out for you and records your total usage. All from when I bought the car back in October 2015 with 11500 miles on the clock. All figures per fill up.
So here goes:
Best 50mpg
Worst 32.14mpg
Total cost £1580.05
Fuel used 1384.13ltrs
Fill ups 24
Total miles 10551. These are my miles

Sorry if I'm teaching people how to suck eggs.

interestingly, if I compare top up manual method to the readout on the car computer, the top up method consistently gives about 1 MPG MORE than the car records....weird for it to be that way around.....

my average (solo) is 31 and my best was ona trip to heathorw where M1 and M25 meant an average of 50MPH which for that journey of 200 miles was 35MPG.

my average towing is 22-24MPG depedning upon whether it is the A roads across country to Norfolk or the motorways to somewhere else....

As for brakes, the rear pads lasted 33,000 miles, second set lasted 30,000 miles. Fronts lasted 60,000 ish.

Sorry Roy, apart from my own V60 they've all been hire vehicles. I have a 2015 D4 automatic; the others were manual. The Passat was the 2.0 litre Bluemotion diesel; the Grand Picasso was - I'm pretty sure - also 2.0 litres, and the van was whatever diesel engine Ford sticks in the cheap ones these days.

Of note was the fact that all three maintained about 2000 rpm on the motorway while the V60 with its extra long top gears was going about 1500, but still lost the battle.

I suppose some element of it is the automatic gearbox, but it has a lockup in every gear for a reason...

Both the 2002 300+k V70 D5's I drove were autos. However I would say that there is still an mpg penalty for an autobox. The reason for the importance of the year, is to know what emission controls are fitted as that makes a huge difference to mpg. The difference between a 2002 V70 D5 and a 2006 D5 for instance is about 15 mpg less for the latter.

Unless you have more exact details on the other cars you mention it's not possible to do a comparison really.

Roy

I test drove a 2014 V60 D4 auto on a motorway/urban. Basically the same as I normally do for an A/B test with my car. The V60 got 51.5mpg. It will be interesting to see what mine gets once delivered, during the initial loosening up period.

David.

I'm tempted by the latest 0% deals on offer at the moment. My problem is that I now only do 8000 to 9000 miles a year so a petrol version is probably better.
Trying to track down real-world fuel consumption figures is proving difficult. I'm interested in the 2 litre T5 fwd XC60 auto. Can anyone help please?

In the 'grand scheme of things', if you only do 8-9k per year, does it matter whether you get 30mpg or 40mpg ? Do the maths. 200 gallons vs. 267 gallons. Around £400 difference. Just a thought.