Volvo Owners Club Forum - S80 sport 2.0D -- mpg?

Volvo Owners Club Forum (https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/index.php)

- S80 '06-'16 / V70 & XC70 '07-'16 General (https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=112)

- - S80 sport 2.0D -- mpg? (https://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=316740)

S80 sport 2.0D -- mpg?

How does the mpg compare with the 2.4 litre engine? I am not sure of the bhp of this car.

Should have said it's a 2009 car with a 09 reg.

Have you got a link to the advert?

It sounds like a D3 with 134bhp (I could be mistaken, so the advert might be helpful). I still think its the 134bhp version though, which would be woefully slow in such a big car.

A 2009 2.4 would be a D5, with 163bhp or 185bhp. You’d be looking at 28mpg around town, 50mpg on the motorway with 38mpg combined (with an auto transmission).

The mpg figures above are based on an automatic transmission*

With it being a 2009, I’d say that’s the 134bhp version. It would be very sluggish in such a big car.

Wonder where the Sport bit comes from ??

I've just had a look at the pictures again. That car isn't a D3, its the 2.0D version with the D4204T engine. So, that's a 4 cylinder diesel with 136bhp in a car that weights nearly 2 tonnes. It doesn't match the S80 in my opinion, you need more power.

As nice as the car may seem in the advert, it wouldn't be the car I'd choose personally.

A 2009 2.4 D5 with 185bhp is the far better option, or the "detuned" D5 known as the 163bhp (badged 2.4D on the back). These both have more grunt & five cylinders instead of four! From a fuel economy perspective, the five cylinder won't be as good, but I think a 136bhp engine in such a big car would be labouring a lot & I don't think it would be a pleasant experience. That's why I wouldn't go for that car in the advert.

If you do want a 2.0 litre version, then you can still get a 5 cylinder one with a 2.0L engine that'll have plenty of power, but you'd need to be looking at 2011/2012 plates. These will have the 2.0L D3 engine (D5204T2) with 163bhp.

If you aren't bothered about power & don't mind a very slow 0-60 time, then maybe the one you've linked is for you. Although, be warned, it'll be as slow as watching paint dry!

Quote:

Originally Posted by griston64 (Post 2735950)

Wonder where the Sport bit comes from ??

Good question. The 136bhp version certainly isn't sporty!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kev0607 (Post 2735956)

certainly isn't "sluggish" either ! Its adequate . If you call that sluggish what do you call it with the 1.6 D engine ? It depends how much extra weight you have to cart around mind ... Sluggish means painfully slow like a 40 year old 1100cc family car 👍 There are no volvos in this category :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clan (Post 2736096)

Adequate? You have to be kidding me. :confused_smile:

There’s more power in a lawn mower!

A 1.6 would be even worse... more power in a fart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clan (Post 2736096)

If you call that sluggish what do you call it with the 1.6 D engine ?

An almost pointless exercise?

Seriously, in 1990 if someone had bought a brand new Volvo 240 Estate and you told them in 20 years time you would be able to buy that car with the same engine as a mini??? No wonder it was short lived.

That's my view... but really as Clan says they're adequate overall, but the S80 with that engine is a bit of a pig on country roads, it's a big car to be accelerating and braking a lot with the Briggs and Stratton.... I mean Ford/PSA 4-pot. It's worked hard and never lasted as long as the Volvo engines anyway so unless you're going to do less than 10k miles a year - I would avoid.