V40 D3 Auto fuel consumption

[60041]

We are looking to replace my wife's old Focus and have been looking at V40s.
She fancies an automatic and we have found a very clean 63 reg D3 auto, but I have heard that the fuel consumption on these can be high, so I was wondering what the real world figures are; I have seen one review quoting high 30's, which makes it little better than our XC90.
What are forum members getting?

[tomweston]

Originally Posted by 60041

We are looking to replace my wife's old Focus and have been looking at V40s.
She fancies an automatic and we have found a very clean 63 reg D3 auto, but I have heard that the fuel consumption on these can be high, so I was wondering what the real world figures are; I have seen one review quoting high 30's, which makes it little better than our XC90.
What are forum members getting?

Volvo V40, 1.6D, manual, 2013, average at the moment is 61 MPG on a long run down the motorway will easily do 70 MPG.

[60041]

Originally Posted by tomweston

Volvo V40, 1.6D, manual, 2013, average at the moment is 61 MPG on a long run down the motorway will easily do 70 MPG.

Thanks, my son has a D2 C30 so I know how incredibly economical the manual cars can be, but she wants an auto and some people are saying that they are thirsty.
I will try to persuade her to get a manual: trouble is, she has been using my XC90 and has found out how relaxing driving an auto can be.

[H20 VOLVO]

Originally Posted by 60041

Thanks, my son has a D2 C30 so I know how incredibly economical the manual cars can be, but she wants an auto and some people are saying that they are thirsty.
I will try to persuade her to get a manual: trouble is, she has been using my XC90 and has found out how relaxing driving an auto can be.

Generally these days, the autos aren't much different to the manuals. I know VAG DSGs in some cases are better, but the more traditional auto box Volvo use, isn't quite as efficient as the DSGs.

If you want an Auto, go for it. Much smoother drive and a decent box. I can't comment on the D3 engine, but I believe they are pretty decent for power v MPG, but not quite as good as a D2. Why compromise a relxing drive for a few extra £££ a year though, that's my thought. I wouldn't go back to a manual these days, unless for a true sports car. The roads are too busy and in heavy traffic, an auto is better. Like I said, they are better than they used to be too.

[60041]

Thanks for that.
We have taken the plunge and bought it; pick it up next week. It's a late 63 reg with 17000 miles on the clock.
I was quite happy with the prospect of the D3 engine as the last 2 Volvos I have had have been D5's and like the 5 cylinder engines; also I thought the D2 we tried was a bit rev hungry for my style of driving.
What did concern me a little was the risk that we might be buying a car that was going to only do 40 mpg when a D2 manual could easily do 60.
After owning geartronic Volvos for the last 12 years, I am fully aware of the hit to economy over the manuals, but some of the reviews I have read suggested that the V40 was particularly bad in that respect.
Time will tell!

[anton differing]

Hello, late to this one, but I own a 2015 D3 (5 cylinder) CC. I tend to drive for economy (never excessive acceleration or braking, anticipation to avoid latter). My average in mixed town/motorway driving is around 5.6L/100Km (about 50.5mpg).

I think that a torque converter-type automatic with the accompanying slippage adds around 10% to a car's fuel consumption. On the other hand, they are virtually bulletproof. Our old Astra had such a box and it lasted the entire life of the car without any need for repair (20.5 years). I've heard that the DSG boxes can go very expensively wrong, but this might have been a feature only of early models.

The D3 motor is great - plenty of grunt when you need it. After the Astra (1.6L), it took me a while to be able to do a standing start without squealing the tyres!