Questionable S40/V50 performance data?

Was wondering if any new shape S40 / V50 owners would like to contribute the actual performance data of their vehicles?

The reason I ask is that although the engine in my 2.4i V50 is super-smooth and pulls very well in the lower rev range, the acceleration and particularly the fuel consumption doesn't exactly square with the official figures.

I have owned two previous Volvo's from new. A V70 Classic 2.4 (140) and a S60 2.0T - both manual. My driving style is very relaxed (boring!) and I'm one of the minority who on the whole, stick to speed limits. I don't think I've exceeded 3000rpm since I got the car. Thus my average mpg figures normally exceeded those quoted by the manufacturers. And on occasions, I can approach or even exceed the very best mpg figure quoted. (I 24hr test-drove a 2.0 diesel Skoda Octavia prior to purchasing the V50 - managed 63.2mpg!). So how have I faired after 1000 miles of caressing a V50 accelerator pedal?

Vehicle --- (0-62) - Official - My Worst - My average - At best
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
V70(140) -- 10.5 ---- 32.8 ---- 30/31 ----- 34/35 ----- 39/40
S60 2.0T --- 8.8 ----- 31.7 ---- 29/30 ----- 32/33 ----- 37/38

V50 2.4i ---- 8.3 ----- 32.8 ---- 27/28 ----- 29/30 ------ 32.0

As you can see, even driving with the lightest right foot, I cannot reach the official combined mpg figure. I would have expected to achieve around the 38-39 mpg mark under these conditions. Moreover, Volvo quote an extra-urban figure of 41.5 mpg. Even sitting at 45mph in 5th on a flat / slight decline section of road today, my fuel computer read 34mpg? (Thinking the fuel computer may possibly be at fault I reverted back to the good old pencil and paper to work out mpg. All I discovered was that fuel computer works pretty efficiently).

As for the 0-62 time... Obviously I have no intention of ever testing this out, but I find this figure absurd. The S60 was much more responsive off the mark than the V50. In fact as far as I can remember, the V50 may well have been on par with my V70, which was officially quoted at 10.5 secs. (The V50 supposedly has 170bhp somewhere).

My average mpg figures for the BMW 318 that I also have use of, relates to my experience with all other vehicles - I either match or exceed the official figures. The thing is, the BMW has a 0-62 official time of 9.3secs - exactly 1 sec slower than the official V50 figure. However the BMW is definitely much, much quicker off the mark than the V50.

Irrespective of engine type, does anyone else have similar reservations regarding the official S40/V50 performance figures?