Fuel Consumption XC60 D5 and D3

[wimorrison]

The issue that I see is HMRC advises 18 pence per mile as the rate for Fuel Allowance to employers which means that you have to average 35 MPG @ £1.40 per litre to break even (Diesel > 2001cc)

I know that my indicated 36.1 MPG is in reality nearer 33.5 MPG therfore I am losing money when I use the car for business - the HMRC (and employer) view is that it is my choice to drive a gas guzzler, therfore I have to swallow the difference

[jmills01]

Originally Posted by darbs

you're right. the figures on the right are not the official figures. the official combined figure for a D5 manual is 49.6 not 50.4. this could be reported to ASA: http://www.asa.org.uk/. although might be best to report to volvo uk first.

The material issue isn't the difference between 49.6 and 50.4, it's that on mine (D5 AWD Geartronic) it's meant to be a combined of 40+ mpg, 32mpg in town and 50.something extra-urban. I am getting on average 27-28mpg. That's a mixture of gentle urban (rolling, not stop-start) and longer journeys. If I turn off the A/C and drive as if there was an egg under the pedal, I can get it up to about 35mpg on a long motorway run.

Have complained to the dealer and they said it was fine. So the combined economy is 30% less than claimed. That to me seems a more serious misrepresentation.

[Philpottig]

Originally Posted by jmills01

The material issue isn't the difference between 49.6 and 50.4, it's that on mine (D5 AWD Geartronic) it's meant to be a combined of 40+ mpg, 32mpg in town and 50.something extra-urban. I am getting on average 27-28mpg. That's a mixture of gentle urban (rolling, not stop-start) and longer journeys. If I turn off the A/C and drive as if there was an egg under the pedal, I can get it up to about 35mpg on a long motorway run.

Have complained to the dealer and they said it was fine. So the combined economy is 30% less than claimed. That to me seems a more serious misrepresentation.

Well, I would say there is a problem, our 205PS D5 SE Lux returns 38mpg ( 9 months old & 4k miles) on a dialy stop start 50% urban, 50% open B road journey and its getting beter daily.

Maybe its the Polestar upgrade?

[darbs]

Originally Posted by jmills01

The material issue isn't the difference between 49.6 and 50.4, it's that on mine (D5 AWD Geartronic) it's meant to be a combined of 40+ mpg, 32mpg in town and 50.something extra-urban. I am getting on average 27-28mpg. That's a mixture of gentle urban (rolling, not stop-start) and longer journeys. If I turn off the A/C and drive as if there was an egg under the pedal, I can get it up to about 35mpg on a long motorway run.

Have complained to the dealer and they said it was fine. So the combined economy is 30% less than claimed. That to me seems a more serious misrepresentation.

what you mention is not a misrepresentation. it's the authorities which set the tests and it's the authorities which carry them out. it's not volvo. volvo have to publish the results the authorities come up with, because the law says they have to.

[jmills01]

Originally Posted by Philpottig

Well, I would say there is a problem, our 205PS D5 SE Lux returns 38mpg ( 9 months old & 4k miles) on a dialy stop start 50% urban, 50% open B road journey and its getting beter daily.

Maybe its the Polestar upgrade?

That's the sort of figure I would have expected. Managed to get it up to 33mpg on a long motorway journey the other day, but is now falling back again. My previous experience with other vehicles has always been that I get just less than the published combined MPG figure in my normal driving, so your 38mpg would be about right.

I don't think it should be the Polestar upgrade - Volvo claim the same mpg/CO2 emissions. If anything the ECU upgrade is meant to improve the economy figures (provided one doesn't always use the extra BHP to drive extra fast!). And whilst I would have been sceptical about that a few years back, I've since had two cars with an ECU remap, one of which was the old 163bhp version of the D5 which chipped to 197bhp. In both cases, the mpg improved noticeably after the ECU remap.

I think I'm going to ask the dealer to check it again. I think there may be some friction somewhere - e.g. a transmission fault. It's also *hellishly* slow on the uptake from rest. E.g. floor the throttle (fully, partially, it makes little difference) and then count to 3 before the vehicle starts to move properly. Makes pulling out into gaps in traffic a bit of a nerve-wracking experience!

Thanks

[Philpottig]

Originally Posted by jmills01

That's the sort of figure I would have expected. Managed to get it up to 33mpg on a long motorway journey the other day, but is now falling back again. My previous experience with other vehicles has always been that I get just less than the published combined MPG figure in my normal driving, so your 38mpg would be about right.

I don't think it should be the Polestar upgrade - Volvo claim the same mpg/CO2 emissions. If anything the ECU upgrade is meant to improve the economy figures (provided one doesn't always use the extra BHP to drive extra fast!). And whilst I would have been sceptical about that a few years back, I've since had two cars with an ECU remap, one of which was the old 163bhp version of the D5 which chipped to 197bhp. In both cases, the mpg improved noticeably after the ECU remap.

I think I'm going to ask the dealer to check it again. I think there may be some friction somewhere - e.g. a transmission fault. It's also *hellishly* slow on the uptake from rest. E.g. floor the throttle (fully, partially, it makes little difference) and then count to 3 before the vehicle starts to move properly. Makes pulling out into gaps in traffic a bit of a nerve-wracking experience!

Thanks

Sounds like there must be a problem, keep on at the dealer and speak to Volvo customer care if it isn't resolved.

Just cleared 1800 miles in our "green" car a 2011 tdci fiesta and that is giving us 64 mpg about 7% less than the published Ford figures

On the other extreme our old VW camper gives 25 mpg on a run

Good luck.

[jmills01]

Originally Posted by Philpottig

Sounds like there must be a problem, keep on at the dealer and speak to Volvo customer care if it isn't resolved.

Just cleared 1800 miles in our "green" car a 2011 tdci fiesta and that is giving us 64 mpg about 7% less than the published Ford figures

On the other extreme our old VW camper gives 25 mpg on a run

Good luck.

Thanks - I'd be fine with +/-10% (given that I'm not faithfully replicating the combined cycle tests) but -30% feels wrong. Let's see how the next dealer visit works out.

[Abarth]

So,,, I am still trying to get the deal I want from the dealer (or the internet) or where ever else.

I am baffled by the MPG quoted on the Volvo website, it seems to me that it doesnt matter if you have a FWD 163bhp D3, or an AWD 215bhp D5!! That simply has to be wrong.

I understand that if saving money on fuel was my main aim then a great big truck is not the answer... however I want a big truck, but one which costs me as little as possible at the pump.

I started off looking at the 163 FWD version, but it seems that unless I want an ex demo car I am out of luck with that (dealer tells me that they can order no more).

That moves me on to the 163 AWD (which I, and you all think is a detuned 2.4 engine but the dealer swears is a new 2.0 lump).

Does anybody have real life MPG figures for the D3 AWD with an autobox??

Cheers

[Ransman]

Originally Posted by Abarth

So,,, I am still trying to get the deal I want from the dealer (or the internet) or where ever else.

I am baffled by the MPG quoted on the Volvo website, it seems to me that it doesnt matter if you have a FWD 163bhp D3, or an AWD 215bhp D5!! That simply has to be wrong.

I understand that if saving money on fuel was my main aim then a great big truck is not the answer... however I want a big truck, but one which costs me as little as possible at the pump.

I started off looking at the 163 FWD version, but it seems that unless I want an ex demo car I am out of luck with that (dealer tells me that they can order no more).

That moves me on to the 163 AWD (which I, and you all think is a detuned 2.4 engine but the dealer swears is a new 2.0 lump).

Does anybody have real life MPG figures for the D3 AWD with an autobox??

Cheers

Nobody will have real-life figures as nobody has one yet :-(
I will be really interested to hear the figures when somebody does get one, but individual driving styles make a big difference.

[jimbg]

Originally Posted by Abarth

So,,, I am still trying to get the deal I want from the dealer (or the internet) or where ever else.

I am baffled by the MPG quoted on the Volvo website, it seems to me that it doesnt matter if you have a FWD 163bhp D3, or an AWD 215bhp D5!! That simply has to be wrong.

I understand that if saving money on fuel was my main aim then a great big truck is not the answer... however I want a big truck, but one which costs me as little as possible at the pump.

I started off looking at the 163 FWD version, but it seems that unless I want an ex demo car I am out of luck with that (dealer tells me that they can order no more).

That moves me on to the 163 AWD (which I, and you all think is a detuned 2.4 engine but the dealer swears is a new 2.0 lump).

Does anybody have real life MPG figures for the D3 AWD with an autobox??

Cheers

There seems to be only one basic engine and it is marketed in different forms:-

See here http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/press/re...upgraded.shtml

I have changed from the D3 FWD to a D3 AWD and am baffled as you are!!