V40 mpg

[denecaster]

I used to own a Honda CR-V. It was a very comfortable, very reliable car, but the mpg was disappointing and, after its 97000 miles, it had started to run a bunch of little niggles that eventually made me think I need something less expensive.

The car tax was also a bit stiff - it rose to £275 a year this April.

So I looked around and settled on a 2015 64 plate V40 R-design. It's also a decent car, but it's a bit bumpy (sporty suspension, I suppose) and I'm also getting nowhere near the figures I should supposedly get.

Now, I know it's a sporty version, but...I looked on Autotrader, and the official figures as quoted on there were tax was nothing and the combined mpg should be over 70.

I don't drive like a hooligan, never have. I know everyone says that, but the official combined mpg for the CR-V was 41, and I used to get 44 on average.

So I thought with the tax savings and supposed 70+mpg, the V40 would save me a serious amount of dosh.

But so far I'm lucky to be getting over 50mpg combined.

That's a hell of a difference. There's no way my driving has changed that much, and it's made me really disappointed with the car.

Any ideas? Is it down to Volvo telling porkies in the same way Volkswagen got caught doing a few years back, and I've fallen for it? Or is it something else?

[Tannaton]

Whilst it's the sporty version, the engines are the same as the normal versions.

You don't say which engine you have - diesel, petrol, 1.6, 2.0 ? D2, T3 D4?

[denecaster]

Sorry, you're right, my apologies.

I have the 2.0 D4.

According to Autotrader, the running costs should be -
Urban 67.3mpg
Extra urban 78.5mpg
Combined 74.3mpg.

The tax is correct - I paid nothing at all, as it's supposedly less than 100g/km CO2 emissions - but as for mpg, I'm not getting anywhere close to those figures.

[Kev0607]

What kind of miles are you doing? Local runs, long journeys?

[denecaster]

Both.

I'll do occasional short trips down to the shops, but most of my mileage is done on my trip to work, which is a mix of country roads, dual carriageways and motorways.

Overall, though they're the same as I was doing in the CR-V - same trips, same roads, same traffic, same style of driving.

But in the Honda I was getting better than official figures, in the V40 way less.

My point is, we all know the official figures aren't accurate, but are they really that far out that in one car, I'm better than official, in the other way worse?

[Kev0607]

Originally Posted by denecaster

Both.

I'll do occasional short trips down to the shops, but most of my mileage is done on my trip to work, which is a mix of country roads, dual carriageways and motorways.

Overall, though they're the same as I was doing in the CR-V - same trips, same roads, same traffic, same style of driving.

But in the Honda I was getting better than official figures, in the V40 way less.

My point is, we all know the official figures aren't accurate, but are they really that far out that in one car, I'm better than official, in the other way worse?

Have a look here;

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/volvo/v40-2012/d4

It appears the D4 mpg figures are very optimistic.

[denecaster]

Ta for the link.

Thought so.

[Tannaton]

Ok - I used to have a D3 which is the same engine but with the wick turned down a bit. On a motorway trip at a steady 70-75 it would do about 55-57 mpg, cross country you could easily get into the 60's but around town you'd be mid 40's at best. And to be honest that's not bad for a well built hatch with GTi like performance. On some models, in R-Design spec they were slightly slower and less economical due to the bigger, fatter wheels and tyres.

It's a lovely car to drive though if you like pocket rockets and you're not more than 6' tall?

[denecaster]

Don't get me wrong, it IS a nice car, and quite a nice pocket rocket, with plenty of bells and whistles - leather seats, satnav I updated for the cost of a USB stick, bluetooth, DAB, and a few other things.

But that's not why I bought it. The CR-V had all of those things, plus parking sensors, a rear parking camera, a panoramic roof, a lovely firm but soft enough suspension, it was nice and easy to get in and out of (I'm 61 and starting to suffer the after effects of playing football for over 50 years - yes, I genuinely only stopped playing a year ago) and a few more.

I swapped it out because I thought it would be so much more economical than the Honda.

It is, but only up to a point - and that point is about 300 quid a year less than the figures led me to believe.

That's why I'm disappointed. Not so upset or disappointed I'll sell the car, too late for that now, I'd lose even more, but still...

Anyway, thanks for the grounding, gents, one lives and (at least in may case only occasionally) learns.

[Craig S]

Ball park figure on shorter runs i get mid to low 40's, and on steady Motorway driving i can average mid to high 50's, but that is pretty much sitting at 65-70 mph all of the time.

If I go over 70 on the Motorway it tends to drop to around 50mpg.

I have a 2016 d4 geartronic.