Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Volvo XC90 Real World MPG

2

Comments

  • We also have a 2006 XC 90 2.5. 17 mpg in basically city driving in summer. 19 mpg in basically city driving if AC is not on.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    Driving with with a very light foot and staying mostly in the right lane at between 60 and 70 mph I got 25.7 mpg for the 370 mi leg from east of Vicksburg MS to my house in Dallas TX. The OE Michelin 4X4 Syncrone 235-65/17 104H tires were inflated to 40 psi.

    Overall on the roundtrip from Dallas to Gulfport MS (and numerous sidetrips) we logged 1550 miles and used 66.8 gal of gasoline for an average of 23.2 mpg.

    The EPA hwy estimate for this vehicle (FWD 3.2L 6-cyl 6A 4300lb curb weight) is 22 mpg, the city mpg is 17 mpg. Mountains or serious hills would of course significantly lower the mpg.

    Using the instantaneous mpg readout I found in one trial that on level ground this XC-90 version uses 20% more fuel to travel a given distance at 70 mph than it does at 60 mph. The high ground clearance, fairly large tires, and overall height take their toll.

    Data
    70 mph.....25.1 mpg => 0.0398 gal/mi
    65 mph.....27.0 mpg => 0.0370 gal/mi
    60 mph.....30.0 mph => 0.0333 gal/mi
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    This XC-90 is still "breaking in",if there is any significant break-in with this engine. At the beginning of the trip the odometer had only 773 miles and at the end 2322 miles. The odometer had only 6 mi at purchase. The above mpg values are calculated using the gas pump values for fuel delivered and the trip odo values for distance. The computer seems to be giving a higher value for average mpg. I'm not sure I properly understand how to initialize it, but right now I don't trust the computer mpg values.

    I am hoping that after break-in on level interstate hwy at a speed of no more than 65 mph this SUV might get close to 27 mpg. It does take some discipline to keep the speed this low however.

    I plan to get a trailer hitch on the XC-90 and tow a light, aerodynamic cargo trailer, which will increase the fuel use some, but I hope not too much. The one I have in mind is this one, but I cannot decide which one.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    In the three tanks of mostly city driving we have gotten 17 mpg twice and 13 mpg once with this 3.2L 2WD XC-90. The 13 mpg was with all very short trips.
  • fluid15fluid15 Posts: 60
    I'm replying to my own message (#26) ...

    Update: I haven't hand calculated it, but the few times i drive the XC90 the computer now indicates ~ 19.3 mpg. Seems to have gotten better but I'll need to verify it at the pump.
  • Anyone know the mpg difference between FWD and AWD in the xc90?
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    The other day in the 07 XC90 3.2 FWD (7500 mi on ODO) I got a computer mpg of 27.3 mpg for 50 miles of highway travel at about 60 mph. This is the highest I have ever seen in computer average over any significant distance. Just prior to this trip I had changed the oil to Mobile1 0W-40 "European Car Formua", but I am not claiming this is the source of significantly improved highway mpg.

    Highway cruising at 60 mph is kinda tame in a vehicle where the max on the speedometer is 160 mph!

    I am not claiming that "I got 27 mpg", but still this is a pleasant event. It makes me think that now that the vehicle is broken-in I may get better highway mileage than at first. The computer now reads 20.7 mpg on this same tank after a few days of short to medium trips in Dallas, not in rush-hour traffic.

    I had driven about 80 miles, then filled-up with Shell Premium 93 octane AKI right next to US 75 (not Interstate, but IH quality ). In Dallas we do not get AKI 91 octane. Shell is a "top-tier" fuel, which means it has a very high detergent content, but, as far as I know, it does not have a higher energy content in BTU/gal. I use Shell because I think it will keep the injectors cleaner. Sometimes I put in equal parts of Shell 89 and 93 to get 91, which Volvo says is the recommended fuel, even though the owners manual prominately states the regular AKI 87 is acceptable.

    I laid into the accelerator pretty good to enter US75 and then settled into the center lane and pretty much stayed there. Traffic was moderately heavy, but moving well so I just stayed out of the left lane. I did not draft on any of the multitude of large semis on this route.

    The vehicle just had its 1st oil change and I gave the Volvo dealer 8 quarts of Mobile1 0W-40 "European Car Formula", one of the recommended oils for the XC90 in the Dallas TX climate. In winter 0W-30 (if it exists) would be expected to give even better mpg, but I expect this current oil fill to last well into the hot Dallas summer. Also, I am not sure that 0W-30 or even 5W-30 is a recommended oil. The owners manual is a little confusing on the recommended oils. In the next change I may switch to Mobile1 5W-30, because we don't hot-rod up steep grades, and right now we don't pull a heavy trailer at high speed in the mountains.

    The Volvo service advisor said they put in 5W-30 Valvoline Synthetic Blend and I could have had this for free as part of the free 7500 mile service. I am pretty careful with money, and it hurt me to pass up a gift of 8 quarts of good oil, but I intended to switch to Mobile1 after break-in, and I had the oil with me, so I requested that they use my Mobile1. Eight quarts of Mobile1 cost me about $50 to $60 at AutoZone. If I had to do it again, I'd probably accept their oil.

    In my 2004 V70 168 hp non-turbo I use Mobile1 10W-30 Extended Performance and change once a year or about 8 kmi whichever comes first. I am considering extending the oil change interval to 10 kmi -12 kmi or one year.
  • cactus13cactus13 Posts: 1
    Hello, 1st time poster. I have a 2005 XC90 V8 AWD, 39K miles. In LA traffic best average computer mpg is 15.6. My question, has anyone had any experience with dealer reprogramming either the engine/ fuel system or the transmission expressly for better mileage? Our car seems to spend a lot of rpm's looking for the right gear to be in and it seems the converter could lock up earlier. Any experience with changing to synthetic oil for more MPG? I keep the tires inflated and am considering next size larger, +3/4 - 1" diameter. Thanks for any help.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    The XC90, Accura MDX, BMW X5, VW Toureg all have about the same EPA mpg estimates--something like 15-17 city / 20-22 hwy. This leads me to believe that this is what a vehicle like this can attain. I do not believe that the mpg you are seeing is due to anything that you can change in the vehicle setup. The one variance I make is to inflate the tires to 40 psi.

    Changing to synthetic oil cannot do any harm and might reduce engine wear and reduce the formation of deposits. I supplied the dealer with Mobile1 0W-40 (one of the recommended grades for the 3.2L I6) for the first change at 8000 miles on my wife's 2007 FWD XC90 3.2 (takes 8 quarts). I did not see a significant mpg improvement, but I intend to continue to use Mobile1. In my 2004 V70 non-turbo 2.4L I5 5A I have used Mobile1 10W-30 from the first change. It gets 20 mpg city and over 30 mpg highway--lightly loaded 34 mpg at 75 mph on the IH. The best I have ever seen with the XC90 is 24 mpg over several hundred miles on flat IH at 65 mph with the tires at 40 psi.

    I have wondered if the Volvo dealer could make a software change to improve fuel economy, but I haven't asked them. I'm reluctant to mess with a vehicle that works even though I'd like better fuel economy. I think a lot of people spend money on various mods which have no benefit and which do potential or actual damage to their vehicles.

    You would be wasting money to change to tires 3.5% larger in diameter and this might adversely affect the stability control and braking sustems. Would 3.5% larger tires even fit without rubbing? Then you'd have to pay to have the odometer and speedometer recalibrated. The tires on my wife's 2007 XC90 3.2 FWD are 235/65-17, which have a diameter of 29.0 inches. This is plenty of tire for this vehicle. I would not substitute my judgement for that of the Volvo engineers unless I got an authoritative opinion that this would be appropriate.

    235/70-17 (if it exists) has a diameter of 30.0 inches which would raise the vehicle another 0.5 inch off the ground. Could this affect stability in emergency maneuvers? Size 255/65-17 (if it exists) has a diameter of 30.1 inches and would likewise raise the vehicle 0.5 inch.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    I just looked over records on the 2007 XC90 3.2 FWD and I see that on one 1550 mile trip the vehicle used 66.75 gal giving 23.2 mpg ave for the trip which included some non highway use.

    The vehicle was moderately loaded with 2 human occupants, 3 dogs, and camping gear. On one all interstate leg of 369.8 mi it used 14.362 gal giving 25.7 mpg. This was on the OE oil, not the Mobile1 10W-40 "European Car Formula". I personally wonder a little about the prescription in the owner's manual for using 0W-40 oil, but it was there so I did it. I may start using Mobile1 10W-30 Extended Performance like in my 2004 V70, or maybe M1 5W-30 Extended Performance.

    Why would Volvo recommend an oil with "40" as the viscosity index at operating temperature?
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    Analyzed one way my results do not show any significant mpg improvement with Mobile1 0W-40.

    1. Original oil was changed at 7251 mi and 385.2 gal of fuel used => 18.8 mpg. This included 1550 mi of a mostly interstate hwy trip requiring 66.75 gal, so the non-trip mileage and fuel used was 5701 mi / 318.45 gal => 17.9 mpg.

    2. Distance and fuel use on the Mobile1 0W-40 is 1715 mi /96.9 gal = 17.7 mpg.

    I still intend to use Mobile1 probably 0W-40 because that is a viscosity grade recommended in the manual.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,203
    We purchased an '05 2.5T AWD with 23k miles last week. I was hoping to get near the EPA highway number, but so far have been unable to. That seems to be a feat I can only achieve in a car with a manual transmission. Thus far, in somewhat mixed driving, I have averaged around 20 mpg. Still not too bad. With our '05 Pacifica AWD, we were getting 18-18.5, but with our '03 Pilot, we were getting near 21. So I'm not complaining about the volvo ... was just hoping, that's all.

    Has anyone noticed significant gains by using higher octane fuel? I'm not sure what my wife put in it. I'll have to ask. But I did tell her regular would be "ok," so that's probably what she did.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    The Volvo owner's manuals for our 2004 V70 2.4L non-turbo and 2007 XC90 3.2 I6(naturally aspirated) recommend premium AKI 91 octane or better "for optimum performance", and state that AKI 87 octane is the minimum acceptable. You may get slightly better fuel economy with 91 octane. In the affluent western European countries 91 octane AKI is the "standard" fuel, and lower octane fuels are not available. Volvo designs its vehicles to work best on 91, but has engine controls which allow it to use US regular. Generally speaking turbo-charged engines require higher octane fuel than naturally aspirated engines.Unless the owner's manual recommends it, I do not think it is advisable to use regular 87 octane in a turbocharged Volvo, even the light pressure turbo.

    Check the manual!

    Some Volvo owners do use regular 87 octane and depend on the knock sensor and computer controls to protect the engine. I habitually use 91 or better, although a few times I have experimented with 89 and have used 90 octane on a trip where that was the highest available. I have had no driveability problems with any of these grades, and I have not tried to see if the higher octane gave a higher mpg.

    In my home town the pumps dispense three grades: 87 octane regular, 89 octane mid-grade, and 93 octane premium. Usually I add approximately equal vols of 89 and 93 to give 91. Once you get used to doing this it's not much trouble and my wife does it too. We save about a dollar per 20 gal over straight 93, but mostly I do it to not use higher octane fuel than the vehicle can take advantage of.

    I think there is a possibility (admittedly remote) that 91 would give slightly higher mpg than 93! My thinking (which I have not tried to verify by researching the matter) is that the energy content of 91 could be higher than 93. It could be that 90, 91 and 93 are the same base gasoline with progressively higher levels of octane boosting compounds for the higher octane fuels. These compounds (for example, ethanol, which like MTBE is both an "oxygenate" and an octane booster) have a lower energy content that the gasoline base. I want to use the fuel with the highest energy content that has the necessary octane rating.

    To keep the fuel injectors and the valves clean we use so called "top-tier gasolines" (usually Shell) because it has the highest detergent level.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    "Fuel Economy

    Do You Really Need Premium?
    And Answers to Other Gasoline Questions
    By Philip Reed, Senior Consumer Advice Editor
    Email
    Date Posted 08-30-2007
    Buying premium gas is like taking vitamins — you can't always feel the difference and yet you know it's the right thing to do. But as gas prices climb, paying the extra dime per gallon for premium is like adding insult to injury. Eventually, the thought is bound to jump into your head: Do I really need to pop for premium?
    [snip]
    Volvo cars call for "premium fuel [91 octane or better] for optimum performance and fuel economy," said Wayne Baldwin, product/segment manager for the S60/S80. "However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using 87 octane, as the knock sensors and engine management system 'protect' the engine from knocking."

    http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/106293/article.html

    I still plan to use 91 octane AKI fuel in both of our Volvos. I want to get the best possible fuel economy, even if it costs more money per mile to do so.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,144
    Buying premium gas is like taking vitamins — you can't always feel the difference and yet you know it's the right thing to do.

    We're going to have to have a little talk with Philip. Vitamins 'may shorten your life' :)

    If anyone wants to dig deeper, check out What about fuel types & gas mileage?. Using premium in a car designed solely for regular may shorten its life:

    http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ef189e7/109

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    The vitamin analogy was not meant to be an endorsement of the widespread belief that vitamin supplements might, andprobably will, do some good, and certainly cannot do harm. This analogy was just uncritically tossed in to engage the reader. Personally, I think it is entirely plausible that that use of vitamin supplements is not simply a waste of money, but can be harmful, in some cases very harmful. Eating a balanced diet is both a much cheaper and a much safer route to optimum nutrition. Consuming active biochemicals in large amounts could plausibly throw a person's metabolism off, and sometimes these vitamins or supplements have toxic contaminants from a failure in the manufacturing process (like the L-tryptophane case of 20 years ago).

    Getting to the real question at hand. These days there are very few people who would use premium fuel in a vehicle which is designed to run optimally on US regular (87 octane AKI) gasoline. What we are talking about here is the question of what to use when a vehicle mfgr "recommends" premium, but states that lower octane fuel (say down to 87 octane AKI) is the "minimum acceptable". In that case should one use the octane recommended for highest maximum power (and perhaps highest attainable mpg) or can one sensibly use a lower octane fuel?

    The professional article cited goes with "minimum acceptable" is acceptable.

    The Volvo owner's manual seems to suggest that the answer depends on the demands the operator is making on the vehicle. If one hardly ever asks the engine to develop anywhere near max power, then probably the minimum octane acceptable would be the most economical fuel ($ per mile). I don't make a practice of wasting money, but still I'd rather not use 87 octane when Volvo "recommends" 91 octane. For the slight amount of extra money I feel better following Volvo's "recommendation". If the knock sensor would fail, I'd want fuel that would not case knocking.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,144
    Usually the trade off is less power and worse mileage. Even if you can't tell that the car is less peppy, the mileage hit may be significant enough to warrant the use of premium, even though it costs more to fill up the tank.

    Pays to keep track of your mpg in either case.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,203
    that's what we're going to do. Wife filled with mid-grade (89) on the first tank and now the same on the 2nd tank. After this one is gone, we'll try up or down a grade and see what happens.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    According to the Edmunds site most European mfgrs specify premium required in their turbocharged gasoline engines, e.g., the 2.0L turbo 4-cyl engines in the VW Passat, the Audi A4, Saab 9-3, and in various naturally aspirated Mercedes and BMW models. In fact, the only European manufacturer I can find that varies from this is Volvo which specifies premium recommended (and states that 87 octane can be used) in their turbocharged engines and in their naturally aspirated high compression engines (CR 10.3 in the NA 2.4L 5-cyl and 10.7 in the new NA 3.2L inline 6-cyl.

    I wonder if Volvo actually has different engine controls which permit their engines to use down to US regular 87 octane AKI gasoline, or whether models from these other European mfgrs would also accept down to 87 octane. The difference in octane specifcation could be due to mfgr's perceptions of what the prospective buyers will accept. It could be that BMW, for example, thinks that prospective buyers of their vehicles are not put-off by an unqualified requirement of premium, but Volvo thinks that some of its prospective customers would react very negatively and therefore Volvo allows the use of regular.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,203
    well, I think it might depend on what we're comparing it to. Does the S60R/V70R require premium? What about the S60T5?

    I can see the 2.5T or S40T5 not requiring it because they aren't boosted to incredible levels. I mean, 208-220hp out of 2.5 liters is good, but it is not quite the same as 200hp out of a 2.0 liter (the VW you mention).

    The other side of the coin COULD be that the other manufacturers just don't want to take the chance(?). Better to have the customers use all the best stuff possible to get the most out of their vehicles.

    Just some thoughts.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    The S60 T5 (257 hp from a 2.4L 5-cyl) is listed as "premium recommended" in the specs in the Edmunds compare vehicles feature. The Acura TL 3.2L V6, rated at 258 hp, is listed as "premium required".

    My operating assumption is that Volvo has decided that a significant fraction of the Volvo customer base is looking for value, not just ultimate performance at any price. Volvo thinks that some of these customers want to be able to run their vehicles on the cheapest grade of fuel available in the US. My view is that a Volvo is not low end value transportation and owners should expect to use premium fuel at least when they are demanding a good fraction of maximum performance from the engine.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    20.7 mpg (computer 21.4 mpg) 1-8-08 with Shell 93 octane AKI
    19.5 mpg (comp 20.3 mpg) 1-27-09 with Shell 93 octane
    17.8 mpg (comp 18.0 mpg) 2-17-08 with Shell 93 octane
    15.5 mpg (comp 16.2 mpg) 3-7-08 with Shell 93 octane
    17.3 mpg (comp 18.0 mpg) 3-23-08 with Shell 89 + 93 => 91 octane
    16.6 mpg (comp 17.5 mpg) 4-10-08 with Shell 89 + 93 => 91 octane
    19.4 mpg (comp 20.5 mpg) 4-18-08 with Shell 89 + 93 => 91 octane
    19.1 mpg (comp 19.8 mpg) 4-29-08 with Shell 89 + 93 => 91 octane

    This driving is a mixture of highway and city including some very short trips.

    Based on these data the computer gives a value which is 4.0% higher than the value calculated from the pump volumes and trip odometer readings.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    20.2 mpg (computer 20.8 mpg) 5-10-2008 with Shell 89+93 => 91 octane
    21.4 mpg (computer 22.4 mpg) 5-13-2009 with Shell 89+93
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    How about a report on the mpg you've attained with the various fuels.

    Looking at the VolvoUK site, the 2008 XC90 3.2 (only comes in AWD, I think) is estimated in their tests to achieve the following fuel use:

    Urban........... 17.2 L/100km => 13.7 mpgUS
    Extra Urban... 9.2 L/100km => 25.5 mpgUS
    Combined..... 12.1 L/100km => 19.4 mpgUS

    The extra urban mpg is considerably higher than the US EPA highway estimate, and much of that may be due to a difference in the test conditons. However, the site states, "For best performance and lowest fuel consumption 98 octane RON is recommended. 93 octane RON can be used for normal driving."

    98 octane RON is equivalent to 93 or 94 octane AKI, and 93 octane RON is equivalent to 88 or 89 octane AKI. The fuel requirement for US Volvos are 87 octane AKI minimum and 91 octane AKI recommended. So it would appear that the European Volvos are tuned to require and take advantage of higher octane gasolines than the US models. This may contribute to significantly higher mpg for the European models.

    This suggests to me that the recommended 91 octane AKI might give higher fuel economy in the US models, than 87 octane AKI or 89 octane AKI. It would be interesting to see the results of tests by users.

    To me the cost difference between regular, midgrade, and premium is insufficient to use a fuel which gives a lower mpg even if it would give a lower cost per mile. I am going to use the "recommended" 91 octane AKI, if I think there is just a chance that it gives a higher mpg, even if the mpg is only say 0.5 mpg or even 0.25 mpg higher.

    One way to test the effect of octane rating of fuel on mpg would be to run the tank down to near empty and put in say 3 gal of 87 octane. Then drive a prescribed highway route at some specified speed (60 or 65 or 70 mph) and use the computer to get an average mpg over the route of perhaps 10 miles. Then put in a volume of 93 octane AKI equal to half the amount of 87 octane added (this gives 89 octane) and drive the same route at the same speed and use the compter to obtain an average mpg over the 10 mile route. Then add 93 octane AKI in the same amount as the total already added (this gives 91 octane) and redo the route.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,203
    What I like to do is run 3 full tanks all the way through of each fuel. That way we get at least some sort of average. Problem, of course, is that you may run into a situation during 1 tank that negates the results (major accident where you sit still for 2 hours, for instance).

    Unfortunately, my wife ain't so good at keeping track for me and she's been driving it pretty much exclusively (it is her car, after all). All I can report so far is that our first couple of tanks of regular 87 got her in the high 18s. Her past couple of tanks of mid-grade (91) have gotten nearly 21 mpg.

    But, really, this is just anecdotal. The transmission may also have been learning her driving habits.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    Since you have filled a couple of tanks with 87 octane, you could spend an hour and do a good comparison of mpg with 87 and with higher octanes.

    A. Full test: Wait till you have say 1/4 or 1/8 tank left use the computer to estimate how much fuel is in the tank. Use the computer ave mpg and the trip odometer since last fillup to determine how much fuel is in the tank. Fuel used since fillup = distance travelled / ave mpg. Subtract that from the tank capacity of 21 gal.

    Now reset the computer ave mpg and ave speed just before starting a freeway constant speed run of at least 1 mile. (Five miles would be better.) Record that as mpg at 87 octane.

    Now add 93 octane in an amount equal to half the amount of 87 octane you calculated was in the tank and redo the test, resetting the computer mpg and ave speed just before the run. This is mpg at 89 octane.

    Now add 93 octane in an amount equal to the total vol in the tank at the start of the 89 octane run, reset the computer and redo the test. This is mpg at 91 octane.

    At this point you could fillup with 93 octane and redo the test.

    If you do this and report your computer readings and pump volume data, we can check you calculations.

    B. Simpler test: Wait till you have 1/3 tank (~ 7 gal) remaining and then do a certain route at constant speed, resetting the computer mpg and ave speed just before the test. You could do the route twice to see what is the variability.

    Now fill up with 93 octane (fuel in tank is now 91 octane) and redo the test run.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,203
    good grief. I can't even get my wife to calculate at each fillup. "What did you get, hun?" .. "ohhh... I dunno. I think it was 20-something."

    What you ask wouldn't be much different than me requesting she go outside and change the head gasket on my Alfa. I would get a confounded look in return in either instance.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    I should have left out the "Full Test" bit. I got carried away.

    What about you doing the quickie test B?

    Wait till she's got 1/3 tank or less of 87 octane. Then you take the vehicle out for a test run. Get the engine to full operating temp. Reset the mpg function at speed just before doing a run of a mile or two at constant speed, then read the ave mpg. This is mpg at 87 octane.

    Now fill up with 93 octane, and repeat the same test run at the same constant speed. Of course, just as you start the run you reset the ave mpg on the computer, and read the ave mpg at the end of the run. This is the mpg at 91 octane (or higher if the tank was less than 1/3 full for the first run).

    This test might take an hour max and you'd deliver your wife's car back to her with the gas tank full.

    Latest results with my wife's 2007 XC90 3.2 FWD
    19.5 mpg (computer 20.9 mpg, ave speed 23 mph) 5-23-2008 with Shell 89+93 => 91 octane
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,203
    Well, we just completed 3 full tanks of 89 octane all with pretty similar driving (mostly her commute to and from work). Results were 20.9, 20.5, and 20.9. All calculated. We didn't use the trip computer to test results.

    Prior to this, we used regular twice and got ~18. But, like I said before, the truck was new to us at that point, so I don't necessarily trust those readings. Anyway, I filled up with 92 octane today and I'll get her to do the same for the next 2 tanks and see what happens.

    Again, for those keeping score, this is a 2005 2.5T AWD.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '14 Town&Country

  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    20.7 mpg (computer 21.4 mpg) 1-8-08 with Shell 93 octane AKI
    19.5 mpg (comp 20.3 mpg) 1-27-09 with Shell 93 octane
    17.8 mpg (comp 18.0 mpg) 2-17-08 with Shell 93 octane
    15.5 mpg (comp 16.2 mpg) 3-7-08 with Shell 93 octane
    17.3 mpg (comp 18.0 mpg) 3-23-08 with Shell 89 + 93 => 91 octane
    16.6 mpg (comp 17.5 mpg) 4-10-08 with Shell 89 + 93 => 91 octane
    19.4 mpg (comp 20.5 mpg) 4-18-08 with Shell 89 + 93 => 91 octane
    19.1 mpg (comp 19.8 mpg) 4-29-08 with Shell 89 + 93 => 91 octane
    20.2 mpg (computer 20.8 mpg) 5-10-2008 with Shell 89+93 => 91 octane
    21.4 mpg (computer 22.4 mpg) 5-13-2009 with Shell 89+93
    19.5 mpg (computer 20.9 mpg) 5-23-2008 with Shell 89+93 => 91 octane
    15.0 mpg (computer 16.0 mpg) 6-14-2008 with Shell 93, all urban short trips
    23.5 mpg (computer 24.9 mpg) 6-16-2008 with Chevron 93, includes 361 mi road trip much of which was urban, some at slow speed in state park

    Overall fuel economy to date since purchase 11,244 mi / 597.1 gal = 18.8 mpg
2
This discussion has been closed.