Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Volvo V70 MPG-Real World Numbers
Wife's '05 V70 non-turbo automatic gets 23-24 in the daily drive. On a recent trip it got 32 mpg during a pure highway stretch.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
No complaints whatsoever.
The EPA est for the 2004 2.4L non-turbo was 22/30 city/highway, but the highway est was only 28 or 29 mpg for the 2005 and 2006 V70.
The 2004 V70 base tire was 195/65-15 Michelin MXV4 Plus which have a max infl pressure of 51 psi, and this may be an especially low rolling resistance model and size. We run them at 38 psi which is the max recommended on the tire sticker. The newer year V70s have a lower profile and wider tire as the base tire and these may have higher rolling resistance. Presumably the lower profile wider tires would have better maneuverability, but most people buy them for their appearance.
1st fillup: 25.0 mpg (mix of 240 mi city and only 59 mi highway with roof box)
2nd fillup: 27.0 mpg (highway up to 65 or 70 mph with some short trips, 318 mi/11.797 gal)
3rd fillup: 31.8 mpg (highway, a lot of backroads, much at 60 mph, 393 mi/12.353 gal)
Ave of 2nd and 3rd: 29.4 mpg (711 mi/24.15 gal).
The difference between the results for 2nd and 3rd fillups may be due to a difference in driving conditions, or may be partly random variation.
Prior to this Thanksgiving camping trip I bought a car top box to carry gear for 4 days and 3 nights, for two adults and 3 dogs. I would have bought a light sport trailer (either Thule or Let's Go Aero), but couldn't get one locally in time. With the roof box some light, soft gear was carried in the the right rear beside one of the dogs. Both parts of the rear seat back were down and all 3 dogs were secured with serious cainine auto restraint harnesses.
I selected the aerodynamic Thule Atlantis 1800 (18 cu ft, $510 from REI, + 8.25% sales tax, less dividend) because it was a good fit on the the V70. I could position it far enough back so that the front of the box was still well back of the top of the windshield, but there was no interference when opening the rear hatch. This reportedly lowers wind resistance. Getting back into agressive Dallas freeway traffic I got a little bit of a lead foot and even up to 80 mph there was absolutely no wind noise from the roof box.
The 21 cu ft Thule Atlantis was not in stock or I might have gotten that. However it is 8 or 9 inches longer and might project far enough forward to have significantly higher wind resistance because it would make more of a air scoup with the car top.
so my question would be is anyone using synthetic oil or just anything the dealer throw in ?
I'm not claiming this "cost-effective" in the long run, but a V70 is to me a fine car and I'm willing to spend an extra $40/yr to protect the engine and maybe to get higher fuel economy. We get about the EPA for this model year, 22 mpg city/30 mpg hwy.
I supply the dealer with 6-quarts of 10W-30 Mobile1 XP and they supply the filter and O-ring and change the oil at no charge. The service advisor seemed to think that this would be cheaper for me than what they would charge for Mobile1.
Right now when I fuel up I am mixing approx equal parts of 93 octane and 89 octane (or I use approx 2 plus 1 of 93 and 87) to get 91 octane. The manual says that 87 octane is the minumum which the engine can use, but 91 or greater is recommended for optimum operation. I want to get the absolute best mpg and don't want to hole a piston if the knock sensor would fail. The Volvo normally aspirated 2.4L 5-cyl has a compression ratio of 10.3:1.
Here's how the legs worked out:
Dallas to Ville Platte LA, nearly all IH20 and IH49 with speed control set at 67 mph: 366.5 mi/10.644gal => 34.4 mpgUS => 6.82 L/100km, 41.3 mpgUK. Camped at State Park and slept in the V70.
Ville Platte to New Orleans and back to New Iberia via US90, nearly all regular hwy and significant local in New Orleans and in New Iberia: 399.9 mi/12.929 gal = 30.9 mpgUS => 7.60 L/100km, 37.1 mpgUK.
New Iberia to Dallas, virtually all IH with speed control set at 68 to 70 mph: 453.4 mi/12.937 galUS = 35.0 mpgUS => 6.71 L/100km , 42.0 mpgUK.
What I did find was that large trucks would come up behind me and then change to the left lane and pass with clearly increased speed and fuel use. I cannot stand to have an 18-wheeler right on my tail and I don't want to obstruct them. It occurred to me to change to the left lane as the trucks approached and let the trucks pass in the right lane. The truck drivers seemed happy to do this. This is how the lead is changed in a bicycle pace-line.
I would change to the left lane and coast down using the negative button on the cruise control to minimize the time I was beside the truck and then shift back to the right lane and speed up to 68 mph after the truck had opened a gap. I suppose the truck drivers have trained some car drivers to do this and that must be the reason they come up close behind before changing to the left lane to pass. I figure this really saves fuel--a negligible amount in my car but a lot in the truck. I was not in a hurry on this trip.
As the truck would approach from the rear in my lane I would first signal a lane change, check that no vehicle was overtaking in the left lane (which wasn't a problem because the traffic on IH49 was light and not heavy on IH20), then change lanes. In the left lane I would slow down with the -button on the speed control so as to minimize the time I was alongside the truck, then signal and change back to the right lane after the truck passed. Then I would accel back to cruising speed with the + button on the speed control.
Another way I handled the speed control was to change to the left lane then disengage the cruise control so as to slow down quickly. As soon as the truck came alongside on my right I would signal a change back to the right lane, and after the truck passed, change lanes, then accelerate back to near 68 mph with slight enough pressure on the accelerator pedal that the 5A transmission wouldn't downshift, then re-engage the speed control.
I found on this car that if I used the + button on the speed control or I re-engaged the speed control when the speed was significantly below the set point, then the speed control would cause a downshift, which I figured would use more fuel and cause more wear on the engine and transmission.
On a freeway in New Orleans I needed to pass quickly to get around a vehicle to get to an exit and gave full throttle at about 50 mph. The tach went up to well over 5000 rpm (redline is 6000). I don't like to do that very often.
My 2006 2.5T is over 11,000 miles (just bought it as a former dealer demo)...
first fill-up, all around-town commuting... 21.4 mpg (computer said 21.8, but no telling how much of what happened before I reset the meter on delivery.
Since then, the computer was showing 22.3mpg driving around town, then I reset before a highway trip from Wilmington(NC) to Raleigh. Just got home and it shows 28.5mpg (showed 29.3 when I got up there Sunday, but I did a little driving around Raleigh).
This base model doesn't have a trip computer and all my reported values are from trip odometer and gas station pump values.
Going from 20 mpg (0.050 gpm) to 35 mpg (0.0286 gpm) is a 43 % decrease in fuel use per unit distance travelled.
(Going from 20 to 35 mpg is a 75 % increase in distance travelled per unit of fuel consumed, but this is not the percent change that is relevant to how most people use their vehicles. What most people do is drive the distance they want/"need" to and pay what it costs. Most people do not buy a given amount of fuel in a given time period and drive until the fuel is exhausted.)
Currently 2 tanks into my experience with a year-old V70. The pump-truth is this:
1st tank (all city-ish driving): 318.8 miles on 14.866 gallons for 21.4 mpg
2nd tank (70% highway at cruise speeds just either side of 75mph): 411.6 miles on 15.331 gallons for 26.8 mpg
I mentioned what the trip computer said just for the purposes of comparing its readout to real-world. The first tank made me think it was a bit optimistic, and the second, just the opposite.
At the start of my road-trip Sunday I reset the meter, with 58 miles on this tank and showing 22.3 mpg average. (theoretically 2.6 gallons consumed)
At the end of my 142-mile outbound highway trip, it showed an average 29.3mpg. However, I didn't reset anything then, or until I filled up. When I refueled yesterday, it read 27.2 mpg average over 353.6 miles since the earlier reset (theoretically 13.0 gallons consumed)
SO... this time around the computer might have been a little pessimistic, but not too too far out of line (the computer stats suggest it would have wanted 15.6 vs. the 15.3 it took). And so far, chalk up another car that has me close to the EPA estimates (21/29 on this one).
But one point was that the US practice of using mpg values instead of gpm (i.e. gal of fuel consumed per mile travelled) is a barrier to doing proper fuel use comparisons. You really need to use the fuel/distance value like the Europeans do. They express fuel use as liters consumed per 100 km travelled (L/100km).
For example if vehicle B has a gpm value (or L/100km value) that is 20% less than vehicle A, then B will use 20% less volume of fuel to go any given distance. This is usually what people want to know.
But if vehicle D has an mpg which is 20% higher than vehicle C, then it does not mean that D will use 20% less fuel to go a given distance. It means that D will go 20% farther with any given volume of fuel. But this latter is not usually what people want to know.
In three tanks of mostly city driving we have gotten 17 mpg twice and 13 mpg once with this 3.2L 2WD XC-90.
OK, so that keyed a lot more on MPH than MPG... but it shows the US/Euro divide, be it speed vs. lap time, or MPG vs. actual consumption.
Back on topic, more pseudo-city driving in my '06 2.5T... a lot of 45 mph speed limits, but enough lights and stop-and-go that my trip computer shows average speeds around 26 mph...
359.9 miles on 15.729 gal for 22.9 mpg (or 4.37 gal/100mi)
The computer was claiming just 21.8 mpg, but this may have been more of a "short fill" than the last one. It's easy to squeeze a LOT of fuel into this tank after the auto-shutoff, and last time I put close to 3/4 of a gallon in after it kicked off.
Even if this fill was a half-gallon shorter than the last, my actual mpg would have been 22.2. Starting to think (now that I know how it's being filled up, etc.) that the computer is a little pessimistic.
And maybe I'll stop topping off now, tho that will make fuel mileage calculations less of a "controlled" situation.
My experience in our 2001 XC70 during recent summer driving:
1) on highway MPG at 70-75 MPH is 24.5 MPG
2) around town MPG is 18.5 MPG or less depending on nature of trip.
Keep in mind that Volvo's burn premium. While 24.5 MPG on an interstate at 75MPG sounds great, the car is consuming $3.29 per gal self service premium. I'd rather have lower MPG with burning a non-premium grade.
If the cost of the fuel is a problem for you and if you are not driving agressively or towing a trailer, then maybe you would want to use 87 octane. To me the extra cost of premium is negligible, and even though I drive with a light foot, I don't want to depend on a knock sensor to save my engine from damage.
"In many parts of Europe, 95 RON (90-91 AKI) is the minimum available and the standard, with 97/98 being premium or "super". In other countries "regular" unleaded gasoline, when still available, is sometimes as low as 85 RON (still with the more regular fuel - 95 - and premium around 98 available.)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
A lot of folks create a false economy when the price of gas goes up, thinking they'll save money by running regular in cars that really want premium. Think about this, but maybe at an hour when it won't make your head hurt...
That $3.29 for premium will only buy you 1.06 gal of regular at $3.09. In other words, it doesn't have to hurt your fuel economy very much before it costs the same or more per mile to run regular.
Back when gas was really cheap, and the $1.20 for a gallon of premium bought 1.2 gallons of regular at $1.00, there might have been a case to sacrifice some MPG.
But you really want to get the best mpg and the best fuel for this fine engine, not the lowest fuel cost per mile. The best mpg means lowest CO2 emissions, less wear on the engine, longest life of the engine oil. If you were really pressed for money, you wouldn't own a Volvo.
The Volvo normally aspirated 2.4L 5cyl and 3.2L 6cyl engines have compression ratios of over 10:1. They are not going to run at their best with 87 octane. Mix grades to get close to 91 and you won't have to worry that you are paying for a higher octane fuel than the engine is designed for.
My driving from then until today was about 70% city and 30% highway with cruise speeds just over 75 mph... 380 miles on 15.65 gallons, for 24.3 mpg.
Still looks like the computer might be a little pessimistic yet... it only indicated 23.6 mpg (down from 28.9 mpg at the end of the highway leg that I started out with).
There are many vehicles with engines at 10-10.5:1 compression ratios that are spec'd for regular, look at all the Honda's for one. Also, isn't the new C30 spec'd for regular?
Volvo NA's will run fine on regular. There are knock sensors on the block to tell the ECU what's going on. The gas mileage difference is insignificant, how you drive will have a greater effect on gas mileage.
I've been running regular for nearly three years in a v70, we consistently get 22-24 around town (with a little highway) and 28-30+ mpg on the road, depending on the load and winds. Behind a truck I can average 33-40! This vehicle is the most sensitive car with respect to wind resistance draft that I have ever recently owned or operated.
A gently driven turbo should do the same, but since they have higher effective compression ratios they will clearly profit from high octane fuels.
Both turbos and NA's at or around wide open throttle will do better on the higher octane, the turbo's much better.
Overall 3984 mi on 128.3 gal of mostly Shell 90 or 91 octane AKI "V-Power" => 31.0 mpg. Twelve fillups. If the two legs with significant lower mpg (* and **) are excluded as outliers, then 3258 mi on 101.0 gal => 32.2 mpg.
1. Dallas to Amarillo TX: 384.2 mi on 15.236 gal => 25.2 mpg* (incl. urban Dallas)
2. to Albuquerque NM: 291.4 mi on 9.472 gal => 30.8 mpg
3. to Flagstaff AZ: 330.7 mi on 10.333 gal => 32.0 mpg
4. to Ludlow CA: 306.3 mi on 9.802 gal => 31.2 mpg
5. to Delano CA 216.4 mi on 6.805 gal => 31.8 mpg
6. to Moss Beach CA 378.2 mi on 11.828 gal => 32.7 mpg (incl some urban SF)
7. to Wasco CA: 342.2 mi on 12.043 gal => 28.4 mpg**
8. to Needles CA: 303.9 mi on 9.035 gal => 33.6 mpg
9. to Williams AZ: 347.7 mi on 11.519 gal =>30.2 mpg (incl. Grand Canyon NP)
10. to Moriarty NM: 401.8 mi on 11.774 gal => 34.1 mpg
11. to Amarillo TX: 300.5 mi on 8.806 gal => 34.1 mpg
12. to Dallas TX: 380.7 mi on 11.664 gal => 32.6 mpg (incl side trips to Palo Duro Canyon SP and Copper Breaks SP at Quanah TX and re-entry into Dallas through thick urban traffic for 40 miles)
NB 1. The last urban tank before the trip yielded 20.1 mpg.
2. The V70 allowed me to sleep in the back of the vehicle with rear seat folded flat (return trip) in Grand Canyon NP and in Palo Duro Canyon State Park TX.
My 2005 Subaru Outback 2.5 non turbo is getting only 18 mpg with a 4 cyl with the same driving.
The Subaru, because it is higher and narrower, bobs and heaves on uneven roads.
You know those toys with the heads on springs? That's what my neck feels like sometimes in the Subaru. It will also toss everything in the cargo up in the air if you go over a crest quickly.
They both handle well.... but there is a certain point in the Subaru where if you are going around a curve on the highway a little too fast, the back of the vehicle will suddenly lift up and over a little bit... happened a couple of times...didn't like it.The Volvo may actually hold the road a little better.
The transmission in the Volvo doesn't inspire much confidence as it sometimes feels like it will break again (like it did at 60K... very expensive), but at least it doesn't sometimes refuse to shift as does the Subaru.
All in all, the Volvo is a much more comfortable car and although the Outback appears to be larger when parked tandem, the V70 is a tiny bit wider and much more roomy and thought out inside. That extra interior width makes it easier to place my mountain bike in the back.
If Volvo made their cars more reliable and a little less costly to own and maintain, I would see no reason to look at Subaru.
On a flat highway, cruise set at 55 mph, A/C off, I averaged 31.5 mpg
Increase to 65 mph and it drops to 28.5 mpg
And so on... 75 mph gets you about 26 mpg
City driving has gotten me 18-19 mpg so far
So my experience matches the "new" EPA estimate of 18/27. If you have an extremely light foot you should be able to get the old window sticker rating of 21/30, but what fun is that?