By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
And posting dealer names/locations is fine; touting individual salespeople is a no-no. Have fun shopping!
Steve, Host
First Drive: 2005 Volvo XC90
Steve, Host
Does it mean that I have gotten around 40 MPG?
Or my math is off?
Does anybody know a formula to calculate an average MPG for a trip, if I had 17.6 at 6050 Mi, and 20.1 at 6650?
The correct formula is total miles driven divided by total gallons of gasoline used.
According to your numbers you used
6050 mi/ 17.6 mpg = 343.75 gallons
during the first 6,050 miles
but used
6650 mi/20.1 gal = 330.85 gallons
for the full 6,650 miles. Obviously, there's something wrong with your numbers.
I suspect the "average usage" you cite is average for the most recent trip but not being familiar with the XC90 trip meter I can't say for sure.
tidester, host
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as you have presented, otherwise I would calculate it on my own. It's so called "moving average" and all I remember from my statistical analysis class are some basics about median, standard deviation and such.
In general, you can not tell how many gallons of fuel you have consumed, based on a current average, it represents the momentarily slope of the mileage/gallons curve, and it is not constant.
I suspect the "average usage" you cite is average for the most recent trip but not being familiar with the XC90 trip meter I can't say for sure..
It would be, if I reset the computer before the trip, but I did not.
I only pointed out a problem with the numbers you presented.
I don't think anything can be concluded unless you have details about the specifics of the moving average. Is it cumulative? Is based on some number of trips? etc.
tidester, host
Kyle
There is no problem with the numbers I have presented. I just read them from a trip computer. You have used invalid approach. You CAN NOT calculate total fuel usage, using the mileage and the current average MPG figure. It just does not work this way.
There are at least 5 or 6 different approaches to the moving averages in a stock market analysis. My question was to find out if there is an established approach to such calculations in automotive industry for the fuel usage.
The figure that you see on a trip computer is not really cumulative, it is re-calculated every few seconds (5 for the Volvo, I believe). That is why, the figure for the miles till the empty tank can go up and down, as your driving conditions have changed.
Also, do you mean you never reset the trip computer since you had the vehicle, including the mileage you did in Europe, or did you reset it at one point. If you did reset it, the mileage at which you did is necessary to perform an accurate calculation.
One way to calculate it is:
6050 miles X 17.6= 106,480.
6650 miles X 20.1= 133,665.
133,655 - 106,480= 27,175
27,175/600= 45.3 mpg
Lev, your XC did not acheive an average of 45 mpg during that trip. So either the computer do not use all the miles travelled to perform the average (maybe) or you, or someone reset the computer at some point (more likely).
Now lets assume that you had reset the computer at 5,000 miles.
1050 X 17.6 = 18,480
1650 X 20.1 = 33,165
33,165-18,480= 14,685
14,685/600= 24.48 mpg.
It makes more sense isn't it!
You have given what I was looking for.
The conclusion is - the usage for last 600 miles can not be directly calculated based on the data I have available.
Also, indirectly you have provided a better answer to Thomas. Though, in general, you still CAN NOT calculate a total fuel usage based on a total mileage and a current average usage, the reason for this is that you do not know when your computer has been reset last time.
I do remember re-setting a computer, but I can not guarantee that either my wife or I have not done it ever.
But, I definitely did not reset it before the trip.
I have looked my credit card bill, and with some degree of approximation, I have figured out that I have purchased about 27 gallons related to the trip. Which makes my average about 22.2 MPG.
And now I can approximate when my computer can be potentially re-set, based on your calculations.
For the record, I own a 2004 XC90 T6 with 30k miles. I get constantly over 22 mpg on average on the highway driving as fast as anybody else. My city mileage is between 16.5 and 17.5 mpg.
The transmission is just fine, very smooth and no 1-2 hesitation. I don't miss the 5th gear as the torque band is so broad on this engine. The only (minor) complaint is the 1st gear, which is weak. This shows in stop-and-go traffic, where accelerating from a stop light can be annoying at times. Therefore, in city traffic I employ often the geartronic feature changing the gears myself. Makes the driving much more fun...
In closing, I am extremely happy with the T6 performance and mileage. Whether you choose the 2.5T or T6 engine depends on your preferences. As I consider passing power an important safety feature, my choice was clear when I compared the two engines on a highway flooring the gas pedal at 40 mph.
I can only acheive the mileage you describe driving at 60 mph.
But jokes aside, I am always curious too. The only way for me to get that 22 MPG was to set a cruise control to 65 (it was a highway 14/395 with a lot of "speed traps" anyway).
I drive mostly on the interstate and highway (my guess is 90-95% of the time) on business, so I have a pretty good feel on the mileage numbers. For instance, two weeks ago, while visiting a customer in eastern Tennessee, I reset the computer as soon as I hit the interstate leaving Atlanta. After 225 miles driving through the Appalachian mountains on a mix of highway 75% (mostly 55 mph with a few one-stop light towns) and interstate 25% (mostly 65 mph) I had an average of 22.4 mpg. Going back exactly the same route, I got 23.0 mpg (coming back to Atlanta is downhill). Normally, though, when driving on the interstate only at about 75 mph I tend to get 22.1-22.3 mpg.
I am amazed if you are only getting 22 mpg with the 2.5T, I would have thought you could get at least 24 mpg or so. Oh, one more thing. The T6 does have a "5th" gear. It is clearly an overdrive, it drops the rpm by about 300 once the car is up to the speed. I haven't seen anybody bring this up, so I thought I would mention the fact.
Second, the T6 is most definitely a 4 speed gearbox. If you are experiencing a drop in RPM's after the car is "up to speed" it may mean that your transmission is slipping under acceleration. I would have that looked at immediately by the dealer, before serious damage occurs.
Thanks for the details and I admire your self-discipline, 10% over the speed limit, no air - just by the book on a fuel economy.
If you look some of my old posting here - I always say - get off the gas and you get a decent gas mileage. But I am always accused of been non-sensitive and critical of the opponent's driving style. When, in response to one complain, I have shared a studies on a Smith defensive driving system, implementation of which has saved about 10-15% of fuel for our company, I was called no less than presumptive and having little respect for others just for the suggesting that the low gas mileage is caused by the aggressive driving style.
So thanks again for sharing a good story with others.
For mileage, well, all SUV's use a lot of fuel. The driving style and speed has much more influence than which model you are driving. I've had 3 SUV's personnally, a 97 CR-V, a 2001 Santa Fe V6 and the XC, I drove them all the same and get similar fuel consumption with the 3 of them. The CR-V was so underpowered that I had to drive it flat out all the time, especially when loaded. On the highway, with 2 bicycles on the roof rack and a strong head wind, it would not stay in 4th gear! The Santa Fe was actually better since in the same conditions it could stay in 4th. I'd even say that the XC is marginally better than the Hyundai for mileage. possibly because the Hyundai AWD is always engaged.
Guy, do you really feel that your XC90 is so much underpowered, to pay extra $7K for bigger engine?
I sincerely try to understand the motives. I have passed on a bigger engine twice, as I could not justify all that extra expense for myself.
According to my calculations, the MSRP price difference between similarly equiped 2.5 and V8 XC90's appears to only be about $3,200.
Take a 2.5 base, add premium, versitility, climate, premium sound, xenons, 18" wheels and metallic paint and I end up with an MSRP of $47,275.
Take a V8 base, add touring, climate, xenons, metallic paint and I end up with an MSRP of $50,405; fo a difference of $3,130.
As an advocate of OSD, I would expect you to quickly point out that the V8 OSD discount is an even better deal ($3,630 + $685) than the 2.5 ($2,900 + $685), because the discount of 8% is only applied to the base price. Since the V8's base price includes numerous items that are optional on the 2.5, the OSD discount is a better relative deal on the V8. The difference in OSD prices between the above comparably equiped 2.5 and V8 is less than $2,500!!
I don't know about you, but if there is a no-brainer decision for me, it's that the 50% more powerful V8 is worth $2,500 more than the 2.5, especially given other advantages that the V8 has standard (AWD system improvements, etc.).
In fairness, you can get a stripped 2.5 w/o options that are part of the V8 base car and therefore the V8 may not appeal to someone who doesn't want leather or third row seating.
I have OSD priced a V8 with the options that I have gotten for my 2.5 AWD last year for 40,385, and it came up with 45,170 (47,280 initially). I will get a few standard extra niceties with V8, but I do not want them.
Also, I am negatively biased against of big engines, as I find them being a part of American mentality that I do not share. People in Europe drive, in general, cars with engines about half of the size that we have here, and drive them much more sportier and aggressively. Volvo came up with V8 mostly to cave in to American consumer. The lion share of them is going to be sold here.
All of the major upscale European car makers offer the same bodies with smaller engines domestically. We, on other side, like to supersize everything.
Volvo offers the following engines in Europe, that are not available here:
4 cyl.1.8 turbo gas - for S40
4 cyl. 2.0 turbo diesel - for S40
5 cyl 2.0 turbo gas - for S60/80
5 cyl. 2.4 gas - S60/80
5 cyl. 2.4 turbo diesel - S80/XC90 - etc.
BMW.
3 series sedan has
4 cyl. 1.8 gas
4 cyl 2.0 gas
6 cyl 2.1 gas
5 series sedan has
6 cyl. 2.1 gas
6 cyl 2.5 diesel
Even 7 series starts from
6 cyl. 2.9 gas and has
6 cyl.2.9 diesel
When I leased, with the choice between the 2.5 and the T6 I went straight for the 2.5. I did not see much difference in performance and I much preferred the 5 speed transmission.
I'm a fan of Volvo but I am a big fan of Yamaha also. I owned 7 Yamaha bikes, the first one at 16 and the last I just sold at 47! I find the combination of both particularly appealing; and with a 6 speed transmission... But I'm just speculating, I haven't tried the V8 yet.
So, are you decided?
I rechecked my figures and came up with a $2,500 OSD difference between the V8 and 2.5. I did add the 18" wheels and upgraded stereo to the 2.5 to match the touring package of the V8. But, if you don't mind, remind me what options you have on your 2.5 that you got for $40,385.
I generally agree with you regarding excessive engine size here in the US. The little 2.0 liter 240 hp engine in the Honda S2000 I had could outperform most engines twice its size and provided 20-22 mpg city and 30-32 mpg highway.
The only caveat I have is the still undetermined affect hauling around 4,800 lb vehicles will have on Vovlo's small displacement turbocharged engines. Certainly, if you were hauling a boat or doing a lot of hilly driving, the V8 will be less stressed. However, if you use the XC90 as a primarily pepople hauling passenger car, the 2.5 will probably do fine in flat areas of the country. I do know one thing, the cost of replacement turbos in older Volvos was often the straw that broke the camels back and sent them to the boneyard.
But I don't have anything against big, efficient ones...:)
How often do you haul the boat?
How much does it weight?
How long do you plan to keep the SUV?
I read somewhere that you should buy what appreciates and lease what depreciates. I now lease both of my vehicles.
Options on my 2004 2.5T AWD
Option Code Price
Base price $33,640.00
Premium package $2,575.00
Versatility package $1,700.00
Metallic/Ruby Red/ $450.00
Upholstery, leather, Oak/Arena $0.00
Heated front seats $250.00
Auto dimmed mirror $100.00
Speed sensitive steering $195.00
Steering wheel, wood $325.00
Park assist, rear $400.00
Wheels, 18" $750.00
Total - 40,385.
I was matching V8 to 2.5, not other way around. As I said - I would get a few extra things with V8, but I do not want them, and therefore, will never order them on 2.5T.
Also, it was 2004, and as you remember, I have stated that I am glad that I did not wait for the 2005, as I would have to pay a lot more for the same car.
I will keep my vehicles for as long as maintaining them makes economical sense (less than a 1000 a year?)
I did try lease, but it does not work, when you drive 20-25K miles per year.
I have 87K on my 2000 S80 (since May 2000) and my wife had 120K miles on her Mazda MPV (from October 1998 till September 2004) before we get our XC90.
But I don't have anything against big, efficient ones...:)"
Mercedes and BMW both have very efficient big engines, but they still provide quite a few much smaller and even more efficient engines in Europe. It is a matter of attitude more than anything else. The gas prices still are not high enough here.
When I bought the car, I checked the actual mileage vs. the computer mileage twice on long trips and found it to be dead-on accurate (plus minus 0.1 mpg). So, I haven't bothered to calculate the mpg since. I think the way you drive the car will have a big impact on your mileage as will your tire pressure and which oil viscosity you are using. I noticed an improvement in mileage when I went to 5W-30 from 10W-30. I've also noticed that my mileage has improved the more miles I have (currently 30,000 miles) on the XC90. There is most probably differences between each individual cars as well.
As they say, YMMV.
Have you thought of replacing your original ECU with a performance ECU? On the 2.5T, I think the ECU upgrade is a worthwhile purchase, for $900-1,000 you will gain about 40 more HP, but more importantly the torque goes from 236 to 310 lbs-ft, a 30% increase! The 0-60 mph drops from 8.4 sec to 7.6 sec, that's pretty close to V8 territory.
I had the ECU upgraded on our 1996 850 Turbowagon (my wifes car) and it made a huge impact on how the car moves. We were thinking of selling it prior to the upgrade, but now my wife will not even discuss replacing the car. Excellent return on investment!
On the T6, I don't know if the ECU upgrade is worth the money. I might do it later on, though.
Since my technological acumen is limited what is the ECU. I am looking at buying a xc90(2.5) but what keeps me from making a final decision is the feeling that this car is underpowered. I could live with the pickup from a dead stop(barely) but the power was not there going up hills and quick passing on the highway. I cannot justify the price of the 8cyl. Do wish the S80 was already updated, cannot lease (15-17,000 per year) and concerned about the depreciation on S80 and dated nature of car. Currently have 2001 x-country.
So finally the question is what is the ECU upgrade and does Volvo install it and does it void warranty. Thanks for your response.
The ECU upgrades have been debated in length on other Volvo-forums, do a Google on it. There are at least two reputable companies that do ECU upgrades. One is IPD USA, www.ipdusa.com, the other is BSR in Sweden, www.bsrab.se. The BSR distributor in US is Engstrom Motorsport, www.engstrom.net. Volvo NA does not install these upgrades, maybe some of the dealers do.
Regarding warranty, there is a law called Magnussen(?) Act. In order for a car company to void a warranty they have to prove that the aftermarket item caused the part(s) to fail. Of course we are talking here about adding more boost to the turbos and adding more stress to the drivetrain, so you have to take that in consideration. If you are not driving aggressively all the times, but rather use the extra power whenever you need it, my personal feeling is that you should be OK. The way I look at it, there is risk involved anytime I get out of bed, heh-heh. But it's your decision, so you have to feel comfortable about the upgrade and the risks involved.
I feel that extra 10HP, additional low RPM torque and a turbo boost compensate very well for extra weight, and make our XC90 even more lively than our S80 2.9, which performance always was very satisfactory to us.
So, I am one of those drivers who does not need V8, no matter what price difference it would have.
I consistently opt for a low/middle power engines on all the cars/trucks I ever owned.
Then the ball's back in your court to press the dealer or manufacturer to cover the warranty claim. And that may mean getting the FTC or SEMA.org or the part supplier (or your lawyer) involved.
Here's a good overview link. (dummies.com)
Steve, Host
You are partially correct. Dealers don't deny warranty claims because dealers don't warranty new cars. Each manufacturer has the final say on any warranty claims.
Now, a dealer may know ahead of time that a claim would be disallowed due to misuse or abuse by the vehicle owner. In such a case, if the work is done and the manufacturer disallows the claim the dealer has to eat the job. Not something a dealer wants to do.
Magnussen-Moss does burden the dealer and by extension the manufacturer to prove that the modification caused the warranted part to fail.
In Volvo's case, both Evolve and ipd go to great pains not to overdo their horsepower mods. In many cases they have access to Volvo's own test data to help them with their mods.
I bought the ECU upgrade for our 850 from IPD. They have an excellent customer service and I highly recommend them. The only drawback is that with IPD you have to send your ECU unit to IPD for modification, which means you can't drive your car while your ECU is being modified. IPD is located in Portland, OR.
The BSR concept looks pretty slick. Instead of sending your ECU to them, they will send you a device that you connect to your cars OBDII port and you do the upgrade yourself. You can also reverse the process, i.e. change the ECU to its original factory settings. Hope this helps.
Again, as long as the chip doesn't cause a part failure you don't have anything to worry about.
Very important for me to know since I am a Realtor and use my nav. system alot.
There is input buttons integrated in the steeling wheel, and also there is a remote control.
You can enter a definite address, points in the map, search around the car, last ten address list, facilities list (bank, restaturant, gas station, ...)
It would be interesting to know more of the actual accident.
We did receive 2 good snow fall last spring and I was somewhat disapointed with the handling of the XC in the snow. In fact, my Santa Fe on 4 Bridgestone Winter Dueler, was handling much better.
Well it is now winter up here and after 2 good snow falls, 1 wet snow and another dry snow, I need to report that the XC handles very well with the Pirelli Winter Scorpions. It is very stable, sure footed and as soon as you try to kick the rear end around (read: make it oversteer) the DTSC kicks in and keeps the vehicle from spinning. You can kick the tail maybe 25 to 30 degrees but that's it. Turning DTSC off does'nt change things much. It will spin more coming from a dead stop on snow but that's it. It does not change the cornering behavior. (This is the way it should be according to the owner manual)
So I feel this is an excellent vehicle for our winter conditions BUT you do need good winter tires. I'm satisfied with the Pirelli's and it would probably be even better with Nokian's. But hey, I got the Pirelli's for free so I'm not complaining.
While waiting I am getting ready for all the joy of owning a wonderful car. I know it we drove it for a month and 2500 miles in Europe in the fall. One of the things I am doing is getting the car care kits lined up. That includes the detailing parts. I remember that some times back on this forum (I think!) someone mentioned a “new age” towel with the ability to absorb and hold a lot of water. I am sure I book marked the product site, however, I can not find the mark any more. Typical of my filing system; I can file any thing; it is the retrieval part that creates problems!
I did run a search but did not find any reference to that product.
Can anyone help me find the “super towel”?