Fuel Economy Update for July - Small Dip in Lifetime MPG - 2015 Volvo S60 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com

Fuel Economy Update for July - Small Dip in Lifetime MPG - 2015 Volvo S60 Long-Term Road Test

We drove more than 1,300 miles in our long-term 2015 Volvo S60 in July and saw its lifetime fuel economy average dip slightly.

Read the full story here

legacygt

I guess the post is accurate. the S60 "continues to stay close to its 24-mpg EPA city fuel economy rating." But I'm not sure this is the way to report the Volvo's fuel economy results. To me, this would be more appropriate "The Volvo is averaging slightly below the EPA city rating and well below the EPA combined rating. It has never reached the EPA highway rating."
It's becoming clear that Volvo's new powertrain is designed to maximize the CAFE calculation and look really efficient on the window sticker. In the real world? Not so much. Volvo isn't alone. You're seeing exactly the same phenomenon with the F-150. With the S60 and the F-150, you have engines that are completely overmatched without the aid of the turbo. The result is that they are in boost all the time and real world fuel economy suffers relative to the EPA test cycle which must allow for very slow acceleration and effortless cruising.
The counterexample to this is your Audi A3 which seems to have an appropriately sized engine (same 2.0L as the S60 but in a slightly smaller and lighter car). Your A3 seems to have no trouble achieving its EPA numbers. Now someone might argue that the A3 has lower EPA numbers than the Volvo and that's true. But the difference is that it actually achieves those numbers AND it beats the S60 in real world driving.
The problem here isn't the cars themselves. It seems like the F-150 and S60 are perfectly enjoyable cars. The problem is that their powertrains have been developed and tuned to game the system.

dm7279

I believe Volvo has adjusted the economy numbers down a bit for 2016 on the T6 Drive-E engine.

fordescortgt

legacygt said:

I guess the post is accurate. the S60 "continues to stay close to its 24-mpg EPA city fuel economy rating." But I'm not sure this is the way to report the Volvo's fuel economy results. To me, this would be more appropriate "The Volvo is averaging slightly below the EPA city rating and well below the EPA combined rating. It has never reached the EPA highway rating."
It's becoming clear that Volvo's new powertrain is designed to maximize the CAFE calculation and look really efficient on the window sticker. In the real world? Not so much. Volvo isn't alone. You're seeing exactly the same phenomenon with the F-150. With the S60 and the F-150, you have engines that are completely overmatched without the aid of the turbo. The result is that they are in boost all the time and real world fuel economy suffers relative to the EPA test cycle which must allow for very slow acceleration and effortless cruising.
The counterexample to this is your Audi A3 which seems to have an appropriately sized engine (same 2.0L as the S60 but in a slightly smaller and lighter car). Your A3 seems to have no trouble achieving its EPA numbers. Now someone might argue that the A3 has lower EPA numbers than the Volvo and that's true. But the difference is that it actually achieves those numbers AND it beats the S60 in real world driving.
The problem here isn't the cars themselves. It seems like the F-150 and S60 are perfectly enjoyable cars. The problem is that their powertrains have been developed and tuned to game the system.

I agree with the above. I think small boosted engines have their purpose, but for folks who drive with a slightly heavy right foor most of the EPA numbers seem to be unrealistic. That said my 2015 Rdesign with the boosted 3.0l routinely beats the highway mileage, and if it had the extra 2 cogs of the 8 speed would most likely average 30MPG (problem is teh engine goes above 2200 RPM on the highway and it kills the MPG. The Car is still a pig in the city, but in mixed driving I am still doing better in the summer months (the cold seems to negatively affect MPG I loose about 10%) then the EPA. Hyundai/Kia had the same problem. The only cars I have read about meeting and exceeding was the Mazda 3/6 which is generally impressive since most journalist drive them spiritedly (Not a boosted powerplant, I just think heavily optimized). Also I remember seeing BMW doing fair with real world MPG.

Ultimately these small boosted engines weigh less, which is a plus, however to get the performance for american tastes they have to be rev happy, and the transmissions that are calibrated to keep them in ECO gear are generally panned by Journalists. I am a fan a greater efficiency just as long as it translates to the real world, I am very disappointed at the future loss of the 3.0L and the fact that the 2.0L is not as good as it looked on paper. A owner of a couple of dealerships in my area, had the new T6 for a few weeks and ended up putting it back into rotation 5 months early because he disliked the driving. so much. Obviously with the success of the XC90 these engines will improve as well as all small boosted engines.

vanillamack

Whoa, wait a minute. I just checked Edmund's 2016 EPA ratings for the S/V60. (http://www.edmunds.com/volvo/v60/2016/wagon/st-200737651/mpg/) 25/29 for the DriveE FWD??? Highly disappointed and not surprised as this is more realistic. The current rating of 37 highway I have never come close to....32 at best during a long road trip. My combined is not even as good as this T6's 23.6. My T5 is getting 22-23 on combined driving...without a lead foot! This is my major beef with this car.