Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.

Exploring Divided Opinion in 700 Miles - 2015 Volvo S60 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,316
edited October 2015 in Volvo
imageExploring Divided Opinion in 700 Miles - 2015 Volvo S60 Long-Term Road Test

After 700 miles of driving, our 2015 Volvo S60 proved adequately comfortable for a family of four.

Read the full story here


Tagged:

Comments

  • longtimelurkerlongtimelurker Member Posts: 455
    Intelligent assessment - 3700 lb. gas engine, non-hybrid, 300+ hp, 70 mph, A/C on, 30 mpg - that's pretty good. Forget what the EPA says.
  • dm7279dm7279 Member Posts: 63
    I can get similar mileage from my 30 mpg highway rated 2014 S60 with an extra cylinder and two fewer gears in the transmission, generally at 70+ mph speeds. I guess the only difference is I am not fully loaded with the wife and kids for most of my highway trips. It still surprises me that the entire Edmunds staff has gotten such poor economy from the T6 compared to its rating.
  • emajoremajor Member Posts: 332
    dm7279,
    I'm not surprised by that at all. A lot of turbo motors seem to perform better in standardized tests than real world, and this is probably why so many makers are going turbo.

    FWIW, your turbo 5 is down quite a bit on power compared to this T6, and is over a second slower to 60 according to Edmunds tests. So at least the T6 is providing something for the loss in fuel economy.

    30 mpg is nothing to sneeze at given the power and 70mph speeds. A lot of midsizers with 180hp fours wouldn't be doing any better than 35 mpg.
  • s197gts197gt Member Posts: 486
    edited October 2015
    i would have driven another 9/10ths of a mile.

    i'd be happy with 30 mpg as well.
  • bankerdannybankerdanny Member Posts: 1,021
    I think that the EPA standards assume a very modest (read slow) rate of acceleration during testing, this would favor turbos as boost stays down. That said, the GTI and Jetta 1.8t had no issues meeting and exceeding the EPA ratings. I think that some manufacturers (looking at you Ford) take more advantage of the testing procedures than others.
  • allthingshondaallthingshonda Member Posts: 878
    bankerdanny said:

    I think that the EPA standards assume a very modest (read slow) rate of acceleration during testing, this would favor turbos as boost stays down. That said, the GTI and Jetta 1.8t had no issues meeting and exceeding the EPA ratings. I think that some manufacturers (looking at you Ford) take more advantage of the testing procedures than others.

    Problem is the EPA doesn't test all vehicles themselves. They rely on the manufacturer to do the tests according to their protocols and self report the findings. I agree with you about the modest rate of acceleration being most of the problem. Turbo boost is down and they operate more like a NA engine. Ford clearly takes advantage of this testing protocol to boost their numbers.

    VW, BMW and Honda usually beat the EPA estimates. I think they must use a brand new off the line engine for fuel economy numbers for a worst case scenario; whereas Ford and others must use a broken in engine for the best numbers they can get. As an engine breaks in it's usually better on fuel than when new. This would explain how some manufacturers beat the EPA numbers and others barely or rarely meet them.

    My Acura always beats the EPA numbers but my girlfriend's Sonata not so much. Now that her car has over 50,000 miles on it meets but never exceeds the numbers.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles