Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Volvo XC90 / XC60 Volvo XC90 Real World MPG
74 messages, Last post on Jun 26, 2009 at 7:59 PM
You are in the Volvo XC90 / XC60 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
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.
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Apr 21, 2008 10:20 am) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: jim314 (Apr 21, 2008 3:01 pm) Do You Really Need Premium? And Answers to Other Gasoline Questions By Philip Reed, Senior Consumer Advice Editor 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: jim314 (Apr 21, 2008 5:48 pm) 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
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 21, 2008 6:09 pm) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: jim314 (Apr 21, 2008 8:32 pm) Pays to keep track of your mpg in either case.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 21, 2008 8:38 pm)
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Replying to: jim314 (Apr 25, 2008 11:39 am) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Apr 28, 2008 10:40 am) 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. |
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Volvo XC90 / XC60 Volvo XC90 Real World MPG
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Volvo XC90
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
