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
Wagons Volvo V70 Volvo V70 MPG-Real World Numbers
40 messages, Last post on Jun 25, 2009 at 1:17 PM
You are in the Volvo V70 Forum. Your Host is kcram
|
Replying to: jim314 (May 22, 2007 3:37 pm) 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. |
|
What jim314 describes is not passing technique, but hyper-miling. I think he might even be hyper-miling for other drivers, or at least the trucks for whom he moves left to allow them to pass.  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).
|
|
|
Replying to: ronsteve (May 28, 2007 8:03 pm) 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.) |
|
|
I'm not sure what jim314's point is in the last post, but, ummm...ok. 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).
|
|
|
Replying to: ronsteve (May 31, 2007 7:28 am) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: jim314 (Jun 08, 2007 7:01 am) |
|
|
Replying to: jim314 (Jun 08, 2007 8:41 pm) 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. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: jim314 (Jun 08, 2007 8:41 pm) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: blckislandguy (Jun 20, 2007 5:35 pm) 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 |
|
|
Replying to: blckislandguy (Jun 20, 2007 5:35 pm) 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. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Wagons Volvo V70 Volvo V70 MPG-Real World Numbers
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Volvo V70
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
