You are here: Forums Wagons Volvo V70 Volvo V70 MPG-Real World Numbers

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

What is this discussion about? Volvo V70, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), Wagon

Messages Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#31 of 40 '01 T5 gets 25 -27 mpg commuting by jurrasicsailor Jun 21, 2007 (7:27 am)
i've got an '01 T5 with 114K miles. Just had the mechanic use the de-sludging product from amsoil and use their synthetic. asked for the de-sludge even though I've changed oil regularly because it looked like their was some build up if you looked thru the oil cap. don't know if it was the de-sludge or the amsoil, but the mileage went up a full 1 mpg on a 90 mile commute I do every day. Only other variable is weather. Great mileage from such a sizable car with plenty of horses. The '01 models have a 21.5 gal tank as well, so range is incredible. But I want the D5 Diesel they sell in Europe! More torque and gets another 8+ miles to the gallon!
#32 of 40 Re: fuel/distance vs, distance/fuel [blckislandguy] by jim314 Jun 21, 2007 (7:49 am)
Replying to: blckislandguy (Jun 20, 2007 5:35 pm) Try doing what I have been doing, if 91 octane is not available where you are, then mix equal parts of 93 and 89 octane to get 91 octane AKI. You will save $1.00 per 20 gal. Or just use 89 and save $2.00 per 20 gal. The use of 89 octane AKI might give the lowest fuel cost per mile.   But you really want to get the best mpg and the best fuel for this fine engine, not the lowest fuel cost per mile. The best mpg means lowest CO2 emissions, less wear on the engine, longest life of the engine oil. If you were really pressed for money, you wouldn't own a Volvo.   The Volvo normally aspirated 2.4L 5cyl and 3.2L 6cyl engines have compression ratios of over 10:1. They are not going to run at their best with 87 octane. Mix grades to get close to 91 and you won't have to worry that you are paying for a higher octane fuel than the engine is designed for. Replies to this message: plainv70 (Jan 11, 2008 6:20 am)
#33 of 40 A tank of mid-grade... by ronsteve Jun 30, 2007 (3:04 pm)
Last week I stopped to refuel on the wrong side of Raleigh, where stations only post their prices for regular and maybe mid-grade. I'm used to seeing a 10-cent jump from regular to midgrade, and another 10-cent increase for premium... so when I found premium to be 15 cents more than midgrade I tried a tank of Shell 89 octane.   My driving from then until today was about 70% city and 30% highway with cruise speeds just over 75 mph... 380 miles on 15.65 gallons, for 24.3 mpg.   Still looks like the computer might be a little pessimistic yet... it only indicated 23.6 mpg (down from 28.9 mpg at the end of the highway leg that I started out with).
#34 of 40 Re: fuel/distance vs, distance/fuel [jim314] by plainv70 Jan 11, 2008 (6:20 am)
Replying to: jim314 (Jun 21, 2007 7:49 am) A little late, but what the heck:   There are many vehicles with engines at 10-10.5:1 compression ratios that are spec'd for regular, look at all the Honda's for one. Also, isn't the new C30 spec'd for regular?   Volvo NA's will run fine on regular. There are knock sensors on the block to tell the ECU what's going on. The gas mileage difference is insignificant, how you drive will have a greater effect on gas mileage.   I've been running regular for nearly three years in a v70, we consistently get 22-24 around town (with a little highway) and 28-30+ mpg on the road, depending on the load and winds. Behind a truck I can average 33-40! This vehicle is the most sensitive car with respect to wind resistance draft that I have ever recently owned or operated.   A gently driven turbo should do the same, but since they have higher effective compression ratios they will clearly profit from high octane fuels.   Both turbos and NA's at or around wide open throttle will do better on the higher octane, the turbo's much better.
#35 of 40 Highway mileage 2004 V70 base non-turbo, 5-spd auto by jim314 Feb 19, 2008 (7:57 pm)
Round trip Dallas TX to San Francisco CA to drop off a relative. Outbound was with two people and luggage. Inbound me only and less than half of luggage. This base model has no trip computer so these mpg's are hand calculated from fuel pump fillup volumes and trip odometer readings. Highway speed of travel were in the range of slightly below posted to 5 mph over posted, so often 80 mph in AZ and NM. No significant drafting on trucks. Tires 195/65-15 Michelin MXV4+ Energy (51 psi max infl press) inflated to 41 psi before trip and not checked during trip.   Overall 3984 mi on 128.3 gal of mostly Shell 90 or 91 octane AKI "V-Power" => 31.0 mpg. Twelve fillups. If the two legs with significant lower mpg (* and **) are excluded as outliers, then 3258 mi on 101.0 gal => 32.2 mpg.   1. Dallas to Amarillo TX: 384.2 mi on 15.236 gal => 25.2 mpg* (incl. urban Dallas) 2. to Albuquerque NM: 291.4 mi on 9.472 gal => 30.8 mpg 3. to Flagstaff AZ: 330.7 mi on 10.333 gal => 32.0 mpg 4. to Ludlow CA: 306.3 mi on 9.802 gal => 31.2 mpg 5. to Delano CA 216.4 mi on 6.805 gal => 31.8 mpg 6. to Moss Beach CA 378.2 mi on 11.828 gal => 32.7 mpg (incl some urban SF) 7. to Wasco CA: 342.2 mi on 12.043 gal => 28.4 mpg** 8. to Needles CA: 303.9 mi on 9.035 gal => 33.6 mpg 9. to Williams AZ: 347.7 mi on 11.519 gal =>30.2 mpg (incl. Grand Canyon NP) 10. to Moriarty NM: 401.8 mi on 11.774 gal => 34.1 mpg 11. to Amarillo TX: 300.5 mi on 8.806 gal => 34.1 mpg 12. to Dallas TX: 380.7 mi on 11.664 gal => 32.6 mpg (incl side trips to Palo Duro Canyon SP and Copper Breaks SP at Quanah TX and re-entry into Dallas through thick urban traffic for 40 miles)   NB 1. The last urban tank before the trip yielded 20.1 mpg. 2. The V70 allowed me to sleep in the back of the vehicle with rear seat folded flat (return trip) in Grand Canyon NP and in Palo Duro Canyon State Park TX. Replies to this message: jim314 (Feb 20, 2008 6:59 pm)
#36 of 40 Re: Highway mileage 2004 V70 base non-turbo, 5-spd auto [jim314] by jim314 Feb 20, 2008 (6:59 pm)
Replying to: jim314 (Feb 19, 2008 7:57 pm) Engine oil in the 04 V70 was Mobile1 10W-30 Extended Performance (guaranteed for 15,000 mi or 1 year) which has been in for almost a year and maybe 12,000 miles. I'll change it soon with 6 qt of the same oil. I have not had to add any oil since the last change a year ago. After the trip the odometer read about 34,000 mi, so the engine is in its prime.
#37 of 40 mileage by orangelebaron Feb 23, 2008 (10:58 am)
My 2000 V70 non-turbo averages around 21-22 mostly suburban. My 2005 Subaru Outback 2.5 non turbo is getting only 18 mpg with a 4 cyl with the same driving. Replies to this message: jim314 (Feb 23, 2008 11:24 am) orangelebaron (Mar 01, 2008 11:46 pm)
#38 of 40 Re: mileage [orangelebaron] by jim314 Feb 23, 2008 (11:24 am)
Replying to: orangelebaron (Feb 23, 2008 10:58 am) AWD and higher ground clearance of the Outback come at a cost in fuel efficiency. The Volvo inline 5-cyl may be inherently lower in internal losses than the Subaru flat-4, and maybe the Volvo I-5 has engine controls more optimized for fuel efficiency. How do the ride and handling of these two vehicles compare? Replies to this message: orangelebaron (Mar 01, 2008 11:46 pm)
#39 of 40 Re: mileage [jim314] by orangelebaron Mar 01, 2008 (11:46 pm)
Replying to: jim314 (Feb 23, 2008 11:24 am) While the Subaru is more fun to drive and can handle potholes better without a banging noise, I believe the Volvo rides better. The Subaru, because it is higher and narrower, bobs and heaves on uneven roads. You know those toys with the heads on springs? That's what my neck feels like sometimes in the Subaru. It will also toss everything in the cargo up in the air if you go over a crest quickly. They both handle well.... but there is a certain point in the Subaru where if you are going around a curve on the highway a little too fast, the back of the vehicle will suddenly lift up and over a little bit... happened a couple of times...didn't like it.The Volvo may actually hold the road a little better. The transmission in the Volvo doesn't inspire much confidence as it sometimes feels like it will break again (like it did at 60K... very expensive), but at least it doesn't sometimes refuse to shift as does the Subaru.   All in all, the Volvo is a much more comfortable car and although the Outback appears to be larger when parked tandem, the V70 is a tiny bit wider and much more roomy and thought out inside. That extra interior width makes it easier to place my mountain bike in the back.   If Volvo made their cars more reliable and a little less costly to own and maintain, I would see no reason to look at Subaru.
#40 of 40 05 V70 2.5T Mileage by gregd396 Jun 25, 2009 (1:17 pm)
I just picked up a used 2005 V70 2.5T (LP Turbo, 5speed geartronic, FWD) and was somewhat let down by the mpg, but I can't complain too much for a car with such good performance. My numbers are with tires at 39 psi, castrol syntec 10w30, new air filter.   On a flat highway, cruise set at 55 mph, A/C off, I averaged 31.5 mpg Increase to 65 mph and it drops to 28.5 mpg And so on... 75 mph gets you about 26 mpg City driving has gotten me 18-19 mpg so far   So my experience matches the "new" EPA estimate of 18/27. If you have an extremely light foot you should be able to get the old window sticker rating of 21/30, but what fun is that?

Messages Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Wagons Volvo V70 Volvo V70 MPG-Real World Numbers