Volvo XC40 Forums

gabes1982 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:27 pm You call 42 mpg poor consumption?
My petrol T5 R-Design laughs at that by returning 26mpg (10.8l/100km)

My xc40 car has traveled 3500km in the past 2 months, mainly urban trips with no real highway travel, with a mix of 95 & 98ron fuel. Fuel economy appears to be unchanged if even slightly better with 95 which is perplexing.

Apples and Pears gabes 1982! Do you read my post? You can not compare your T5 mainly urban trips to my D4 trips as described. My last car was a BMW 120d MSport which I pretty much caned. It returned 52mpg. If I drove it like my I am doing now it would return 60mpg plus.

The point it, this car has pretty poor fuel consumption, as does yours by the way. These cars may well be emissions friendly, but they are burning a lot of fossil fuels along the way.

I’ve done 12000 miles now in my D4 and show an average of 33.6mpg !!
Week day journeys are only local and do a few longer journeys per month .
I think the auto box is a big part of the problem as it seems very inefficient compared to other manufacturers who seem to get virtually the same economy from their autos as they do their manuals.
I would be tempted to switch to the phev model if it wasn’t for the fact that the increase in annual road tax would cost more than any fuel savings!! Maybe they’ll make a Momentum version with a lower list price one day.

pp67 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 3:10 pm
I would be tempted to switch to the phev model if it wasn’t for the fact that the increase in annual road tax would cost more than any fuel savings!! Maybe they’ll make a Momentum version with a lower list price one day.

I personally think all Electric models (hyrid and plug in) should be except of the 40k extra road tax - would be more eco friendly but as you said - the extra on road tax loads more then fuel savings so you are penalised for being eco friendly.

My T5 fuel economy is bad, bot thanks to this forum I was prepared for that so it is not problem with me. Journeys over 5 miles often return 28-38mpg which I am very happy with. Journeys under 5 miles is a different thing all together (had one under 10mpg!).

Tartansporran wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:45 pm

gabes1982 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:27 pm You call 42 mpg poor consumption?
My petrol T5 R-Design laughs at that by returning 26mpg (10.8l/100km)

My xc40 car has traveled 3500km in the past 2 months, mainly urban trips with no real highway travel, with a mix of 95 & 98ron fuel. Fuel economy appears to be unchanged if even slightly better with 95 which is perplexing.

Apples and Pears gabes 1982! Do you read my post? You can not compare your T5 mainly urban trips to my D4 trips as described. My last car was a BMW 120d MSport which I pretty much caned. It returned 52mpg. If I drove it like my I am doing now it would return 60mpg plus.

The point it, this car has pretty poor fuel consumption, as does yours by the way. These cars may well be emissions friendly, but they are burning a lot of fossil fuels along the way.

I know this is a stupid question and I agree with your comments but how have they made an emissions friendly car that burns a lot of fuel? I thought burning more fuel would me more emissions.

Tartansporran wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:45 pm

gabes1982 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:27 pm You call 42 mpg poor consumption?
My petrol T5 R-Design laughs at that by returning 26mpg (10.8l/100km)

My xc40 car has traveled 3500km in the past 2 months, mainly urban trips with no real highway travel, with a mix of 95 & 98ron fuel. Fuel economy appears to be unchanged if even slightly better with 95 which is perplexing.

Apples and Pears gabes 1982! Do you read my post? You can not compare your T5 mainly urban trips to my D4 trips as described. My last car was a BMW 120d MSport which I pretty much caned. It returned 52mpg. If I drove it like my I am doing now it would return 60mpg plus.

The point it, this car has pretty poor fuel consumption, as does yours by the way. These cars may well be emissions friendly, but they are burning a lot of fossil fuels along the way.

I was just pointing out 42mpg is not really all that bad, all things considering, granted 42mpg is not great compared to the NEDC figure of 56.5 mpg.
I already knew Volvo, in general, had poor real-world fuel consumption from the numerous car reviews I've read and watched over the year, so I'm not too put off by it. Given my T5 Pole* has roughly the same power and fuel consumption as my old Megane RS265, but has an aerodynamic profile of a tin box, AWD, and 400kg more to carry... it's borderline acceptable.

I guess weight has much to do with the poor showing. Our cars have a kerb weight of anything between 1684kg to 1825kg depending on specification, which is at least a 100kg heavier than a comparable X1 for example.

First decent run out yesterday Christmas day averaged 40.7 mpg over 95.3 miles on mixed up and down mainly A roads, couple of fast dual carriageways. Current overall average on 184 miles is 38.1 mpg, reset the XC 40 before driving away from dodgy dealer.

I’m not too concerned about fuel usage. I know what I signed up for when I ordered it. Things will improve for our car I think but coming from a 3 litre V6 Shogun that returns about 16mpg, things can only get better.

My T3 shows 50 mpg today in a 100 mile journey, certainly never expected to see 50 mpg, more than happy.