Very Poor Fuel Economy_Volvo XC60

crescent

I have a BMW X1 - a similar car, similar size and also a 2.0L diesel. I am also getting around 37mpg around town but manage about 50mpg on a long motorway drive. As someone said above, the figures are measured on a rolling road with no wind resistance etc and optimised conditions which are nigh on impossible and impractical to drive a car under. My last car, also a BMW was, quite literally, miles away from the quoted figures. It allows for a comparison but rarely achievable.
Someone once told me that if you imagine the brake pedal operates a valve that drains the fuel tank then you will become a more economical driver. Not quite sure how that equates but probably something to do with anticipation and slowing and accelerating less severely.

captain_chaos

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Focus 1.6 petrol 41 mpg driving carefully. Previously had diesel engines which regularly ran at 50-53. 37 on a diesel engine is low... .any trouble with the DPF? The engine is managed to keep it hot, so if you don't, it will overshoot fuel in the exhaust to help burn the soot... you notice it because it revs higher when stationary, fuel consumption goes crazy for a few minutes and the exhaust stinks of burnt oil like hell

"The engine is managed to keep it hot" - No this is incorrect. The engine management system operates "normally" most of the the time but models (predicts) the soot loading and will then take actions to regenerate (burn off) the carbon and soot that has been collected on the filter. There are 2 main strategies for this regeneration depending on the manufacturers decision.

On some vehicles the regeneration will be initiated primarily by late injection of fuel and hence elevating the exhaust temperature.

The other mode, as has been used by Ford (not sure if they still do), is to use some form of "activator" that encourages regeneration chemically - I believe that for Ford vehicles, once the DPF light comes on then then the DPF needs changing along with the fluid needing refilling (as well as resetting the ECU diagnostics).

Most systems also have a differential pressure transducer across the DPF to be sure it doesn't block if the model incorrectly predicts the loading rate

The management of the "chemical plant" that is a diesel after-treatment system is extremely complicated and difficult and certainly earlier vehicles probably had a much higher warranty and service issue than more recent models as the engineering teams get to grips with the way people drive vehicles

pblakeney

Captain Chaos wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Focus 1.6 petrol 41 mpg driving carefully. Previously had diesel engines which regularly ran at 50-53. 37 on a diesel engine is low... .any trouble with the DPF? The engine is managed to keep it hot, so if you don't, it will overshoot fuel in the exhaust to help burn the soot... you notice it because it revs higher when stationary, fuel consumption goes crazy for a few minutes and the exhaust stinks of burnt oil like hell

"The engine is managed to keep it hot" - No this is incorrect. The engine management system operates "normally" most of the the time but models (predicts) the soot loading and will then take actions to regenerate (burn off) the carbon and soot that has been collected on the filter. There are 2 main strategies for this regeneration depending on the manufacturers decision.

On some vehicles the regeneration will be initiated primarily by late injection of fuel and hence elevating the exhaust temperature.

The other mode, as has been used by Ford (not sure if they still do), is to use some form of "activator" that encourages regeneration chemically - I believe that for Ford vehicles, once the DPF light comes on then then the DPF needs changing along with the fluid needing refilling (as well as resetting the ECU diagnostics).

Most systems also have a differential pressure transducer across the DPF to be sure it doesn't block if the model incorrectly predicts the loading rate

The management of the "chemical plant" that is a diesel after-treatment system is extremely complicated and difficult and certainly earlier vehicles probably had a much higher warranty and service issue than more recent models as the engineering teams get to grips with the way people drive vehicles

I think that I will stick with petrol engines. :shock:

ugo.santalucia

I hated my DPF fitted diesel. Basically the computer decides when to start a "cleaning cycle" , during which it burns an insane amount of fuel and produces fumes that stunk of burnt oil and after X cleaning cycles it decides the oil is waste... the last interval between services was 3500 miles, which is frankly ridiculous. So glad I am back to petrol

BelgianBeerGeek

mpatts wrote:

In my experience all cars do 'about' 30-35mpg.

On a long run a diesel will do more, whereas petrol won't stray much from this.

In other words, I generally ignore fuel economy when it comes to buying a car (this is as I do about 5k a year).

Me too. Plus I drive like an undertaker.

RideOnTime

bianchimoon wrote:

arran77 wrote:

RideOnTime wrote:

arran77 wrote:

jordan_217 wrote:

You also bought the wrong car to be now 'complaining' about economy ;-)

Exactly, huge lump of Swedish tank in poor fuel economy shocker, whatever next

Look at the airbags on that.....the Swedish were always into their safety

Ulrika 's a fine TV personality, but she has her knockers

Back in the day.

pblakeney

RideOnTime wrote:

Back in the day.

That is where I prefer to remember them being.

bernithebiker

Many of the 'E' model cars (or Blue with VW) are sold with thin hard eco tyres to get their stated economy.

When they wear out and you replace them with normal tyres, economy will suffer.

I did once get 59mpg on a 90km round trip from our Honda CRV 2,2 diesel. (Best quoted mpg is something like 48). However, that was taking extreme measures such as extra high psi in the tyres, almost no braking at all (roundabouts taken at speed), coasting, plus also occasional engine off coasting, (only if you're confident, this one!)

debeli

1. You've bought a car whose primary function is little to do with fuel efficiency, whatever the badges may say.

2. You use it largely (by your own admission) in a traffic environment that will further worsen its consumption.

3. It is essentially a fashion item or its manufacture is a function of motoring fashion and you've bought into it. That's fine; it's probably a lovely thing, but to complain about the fuel economy of an SUV is akin to moaning about the editorial line of Playboy. That's not what it was ever about.

4. If you Reeelly (REEELLY) want to optimise your MPG (or L/100km), then leave the trip computr display on 'Current Consumption' or whatever Volvo calls it. This will give you a reasonable - if not massively accurate - reading of your consumption. You'll see the times when a quick squirt away from the lights or up a steep slope or past a slower driver will gut punch your fuel use down into the teens or lower. Drive as if you're trying not to wake an angry bear sleeping under the loud pedal, and things will get better.

There are vehicles that will offer the performance, capacity, comfort and 'practicality' of an XC60 and consume far less fuel. They may not make as much visual impact on the school run, so they may not appeal as much.

jordan_217

I personally don't see the point of compact SUV's/'crossovers'. Most conventional hatchbacks/estates offer the same/more interior and boot space and cost significantly less to buy and run. I don't like to use the phrase, but it does summarize it well, they're 'lifestyle vehicles'.

That is not to say they don't look nice, I think there's a few really good looking ones out there at the moment and some even drive well too, not like the suspension is based on John Prescotts 3rd chin.

arran77

jordan_217 wrote:

I personally don't see the point of compact SUV's/'crossovers'. Most conventional hatchbacks/estates offer the same/more interior and boot space and cost significantly less to buy and run. I don't like to use the phrase, but it does summarize it well, they're 'lifestyle vehicles'.

Owners of these vehicles think they have to have them on the driveway to keep up with the neighbors, and besides, what other vehicle is suitable for taking Tarquin and Jemima to school

bompington

arran77 wrote:

jordan_217 wrote:

I personally don't see the point of compact SUV's/'crossovers'. Most conventional hatchbacks/estates offer the same/more interior and boot space and cost significantly less to buy and run. I don't like to use the phrase, but it does summarize it well, they're 'lifestyle vehicles'.

Owners of these vehicles think they have to have them on the driveway to keep up with the neighbors, and besides, what other vehicle is suitable for taking Tarquin and Jemima to school

That's being a bit unfair on them. On the narrow, muddy (and at this time of year snowy and icy) lanes round us, they do serve a genuine purpose - in a large 4X4 it's so much easier to intimidate oncoming small hatchbacks into driving into the ditch or up the bank to avoid you as you cruise by up the middle of the road.

cedargreen

[quote="RideOnTime Having had a V70 for the previous 7 years I perhaps need to slow down a bit. [/quote]

So you bought a big heavy car and you drive it quite fast and you're not happy with its fuel consumption. Just confirms my suspicion that the most vocal complaints about fuel prices come from those driving huge SUVs everywhere at more than the speed limit.
Just buy a smaller car and drive a bit more slowly. In addition to spending less on fuel you'll be making a small move in the direction of not hogging grotesque amounts of limited resources just to gratify your need to make up for deficiencies in other departments, or keep up with the neighbours or maintain a certain 'lifestyle'.
I'm not sure how, in a small island with narrow crowded roads and diminishing oil supplies, we've managed to get to the point where large numbers of people think that buying an American style SUV is a sensible choice. But hey, just carry on- if we need more oil we can always invade another muslim country using drone strikes, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells. And we'll be exporting freedom and democracy at the same time, so everyone wins*

*I'm not sure about this bit

jordan_217

cedargreen wrote:

[quote="RideOnTime Having had a V70 for the previous 7 years I perhaps need to slow down a bit.

So you bought a big heavy car and you drive it quite fast and you're not happy with its fuel consumption. Just confirms my suspicion that the most vocal complaints about fuel prices come from those driving huge SUVs everywhere at more than the speed limit.
Just buy a smaller car and drive a bit more slowly. In addition to spending less on fuel you'll be making a small move in the direction of not hogging grotesque amounts of limited resources just to gratify your need to make up for deficiencies in other departments, or keep up with the neighbours or maintain a certain 'lifestyle'.
I'm not sure how, in a small island with narrow crowded roads and diminishing oil supplies, we've managed to get to the point where large numbers of people think that buying an American style SUV is a sensible choice. But hey, just carry on- if we need more oil we can always invade another muslim country using drone strikes, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells. And we'll be exporting freedom and democracy at the same time, so everyone wins*

*I'm not sure about this bit[/quote]

Invading muslim countries is so 90's. We don't need to invade the Falkland Islands w'ere already there - loads of oil!

mpatts

arran77 wrote:

jordan_217 wrote:

I personally don't see the point of compact SUV's/'crossovers'. Most conventional hatchbacks/estates offer the same/more interior and boot space and cost significantly less to buy and run. I don't like to use the phrase, but it does summarize it well, they're 'lifestyle vehicles'.

Owners of these vehicles think they have to have them on the driveway to keep up with the neighbors, and besides, what other vehicle is suitable for taking Tarquin and Jemima to school

To be fair, with the rear seats down on my new AMG A45 there is almost as much space as in the back of the wifes ML63. So, a hatchback does the job just as well.





(for the avoidance of doubt, I am kidding)

jordan_217

mpatts wrote:

arran77 wrote:

jordan_217 wrote:

I personally don't see the point of compact SUV's/'crossovers'. Most conventional hatchbacks/estates offer the same/more interior and boot space and cost significantly less to buy and run. I don't like to use the phrase, but it does summarize it well, they're 'lifestyle vehicles'.

Owners of these vehicles think they have to have them on the driveway to keep up with the neighbors, and besides, what other vehicle is suitable for taking Tarquin and Jemima to school

To be fair, with the rear seats down on my new AMG A45 there is almost as much space as in the back of the wifes ML63. So, a hatchback does the job just as well.






(for the avoidance of doubt, I am kidding)

Oooh I like them!

arran77

jordan_217 wrote:

mpatts wrote:

arran77 wrote:

jordan_217 wrote:

I personally don't see the point of compact SUV's/'crossovers'. Most conventional hatchbacks/estates offer the same/more interior and boot space and cost significantly less to buy and run. I don't like to use the phrase, but it does summarize it well, they're 'lifestyle vehicles'.

Owners of these vehicles think they have to have them on the driveway to keep up with the neighbors, and besides, what other vehicle is suitable for taking Tarquin and Jemima to school

To be fair, with the rear seats down on my new AMG A45 there is almost as much space as in the back of the wifes ML63. So, a hatchback does the job just as well.






(for the avoidance of doubt, I am kidding)

Oooh I like them!

ML63, now that's a proper yummy mummy motor

ben@31

Hey petrol will soon be 90p a litre according to some press.

Not so good news if you work in our oil industry though. I heard the North Sea is running at a loss and jobs could go

pblakeney

ben@31 wrote:

Hey petrol will soon be 90p a litre according to some press.

Not so good news if you work in our oil industry though. I heard the North Sea is running at a loss and jobs could go

The job cutting started in August. Oil industry as a whole, not specific to the North Sea.
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2014/08/0 ... -sea-jobs/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/ ... QN20141210
"The British oil major said it was also considering deeper cuts to its 2015 budget beyond the $1-$2 billion reduction already announced in October, as a result of the oil slump."
Do try and keep up.

ugo.santalucia

Did they hire when petrol was at 135 p a litre?

It's funny how profits are quickly disposed of in the pockets of shareholders and as soon as there is a slight dip in the market the redundancy round kicks in. One would think that massive companies like BP and Shell can take a bit of a rough ride, but no... they are in fact more vulnerable than your local corner shop

pblakeney

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Did they hire when petrol was at 135 p a litre?

It's funny how profits are quickly disposed of in the pockets of shareholders and as soon as there is a slight dip in the market the redundancy round kicks in. One would think that massive companies like BP and Shell can take a bit of a rough ride, but no... they are in fact more vulnerable than your local corner shop

Yes they were.
I supplied services to the industry and it was quite a strange summer.
One month the phone was ringing off the hook with demand. The next month there was rumours. The next month the phone went silent and people were laid off. The next month I settled into early retirement. All I hear now is doom and gloom.
Here is a link to an industry website - http://oilpro.com
I get news updates every day, and every day there is an announcement of hundreds, if not thousands, of lay offs.

On the other hand, there will be a massive turn around once the price rises.
For what it is worth, I believe that this is caused by low cost shale oil and fracking in the States, and a way to punish Russia.

Edit:- Is the word f-r-a-c-k-i-n-g really not allowed?

jordan_217

Some platforms in the North Sea sector are making losses of £1 million per day just from being in operation. My old man works on a rig that was making (profit) £8 million per day at it's peak, a few years ago. Oil companies are great to work for when the sun is shining but you're quickly disposed of when the profits take a hit.

With the majority of workers being contractors the immediate future looks bleak for a lot of people, with 'restructuring' already taking place.

Not a nice time for people with kids to feed and mortgages to pay. (Not everyone who works in the oil industry has Sheikh as a forename!)

RideOnTime

jordan_217 wrote:

My old man works on a rig

Titter

bernithebiker

Oil is looking too cheap now to me.

I was in the supermarket the other day buying fizzy water. Badoit was 58 centimes a litre.

I just bought 1000 litres of heating oil for 59 centimes a litre.

The former is bottled at source in France and transported within France.

The latter has been explored, discovered, pumped from the ground and heavily taxed, then transported to a refinery, refined and then taxed again, then transported a few more times....

You can then burn it and get 38 Mega Joules of energy per litre, or use it to power your diesel engine. Good stuff for about 45p.......

RideOnTime

bernithebiker wrote:

Oil is looking too cheap now to me.

I was in the supermarket the other day buying fizzy water. Badoit was 58 centimes a litre.

I just bought 1000 litres of heating oil for 59 centimes a litre.

The former is bottled at source in France and transported within France.

The latter has been explored, discovered, pumped from the ground and heavily taxed, then transported to a refinery, refined and then taxed again, then transported a few more times....

You can then burn it and get 38 Mega Joules of energy per litre, or use it to power your diesel engine. Good stuff for about 45p.......

Agree. There are too many Chav's on the road. Get them off.

arran77

RideOnTime wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Oil is looking too cheap now to me.

I was in the supermarket the other day buying fizzy water. Badoit was 58 centimes a litre.

I just bought 1000 litres of heating oil for 59 centimes a litre.

The former is bottled at source in France and transported within France.

The latter has been explored, discovered, pumped from the ground and heavily taxed, then transported to a refinery, refined and then taxed again, then transported a few more times....

You can then burn it and get 38 Mega Joules of energy per litre, or use it to power your diesel engine. Good stuff for about 45p.......

Agree. There are too many Chav's on the road. Get them off.

If we got rid of all the chav's and Chelsea Tractors off the roads the world would be a better place :P

ben@31

bernithebiker wrote:

Oil is looking too cheap now to me.

I was in the supermarket the other day buying fizzy water. Badoit was 58 centimes a litre.

I just bought 1000 litres of heating oil for 59 centimes a litre.

The former is bottled at source in France and transported within France.

The latter has been explored, discovered, pumped from the ground and heavily taxed, then transported to a refinery, refined and then taxed again, then transported a few more times....

You can then burn it and get 38 Mega Joules of energy per litre, or use it to power your diesel engine. Good stuff for about 45p.......

That is not saying much, I can not think of anything that is such a total rip off as bottled water.

Some bottled water has a 280,000% mark up !

In true "Only Fools and Horses" comedy style, Tesco's own brand bottled water actually was tap water from Yorkshire.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 02650.html

P.S. wtf is happening with the login on this forum. It's now taking me multiple attempts to login then once logged in, it keeps tripping out again.

stoveman

Had a Discovery 3 with expedition roof rack fitted and was lucky to get more than 27 to the gallon.

Currently got a laguna 2.0 sport estate,averaging just under 40 to the gallon,much better but would have the Discovery back in an instant.

meanredspider

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Did they hire when petrol was at 135 p a litre?

It's funny how profits are quickly disposed of in the pockets of shareholders and as soon as there is a slight dip in the market the redundancy round kicks in. One would think that massive companies like BP and Shell can take a bit of a rough ride, but no... they are in fact more vulnerable than your local corner shop

Pay in Aberdeen was very good because the oil industry simply couldn't hire enough people (several of my neighbours are oil people). Whilst I have every sympathy for those contractors losing their jobs, it comes with the territory and the sensible ones will have saved for this and should be fine. Of course, many won't have saved believing that the golden goose will continue to lay eggs.

RideOnTime

cedargreen wrote:

[quote="RideOnTime Having had a V70 for the previous 7 years I perhaps need to slow down a bit.

So you bought a big heavy car and you drive it quite fast and you're not happy with its fuel consumption. Just confirms my suspicion that the most vocal complaints about fuel prices come from those driving huge SUVs everywhere at more than the speed limit.
Just buy a smaller car and drive a bit more slowly. In addition to spending less on fuel you'll be making a small move in the direction of not hogging grotesque amounts of limited resources just to gratify your need to make up for deficiencies in other departments, or keep up with the neighbours or maintain a certain 'lifestyle'.
I'm not sure how, in a small island with narrow crowded roads and diminishing oil supplies, we've managed to get to the point where large numbers of people think that buying an American style SUV is a sensible choice. But hey, just carry on- if we need more oil we can always invade another muslim country using drone strikes, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells. And we'll be exporting freedom and democracy at the same time, so everyone wins*

*I'm not sure about this bit[/quote]



:roll:
Yes it's all very well riding an electric moped or roller-skating to the shops but I have got 1 teenager, 1 12 year old and 1 7 year old and a wife. We like camping and we like going to France. I would have as smaller car as I could possibly get away with and I add trailer, box as required but there are limits.

If I am on my own 9/10 I use my bike, walk or get the train.