Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Very Poor Fuel Economy_Volvo XC60

13»

Posts

  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 21,918
    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.
    That is a good summary, although I would add that pay was good to attract people from outside the region.
    I feel sorry for the locals on normal wages, caught in a high price area, and now affected by the knock on effect.
    Imagine London with a financial crisis for comparison, with 10-20% of the staff being laid off.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,674
    RideOnTime wrote:
    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.
    Yep, that's pretty much what I put in a Kia Carens (can seat 7 at a pinch) that has so far done about 9,000 miles at just under 50mpg. Tows a 1.5 tonne caravan quite well too.
    When we bought it we really wanted 4WD - the Octavia 4X4 it replaced was a beast, 4WD does help with a caravan, and we live in the country up a hill where wet, muddy lanes are an everyday fact of life and snow and ice are common at this time of year (snow lying in my garden continuously for 10 days now). But we wanted 7 seats, and the 7-seater 4X4 we fancied (Kia Sorento) would have set us back about £3K more for the basic model than we paid for the top-range (only cos we wanted the more powerful engine, caravan again) Carens, and the running costs would have been a lot worse: even the claimed fuel economy figure was only something like 40, goodness knows what it would have been in real life. We decided we could manage without the 4WD.

    TLDR:
    you pays yer money and takes yer choice.
  • RideOnTimeRideOnTime Posts: 4,712
    Skoda Superb was definitely an option at time of purchase. The one at auction came up after. Just luck of the draw what order they come in.
  • debelidebeli Posts: 583
    I have now seen a television advertisement for the vehicle in question. It is clear to me where the OP went wrong.

    The intended use of the XC60 is carrying surfing equipment to and from the beach in the hours of darkness.

    I believe these vehicles return quite good fuel economy when used as intended.
  • RideOnTimeRideOnTime Posts: 4,712
    Debeli wrote:
    I have now seen a television advertisement for the vehicle in question. It is clear to me where the OP went wrong.

    The intended use of the XC60 is carrying surfing equipment to and from the beach in the hours of darkness.

    I believe these vehicles return quite good fuel economy when used as intended.

    Yes as I live in Stafford the most inland place in the country...
  • Managed to get 46 mpg recently... the manufacturer quotes 48... getting there... :mrgreen:
  • StillGoingStillGoing Posts: 5,207
    RideOnTime wrote:
    Sorry to raise such an issue here - I should register with Petrolheads or the RAC but I can't be bothered.

    Just to anyone who might have a bit of car/engine/performance knowledge...

    I have a Volvo XC60 - its 4 years old and I have had it 3 months.
    My average fuel economy is 36.7 mpg.
    This seems very poor.
    The figures suggest I should get 47 mpg.
    What's wrong?
    It is a Diesel 2.0l and has a drivE badge.
    I know we have been driving in urban conditions but even so we've had some longer runs.
    Anyone got advice?

    Probably been answered already but. Official fuel consumption figures are obtained via bench tests meaning you will never achieve them. The manufacturers have asked to stop doing it this way and to be able to provide more realistic figures for their buyers, but the powers that be have said no. The reasoning for the no is supposedly so that all consumption figures are obtained the same way with no outside factors that may increase or decrease the figures achieved.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • debelidebeli Posts: 583
    Back in my youth (in the days of carburettors feeding OHV engines driving through four-speed boxes) there was an annual event sponsored by Total Oil. It was called The Total Economy Drive (or similar).

    Various journalists, industry folk and the like would gain the best possible MPG over a given route and prizes were given to the best result in each category. It was largely hokum. The wins went to the drivers who could coast the best, pump the tyres up the most and take the most unnecessary gubbins out of the car.

    In the 70s, the cheapest model in a range would have super-skinny tyres and only one exterior mirror... so it was the ideal weapon for these tests.

    The manufacturer of the 'winning' car in each category would splash its result all over the press in the following weeks. It was (largely) bunkum. Everyone knew it was.

    We are told repeatedly in the press (by Honest John and others) that official economy figures are bunkum. Of course they are. As are broadband speeds ('up to...') and loan costs ('typically as low as 2750%') and many other data used in sales literature.

    There are cars which offer good fuel economy and cars which don't. Anyone trying to achieve good figures might start by inflating their tyres as for a high-speed run with a heavy load. They might then remove from the car all the crisp wrappers under the seats to reduce mass. But the key thing is to drive with a wafer-light right foot. Leave the (guideline only) computer display on 'Current Consumption' and see what happens to your MPG when you hoof it off the line or 'take a run' at gradients. It's just like a bicycle. Uphill uses a lot of puff, downhill uses none and hard acceleration is hurty. Why would a car be any different?

    Thank you. I need another cup of tea before I get on with my busy day.
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,674
    True, but I've found the key isn't just a light right foot - the real secret of good fuel economy is never, ever slow down for anything. By keeping your speed up around corners, across roundabouts and t junctions, you don't have to use energy to get up to speed again. And don't forget the side benefit - the faster you cross a major road at a junction, the less time you spend on it and the smaller the chance you'll hit someone else. Win win.
Sign In or Register to comment.