PDA

View Full Version : Disappointing MY08 XC70



vtie
08-27-2007, 03:47 AM
A little comparison:

MY06 2.5T XC70 geartronic:
0-100km/h in 8.5s
Fuel consumption combined cycle: 11.1 L/100km
CO2 emission: 266 g/km

MY08 3.2 XC70 geartronic:
0-100km/h in 8.6s
Fuel consumption combined cycle: 11.4 L/100km
CO2 emission: 272 g/km

What is going on here? Weight difference can't explain that (1728 vs. 1744 kg)
Volvo/Ford seems to be lacking any technological advancement in terms of efficiency. On the contrary.
Compared to what e.g. BMW has achieved with it's EfficientDynamics program in the last couple of years, the difference is simply mind blowing. Look up the efficiency specs for the MY08 BMW's and be prepared for a shocking experience.

On the diesel side, they are totally missing the boat as well by still only offering the 185hp D5 as the only choice. They desperately need to have a higher spec diesel engine if they don't want to totally lose the European premium market.

I am starting to look for a replacement for my XC70, but I don't think it will be a Volvo again. They are slipping behind from a technology perspective. Maybe I will buy a BMW.

philosophicaldreamer
08-27-2007, 04:27 PM
Well . . . let's hope that BMW will buy Volvo from Ford so that Volvo can start moving forward again.

Ta-ta, j.

griso4r
08-28-2007, 03:22 AM
I think volvo tried to anticipate as much as possible the official presentation of the 70 series and for this reason there are no real new solutions in the engines . In addition to what vtie is saying , as i already mentioned in a former mail, the d5 and the 3.2 are not respecting the euro 5 anti pollution standards. this means an immediate depreciation of the current versions when, very probably next year, the euro 5 engines will be adopted. While waiting for t6 and d6, the perfect engines for xc70, volvo could have at least increased the hp to 200-210 in the d5 which anyway remains a very good engine.
Many reasons to wait for at least a year before thinking to buy a new xc, but also many reasons to wait before buying a bmw.
ciao

vtie
08-28-2007, 08:22 AM
I think volvo tried to anticipate as much as possible the official presentation of the 70 series and for this reason there are no real new solutions in the engines .
While waiting for t6 and d6, the perfect engines for xc70, volvo could have at least increased the hp to 200-210 in the d5 which anyway remains a very good engine.


I hope you are right, but they will need to change things fast and drastically. Even the "all-new" T6 is ridiculously bad when it comes to efficiency. Let's have a look at comparable offerings:

MY08 Volvo V70 T6 AWD
0-100km/h : 7.2s
fuel consumption combined cycle : 11.3L/100km
CO2 emission: 270g/km

2007 BMW 530xi Touring (AWD, automatic gearbox)
0-100km/h: 7.1s
fuel consumption combined cycle: 8.4L/100km
CO2 emission: 201g/km

That means that the similar Volvo consumes 35% more fuel! I like fast cars just as anybody else, but I do care a bit about the environment and efficiency. To me, this is simply unacceptable.
The D5 is indeed still a fine diesel engine, but nowhere up to what Audi, Mercedes and BMW have in house these days.

Wake up Ford/Volvo before it's too late!

XCelerate
08-28-2007, 01:35 PM
:confused:
Wake up Ford/Volvo before it's too late!

According to a Dutch Government Publication
http://www.vrom.nl/get.asp?file=docs/publicaties/6354.pdf
that aims to objectively compare fuel consumption and CO2 emisions of new cars, the numbers for the BMW 530Xi (AWD, automatic gearbox)
are:
fuel consumption: 10.3L/100km
CO2 emission: 249g/km

Volvo XC90 3.2 Geartronic (5 seater):
fuel consumption: 11.6L/100km
CO2 emission: 277g/km

Volvo XC70 2.5T Geartronic:
fuel consumption: 11.1L/100km
CO2 emission: 266g/km

The new XC70 3.2 is not in the publication. But the 3.2 is more efficient than the 2.5T, and the XC70 is lighter than the XC90, so I suspect that the fuel consumption is more or less comparable.

Yes, the BMW has some more power and is a bit more efficient, but imho the figures are not as dramatic as Vtie is suggesting. BTW, BMW say on their website that their figures represent the usage of RON 98 fuel, and that lower octane (91 or 95 RON) fuel results in somewhat less power, higher consumption and emissions. So BMW, is probably overstating the consumption/emission figures on their website. Marketing, right? I am not aware that Volvo's data are based on RON 95 or 98 fuel.

Anyway, all that really counts is real life data. No way that a typical BMW driver will use less fuel driving his 530Xi compared to a Volvo XC70 3.2 or even V70T6 driver. BWMs are sportier, have great road holding and that inspires sporty driving. Sporty driving means high fuel consumption. A Volvo XC70 is not a sporty car. So, what does all this mean? Nothing. A 3.0 or a 3.2 6 banger is never efficient. If it is efficiency you're looking for, get a Smart fortwo or a new Fiat 500 Jtd.

Also, I think that fast depreciation of euro 4 compliant cars when euro 5 cars will be introduced is pure nonsense. E.g., there is no noticable difference in market value of Volvo diesel cars with or without particle filters.

This is just my 2 eurocents worth opinion. Ciao a tutti, from Pergola (PU).

griso4r
08-28-2007, 11:59 PM
Also, I think that fast depreciation of euro 4 compliant cars when euro 5 cars will be introduced is pure nonsense. E.g., there is no noticable difference in market value of Volvo diesel cars with or without particle filters.

This is just my 2 eurocents worth opinion. Ciao a tutti, from Pergola (PU).


[/QUOTE]I agree with you that the differences between euro 4 and 5 are not so dramatic. but this is my experience: i bought my current xc in between the shift from euro 3 and 4 and the dealer told me that it was almost impossible to sell a euro 3 car, this because many people was convinced that in the short period only the euro 4 cars could be allowed to drive in many cities. worse for second hand cars, the price that the dealers are paying for under euro 4 models are ridicolous. unfortunately anti pollution is becoming a marketing thing to reduce the commercial life of a car. this imho of course.
MMm, i don't know Pergola but i was in Riccione since few days ago, not so far i suppose. i'll keep my eyes open for an xc with dutch plate. watch out you're on my territory..;)
ciao

vtie
08-29-2007, 12:39 AM
:confused:
According to a Dutch Government Publication ...


I am afraid that the the numbers you quoted are older data (perhaps 2006 BMW models, your brochure doesn't specify the MY). Before the EfficientDynamics program, which drastically increased efficiency. The numbers I quoted were for the 2007 BMW models from, amongst other sources, http://www.autoweek.nl.

A 2007 BMW 530xi AWD automatic consumes 8.4L/100km combined cycle (93/116/EC), with an emission of 201g/km. This is a number you can find in various sources, including the online BMW spec sheets.

A 2008 Volvo V70 T6 AWD automatic consumes 11.3L/100km combined cycle (93/116/EC), with an emission of 270g/km. This is an engine comparable to the 530xi. If you want to compare against a 3.2 Volvo engine, you should look at the 525.

Btw BMW's are known to have a real-life consumption that is not far above the factory specs.

And yes, I want fast cars and I want them to be as efficient as possible, and I will shop for that. What's wrong with that? BMW shows that it is perfectly possible, and other premium brands are following (Mercedes and Audi). Scandinavian brands (Volvo and Saab) are totally immobile in this respect. I suspect that one of the reasons is that they are both owned by American companies (Ford and GM), where fuel efficiency is not nearly as important as in Europe.

budrichard
08-29-2007, 01:17 AM
My belief is that the only reason Volvo changed the standard engine in the 08XC was to reduce cost by eliminating the low pressure turbo. My 03XC engine works fine, mileage is good for large vehicle. No other reason to change engine to a LESS efficient engine other than cost savings.
No new XC fo me unless Diesel!-Dick

XCelerate
08-29-2007, 12:47 PM
:D I just don't believe in miracles.

I agree that BMW engines are broadly regarded as among the best engines available. Looking for the maximum power with reasonable fuel consumption is OK too. It is a fact that the BMW 530xi requires 98RON fuel, and the Volvo requires 95RON fuel. So better economy comes at a price, because high octane fuel is more expensive (and not even available everywhere). So, running on 95RON or lower octane fuel the BMW will use more fuel and provide less power. How much? Not that much, maybe.

These tests (found with Google) show that real life fuel economy is not all that great for the BMW 530xi (sedan):

Canadian Driver: http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/cc/07_530xi.htm 11.5L/100km
Car Pages: http://www.carpages.ca/go/roadtest/2007_bmw_530xi_road_test.aspx Observed Fuel Economy: 13.9 L/100 km
The Auto Channel: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/01/04/033050.html 21.3 mpg test=11,04L/100km
Consumer Guide Automotive: http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2007-bmw-5-series-5.htm Test automatic-transmission 530xi averaged 18.8 mpg (=12.5l/100km). No opportunity to measure with other models. All engines require premium-grade fuel.

What does all this really mean? Still not all that much. I agree the Volvo 3.2 en 3.0T6 engines are not that impressive compared to the alternatives provided by the competition and that their fuel economy is not that impressive either. And, real life fuel consumption of the Volvo could be worse (I will let you know). But, let's not exaggerate. Anyone else?

Boarder
08-29-2007, 02:49 PM
vtie,

You are absolutely right about BMW's increased efficiency. My 06 530xi with 3.0 liter inline 6 (255 HP) gets well above the stated mileage from BMW. Highway it gets 31 mpg! After initial acceleration the mileage jumps into the 40 mpg range while cruising.

Love both the XC and 530xi but BMW has obviously being work hard in this area

Filibuster
08-29-2007, 03:10 PM
Vtie, You're absolutely right that it is not very well done by volvo to increase the fuel consumption for the new xc70. I think they should have kept the 2.5T engine as an option and refined it. If they would have worked a bit on the aerodynamics and shaved of 50 or 100 kg of fat I think they could have presented a significant reduction of fuel consuption.

I actually think they went for the 6 pot to measure up with the Audi Allroads organ size.

The numbers BMW state are impressive but as you see in real life tests (previous post) you would not come close to those numbers. The driving cycles for the official fuel consuption tests are done with trained drivers that drive the test cycle extremely frugaly. Actually if you replace the driver with a computer which just drives with a PID algorithm the consuption goes up with 5-10 percent.

BTW I checked the fuel consuption of the 330 xi compared with the 530 xi and to my surprise the 330 xi has a much higher consumtion. 9.8 l / 100 km vs. 8.5 for the 530xi. Strange...:confused:

vtie
08-30-2007, 12:12 AM
:D I just don't believe in miracles.
These tests (found with Google) show that real life fuel economy is not all that great for the BMW 530xi (sedan):


Real life tests (especially by car review magazines) are always much higher than the official specs. This is true for BMW, Volvo, and virtually any other brand.

Make sure you are seated down when you read this test (http://www.autozine.nl/text/537.html) for the new V70 T6 (not even XC70!). They measured a mind-blowing 18.5L/100km when driven in a sporty way (which is what reviewers typically do). In the summary, they stated "vert thirsty T6 engine" as one of the negative points.

However you look at it, Volvo is one of the few (together with Saab) premium European auto brands that have managed to, for the same performance, increase fuel consumption in their new generation cars rather than decrease. I really wonder what they will do with the upcoming maximum 140g/km brand-averaged CO2 emission. They will hit that like a brick wall.

vtie
08-30-2007, 12:14 AM
BTW I checked the fuel consuption of the 330 xi compared with the 530 xi and to my surprise the 330 xi has a much higher consumtion. 9.8 l / 100 km vs. 8.5 for the 530xi. Strange...:confused:

They are in the middle of a big change through their entire model range (called EfficientDynamics). The adaptations on the 5 series have happened earlier than on the 3 series. The numbers for the 2008 3 series model will be totally different

XCelerate
08-30-2007, 03:14 PM
I am afraid that the numbers you quoted are older data (perhaps 2006 BMW models, your brochure doesn't specify the MY). Before the EfficientDynamics program, which drastically increased efficiency. The numbers I quoted were for the 2007 BMW models

I did some more research, and the newest 530xi went from an E label to a C label car in the Netherlands, which represents a more efficient car relative to similar models. This is a remarkable improvement indeed. This can be checked on BMW's website:
http://www.bmw.nl/nl/nl/index_narrowband.html

Now back to Volvo, I don't like BMW's anyway.

I am writing the message below taking into account the risk of boring you all to death. This is probably interesting for freaks only, like me.

The data in the first message of this thread could be wrong. The MY06 2.5T data could be based on the EU 93/116 standard (the one BMW is using according to Vtie), the MY08 3.2 data are based on the EU 99/100 standard. These standards are based on different EU Directives that prescribe different test cycles! The EU 99/100 test cycle shows higher CO2 emissions for the same car compared to the EU 93/116 standard (so the BMW 530xi does not really compare to the Volvo V70 T6, also not because of the the RON 98 vs RON 95 difference ...).

Read footnote 15 in this EU publication I found:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2002/com2002_0693en01.pdf

I found the EU 93/116 data for the new 3.2 on the web. If you compare on the basis of EU 93/116 these would be the right figures:

MY06 2.5T XC70 geartronic:
0-100km/h in 8.5s
Fuel consumption combined cycle: 11.1 L/100km
CO2 emission: 266 g/km

MY08 3.2 XC70 geartronic:
0-100km/h in 8.6s
Fuel consumption combined cycle: 10.8 L/100km
CO2 emission: 258 g/km

Price list with EU 93/116 data for the XC70 3.2: http://nl.volvocars.be/NR/rdonlyres/CB8B711C-CFE9-49FE-9FFB-D954577C17A3/54116/XC70NLdef.pdf

Price list with EU 99/100 data for the XC70 3.2: http://www.volvocars.nl/NR/rdonlyres/4E366D97-E8DC-4E0A-9945-80D15DEF49CA/0/VOL00109_XC70_MY0867V7.pdf

So, is the new 3.2 more powerful and more fuel efficient than the 2.5T after all? Only if the MY06 2.5T data are based on EU 93/116. I found this french language price list that shows Vties numbers for the 2.5T in EU 93/116, so probably: yes.
Price list with EU 93/116 data for the 2.5T:http://www.volvocars.fr/NR/rdonlyres/DF85A98C-896C-4378-8CDD-FCC5FBD430F0/0/VOLVOXC70.pdf
However, if you compare notes on a 2.5T FWD and 3.2 FWD geartronic in the S80 the numbers are basicly the same (3.2 is quicker and a bit more efficient and 49kgs heavier). So is the 3.2 a real improvement? No, not if you look at the numbers only, but the 3.2 certainly is more refined and quiet. But according to this price list the 3.2 in the S80 is EURO 5 compliant, so why not in the XC70???! http://www.volvocars.nl/NR/rdonlyres/B32AB21E-F5D3-4FFC-969A-B8BEAADA1A87/0/S80_MY08_14_05_07_V8.pdf

So confusing all this stuff!

Conclusion? The 3.2 is too close to the 2.5T in almost every way, if you would only judge by the numbers.
I'm convinced that the 3.2 will not be a disappointment knowing it's quieter and smoother than the 2.5T.

vtie
08-31-2007, 01:09 AM
Yes, you got me overwhelmed with all those numbers! :D

Let's summarize:

1) The new 3.2 engine is very close to the old 2.5T, both in performance and fuel efficiency. This by itself is a problem, because other premium European brands managed a substantial increase in efficiency over the last years.

2) The new T6 engine is not nearly as efficient as some other modern 3L V6's. No data massage is going to help that!

3) My personal major problem: the highest-spec diesel engine is absolutely not up to what other premium brands offer.
A 2008 185hp V70 D5 geartronic consumes 7.4L/100km and does 0-100 in 9.4s
A 2007 286hp 535d Touring auto consumes 7.0L/100km and does 0-100 in 6.5s

Now if they only could offer that fine BMW 3L biturbo diesel engine in a XC70 package...

XCelerate
08-31-2007, 02:02 AM
:D

Description of Volvo's 280hp D6 engine:
http://www.frenchmarine.com/Product.aspx?PID=478&CID=82

... but it would be hard to fit it into a XC70. Sorry Vtie to be pulling your leg like this, but it would be a good idea indeed if Volvo would introduce a D6 for cars too. The 2.7 and 3.0 TDI engines in the Audi Allroad are great examples of powerful diesels that sell very well overhere.

JRL
08-31-2007, 08:35 PM
After driving about four S80 3.2's (same engine) I've some to the conclusion (and so has the general manager of my Volvo store) that this engine sucks and is not well mated to the transmission.
The last one I drove (today) had 5000 miles on it (broken in) but it kept "surging" and didn't run well under load (the others were all the same but new so I chalked it up to that, I was wrong).
The trans kefp hunting for gears and the entire package is not harmonious one bit
The T6 is great, wait a year for it

griso4r
09-03-2007, 12:33 AM
:D

Description of Volvo's 280hp D6 engine:
http://www.frenchmarine.com/Product.aspx?PID=478&CID=82

... but it would be hard to fit it into a XC70. Sorry Vtie to be pulling your leg like this, but it would be a good idea indeed if Volvo would introduce a D6 for cars too. The 2.7 and 3.0 TDI engines in the Audi Allroad are great examples of powerful diesels that sell very well overhere.well, vtie is right but actually he is taking as example bmw which is at the moment the top in engine innovation, no one is even close to them. audi only recently shifted to the common rail system and is trying to fill the gap (12 cyl in competitions also). the 2.7 tdi is not that far from the D5, same power with more cubes and cyl. but i've driven an A6 3.0 tdi and is really another planet compared with the d5, smoother, faster and very quiet, the fuel consumption is anyway quite higher we're talking about 10-11 km/l instead of the 14 for the D5. I'm convinced the D6 will be at the same level of the audi 3.0. at the moment the technical advantage of bmw is too high.
ciao

vtie
09-03-2007, 08:53 AM
well, vtie is right but actually he is taking as example bmw which is at the moment the top in engine innovation, no one is even close to them. audi only recently shifted to the common rail system and is trying to fill the gap (12 cyl in competitions also). the 2.7 tdi is not that far from the D5, same power with more cubes and cyl. but i've driven an A6 3.0 tdi and is really another planet compared with the d5, smoother, faster and very quiet, the fuel consumption is anyway quite higher we're talking about 10-11 km/l instead of the 14 for the D5. I'm convinced the D6 will be at the same level of the audi 3.0. at the moment the technical advantage of bmw is too high.
ciao

I guess you are right about bmw being at the top of engine innovation. However, Audi also has something in its sleeve: the new 240hp 3.0TDI. An engine with increased performance and drastically reduced fuel consumption. It's available right now in the new A5, and will gradually find its way through the entire range. In the new A5 quattro, it does 0-100km/h in 5.9s and consumes only 7.2L/100km combined cycle. Not bad for an car with permanent AWD!

Coutainville
09-27-2007, 05:54 AM
Hi
I read this article last week in the Sunday time, Jeremy Clarskon seems to prefer the old shape too...

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article2503695.ece

Cheers

Filibuster
09-29-2007, 11:18 AM
Volvo has not quite caught the Zeitgeist this time i think. The car looks rather good but in my opinion it is too big. Cars must get smarter for every new generation. It should be possible to optimize the packageing and make the car slightly smaller, lighter, stiffer but retaining or increasing the interior space and improving milage. Unfortunatly Volvo didn't roll down this road. The overhangs are too big. They should have cut off a few inches on the overhang in the front and perhaps also in the back and they should have made the car lighter and thus more fuel efficient.

birddog
09-30-2007, 06:30 PM
Volvo has not quite caught the Zeitgeist this time i think. The car looks rather good but in my opinion it is too big. Cars must get smarter for every new generation. It should be possible to optimize the packageing and make the car slightly smaller, lighter, stiffer but retaining or increasing the interior space and improving milage. Unfortunatly Volvo didn't roll down this road. The overhangs are too big. They should have cut off a few inches on the overhang in the front and perhaps also in the back and they should have made the car lighter and thus more fuel efficient.

I disagree on the criticisms of the MY08 XC70. Volvo already offers smaller automobiles and apparently will be offering other smaller variants on current models for those that prefer smaller sized motorcars. Most Volvo drivers I associate with drive the larger estates and saloons.

Filibuster
10-02-2007, 02:01 PM
I disagree on the criticisms of the MY08 XC70. Volvo already offers smaller automobiles and apparently will be offering other smaller variants on current models for those that prefer smaller sized motorcars. Most Volvo drivers I associate with drive the larger estates and saloons.

I understand your point.

You and your buddies are obviously Americans (and for Americans a car cannot get big enough) :)

I'm European, and driving a lot in a congested city I apreciate a more compact car. The old XC70 was big enough for me and I'm not thrilled with the increased weight, bulk and fuel consumption of the new car. (In Europe gas is about two dollars per liter - around 8 dollar the gallon.)