Do you really get 25 MPGs on the highway??? I don't. I get about 21.

[mapper]

This is really killing me. I've now put about 12k on the car, mostly trips. and I think my best tank of gas was 24mpg. My car has good tires inflated to 42psi cold, new air filter, fuel filter and plugs. I run 91 octane fuel, which is premium here. It runs perfectly, cruises smooth and has no codes. I just got an alignment after replacing a bad control arm and hoped the bad arm was causing a problem but my last 1500 mile trip was exactly the same 20.7 average. When I accelerate my RPMs rarely go over 2500 and NEVER go over 3k. My cruising RPMs are about 2800

I drive my car easy and usually beat what most people get in a particular model. That said, on my normal highway trip from Salt Lake to Bend, OR (done 3 times now in the XC) I get barely 21. I live in the West where speed limits are 75 so my standard highway cruising speed is about 80. I have read a bunch on here about folks getting mid, even upper, 20s for highway gas mileage. I was expected MUCH better than I'm getting. I have to drive extra carefullly (egg under the accelerator careful) to break 20 in mixed driving

Is there something wrong with my car or are those people getting mid to high 20s driving 55?

[bbbuzzy]

I think many people overstate their mileage, either accidentally or by design. Using a the MPG readout on the dash computer isn't necessarily reality, but when that number is in-line with what people want to believe, then they might accept it. People claiming high 20's should do the actual calculation: fill up at a station they use often on level ground with the same pump inserted to the same level of the fill nozzle. Drive the car normally for a few hundred miles, note the exact mileage, and go back to fill the tank exactly as before. Now record the exact amount of fuel used for the mileage and divide the total miles by the number of gallons used to calculate true MPG. Repeat at least two more times and average the calculated value. My XC runs about 20 MPG in mixed driving and around 22-23MPG on long highway trips. These numbers are in-line with the more recently corrected EPA numbers, as well as the original numbers on the Monroney label of the car.

[acools]

While I didn't apply the same level of effort, I think my last 4 years of driving has also been 20.x or low 21.x MPG.

Andres

[ericjp]

If I drive easy I get 26 on the highway. Mostly flat where I am at, and driving about 70. If you are driving 80, you are using gas a lot faster. Change the read out on your dash to show instantaneous mpg and watch how it changes going from 70 to 80.

[Leto Atreides II]

Are you using the computer's reported MPG or calculating yourself? I usually find the computer reports the MPG lower than what it actually is by about 2 MPG.

[sjonnie]

I live in the West where speed limits are 75 so my standard highway cruising speed is about 80.

I did a trip from Lincoln to Santa Fe, about 80mph all the way. Car got around 24mpg.

If you suspect something's not quite right you should get the engine hooked up to an OBDII reader and check your fuel trim.

[SLVRMDL]

I agree with bbuzzy about the MPG in the message center not being accurate. I've been keeping track of my MPG via an app on my iphone and the average is 22.5. My driving consists of city and highway (if you call bumper to bumper traffic highway traffic). I only use premium and the best I've gotten in the past 6 months in 25.3 and that was 80% highway driving between Detroit and Lansing.

[Astro14]

Concur with other posters: calculate manually before drawing a conclusion.

I find that anything on the roof kills my MPG. E.G: The T5 gets 26-28 on the highway in 70-80 MPH driving. Put the Yakima skybox on it, and I get 21, tops, at 70 MPH despite aerodynamic shape of the skybox.

[mapper]

I use the on board computer and the pen and paper method. Sometimes there is a discrepancy but 9 out of 10 times the computer is accurate when I reset it. Last time I filled up (100% Interstate tank, aside from a bathroom break and 5 miles to house/gas station) the readout said 20.7 and the mileage over gallons method came to 20.71xxxxx

My first few trips had a roof box (Thule), which I thought was affecting mileage (though it doesn't change more the 1-2 mpgs on my other cars). More recently my trips have been with a naked roof...no significant difference.

I don't suspect anything is wrong with my car, based on anything other than my mileage being below anecdotal postings. Which is why I'm asking around.

[JRL]

LEVEL ground, using cruise control, easy
...and 42 lbs or air pressure is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much

[mapper]

LEVEL ground, using cruise control, easy
...and 42 lbs or air pressure is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much

My last tank was on fairly level ground, what goes up must come down. "LEVEL" does not exist in this part of the world. Cruise was set at 80 the whole time. You are saying you get 25 in those conditions?

The car calls for 38 PSI all around from the factory so I don't see how 42 is "waaaaay" too much. The tires I'm running have a much higher load rating and it's normal to increase pressure for that. It's also normal to bump up cold inflation a few PSIs for winter tires. Max cold inflation for my current tires is 70 something PSIs so I think I'm safe. I pumped them up hoping to improve mileage and the squishy buick handling [pico].

[wgriswold]

I haven't tested my computer calculated mpg for years but when I did it was within 0.5 mph for several iterations. I get (from the computer calcs) between 26 and 27 mpg. I mostly use 87 octane gas from Costco. Much of my driving is at 6800 ft. elevation and is a mix of about 60/40 parkway and city driving. Sometimes I am away from town and drive on freeways at about 70 mpg. I suspect that the terrible mileage coming home from sea level is compensated for by great mileage going the opposite direction. I wonder what affect altitude has on mpg?

This has reminded me to check the computer again. I think my good mileage is due to a non aggressive driving habit. To illustrate that, I was perfectly happy with my old DL which had, IIRC, about 114 hp. My wife hated that car. She was once passed on a hill by a school bus full of children and has never stopped complaining about that. She says that I drive like an old farmer.

[JRL]

It does not, that's the pressure for a fully loaded car
Normal loaded car is about 35-36 and adding four lbs. is a TON of air pressure.

..and yes, I get at least 25 in cruise control on level ground at 62-64 MPH, maybe more
At 80 MPH I would say it should be more like 21 MPG.
BIG difference between 60-62 and 80 MPH is fuel consumption

and you should really not run 87. It won't hurt anything but the power will be less

[mapper]

It does not, that's the pressure for a fully loaded car
Normal loaded car is about 35-36 and adding four lbs. is a TON of air pressure.

..and yes, I get at least 25 in cruise control on level ground at 62-64 MPH, maybe more
At 80 MPH I would say it should be more like 21 MPG.
BIG difference between 60-62 and 80 MPH is fuel consumption

and you should really not run 87. It won't hurt anything but the power will be less

Ok, that was my question.

Unfortunately If I ran 60-65 MPH around here I'd be blown off the damn road and probably pulled over for suspicion of drug use. In fact I did get pulled over once in my van for going 65. He just wanted to "check my registration" yeah, right.

Anyway, I stated specifically in my post that I run 91 octane, which is premium here, at elevation.

I always run 4-6 psi over recommendation so long as I don't exceed max cold pressure of the tire. I have NEVER, ever, ever wore out the center of my tires first. The shoulders always go first at recommended pressure and tires wear even at 4-6 psi over. You can burn up your tires if you want, I'll change my pressure if I blow out a tire or see the center wearing first. For what it's worth my tires run at about 48psi at temp [thumbup] Anyway, tire inflation was not my question.

[mapper]

I get (from the computer calcs) between 26 and 27 mpg. I mostly use 87 octane gas from Costco. Much of my driving is at 6800 ft. elevation and is a mix of about 60/40 parkway and city driving. She says that I drive like an old farmer.

Maybe I need to try lower octane. Seems odd but honestly I have no need for more power from the car. I drive like a farmer too...except for on the interstate where I like to keep with traffic.

[MacNoob]

On my '07, average is 10.6 L/100km (22.2 US MPG) for the last 30,000 km/2 years as per fuelly.com. That's pretty close to 50/50 city/highway. And 50% extreme cold weather. These are actual calculated numbers - the dash gauge reads .8 L/100km (2 MPG US) on the pessimistic side.

Best tank 8.8 L/100km (26.7 US MPG). Usual highway is more like 9.5 L/100km (24.8 US MPG). Speed limit here is 100 km/h (62 mph) on highway.

80 mph will kill your gas mileage. Any fuel with ethanol is hard on mileage too.

[wgriswold]

80 mph will kill your gas mileage. Any fuel with ethanol is hard on mileage too.

That is interesting. I usually fill up in Nevada to avoid the high prices in Calif. I wonder if the blend there contributes to higher mileage?

I suspect that the turbo is not as effective at compressing the air at 6800 ft and so the car may be underpowered here as compared to sea level. I have never noticed any difference.

[shammyh]

I tend to get about 25-27 mpg (based on combination of on-board computer and actual gas usage) when driving between 40-55 mph on reasonably flat roads, with light throttle, little to no traffic, temperatures below 45F, reasonably high tire pressure, and generally ideal conditions. That also assumes almost no stoppage time, like red lights, stop signs, drive-thrus, etc.

Here in Massachusetts, I tend to cruise between 65 and 85 mph on the highway, depending on the traffic and time of day. And under those circumstances, with cruise control, I tend to see between 20-23 mpg. Without cruise control, I actually tend to get a drop better mileage, as I can allow the car to loose a bit more speed uphill, and gain a bit more downhill compared to what the computer normally allows. However, if I were to obey the posted limits, and drive unlike the majority of Massachusetts drivers, at say around 55-60, I would expect closer to 24-25 mpg.

In typical mixed city/cruising driving, I get around 19-21 mpg. In busy traffic, where I'm weaving around, accelerating fairly hard, and in a rush to get somewhere, I see around 15-18 mpg.

If I feel like really breaking some laws, and risking a pretty serious conversation with the police, (aka, throttle heavy driving), I get as low as 10-12 mpg.

~~~~~~~~~~

I've only owned my current Volvo for about 6 months, but so far, here are my tips for getting the best MPG possible:

- Don't automatically assume the highest gear is the most efficient gear.
Often 3rd or 4th are better at speeds below 50 mph depending on traffic conditions, road, etc... left to it's own devices, the tranny often picks 4th or 5th way too early in my opinion.

- Keep tire pressure high, check it regularly, and make sure they're set correctly. I run around 36-38 psi most of the time. And I keep all tires at the same pressure. I currently have OEM tires, but I'm sure tire brands/styles can make a big difference too. So can non-OEM sized wheels.

- Lots of small things in aggregate can make a big difference. Don't carry extra weight in your car. Don't use the trunk pull-out cover? Remove it. Don't need daytime running lights? Disable them. Don't need your fan on? Turn it off.
Every piece of weight, and every electronic device turned on, uses more fuel. Sure, most are negligible if taken independently, but in aggregate, it saves you money.

- Have a light right foot. On the gas AND the brake. This is obvious, and true for all cars. If you accelerate smoothly, use the gears to slow the car, and try not to brake unnecessarily, you'll get better mileage.

- Use premium fuel. Other people might disagree, but I can send you my Excel spreadsheets. I personally get noticeably (and statistically significant) worse mileage with 89 octane gas over 93 octane gas.

- Keep your engine, transmission, and electrical system in good shape. Anything from a clogged PCV, a dirty ETM, bad injectors, bad coils, bad sensors, etc... can cause your engine to work harder and/or less efficiently than it needs to. Dirty or too old oil doesn't help either, and that goes for the engine, transmission, differentials, and haldex. Also make sure your radiator is clean, and air is flowing over it efficiently. Finally, leaking induction pipes or turbo problems will also cost you mileage.

Oh, and my car is a 2004 XC70 with 75k miles.

~~~~~~~~~

One last note: If you monitor your mpg pretty closely, and it starts to take a dive for no apparent reason, get the car checked out. A serious dip in mileage is usually a good sign of something going wrong...

[StuntmanMike]

My last tank was on fairly level ground, what goes up must come down. "LEVEL" does not exist in this part of the world. Cruise was set at 80 the whole time. You are saying you get 25 in those conditions?

The car calls for 38 PSI all around from the factory so I don't see how 42 is "waaaaay" too much. The tires I'm running have a much higher load rating and it's normal to increase pressure for that. It's also normal to bump up cold inflation a few PSIs for winter tires. Max cold inflation for my current tires is 70 something PSIs so I think I'm safe. I pumped them up hoping to improve mileage and the squishy buick handling [pico].

If your tires have a "much higher" load rating, it's possible they are heavier than OEM. Rotational mass is a big factor in both performance and fuel economy (and are these the OEM size?). Also, just because the tire has a high max inflation pressure, it doesn't mean you need to run high psi in them. The tire company doesn't know what kind of vehicle that tire is going on, the proper way is to follow the mfg's specs. And as far as increasing the pressure because of a high load rating being "normal", well yes, but only if you're running heavy due to extra cargo or a trailer and need to compensate for that.

My newly purchased '07 XC is getting delivered to me on Friday. I'll see how I do for a few weeks and post my MPG in here. I'm usually good at getting good mpg, I average around 22.5 with my 5.7L V8 Firebird in normal driving. I should hope I can exceed that with the XC!

[AkXCman]

Your MPG is a little low, but not way off for driving 80 mph. I've found that my MPG drops off very fast if I go over 65 mph or if there is a stiff headwind. At 65 mph I usually get around 26 mpg. At 75 mph, 24 - 25 mpg. We don't have any 80 mph highways where I live. I live at around 6000 feet and there are several highways here that are 55 mph. Driving at 55 on those roads, I can get 28 mpg using regular gas. They don't add ethanol to our fuel mix, so that helps a lot. When I've been traveling in other states that use an ethanol blend, it reduces the mpg about 10%. If you can stay away from ethanol blends and burn regular grade, you may have similar results.

[mapper]

My experience mirrors shammyh's. I also don't generally use electrical devices more than necessary. I agree NOT using cruise generally nets me better mileage as my foot is lighter than the computers. Anyway I know how to get good economy. I can beat EPA estimates in my other cars and I drive one MUCH more aggressively than I drive the Volvo. On my trips to OR I drive another car up to 90-95 in the wide open stretches (with a roof box on) and still beat EPA estimated highway economy over the entire trip. It's quieter and more stable feeling. I put about 25k on per year so I'm pretty good with the tricks, although holding a lower gear is tough with the auto. Sure, you can use geartronic but it's awfully easy to forget about.

I think the issue with the Volvo is aerodynamics because the mileage "penalty" for high speed seems to be rather severe. Also accounts for surprising wind noise.

My tires are a bit heavier but I'm not seeing much difference from what I was running in summer (Scorpions). I think the rotational mass is more of an issue in city driving. In any case I heard regular reports of mid to high 20 MPGs when I was investigating the XC. I assumed that meant folks were driving Interstate speed, which is usually, realistically at least 70 (in a 65 zone). I also never expected the added speed penalty to be so high. I regularly drive 5-10 hour trips on the interstate and driving 65 rather than 75-80 is just not going to happen, especially when the cops don't bat an eye and frequently there are no other cars to be seen.

Sadly I bought this car for trips and it is just frustrating to be expecting an easy 25 but really only getting economy almost as bad as my van on road trips...a person can travel/tour/camp with dogs quite comfortably in a van vs a car.

[MBevans]

My 2007 XC70, from the time I purchased it @59k miles to 2 weeks ago @92k miles(when it was smashed by a crazed semi-tractor-trailer rig) has always given me between 24-26 mpg...

I normally run the California interstate hwy #5 between 65-75mph, and closer to 75 truth be known.

Always clean air filters and Mobil 1, I even changed the sparkplugs @ 80k miles, yet made no difference. Oh yeah, I always use regular gas, only 1 tank of premium ever.....

[KevinR]

What size wheel and tire combination are you running? Wider tires and/or heavier wheels will have an adverse effect on fuel mileage. The type of tire you use will also have an effect.

On my '02, I am running Michelin Harmony All Season tires in a 215/65-16 size on factory Tellus wheels. I keep the tires inflated to 36 psi. I drive this car almost exclusively in city traffic, running 89 octane mid-grade gasoline, and get 20-21 mpg. I have performed this calculation manually and it comes pretty close to matching what the car's computer calculates.

[sikbrik]

Like you said, speed kills. Previously, I was averaging 20 (now 21.5) around town for my daily commute which is slightly mixed 10 miles while it's still a little cold. In my car, the in car display is always within 2% of actual calculated mpg at the pump.

42psi is high on stock tires. Max sidewall pressure is 44psi...that's hot, not cold. I'm not saying I haven't done it but when I did I ran a long stretch of highway only and got 30mpg before the tune, 35 mpg after. Granted, this was at 60 to 65 mph with cruise. Normally it would have averaged 26 or 27 highway. I just ran a few tanks that were door to door trips but mostly interstate and backed the psi down to 36 and bumped the speed to between 75 and 80 to prove out the chip tuning effects. That number turned out to be 27.5mpg. This is on mostly flat roads around Philadelphia and Baltimore so some traffic but not stop and go except for the beginng 10 miles and ending 10 miles with 150 miles of highway in between, for example (oh, and 87 octane which I think hurt- it definitely decreased power.)

I think east coast gasoline is better for some reason. Also the more stops you make, the lower this will be and short cold trips will be miserable. The aero isn't really terrible on these things compared to other cars of this size.

[mapper]

Wow 30-35!!! In an XC??? You've got something special there. Are you running bumper to bumper traffic? I'll get mid-high 20s cruising in traffic due to the "drafting" effect but never out on the open road.

For those not wanting to read the whole thread:
I'm not talking about short, cold trips. I'm talking about long-distance highway cruising 700 miles in a day, stop to pee and fill-up the tank type driving.

I'm not running 42 PSI on stock tires. I'm running 225 65 16 with a load index rating of 110. Everything else aside, when stepping up in size (+1, +2 whatever) and load rating one should increase cold inflation pressure. There are tables available, do a search. Otherwise you risk overheating your tires and causing a blow out. My tires are rated for 70 something PSI max cold inflation pressure. Yes, the sidewall says "cold". Tire pressure should ALWAYS be checked cold, as in before you drive even 1 block, anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.

AT ANY RATE, I've driven 12,000 miles in this car. Only 1500 of which have been on these winter tires. The remaining 10500 have been on replacement OEM Pirelli Scorpions. There is little difference (maybe 1.x mpg).

I'm going to experiment with regular gas. My car always accelerates more than I need/want at the low end I usually barely touch the gas pedal. Maybe running lower octane will keep the ECU running more "relaxed"/"less aggressive" fuel trims in-line with the type of performance I use on a daily basis. The power will be there if I need it.

It's pretty clear from the posts thus far that folks reporting mid to high 20s are driving in the 55-65 zone. Above that fuel economy approaches a middling 20 MPG.

[KB3MMX]

Something that hasn't been suggested is trying to back your turbo wastegate off a half turn.....loosen it up slightly.
I know that our XC became MUCH more touchy/responsive when I turned it tighter by a half turn. I would go the opposite way to smooth it out.
Also, at 80mph your rpms are elevated enough that the turbo is more than likely being driven harder than is needed and consuming more fuel.

[mapper]

Something that hasn't been suggested is trying to back your turbo wastegate off a half turn.....loosen it up slightly.
I know that our XC became MUCH more touchy/responsive when I turned it tighter by a half turn. I would go the opposite way to smooth it out.
Also, at 80mph your rpms are elevated enough that the turbo is more than likely being driven harder than is needed and consuming more fuel.

Interesting, I'll investigate that more. "Touchy" is a very good description of the throttle response in my car...especially at the low end. I could definitely see how venting a bit more charge air wouldn't hurt/diminish the performance I'm getting.

[wgriswold]

Interesting, I'll investigate that more. "Touchy" is a very good description of the throttle response in my car...especially at the low end. I could definitely see how venting a bit more charge air wouldn't hurt/diminish the performance I'm getting.

Here is an additional thought.

I wouldn't call the throttle response "touchy" in my car. I am not sure that the turbo engages at all if I don't floor the accelerator. I have heard that the car somehow adapts to a driver's style; that the computer is heuristic. I can't document this but I learned it somewhere, maybe from the salesman when I bought the car. If this is so, then maybe my car is in some sort of low performance mode because of my driving style and that leads to better fuel economy.

[mrsteve]

This may upset most of you but I just did a trip down to Bristol UK in my late 05 D5 Geartronic and got over 43.5mpg cruising at 80mph in heavy traffic. I've only had the car a week and am getting the feel of it. Tyre pressures around 35psi, running 215/65 16 Pirelli Scorpions STR. It's a Diesel of course, it's the way to go. traded my 530D for this so it had to be good. I know it's only a week but I may buy another one when this one goes next year.

[Forkster]

Ah, the perks of a diesel vs petrol. Yes, if I could, I would ONLY have a diesel engine. Bloody petrol engines are fuel pigs. I had an opportunity a year back to port a D5 into my 2.5 but the cost was prohibitive. BTW - 43.5MPG Imperial = 35MPG US. Best I've ever had on my 2.5T petrol is 30MPG (36MPG Imperial).

[KB3MMX]

I wish we could get the D5 TurboDiesel here !!
Our "EPA" is retarded.


.

[mapper]

All Volvo has to do is make it meet specs like the other diesels sold here. VW did it and is selling like gangbusters. Apparently Volvo thinks their audience in the US doesn't really care that much about mileage. Their recently lineup sure suggests that's the strategy and it seems to be working.

If you want a diesel go buy one and prove how important it really is to you. New Toureg diesel would be quite equivalent to a new XC70 diesel. And if you want a Volvo diesel tell Volvo to get their act together.

Blaming the EPA is like blaming your boss for not paying you if you decide not to show up at work. Reminds me of teaching college kids who complained of failing a class after not doing the required work.

[John@CdnRockies]

We are getting a consistent 35 Miles per Imperial Gallon (this equals 29 miles per US Gallon) for highway driving over the Canadian Rockies (Calgary to Victoria). I average around 115 kilometers per hour (a little over 70 MPH) which is 10 kms over the posted speed limits. Distance is 2,000 kilometers for each run (= 1,240 miles) for a return trip (I use a different car on the island). This is very consistent and we have run this route between our 2 homes many times.

I use cruise control for 95% of this extended trip driving and avoid quick starts and sharp braking. FWIW, we generally do >90% highway driving as shown by our original brakes lasting for 225,000 kms (= 140,000 miles)! Putting the Thule ski box on top reduces our figures by a fully 10-15%.

I have found that my computer indicated averages are very close to measured levels. My hand calculated comparisons are pretty accurate as I have long spreads of distances between comparisons (>2,000 kms), so there should be little variability of the level in the tank. Personally, I now trust the computer - lol.

For US owners, please note that the Imperial gallon used in England and Canada is 20% larger than the USA gallon. Hence our numbers look awesome!

[bfife]

Mapper,
I'm in N Utah like you. I've put almost 9K on the XC since I bought it on 8/29/12. I'm getting on average 25-26 running from Ogden to Provo and all points in between. This mileage is all hand calculated. You are welcome to look at my fuel log if you wish. I track each and every tank. Even had a tank or two up to S Idaho for the Thanksgiving holiday with all the wife's stuff and the Bassets. best tank was 28.5 worst was 20-21 I think. I just installed a couple of new wheel bearings this afternoon, maybe it will get better, who knows. Maybe we should get together over an adult beverage and discuss it. Oh I forgot, we're in Utah, there are no adult beverages! I do have some nice home brewed stouts available.
Barney

[mapper]

What year XC and what octane are you running?
Yeah, that seems insane to me. I'd almost like to give you my car for a bit to see if you can crack 25. There is no way, literally, no way I'd get 28. Unless I reset the trip computer on the highway ;)

I may take you up on the brew offer sometime. Sadly I keep myself pretty busy with work and travel.

I drove the car to work today reset the computer just before my standard 90% highway 5 mile commute. I usually use my VW Passat to commute which EPA rates as 29 highway and I get 27-30 on that trip (depending on traffic and 2 lights). In the Volvo, which EPA rates at 22 highway,vI got 20.5. I'm going to drive the Volvo for daily duty for awhile and see what my mileage settles at. It seems my numbers are relatively in line with EPA estimates.

I was just hopeful I could pull off the mid-20s thing. I originally planned to sell the VW but right now I prefer using it for daily duty because of the mileage benefit, especially in the city. That car gets a solid 27mpgs combined.

[MacNoob]

standard 90% highway 5 mile commute.

That's not even enough to get the car fully warmed up. Hard to see any good mileage numbers on short trips like that. Keep up frequent oil changes too.

[mapper]

That's not even enough to get the car fully warmed up. Hard to see any good mileage numbers on short trips like that. Keep up frequent oil changes too.

Actually the car easily gets up to operating temp by about mile 3 on that trip, Turbos warm up quick...but I know, longer is better. I've been driving 20-25k per year for MANY years. I have always maintained my own vehicles so I understand basic maintenance. For the record I run M1 synthetic at roughly 5-7.5k OCIs depending on how many 500+ mile trips I've done on that particular OCI, air filters every 15-20k, fuel filters every 40k. My VW has 248k on it and the motor runs like the day I bought it.

As stated, I haven't been regularly using the Volvo for that commute and my thread is about my long distance highway mileage. I was simply illustrating that both cars on the same trip get roughly the EPA estimates.

[budrichard]

"Tempest in a Teapot"!

Getting 21mpg @ 80mph is quite good, it's only at 55-60 mph, steady, cruise that you will return maybe 25-26pmg.
Chicago Expressways are FAAAAST and usually average about 80mph in the 'hammer' lane and I get about 20mpg in my 2003 XC70.-Dick

[mapper]

"Tempest in a Teapot"!

Getting 21mpg @ 80mph is quite good, it's only at 55-60 mph, steady, cruise that you will return maybe 25-26pmg.
Chicago Expressways are FAAAAST and usually average about 80mph in the 'hammer' lane and I get about 20mpg in my 2003 XC70.-Dick

Agreed, I was just curious at what kind of speeds folks were getting these mid-20s MPGs. I tried to get ahead of all the variables people would throw out instead of answering the question. I failed. I appreciate your direct response

[sjonnie]

Here is an additional thought.

I wouldn't call the throttle response "touchy" in my car. I am not sure that the turbo engages at all if I don't floor the accelerator. I have heard that the car somehow adapts to a driver's style; that the computer is heuristic. I can't document this but I learned it somewhere, maybe from the salesman when I bought the car. If this is so, then maybe my car is in some sort of low performance mode because of my driving style and that leads to better fuel economy.

The TCU adapts to driving style, which then affects what the ECU does.

The turbo starts to build boost at about 50% throttle opening but it also depends somewhat on the gear selected, engine RPM and load - install a boost gauge, its quite entertaining [thumbup]

[bfife]

What year XC and what octane are you running?
Yeah, that seems insane to me. I'd almost like to give you my car for a bit to see if you can crack 25. There is no way, literally, no way I'd get 28. Unless I reset the trip computer on the highway ;)

I may take you up on the brew offer sometime. Sadly I keep myself pretty busy with work and travel.

I drove the car to work today reset the computer just before my standard 90% highway 5 mile commute. I usually use my VW Passat to commute which EPA rates as 29 highway and I get 27-30 on that trip (depending on traffic and 2 lights). In the Volvo, which EPA rates at 22 highway,vI got 20.5. I'm going to drive the Volvo for daily duty for awhile and see what my mileage settles at. It seems my numbers are relatively in line with EPA estimates.

I was just hopeful I could pull off the mid-20s thing. I originally planned to sell the VW but right now I prefer using it for daily duty because of the mileage benefit, especially in the city. That car gets a solid 27mpgs combined.

02 XC 150886 miles and 87 octane from the Exxon at exit 349. most of the mileage is up and down the I15 corridor and around all the towns associated with the area.
Barney

[sikbrik]

Agreed, I was just curious at what kind of speeds folks were getting these mid-20s MPGs. I tried to get ahead of all the variables people would throw out instead of answering the question. I failed. I appreciate your direct response

You didn't really ask it that way. It seemed more like a cynical "you must all be going 55.". In fact, we're not.

Hard to not throw variables out there for you when there are so many. It's not really ALL about the speed. Maybe 20 or 21 mpg is quite good for your particular trip at 80mph but as I illustrated, my last long trip netted nearly 28 mpg with less tire pressure at between 75 and 80mph most of the way (even with 20 miles of in-town driving mixed in, average speed was near 70.) Maybe my 01 is geared differently than yours, since I never see over 2500 rpm on the dash or from the OBD when cruising at 80. Granted, I also have a tune geared towards economy but the key here is steady speeds, I think, more than the actual speed "number" or mph. A steady cruise at 80mph is going to be far better at the pump than something fluctuating between 70 and 85. It's the acceleration that gets you, I'd guess. My roads are probably less congested and easier to keep a steady 80mph in the fast lane without speeding up or slowing down and with relatively flat/straight roads.

FWIW, our Prius gets better fuel economy with 46psi vs. 50psi. Go figure. Just throwing more variables at you.

[budrichard]

You didn't really ask it that way. It seemed more like a cynical "you must all be going 55.". In fact, we're not.

Hard to not throw variables out there for you when there are so many. It's not really ALL about the speed. Maybe 20 or 21 mpg is quite good for your particular trip at 80mph but as I illustrated, my last long trip netted nearly 28 mpg with less tire pressure at between 75 and 80mph most of the way (even with 20 miles of in-town driving mixed in, average speed was near 70.) Maybe my 01 is geared differently than yours, since I never see over 2500 rpm on the dash or from the OBD when cruising at 80. Granted, I also have a tune geared towards economy but the key here is steady speeds, I think, more than the actual speed "number" or mph. A steady cruise at 80mph is going to be far better at the pump than something fluctuating between 70 and 85. It's the acceleration that gets you, I'd guess. My roads are probably less congested and easier to keep a steady 80mph in the fast lane without speeding up or slowing down and with relatively flat/straight roads.

FWIW, our Prius gets better fuel economy with 46psi vs. 50psi. Go figure. Just throwing more variables at you.

"my last long trip netted nearly 28 mpg with less tire pressure at between 75 and 80mph most of the way (even with 20 miles of in-town driving mixed in, average speed was near 70.)"

From that statement its impossible to determine your fuel economy.

"Maybe my 01 is geared differently"
I doubt it.

"tune geared toward economy"
What does that mean?

"FWIW, our Prius gets better fuel economy with 46psi vs. 50psi. Go figure. Just throwing more variables at you"
I doubt you have the equipment to make that measurement difference. You also need some expertise in measurement, accuracy and repeatability.

My conclusion is still the same, 'Tempest in a Tea Pot'.-Dick

[mapper]

Yes, I was suggesting folks are pointing to exceptionally high tanks that must come from lower speeds, not day-to-day tanks. Very few people actually drive 55-65 for extended periods. While it is nice the XC is capable of that kind of mileage I'm not going to see it. I was under the impression I could get mid-20s highway gas mileage from my XC in real situations. Clearly that was pie-in-the-sky and I was naive to think EPA estimates would be that far off. Even worse, for me, is the poor economy in town which really weighs on my combined mileage. While this may all be "Tempest in a Teapot" I wanted to be thorough in double checking with folks before making any decisions. With this middling gas mileage, the XC offers very little for me or my lifestyle. My combined mileage falls to about 19, spot on EPA estimates but very poor, in my opinion, for a car this size. I guess I'm not one of the lucky few who somehow manage better mileage. I'm a conservative driver day-to-day but drive realistically on the freeway.

I gave it a shot and I've been looking for things to "love" about the car but it keeps coming up short. A manual trans might help things out. Sorry, but comments that it is better "screwed together" than something like an Outback are total BS to this guy who has about 75% of his friends owning late model outbacks. An Outback XT (Turbo) is readily available in manual trans is faster, more sprightly and gets similar, yet slightly better gas mileage and cruises just as nice. Sure the Volvo is "heavy" with "big bones" and that should be good for crash ratings but many cars have equivalent OR better crash scores. I'm new to Volvo so I don't need to make any apologies.

It is a VERY handsome car which attracted me but I'm not wedded to it. I'll be driving the XC a bit more this winter but will likely sell it for something that suits me better. Thanks for the input.

[billr99]

Ah, you don't live in a place with rust apparently. Down east here Outbacks are fairly prone to rust albeit the new ones are getting better. Hence, I'm sure, the comments on build quality. In my case, I have looked at Outbacks and they are attractive but they just don't have the usable space inside that my XC has. The floor to roof distance just won't fit my bloodhound when he wants to stand up and look out the window. On the other hand, the XC just barely meets that requirement, but I'm not getting some kind of SUV just to please the dog.

BTW, I typically get about 25-26 to the US gal. and generally drive in the 90-120 km/hr range, but I also live in a place where stop and go traffic is fairly rare.

Cheers,

Bill

[Astro14]

10 year old Volvos in Vermont look good.

10 year old Subies are rust buckets if they're still on the road at all...

Here in the south, there is little difference in longevity, but in the rust belt? quite the contrast...

[mapper]

Generally not the case around here. Loyales or pre-ob legacys might be rusty but it is very rare to see a rusty outback of any generation. We use salt but nothing like the NE and I have zero intention of moving to the NE. Its more the rattles in the XC I was referring to. Latest and greatest on my car is the sunroof cartridge and passenger window. Anyway, that's off topic. The thing I really have a hard time with is the gas mileage and generally boatiness of the XC. I originally I wanted the XC to be my daily driver. Going to keep trying to alter my style to maximize economy. Noticed I can help city economy if I manually select 5 over 4 when on boulevard/parkways...5 is certainly where I'd be if it was a manual. So maybe over the winter I'll change my tune.
Not saying the XC is a bad car...I shopped for almost a year and it's what I wound up buying. It's pleasant, inoffensive, plush and good looking, which won me over on shorter test drives...I just realized, in day-to-day practice I prefer more sprightly driving dynamics and economy. If I really had to boil it down I'd say a manual trans would have me singing a totally different tune. Anyway, different strokes for different folks.

[tnduc]

I bought mine for a commuter with the ability to haul stuff. I drive 70 miles a day , average 55 mph with very few stops and get an honest 26 mpg..

[knitterbetty]

Bill, thanks for a really fun comment about your not getting an SUV just to please the dog! I can't stop chuckling over it. My daughter just bought an 02 XC70 with 82K miles on it, recommended by the great local indy I have here in NJ. She loves it ( drives 60 miles round trip daily), and I am delighted knowing she's in a safe and comfortable car. I think it's a really good looking car as well, it's Ash Gold, and of course, we call her Goldie! For me, reading all the accounts of how people survive bad accidents because of safe Volvos, gallons per miles is really incidental. Gotta keep it all in perspective. I love the faces of bloodhounds, btw.

[StuntmanMike]

I gave it a shot and I've been looking for things to "love" about the car but it keeps coming up short. A manual trans might help things out. Sorry, but comments that it is better "screwed together" than something like an Outback are total BS to this guy who has about 75% of his friends owning late model outbacks. An Outback XT (Turbo) is readily available in manual trans is faster, more sprightly and gets similar, yet slightly better gas mileage and cruises just as nice. Sure the Volvo is "heavy" with "big bones" and that should be good for crash ratings but many cars have equivalent OR better crash scores. I'm new to Volvo so I don't need to make any apologies.

It is a VERY handsome car which attracted me but I'm not wedded to it. I'll be driving the XC a bit more this winter but will likely sell it for something that suits me better. Thanks for the input.

I just got my '07 XC on Friday, so I don't have a whole heck of a lot of experience yet, but so far I LOVE it. Some friends were making fun of me for getting one (I'm early 30's, single with no kids), but I don't care, it's exactly what I was looking for in a car.

I can't speak for mileage, as I haven't gone through a whole tankful yet.

However, as you mention Subaru, I drove one of those before the XC. Yes, it was a basic 2.5i (2007), but I was very underwhelmed with it. It felt small inside, the seats were uncomfortable, the driver's seat lacked the adjustment for me to find a comfortable driving position, and it just felt small, light, and cheap. Basically a sh!tbox. I had no love for it after driving it, and realized it was not the car for me.

The XC is a completely different story. As soon as I sat in it I knew it was worlds apart from the Subaru. Everything looked and felt better, and with the 8 way driver's seat I was able to get quite comfortable. Normally I need to think on making big decisions on a vehcile purchase, but an hour after the test drive I was signing the paperwork.

Maybe it might cost a bit more to maintain, and get slighly worse fuel economy, but it's nice to know the body will still be in nice shape years from now. Volvo warrantees these for TWELVE years against corrosion. And when's the last time you saw a rusted out Volvo? Rusted out Soobs are all over the place around here. I want to keep this car for at least 5-6 years, and I know the Volvo will be looking good at 10 or 11 years old, while the chances of the Soob doing the same are much less.

Not to mention the n/a 2.5 is rated at the same mpg as the XC's 2.5T (and real world figures appear to be about the same), and the 2.5XT is rated worse. Sure it makes more HP, but lacks low end torque. And have fun replacing head gaskets on the n/a 2.5, and turbos on the XT. Both are very common failure points on the Soobs.

And as far as rattles, my XC has 91k miles on it, and is nice and tight with no rattles.