New 2006 model details

[AWD*V70XC]

As I have said in other posts Volvo has now added two of their new diesel engines to the line up, with even more premium features and new technological advances for the 2006 model year XC70 and XC90 ranges.

Highlights include:

· Diesel: two new Euro IV versions of the Volvo 5 cylinder diesel engine:
- 2.4D with 163bhp (same outputs as current D5)- D5 with power increased to 185bhp
- Extended service intervals
- New six-speed gearboxes

· Volvo Inscription™:newbespoke, luxury interiors for XC70 and XC90

· AWD with Instant Traction™:NewHaldex All Wheel Drive system

· Traffic Monitoring: Satellitenavigation system now with RDS TMC (Traffic Message Channel)

· Environmental care:CNG Bi-Fuel models only for 2006

· Waiting times: order now,delivery from July

More Diesel Power, cleaner emissions

With 60 per cent of Volvo's UK customers now choosing diesel power, news of the enhancements and increased choice of two new versions of Volvo's popular five-cylinder turbo-diesel engine will definitely be of interest.

The D5 engine's power output increases from 163bhp to 185bhp and from 340Nm to 400Nm of torque (similar to many 6 cylinder diesels), and Volvo will also introduce a new 2.4 D model with 163bhp and 340Nm. Both these diesel engines have received new engine management systems to improve refinement and flexibility further, new turbochargers, new fuel injectors and combustion systems and diesel particulate filters (DPF). Both deliver significant NVH improvements and are also Euro IV compliant.

The D5's increased power improves performance noticeably, with 0-62mph times reduced by at least one second. For example, the XC90 D5, which also benefits from Volvo's new AWD system with Instant Traction™, improves from 12.2 seconds down to 10.9 seconds.

Service intervals for these engines are extended to 18,000 miles, and both have a new six-speed manual gearbox as standard. A new six-speed Geartronic automatic transmission will go into production in October (orders are being taken now) – until then the current D5 163bhp engine will be available for customers wishing to take delivery sooner.

The new D5 engine is available on the Volvo XC90 and XC70, while the V70 offer both new diesel engines, the 2.4D and the D5.

Volvo Inscription™

Volvo Inscription offers an exciting and exclusive new way to upgrade and personalise the interior of the XC90 SUV with unique upholstery designs and colours. The Inscription treatment offers finest quality soft leather upholstery in a wide variety of colours for seat and door panels, with ribbed seat sections inspired by motorcycle racing leathers to complete this bespoke look. Inscription also includes soft leather door trims, a sports steering wheel, Nubuck trimmed carpet mats and, exclusively for the XC90, new black walnut wood inlays.

Inscription contemporary colours include Marquis Red, Noble Blue, Serene Sand and Espresso for the XC90 while there is more classic colours of Toscana Tan, Linen White and Off Black as well. The luxury upholstery is made from the finest Scottish hides using a special 'tumble milling' process to soften the leather, and is coloured using vegetable based tanning to be compliant with the Oeko-Tex ecological standard (rather than chrome tanned as other manufacturers use), and dyed all the way through for a durable and attractive ageing process.

AWD with Instant Traction™

The V70 AWD, XC70 and XC90 all benefit from a new AWD (All Wheel Drive) system with Instant Traction. The new pre-charged Haldex coupling transmits power to all four wheels before any of the wheels start to slip and more power is fed to the rear wheels as the car pulls away to improve acceleration. Once moving, power is balanced between front and rear, reducing drive to rear wheels when not needed, and reducing fuel consumption. When required, power is instantly available at the rear wheels thanks to the no-return valve in the Haldex coupling.

Traffic Information: RDS TMC

Volvo's RTI satellite navigation system not only gives directions to your destination, but now includes RDS (radio data system) TMC – Traffic Message Channel – which automatically displays and alerts you if there are any traffic problems on the way, and offers you the option of an alternative route if preferred.

Environmental Care

Sales of Volvo Bi-Fuel LPG models have continued to decline to an uneconomic level: 82 were sold in 2004 and only 20 in the first quarter of 2005. Globally, LPG accounted for less than 20 per cent of Volvo Bi-fuel sales last year. Moving forward, Volvo Cars has taken the decision to focus on a CNG Bi-fuel strategy. Methane offers greater CO2 reductions than LPG, particularly biogas which is a renewable fuel, with net CO2 emissions close to zero. As a result, the Bi-Fuel CNG models will continue to be available in the UK in the 2006 Volvo S60 and V70 ranges, but the Bi-Fuel LPG will be discontinued.

Prices and Specifications (as of the UK dealer network)

All models are available to order now and lead times greatly reduced, with first customer deliveries expected in July. The 2006 Volvo model year starts production on 16 May.

Volvo XC70

The Volvo active Four-C chassis (worth £1,100) becomes standard on the SE Lux models, which increase by £750, while models with the new D5 185bhp engine increase by £1,280.

Volvo XC90

Volvo On Call is now available for the XC90, either as part of the optional integrated GSM telephone, or the Communications Pack. SE models increase by £150, while the new powerful 185bhp D5 models increase by an additional £1,535.

As you can see most of the information given is based on UK models but there will be very little difference for other European Countries, I expect. I would also think that some of these features will creap State-side as well.

[TrueBlue]

Looks great, the only discordant comment that I have is it has bee said elsewhere that the particulate filter in the Euro IV is very expensive to change - because a lot of labour is involved.

Does anyone with actual experience of the costs / service intervals concerned have a comment?

Some years ago a friend at Ricardo (research and development engineers) said that Diesel was "the fuel of the future" and this is now coming to fruition.

We now have cleaner fuel, smooth engines, and at last a decent power output to compete with petrol engines.

Perhaps you guys stateside will begin to take notice and press for better quality diesel; the roaring price of crude oil makes alternatives to gasoline an essential part of modern life.

Discuss.

[AWD*V70XC]

We now have cleaner fuel, smooth engines, and at last a decent power output to compete with petrol engines.... the roaring price of crude oil makes alternatives to gasoline an essential part of modern life.


With diesel prices in some places more expensive than petrol, I wonder what the incentive is for change. Also I do not think that the return on your mpg is enough of a reason to change.

At the end of the day, petrol & diesel come from the same raw product, now produce the same power, cost nearly the same and diesels still have the edge on the noise front, so why change?

If I was to change to another power source I would look at the bi fuel option before looking at a diesel powered car.

ps for the uncertain ones amongst of you, LPG prices are about 0.38p a litre, (as against 0.90p for petrol) combined with a petrol tank this gives you the ability to do about 8-900 miles before filling both tanks again.

[v70+xc70]

Propoane 38p a liter/litre OUCH. Thats 50% more expensive than in the US. I wont rub in the price of gas though...

[barrysharp]

It might help your buddies on the other side of the pond (i.e., folks in USA) if you made it quite clear that this info is for European deliveries. In USA we aren't so fortunate to be given the diesel option - at least not since 1986.

No matter, thanks for the heads up on the 2006 info. :)

[philosophicaldreamer]

With diesel prices in some places more expensive than petrol, I wonder what the incentive is for change. Also I do not think that the return on your mpg is enough of a reason to change.

At the end of the day, petrol & diesel come from the same raw product, now produce the same power, cost nearly the same and diesels still have the edge on the noise front, so why change?

If I was to change to another power source I would look at the bi fuel option before looking at a diesel powered car.

ps for the uncertain ones amongst of you, LPG prices are about 0.38p a litre, (as against 0.90p for petrol) combined with a petrol tank this gives you the ability to do about 8-900 miles before filling both tanks again.

I thought that on average diesels were about 40% more efficient in terms of fuel consumption so that even if diesel costs as much as gas, it still costs less to drive a diesel.

Ta-ta, janusz

[vtie]

Looks great, the only discordant comment that I have is it has bee said elsewhere that the particulate filter in the Euro IV is very expensive to change - because a lot of labour is involved.


It is a filter of the CDPF type (Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Filter), doesn't require extra additives and Volvo claims it's entirely maintenance free up to 240.000 km. That's enough for me...

[AWD*V70XC]

It might help your buddies on the other side of the pond (i.e., folks in USA) if you made it quite clear that this info is for European deliveries. In USA we aren't so fortunate to be given the diesel option - at least not since 1986.

No matter, thanks for the heads up on the 2006 info. :)

I thought the references I made throughout the piece were prefaced with UK references and I also thought that what the UK got might also go into Europe. As far as US customers are concerned it looks like this diesel engine will be trialled on US diesel, as this engine has been made a little more rugged for all diesel fuel and not just Euro fuel.


I thought that on average diesels were about 40% more efficient in terms of fuel consumption so that even if diesel costs as much as gas, it still costs less to drive a diesel.

The figures they are quoting are about 40% more, but who has every achieved what a manufacturer says is achievable. They reckon with the D5 GT it is possible to have a combined total of 33.6 mpg and 25.4 mpg for the 2.5T petrol engine. Now, considering I am getting a combined total of just under 30 mpg why would I want to change for a diesel engine when both tank fills will cost about the same (sometimes more for diesel) and get a whooping total of 39 miles more for all my effort. I don't think you will find me running to place my order just yet:(

[vtie]

The figures they are quoting are about 40% more, but who has every achieved what a manufacturer says is achievable. They reckon with the D5 GT it is possible to have a combined total of 33.6 mpg and 25.4 mpg for the 2.5T petrol engine. Now, considering I am getting a combined total of just under 30 mpg

So, am I correct that you actually achieve a better mileage than specified by Volvo (30mpg versus a specified 25.4 mpg) ?
Maybe with your style of driving you would do even better with the D5?

[TrueBlue]

Points to ponder:-

I can't claim to be particularly "Green", but Gasoline is made from the "best parts" of crude oil and diesel fuels from the "leftovers". That is lots of things (plastics and the like) can be made from the higher fractions if demand for gas reduced.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there is more crude around from which diesel fuel can be made than there is for gasoline.

Diesel fuel can be made from renewable resources - I don't think that applies to gasoline.

LNG is also renewable, but the tank to hold it takes up an awful lot of load space, and the type that fits into the spare wheel well doesn't hold a lot.

Time will tell, but I think we will all be forced to move towards diesel or LNG in the not too distant future - probably from an economic standpoint. just for kicks I looked for a late used XC70 petrol 'tother day on VCUK's website - there were none - all diesel.....

[Willy]

Hi,
Environmental rules for the future can make diesel cars quite expensive in the emission department, perhaps in such a way that they will completely lose their advantage (in fuel economics) over petrol engines.
Diesel fuel has a higher caloric content than petrol, the difference is about 15%. All other things being equal, this 15% will also be the difference in fuel consumption, no more, perhaps less (very often apples are compared to oranges)
Willy

[MD-Daddy]

Diesel fuel can be made from renewable resources - I don't think that applies to gasoline.

BioDiesel.

http://www.greaseworks.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=187&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

If its good enough for Neil Young, well its good enough for ... okay ... maybe not *everything* he advocates, but maybe just this one thing. BeioDeisel.

FWIW: Darryl Hanna likes it too.

MDD

[mantan]

I don't think so. The higher caloric content of diesel is only one of the 2 major
factors in lower fuel consumption. Diesels operate at a much higher compression
ratio, afterall the fuel is ignited by compression not a spark, and ICE's efficency
is proportional to the compression ratio. Even with the increased emmision
equip. cost, they will keep an edge over gasoline ICEs.

[Willy]

Take a close look at the engines of the new Audi A4.
The 2.0 T FSI has the same power, acceleration and fuel consumption as the 3.2 TDI. The main difference is the the big diesel is AWD, the 2.0 is FWD. This can account for a higher consuption for the diesel, but not by a large margin.
Willy

[mantan]

Using one specific example of an Audi model is not very useful to prove
anything. Just for kicks, here is a counter example that shows quite the
opposite, with specific numbers that anyone can verify, not some vague
reference to "check that out". The only thing missing is the fuel consumption
figures of the petrol model which will be available soon and certainly be not
as good as the diesel model.

source: www.mbusa.com/

MB E320 CDI
Engine 3.2L inline-6 diesel engine
Net Power 201 hp @ 4,200 rpm
Net Torque 369 lb-ft @ 1,800- 2,600 rpm
0-60mph 6.6 sec
Fuel consumption (in US gallons)
27mpg city / 37mpg hwy

MB E350
Engine 3.5L 24-valve V-6 engine
Net Power 268 hp @ 6,000 rpm
Net Torque 258 lb-ft @ 2,400 - 5,000 rpm
0-60mph 6.5 sec
Fuel consumption (in US gallons)
NA / NA

Now the Audi diesels are not currently available in the US so I checked
them at the UK site. I didn't find any "3.2 TDI", the closest was 3.0 TDI.
The 0-62 figures on the 2.0FSI gas AWD manual and 3.0TDI AWD manual
are pretty close and so is the fuel consumption but that obviously does
not tell all the story.

The diesel makes a lot more torque and will therefore require much less
shifting and higher towing capacity. Also the 2 are targeted towards
slightly diff customers given the price difference. Here are the detailed
specs from www.audi.co.uk

A4 Saloon 3.0 TDI quattro Manual

Displacement, cm³ 2967
Max. output, kW (PS) at rpm 150(204)/4500
Max. torque, lbs. ft(Nm) at rpm 332(450)/1400-3150

Unladen weight (kg) 1655

Top speed (mph) 144

Acceleration, 0-62 mph (in secs) 7.7

Fuel consumption according to 1999/100/EU in mpg

- urban 23.5
- extra urban 44.1
- combined 33.6


A4 Saloon 2.0 T FSI quattro Manual

Displacement, cm³ 1984
Max. output, kW (PS) at rpm 147(200)/6000
Max. torque, lbs. ft(Nm) at rpm 207(280)/1800-5000

Unladen weight (kg) 1490

Top speed (mph) 147

Acceleration, 0-62 mph (in secs) 7.2

Fuel consumption according to 1999/100/EU in mpg

- urban 22.1
- extra urban 41.5
- combined 31.4

[Willy]

My point is that the difference in fuel consumption between diesel and gasoline engines that deliver the same power can be quite small. Of course, this doesn't mean it has to be that way, only that it can be done (the first exapmle of MB isn't quite what I had in mind, seen the big difference in power output).
Your figures confirm this (MB, unconclusive, no fuel consuption data, so rarther vague - Audi, small difference in fuel consumption, in power output also) Thanks :o
Willy

[AWD*V70XC]

Large engines are very rare now in Europe, although I have had an Audi A8 4.2L Quattro, cars of this size are no more advantageous than your little Toyota Yaris. The gas guzzling nation of the US (with cheap gas prices) is a giant at buying large capacity engines, open roads, loads of space and big homes (on the whole). In Europe things are more scaled down, not so much off road parking, no vast areas of nothing, clogged road and high gas prices to compare a few things. we should not be comparing what we get from cars when referring to US/EU owners. On a final note from above, driving at lower speeds will give better returns, what are the speed limits in the US? 50MPH. and in Europe? 70MPH+ (where most drive at speeds more like 80-85MPH) thus returning lower economy for cars.

My second point is the false figures that manufacturer's give for their cars. these figures are untrue and not substantiated for true driving, so you should ignore what the figures say and gage your own stats. The reason for this is because all the manufactures put their cars on a 'rolling road' and 'drive it' for 300 yards, then multiply that up to the nearest mile and then for the tank. I think that driving on a rolling road for a couple of hundred yards is not a realistic setting for showing your true colours. Rolling roads do not take into account potholes, bridges, side winds etc. Also their figures are given on a new car with a new engine, what happens when you have done 15000 miles and waiting for a service, because your car is not always in prime condition you will not get the same or better results time after time.

[Filibuster]

The diesel makes a lot more torque and will therefore require much less shifting

Sounds logic but is not true.

Take the 2.5T. It delivers an amazing torque from 1500 rpm until the rev limiter at some 6000 + rpm. This means you could in theory quadruple your speed before shifting.

The diesel would perhaps deliver a lot of torque already at 1400 but would give up at some 4000 rpm.

That is why diesel drivers are usually reccomended to chose automatic gearboxes so they do not have to shift so much.

:)

[vtie]

Take a close look at the engines of the new Audi A4.
The 2.0 T FSI has the same power, acceleration and fuel consumption as the 3.2 TDI. The main difference is the the big diesel is AWD, the 2.0 is FWD. This can account for a higher consuption for the diesel, but not by a large margin.
Willy

A bit difficult to compare, since both engines are made for an entirely different target public, with entirely different engine sizes. They are not really meant to be compared in the product range.
The consumption of the 3.0 (not 3.2) Tdi is actually slightly less (particularly for city driving) and has slightly better specs. And, very importantly, the quattro always consumes considerably more than the 4wd (>10%).

Even within the range of Audi models, there are better choices to compare, although they don't fit your point as well... :D :
A4 2.0 Tdi / 136hp / 0-100km/h in 9.7s : av. consumption = 5.7 l/100km
A4 2.0 gas / 130hp / 0-100km/h in 10.1s : av. consumption = 8.0 l/100km
difference= 29%

And for our own beloved brand:
Volvo V70 D5 / 185hp / 0-100km/h in 8.5s : av. consumption = 6.8 l/100km
Volvo V70 2.4 / 170hp / 0-100km/h in 9.0s : av. consumption = 9.2 l/100km
difference= 26%

If you go to heavier vehicles which load the engine more, the difference becomes even larger:
BMW X5 3.0 diesel / 218hp / 0-100km/h in 8.3s : av. consumption = 8.6 l/100km
BMW X5 3.0 gas / 231hp / 0-100km/h in 8.3s : av. consumption = 12.7l/100km
difference= 32% !

Even apart from the difference in energy content, it is known that a diesel has an intrinsic efficiency advantage because of the larger compression rate. And the difference becomes much larger if the engine is loaded more. This means that, in real-world driving, where the engine is stressed more, the difference in mileage is even larger than the specs.

Concerning the emissions, I don't think Europe will put extra tax penalties on diesels anytime soon, because of the Kyoto limits and the lower CO2 emissions of diesels (everybody seems to think only about CO2 only these days...). In fact, we are even seeing a reverse trend with the CO2 tax on cars in many countries.
In the mean time, the emission levels of modern diesels continue to reduce drastically. Look at the specs of the new Volvo D5 over the previous one: 50% reduction of NOx, 95% reduction of sooth particles. And this was achieved without a drastical re-design of the engine. I'm pretty sure that future developments will continue this trend.

[Willy]

When I mentioned emissions, I wasn't reffering to more taxes, but to the fact that more technical measures will have to be taken to make diesel engines conform to the environmental rules of the future, and this may make the production cost higher.
As to consumption: I compared the Audi engines on power and consumption, concluding that a far smaller gasoline egine is needed than a diesel to obtain the same specs. The fact that these engines are designed for a different public doesn't change that.
As I already mentioned (twice I believe), the Audi designs don't prove it has to be that way, only that it can (for that matter, the XC engines don't differ that much, not if you compare designs from the same vintage).
Willy

[Filibuster]

I just want to point out a little caution about the fuel consumption of the Audi engines and other direct injection gasoline engines. In the lab they get great milage with skilled staff driving the different driving modes. In real life they have proven to consume just as much and more than conventional port injected gasoline engines.

I think Audi even runs theire FSI engine stochiometric and not lean burn even at low load. So does Alfa on their direct injected 170 hp 2.0 TS engine.

I know that apart from Audi also Peugot/BMW have announced turbocharged gasoline direct injection engines running att stunning high compression ratios. Perhaps there would be an additional synergy with direct injection/higher compression ratio but I would like to see more real life numbers before I believe it.

[Willy]

I don't know the fine details about the Audi or Alfa direct injection systems, but I found some info on the Mitsubishi website. They say that they run these engines in ultra lean combustion mode when allowed (no high power output is demanded).
See: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/inter/technology/GDI/
Willy

[vtie]

As to consumption: I compared the Audi engines on power and consumption, concluding that a far smaller gasoline egine is needed than a diesel to obtain the same specs. The fact that these engines are designed for a different public doesn't change that.
As I already mentioned (twice I believe), the Audi designs don't prove it has to be that way, only that it can

I have looked up the details on Audi's website (for Belgium), and this is what came out if you compare using the same configuration (both 6 speed manual & quattro):
2.0T Fsi 200hp 6 spd q: 8,8 l/100 km averaged
3.0l TDi 204hp 6 spd q: 7,6 l/100 km averaged
Difference= 14%. If you look at the city consumption, the difference increases up to 16%.
Moreover, these numbers are still misleading and do not reflect the real-world consumption at all. From my own personal experience, I know that a turbo-charged gas engine such as the 2.0T consumes much more if you start loading it, because you have to climb higher in revs. The diesel consumption holds better because you typically use it highly loaded at low rpm (which is where the engine is most efficient). After all, we are talking about 60% more torque for the diesel (450Nm versus 280Nm). This is actually reflected in the fact the the city driving numbers differ more.
And, last but not least, you certainly don't need a 3.0 to get 200hp out of a diesel. This would be technically possible with a smaller engine as well, having even lower consumption.

[Willy]

We seem to be running around in circles here. I suggest you reread my first answer where I mention that diesels have a fuel economy that is about 15% better than that of gasoline engines.
Your figures only confirm this, I am glad we finally agree.
Willy

[vtie]

I suggest you reread my first answer where I mention that diesels have a fuel economy that is about 15% better than that of gasoline engines.
Your figures only confirm this, I am glad we finally agree.
Willy

Actually no, I don't think that we agree. You gave one example comparing entirely different engine types that has a theoretical difference of 15%.

I gave you 3 other examples that compare similar engine types with differences of 25-30%. I claim that, if you drive both audis in a sporty manner (which I guess is the purpose of having a 200hp engine in such a car), the real world difference will be much larger, close to 30%. I also claim that, with current diesel technology, it is possible to make a smaller diesel engine with equal performance to the A4 2.0T and with a reduced theoretical consumption of 25%. It just happens that Audi does not have this engine in their range.

I further claim that it doesn't even make sense to compare the fuel consumption of engines by maximum power, if these number don't refer to the really loaded regime. It's possible to make a 2.0L turbo-powered gasoline that can deliver 400hp, and has reasonable fuel efficiency using the standard testing. But don't even think of putting this thing in a truck because the consumption will be much larger than a 400hp diesel engine when seriously loaded (not to mention the torque of course)

A loaded modern diesel engine has an intrinsically more efficient combustion than a loaded modern gasoline engine.

That is my opinion. Now I leave it up to you to decide again if we agree...

[Willy]

Well, to be honest, I knew we didn't (agree). My previous answer probably demonstrated one of the darker sides of my (bad) personality, I will try not to do so again :o
I do find it difficult if not impossible to add more arguments, since you first discard my examples, stating that manufacturers data do not reflect real life situations. I don't dispute this, I really don't know (I do know that I always consume less than the specs). But you use such figures yourself as examples to support your own point of view.
So, perhaps the only thing left is to agree that we disagree ;) and, that we are lucky, since Volvo Belgium (contrary to Volvo US) gives their customers the chance to choose the engine of their own preference :D
Willy