Disappointing MY08 XC70

[Filibuster]

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...

[vtie]

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 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]

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...

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]

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/...2_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/.../XC70NLdef.pdf

Price list with EU 99/100 data for the XC70 3.2: http://www.volvocars.nl/NR/rdonlyres...0_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.../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...4_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]

Yes, you got me overwhelmed with all those numbers!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...cle2503695.ece

Cheers