Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    263

    Default Disappointing MY08 XC70

    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.
    Last edited by vtie; 08-27-2007 at 07:43 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nashville, TN, U.S.A.
    Posts
    568

    Default

    Well . . . let's hope that BMW will buy Volvo from Ford so that Volvo can start moving forward again.

    Ta-ta, j.
    Second gen., Nautical Blue XC70Volvo: "Anything else just isn't up to it" and Wife's Volvo S70: "In manual Transmission She Trusts"

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ITALY
    Posts
    113

    Default

    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by griso4r View Post
    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!

  5. #5
    XCelerate Guest

    Default Volvo asleep?

    Quote Originally Posted by vtie View Post
    Wake up Ford/Volvo before it's too late!
    According to a Dutch Government Publication
    http://www.vrom.nl/get.asp?file=docs...aties/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).
    Last edited by XCelerate; 08-28-2007 at 02:35 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ITALY
    Posts
    113

    Default

    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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XCelerate View Post

    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.
    Last edited by vtie; 08-29-2007 at 01:36 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    SE WI
    Posts
    1,308

    Default

    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
    '11 XC70 Silver/Off Black-Hers
    '03 XC70 Silver/Charcoal-His
    '99 XC70 Silver/Charcoal -Granddaughter's
    '87 740GLE Junk Yard@287K miles
    2013 Porsche Boxster
    2017 Porsche C4S

  9. #9
    XCelerate Guest

    Default I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky ...

    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/2...road_test.aspx Observed Fuel Economy: 13.9 L/100 km
    The Auto Channel: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...04/033050.html 21.3 mpg test=11,04L/100km
    Consumer Guide Automotive: http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...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?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Huntington Beach, California
    Posts
    46

    Default

    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
    06 Volvo XC70 BlK/Blk
    06 BMW 530xi Silver Grey/Blk

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •