I recently purchased a V50 Estate Sport and am struggling to get more than 35 mpg from the 2.0 diesel. The Manufactuers stats state that the combined MPG is 47 so as you can see I am way under this.
Does anyone have any experience or advice about returning a car. We have had it approx 6 weeks and it has been back to the garage twice incudiong once for a software upgrade (at this point in increased from 28 MPG to 35 MPG).
I dont think the car is running correctly due to the fuel we are going through.
Cheers
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 09/05/2008 at 19:15
|
depends what you're doing with it.
I don't know what engine is in yours, but wife's X Type 2.0 diesel estate does: 33-34mpg in stop/start heavy town traffic never properly warming up, 38mpg on long m/way run driven hard, 40 ish on A roads if driven reasonably sensibly, 42-45mpg on long m/way run driven fastish but smoothly and sensibly... and better again if you try to be as economical as possible...which i don't. Once had 60mpg showing on the trip, but you couldn't manage that for long.
The above is on a 3 year old car. A newer one wouldn't be as efficient until it's loosened up.
|
|
|
What sort of driving are you doing? If it's a mixed bag with a bit of town use and relatively short journies 35mpg isn't far off what it should be doing. On more open roads it should be doing 42-43mpg with 46-48 attainable on gentle motorway runs.
Despite the figures saying otherwise, I've always found the D5 engine more economical than the 2.0 diesel in practice.
The same unit is also used in the Pug 407 and I've never seen much more than 38mpg out of them.
|
I *think* the engine in the Jaguar is the same as the Volvo or at least very similar.
Ford had two 2.0 diesels for a while I think - one of their own and one from their joint deal with PSA.
The 136PS 2.0 litre PSA desgined unit seems to be the same in the Jaguar, Volvo, Pug and Citroen ranges and probably also now in the Mondeo.
|
Sorry to hear of your disappointment Richard. Must be irritating when you have treated yourselves to a new car.
However, as others have already said, it may well just be to do with the tightness of the new engine and things will improve in due course. I know this is comparing apples with oranges but for a bit of encouragement, my 2.0 diesel Mondeo estate will consistantly achieve 45mpg and more when I am caning it around the country at a rate of 1000 miles a week during my busy times, despite being laden to the gunwhales with heavy kit. On the other hand if I am having an "office" week and my wife borrows it for local shopping and granny ferrying it can drop to below 40mpg quite easily if it has not had a chance to stretch its legs.
My guess is that your car will improve but I suppose you are quite right to query it just in case it does have a problem.
|
Similar to you shoespy - Audi A3 2.0TDi 170 DSG does 35-38 when pootling round town, commuting etc. Get it on a run and 50mpg isn't a problem.
Last weekend I did about 250 miles of mixed driving, motorway, NSL and urban stop start and it used 25 litres - 45mpg average.
|
Have to agree with pretty much all that has been said before. The general feeling is that some modern diesel engines can take 10 - 15 - 20 thousand miles to loosen up, with a slow but steady improvement in fuel consumption over that time. You don't mention the mileage you have done in your 6 weeks of ownership, but if it is just 1 or 2 K, then you need to give it more time.
Can I also add a cautionary note not often mentioned. "Don't try for 'total economy' on a new car". Why not? Because you will not drive it hard enough to allow the piston rings to bed in properly, and will end up with excessive oil consumption as a lasting legacy.
As to returning (legally, rejecting) the car, I don't feel you have a good case. if your car had been in the workshop with a variety of faults for much of those 6 weeks, then it would be a different story.
Bottom line is, anyone who buys a car, whether petrol or diesel, and expects to get the 'combined' figure on a mixture of driving conditions is going to be sorely disappointed. (with perhaps the exception of some VAG engines).
|
My boss has a 407 2.0 HDi (same engine) which he is well pleased with, but the economy is hugely variable. On a gentle run it will do 45 mpg, but as soon as you get it off motorways and introduce any element of regular acceleration/deceleration, it's straight down into the high 30's.
I suspect yours will improve slightly with mileage as others have said, but equally many manufacturers claimed combined figures are . My only experience is with a Megane 1.5 dCi 106 which averaged about 46 mpg from new, but when I handed it over to someone else 20k on the clock, it was regularly returning 53 mpg. They do get better with miles.
Many manufacturers combined figures are not achievable outside of laboratory conditions.
Cheers
DP
|
Agree with above -- a diesel does need some work to do to settle it down, and even then economy varies hugely.
I suspected my Mondeo IV 2.0 would be heavy on fuel but it's averaged 41mpg since new in all types of driving, which is OK for such a big barge.
|
|
|
|
This is not a new car, it is a 55 plate with 24K on the clock. This car gets used 3 times a week on a motorway run. Our previous car was a golf GT TDI and we were getting out of that 44mpg doing the exact same runs.
I have given it a motorway run on a quiet monday evening and only got 38mpg and that was me sat on cruise control at 75mph. As per guide I should have been around 55 MPG on a motorway run?
|
|
are you checking via the trip computer or another method. Trip computer might be inaccurate. Also check tyre pressures and have you got a roof rack?
|
Tyre pressures are all fine and I am checking via the amount on miles I do the the amount of fuel I put in as there is no trip computer.
I have tried the 50 mile 100 mile and full tank calculation and it is all around 35MPG.
No roof rack.
I want to go back to the dealer and ask them to swap as part of the reason we choose this car is the fuel economy and as present we are getting 330 miles to a full tankl whereas our golf GT TDI was doing 480 miles for the same money which makes a massive difference in our petrol diesel expenses month on month
{typo corrected}
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 09/05/2008 at 13:42
|
I have a new Volvo V70 D5 - which has now covered 4000miles. And I am getting the same problem as you.
In town I am getting 17-18mpg instead of Volvos suggested 29mpg. It would take 24-26mpg as a fair amount at the moment
On a fast motorway cruise I am getting 29-33mpg, and slower cruise 37-40mpg. Volvo has an overall figure of 39mpg for the car - I am getting nowhere close.
I have stretched the car to 135mph in Germany, and booted it a number of times. But on the current tank of fuel it has gone through 1/4 tank in 65 miles.
It is having it's codes read on Friday - if they don't solve anything I will be looking to reject the car based on poor economy - so I will let you know how I get on.
|
Is that a manual or auto D5?
My S80 D5 auto does about 30mpg with mostly town driving (little queuing though and only 5 mile round trip) and about 40-45mpg on the motorway between 50-70mph. Mostly about 50-60mph due to heavy traffic and restrictions on the M42.
If I were to use it in real city driving with long queues and many lights etc, I'd expect about 25mpg at best.
The very best it can do is on long motorway trips at a steady 60mph. It'll hit about 47mpg then. A steady 70mph will return about 42mpg.
Given that a new shape V70 is nearly 2.0 tonnes, compared to my old S80 which is "just" 1.6 tonnes, I'd say your reported figures sound on the poor side, but not terrible.
|
|
Hello Richard,
We have this engine in our C-Max. It's an 05 with 26k miles, so not dissimilar to yours.
I agree with the other posters about the stop/start or short run economy. It's not very good - a mid to high 30s job, however on a motorway run I can average over 50mpg if taken gently and have once done 60mpg deliberately trying to drive as economically as possible. At 80mph it can do 45mpg, so I think your's has a fault. With the Ford I think there were a number of software updates made to cure poor MPG on this engine, so perhaps that's all yours needs?
I think it's a really nice engine as diesels go, so hope yours gets sorted and you can enjoy it.
|
Just to give everyone an update on this . We took the car back to the dealer under the sales of goods act. There are sourcing a new car for us as the agree that the car is not performing as it should. we have give them several weeks to source this car and if no luck we will get a refund.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. 25k miles in a petrol 3.2 audi say 26 mpg at the begining and now 30 mpg.
|
|
|
|
|
I too have a 2.0 diesel V50 6 speed manual but 2008 my. Maybe I am fortunate in living in a rural part of Scotland, however when I got mine at first it was "only" returning 45mpg. It is now getting around 52. The dealer says it should get even better after about 10k miles
With regard to rejecting the vehicle, what you have to do is arrange for the dealer to "brim" the car. You cover an agreed mileage and return the car for the dealer to refill the vehicle. Hence you can work out the mpg.
You should also write to the Dealer Principal at the dealership advising him of your dissatisfaction and asking him to arrange for the brim test to be carried out.
He will then have some options available, change the car for a new one - you may have to pay towards the mialeage already accrued, swap the car for a like for like vehicle, or buy you out of the car.
Don't forget if the car is under finance from a bank etc, they have legal title to the vehicle and must be kept informed as it is legally their vehicle. Apologies if this is not the case in your instance.
|
|
The other day I drove a 57 plate Mondeo TDCi from Barrow-in-Furness to Andover and back during peak periods and, according to the cars computer, averaged 53 mpg. This wasn't tootling along either, this was normal driving. If the cars readout is to be believed, this is pretty damn good.
|
"If the cars readout is to be believed"
That is a sizeable if, of course.
|
|
Oldnotbold, I don't believe it.
|
|
|
|
"Our previous car was a Golf GT TDI and we were getting out of that 44 mpg doing the exact same runs."
Without wishing to criticise, Richard, it sounds as if you are a fairly brisk driver. The Golf should be able to do 50 mpg on a long run if it's a 2.0, a few mpg better if it's a 1.9. I'd guess that the Volvo engine might be about 5 mpg less economical, so 45 mpg should be possible. If that doesn't work, then there probably is a fault as you suspect.
I presume you've checked the obvious things like tyre pressures and brakes not binding.
If you can bear it, brim the tank and try driving the Volvo really gently on this run, then brim again and see how you get on.
|
'As per guide I should have been around 55 MPG on a motorway run?'
Not sure which guide tells you this. At 75mph, 45 mpg would be pretty good for a large estate car IMHO. My Passat diesel usually got 42mpg as those speeds in all the 110,000 miles I owned it from new. I queried this with the dealers but nothing was done. Always had low emissions at MOT time so not much wrong.
|
I don't put much store by the official figures but it boils down to the type of drivng you do. If it is mostly urban then 35 mpg sounds reasonable. I get between 35-40 mpg in town driving in my Fabia with the1.9 130 TDI. On a long run it will do 55 mpg if you drive sensibly.The official figures say over 60 mpg extra urban but that is pie in the sky. People are right in sayiing that engines need time to bed in and if you folllow HJ's advice and give the car plenty of stick once a week after the few thousand miles then you should be o.k.I'd imagine also that the Volvo is quite a heavy car.
Finally and please don't take offence at this but what it your drivng style like? Do you rev the engine hard in the low geas or change up at say 2500 rpm and drive on the torque in the higher gears. I know people who have had a several diesels and yet still thrash them through the gears and then complain about the economy!
Edited by Mattbod on 15/05/2008 at 00:33
|
Are you following HJ's guide to running in a diesel? see No. 15 in the FAQs
|
Erm, the car is a 55 plate that has done 25K miles, so it's pretty much run in I would think.
I don't think anyone is going to argue with the facts that fuel consumption will vary with driving style and type of journey, but if Richard is only getting mid 30s on a reasonable motorway cruise then that does seem very low to me, certainly when compared with Jase's C max with the same engine - roughly 25% difference.
|
Erm the car is a 55 plate that has done 25K miles so it's pretty much run in I would think.
Maybe midlife was commenting nint on dodgyken's car, not Richard's?
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 15/05/2008 at 11:34
|
|
A fair point DD, I'll shut now as I'm too confused about whose car is doing what mpg 8@|
|
|
|
|
Did I read you correctly that you get 38mpg at 75mph?
mpg plummets with increasing speed. I drive a V50 sport 2.0 diesel, 8k on the clock. It does 50mpg cruising at 65mph on a long run. Drive at 70mph and its down to 45mpg. I don't cruise at 75mph but I wouldn't be surprised to get mpg in the 30's
|
sq
I do cruise at an (indicated) 75 and this gives me about 37-38mpg. The OP's car clearly has a fault with it - it should be much better. So should yours.
Edited by Pugugly on 02/06/2008 at 19:53
|
I do cruise at an (indicated) 75 and this gives me about 37-38mpg.
Even that is surely still pretty poor for a 2L manual diesel? I get indicated 50MPG from my Merc C270CDi estate auto at that speed (and that's the journey average, not the "best case" MPG from a reset.
I've got to be driving a little more firmly and into the 80's to drop to mid 40's MPG.
|
>> I do cruise at an (indicated) 75 and this gives me about 37-38mpg. Even that is surely still pretty poor for a 2L manual diesel?
It would be - which is my point. My car is a 3L manual petrol.
|
"midlife - what crisis?"
'Ere...get your own name !!!!
|
|
|
|
Hi guys and gals,
To add to the discussion, I have a MK2 Seat Toledo 110 TDi
This is the first car I have owned that can achieve the manufacturers stated MPG with ease!
Manufactureres figure is 54mpg
In town I get 41-43 average after a long enough run to warm up the engine
On the motorway I get 65mpg at 60mph to 47mpg at 90
Guess what my average is on a mixed run? ... pretty much always 54mpg tank to tank.
When I read "long term reviews" of cars, often they will state the mpg that they got during the long term test and it tends to be 20-30% lower than that manufacturers figures. This either means that it is common for the manufacturers to lie or that the reviews thrash the nuts off the cars.
I have a friend, who works for a certain very large fuel company as a fuel development researcher. They have lots of rolling road equipment programmed to carry out the EU standard fuel consumption test (so that they can test the effects of fuel on mpg)
This friend tells me that quite a few car manufacturers routinely use their rolling roads to program the ECU's for their latest cars being released.
What they do is they tweak the ecu settings to match the profile of the test program, so that the car will perform best througout the _exact_ conditions of the official EU test... so the car will pass with flying coulours.
Later down the line consumers will complain that their cars are not achieving anywhere near the official MPG figure.... so the manufacturers go back to the testing facility, and this time they setup the car for real world driving condition instead of the EU test program and hence many manufacturers later down the line are able to offer a software upgrade to fix the mpg problem (as it was artificially created as a side effect of tuning the car for the test program)
|
Reconditioning running?
Makes a big difference - 5 to 6% especially when engine is cold..
|
|
|
I had the same engine in my Golf GT TDI. It would do 54mpg no matter how it was driven (although really caning it would mean just 48mpg). On most trips out of town it would be 60mpg+, the record being 72mpg.
This is actual use of fuel, not just what the trip computer said.
|
I do tank to tank recordings of mileage every now and then, but I generally rely on the trip computer as its never more than +/- 1.5 mpg
|
|
|
|
This friend tells me that quite a few car manufacturers routinely use their rolling roads to program the ECU's for their latest cars being released. What they do is they tweak the ecu settings to match the profile of the test program so that the car will perform best througout the _exact_ conditions of the official EU test... so the car will pass with flying coulours.
It's not about "passing", it's about producing the lowest possible CO2 emissions. Fuel conumption is then calculated from the emissions so the two are directly related.
Manufacturers would be mad NOT to do this. Hence BMW, for example, can bring out X5's which suddenly are below the now dropped high rate congestion charge ceiling by 1%
|
I would like to add to these comments, I have just changed my A3 2.0 140 for a V50 2.0D. With the A3, I was regularly getting 50 to 52 to the gallon and that was from the outset (from new). The V50 is currently "terrible" by comparison but according to the fuel consumption data, should only be a couple of mpg worse than the A3.
Driving quite carefully on 90% motorway journeys, I am getting barely 40 mpg. Otherwise, I am getting 36 to the gallon. Under exactly the same driving regime as my previous A3, I was getting 47 mpg. If this doesn't improve dramatically and in a reasonable time, I shall consider my options.
I rang the Volvo guy and he advised not to drive too gingerly (as per previous comments above) so that the bedding-in process is accelerated but would not commit to a timescale.
I can't see how the fuel economy will improve sufficiently to comply with Volvo's own fuel figures. Watch this space!!
|
Wandering about a car show-room recently I was looking at some figures when the salesman suggested they were probably at least 10-15% off achievable, real-world consumption.
I'd be very surprised if a car could be returned because of poor mpg. If there were an identifiable fault with that car, presumably it could be fixed. But returned?
|
You could justifiably return it if you had your car tested under the same laboratory conditions as were used during type approval.
They know no single user is likely to be able to afford it.
Many engine makers are producing units to meet specification requirements rather than being optimised for useful operation on the road. (It's much the same as our present education system - loads of exam passes and no real understanding).
VAG were one of the few engine makers who produced units which would meet their claimed efficiency figures on the road. I don't think they do this any more - their figures are now as "useful" as everyone else's.
659.
|
You could justifiably return it if you had your car tested under the same laboratory conditions as were used during type approval.
I doubt you could return it even if you proved that.
The manufacturer isn't claiming the car will do those figures, they're stating the results of a Government test.
It's a bit like saying you could sue the Government if cigarettes *didn't* damage your health.
Edited by Bill Payer on 22/09/2008 at 18:55
|
MPG is quantifiable, damage to health isn't.
659.
|
MPG is quantifiable damage to health isn't. 659.
>>
Yes it is - smoking KILLED my grandfather. You can measure a death.
|
I'm not going to give any scientific or accurate measurements here because I cannot be bothered to check! However, the official combined mpg figure for the V50 diesel is something like 47-49mpg. In the real world I would hope to realise 5-6mpg less than this which equates to 42-43mpg. According to my reading on the car I'm returning pretty much around 42mpg and this is with a variety of driving conditions and style as I do tend to give it some welly. Car has 15k on the clock so is nicely bedding in.
The chap above who is comparing this car to an A3 needs to realise they are completely different cars, eg, one is a hatchback and the other is a small estate. Bit like comparing a grape to an apple. Estate cars simply are less economical than saloons and hatchbacks, and that's a fact.
|
>>The chap above who is comparing this car to an A3 needs to realise they are completely different cars, eg, one is a hatchback and the other is a small estate. Bit like comparing a grape to an apple. Estate cars simply are less economical than saloons and hatchbacks, and that's a fact.<<
The car could be an estate or an aircraft carrier, it makes no difference - we are looking at comparisons of published figures to real world figures and Volvo are 15 to 20% worse than VAG in this regard. By any measure, the public are being misled.
|
The car could be an estate or an aircraft carrier it makes no difference - we are looking at comparisons of published figures to real world figures and Volvo are 15 to 20% worse than VAG in this regard. By any measure the public are
being misled.<<
My 1.8 petrol Zafira is quoted as 47mpg ex urban, 38mpg combined; driving at 60mpg on flat country roads as gently as I can I get 34mpg, 32mpg at 70mph on the motorway. So about 25% - 30% less than the claimed mpg.
Dealer says this is not a fault, Vauxhall customer services say it is "within normal parameters" but are unable or unwilling to say what these parameters are.
My last three cars (12 years, 200 000 miles covered) always returned at least the combined mpg.
Some manufacturers claimed mpg values seem to be completely unrelated to real life . VW are an exception, my VW Touran regularly returned better than the claimed mpg!
Mark
|
My 1.8 petrol Zafira is quoted as 47mpg ex urban 38mpg combined; driving at 60mpg on flat country roads as gently as I can I get 34mpg 32mpg at 70mph on the motorway. So about 25% - 30% less than the claimed mpg.
See my reply to your other post.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=68099&...e
|
|
|
The Manufactuers stats state that the combined MPG is 47 ..........
That's just a figure quoted for the purpose of enabling you to compare cars, not a guarantee that you'll achieve it on your car with your particular driving style and journeys.
|
Just adding to my post above, I took the V50 to Volvo and they said all settings were to the book. I was told the fuel performance would improve with mileage - an assertion I find hard to believe as there is no perceptible difference after 3500 miles. I reckon this is a standard put-off. I really like this car but the experience is spoiled by the disappointing fuel consumption.
Has anyone any experience of "chips" and do they improve the economy significantly? There seem to be a plethora of products on the market and quite a bit of positive feedback.
|
IMHO tuners claiming improved MPG after chipping are just trying to help punters justify to SWMBO the huge cost of the upgrade!
The theory is that because you have more power you don't need to work the engine so hard to get from A-B at the same speed, mmmm...
I had my old V70 2.4 chipped from 140 to 180 bhp (it was detuned from 170 at the factory) and economy remained resolutely the same, except with expensive super unleaded where the cost difference wiped out the economy savings!
|
|
Richard-no criticism intended here, far from it, but I've got a Golf GTtdi and at an 85 cruise it turns in 50 mpg. Overall, with some leadfoot work, including daily commute which is all B road twisties, it averages 49. I have to wonder what you did with it on the motorway to get down to 44? Certainly don't want to insult your intelligence, but have to wonder whether, as others have said, driving style plays its part? I don't drive for economy, but hard acceleration makes a huge dent in the economy, and I rarely get past 3000rpm - little benefit when you can simply drop back into the meat of the torque, the main reason I have a Diesel. That rich seam of torque coincides with the best economy. I'm sure none of this is news to you, and I hope not to offend you, but as I said, I have to leadfoot the Golf to get down to low forties on B roads, but an A road picks it back up again anyway unless I'm hovering just inside the ton. Which is rare...!
|
|
|
|
