Buyers beware!!!
I purchased a Volvo C30 2.0Ltr Diesel Powershift (Auitomatic) back in December 2008. I am in the main, highly deleighted with the car except for its appaling fuel economy. I purchased this car after owning a MkV Golf 1.9 TDI DSG (Automatic), owing to the Volvo's stunning good looks (in my opinion lol) and chose the engine and gerabox being as near to my Golf's spec as possible. The Golf always returned very near to the government figures ie over all consumption of 48 MPG. The absolute maximum I can achieve from the Volvo so far after 3000 miles, is just over 38 MPG which is just short of 10 miles less than the publised figures for this vehicle. The dealership has been very supportive, more than I can say for Volvo. All complaints sent to Volvo have simply hit a very polite but nevertheless "brick wall". They just do not really want to know. The latest reply from Volvo to my dealership stated "the economy I am getting is realistic for the car" and that there is nothing further they can do, apart from the suggestions already made, which have failed. All car manufacturers protect themselves from misrepresentation by adding such words in their brochures' as:- "figures produced in perfect driving conditions and subject to the way the cars are driven". I do not consider 20% below the published figures to be realistic but obviously Volvo does?? I know I am not alone in this situation, I have read on this site alone, other people experiencing poor fuel economy from Volvo's 2.0 Ltr diesel engine. Volvo obviously have no conscience regarding their customers, especially when they publicize what a caring organisation they are with excellent after sales service and so, NO MORE VOLVOS' FOR ME!!!
|
There must be a zillion threads about disappointing fuel economy from new cars (especially diesels).
This one is no different from the others.
Other than it's more whiny than most.
edit: and paragraphs FTW ;-)
Edited by Lygonos on 09/03/2009 at 17:37
|
|
|
Oh dear. No more Volvos! Bet after driving a Volvo you won't feel as safe in anything else. My wife has a C30 but the D5 with a 6 speed manual. Regularly returns over 50. However my V50, but with the 2.0D and 6 spd box will only return just over 50 if I feather the throttle.
Having only done 3000 miles, may be you have a "tight" engine and it should free up a bit as the miles progress. Another thing is the conditins under which you drive. Where are you getting your mpg figs from, the on board computer or by brimming the tank?
What nearly everyone forgets, or perhaps does not know is that official mpg figures are obtained on a rolling road so that the figures can be obtained under as near identical conditions as possible.
|
|
|
|
Meant to say that if your journeys are mainly below about 55mph, the auto box will not have "locked up" therefore transmission slippage will take place below that speed.
|
HJ recently observed that diesels are crepe in the cold for fuel economy.
Maybe wait for the better weather and see if things improve.
|
Can we not have a thread for all these silly posts about ' my economy isnt the same as the car is supposed to do under lab conditions, even tho I dont drive my car in a lab'?
Im getting a little bored of the ignorance and blind faith that people have in anything official!
|
Can we not have a thread for all these silly posts about ' my economy isnt the same as the car is supposed to do under lab conditions even tho I dont drive my car in a lab'? Im getting a little bored of the ignorance and blind faith that people have in anything official!
Stu - normaly I agree, but in this case the Op does have a baseline in his old Golf. I am due to change soon and will be looking to get the book figure as thats what I get now with my current car.
|
|
|
Can we not have a thread for exclusive regulars who exhibit a snide, lofty attitude?
Im getting a little bored of the ignorance and blind faith that people have in anything official!
No you're not. See decreasing speed limit from 60 to 50. Talk about blind faith.
Golfauto, I, for one, welcome your post. It's only a shame that some regulars - having already discussed this, you see - see fit to be rude by response.
|
|
|
|
In my experience (admittedly with a Renault diesel), you need 15,000 miles on the clock before the fuel consumption becomes representative of what you can expect in the long term. My old Megane did about 39 mpg for its first 2-3k. Then it eased up to the mid 40's as we got towards 10k, and by the time I gave the car back with coming up on 20k on the clock, it was usually averaging early 50's to a tank.
|
Let the engine bed in.
I do agree the V30 courtesy car I used had poor consumption.
|
I have no problem with this question being asked/brought up repeatedly, but the OP basically berates the car/manufacturer and 'warns' everyone to beware of a particular brand from his own experience.
Straight to the green ink with very little attempt to understand or even ask about the possible reasons for his/her observations.
He/she has apparently already been to his dealer to complain about his car not making 'book' figures.
The post is not really asking for advice or observation, but simply a 'let off steam and do some damage to Volvo's reputation while I'm at it' tirade.
"I am in the main, highly deleighted(sic) with the car except for its appaling(sic) fuel economy."
Sure.
"NO MORE VOLVOS'(sic) FOR ME!!! "
Waste of pixels.
Edited by Lygonos on 09/03/2009 at 21:13
|
I agree that if you are into cars you will know that "official" fuel figures are pulled out of thin air, but if you are someone who has little car knowledge then you should be able to assume that the figures are based in fact.
It's a poor show that manufacturer's figures are generally 20% optimisttic yet the situation is accepted by most.
|
I dont mind people posting about their poor economy, but it annoys the hell outta me that they jump to the assumption that it is somehow the manufacturers fault that the standardised economy tests favour some cars over others.
How about asking 'is this normal', none of this ' i wont buy XYZ again'.
I dont mind people being disappointed - our Sirion is currently returning 6 mpg below combined figures - but it has 2700 miles on the clock, does alot of town work and I expect in time it will improve when it loosens up.
It just seems nearly every day now someone new pops up with similar problems and makes me suspicious. Maybe its just coincidence though and my apologies to the OP for being a bit abrupt.
|
Is it safe to assume that CO2 figures are a better indicator of fuel consumption, or is that too simplistic?
To the OP, I'm not suprised at your fuel figures, i have a 1.8 tdci Focus, basically the same car with a smaller engine and manual gearbox, I stuggle to get more than 43 mpg.
|
CO2 figures should pretty much mirror the fuel consumptions: virtually all of the carbon in the exhaust gases comes from the combustion of fuel - atmospheric carbon dioxide going through the engine is a negligible amount (About 1g/km by my guesstimate).
Diesel will have a higher CO2 emission figure per litre of fuel consumed, compared to petrol as for a given volume it contains more carbon (denser longer carbon chain molecules), so you can't directly compare petrol vs diesel without a conversion factor.
|
|
|
|
|
Apology graciously accepted!! Sorry it has taken so long to reply but I have only just realised my original email was ever posted on this site. I was really letting off steam and didn't think I had a chance of publication lol. I only went for another diesel because I wanted the Powershift gearbox being similar to the DSG on my old Golf, plus the Golf having had such good MPG, I WRONGLY presumed all 1.9/2.0 ltr diesels would be ok in that area. I actually prefer petrol engines especially as at the time, diesel was anything up to 13p a litre dearer. This is the only engine, Volvo do the C30 with Powershift. The Geartronic box (available with other engines) doesn't have a good reputation. I really do like the car other than that and I just at the time felt "I'd had one pulled over on me!". In closing, I completely understand that near perfect conditions are used when manufacturers print the MPG of their models BUT don't you think it's time this whole system was revised so that if a car does under perform in this area, members of the public have some sort of comeback on the respective manufacturer??? At least at the moment there is only 3 or 4p between petrol and diesel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My first and only question is .......... how are you calculating the fuel consumption? To get a reasonably representative average figure you need to carry out the calculation over a reasonable length of time ~ I would suggest one month minimum.
Fill up the tank to the brim, and take the odometer reading. Run the vehicle for a month and repeat. Record every drop of fuel which has been put in the tank during the month and then do the calculation. You can expect the figue to vary from month to month depending on the season (i.e. the weather), the type of journeys, your driving style and how new (tight) the engine is. Fuel consumption will be worse in the winter than in the summer ~ your assessment has been carried out during a cold winter. Fuel consumption will be worse when the engine is new ~ your assessment has been carried out with a new engine.
Calculate the fuel consumption over periods of one month and then see what it's like (a) in the summer, and also (b) when the vehicle has done 10,000 miles. You could be pleasantly surprised.
|
|
Hello there, sorry it has taken so long for me to reply but I never thought my email would go into publication as I really had slated Volvo. The way I test is by filling up till the diesel is just in the neck of the filler, shaking the car on numerous occasions to get rid of any airlocks. Set the trip to zero, do a couple of hundred miles and go back to the SAME PUMP, fill up again, take the miles and do my calculation. It still isn't doing much, if any better with 6000 miles on the clock. The most I have ever had out of the 53 ltr tank is 390 miles and that is driving 20 miles into the low warning light. My Golf had only a 3 ltr larger tank and I got 510 miles to the light just coming on so a big difference. What is interesting is that there is very little difference in the consumption whether just knocking around or on a run or a combination of both. Thanks for your time.
|
|
|
|
