2016 XC90 Fuel Economy numbers are on the Volvo site today
Username
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 35 of 285
    1. #1
      Global Moderator Paradox's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2014
      Location
      🇺🇸
      Posts
      3,747

      2016 XC90 Fuel Economy numbers are on the Volvo site today

      And, the numbers are:

      20 mpg City
      25 mpg Highway


      Highway came in lower than I had expected. City is 1 mpg higher than I expected. Still shocked at the highway, I was really thinking 27 would be a minimum but they do not deter me.

      Currently Own:

      2018 Volvo XC60 Inscription — Replaced my 2016 XC90 First Edition

      2018 Cadillac Escalade ESV Platinum — Replaced my 2017 Audi Q7

    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. #2
      Junior Member turbomama's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2015
      Posts
      104
      Are these best in class numbers? Not being sarcastic - I really don't know! Have to admit disappointment here. I think I held on to the original buzz I heard when first talks of new XC90. The buzz was in the 30's. A little bummed.


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    4. #3
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Mar 2015
      Posts
      22
      I was hoping for more, but for me it is still an improvement over my current vehicle. To put it in perspective, I drive a 2014 Infiniti Q50 which gets 20/29 and this is a sedan, but requires premium gas. I will be happy with the 20/25 and being able to use regular unleaded.

    5. Remove Advertisements
      SwedeSpeed.com
      Advertisements
       

    6. #4
      Global Moderator Paradox's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2014
      Location
      🇺🇸
      Posts
      3,747
      Quote Originally Posted by newtovolvo86 View Post
      I was hoping for more, but for me it is still an improvement over my current vehicle. To put it in perspective, I drive a 2014 Infiniti Q50 which gets 20/29 and this is a sedan, but requires premium gas. I will be happy with the 20/25 and being able to use regular unleaded.

      Is it regular though in the T6? I've been under the understanding the Drive-E T5 recommends regular and the Drive-E T6 recommends Premium.
      Currently Own:

      2018 Volvo XC60 Inscription — Replaced my 2016 XC90 First Edition

      2018 Cadillac Escalade ESV Platinum — Replaced my 2017 Audi Q7

    7. #5
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Mar 2015
      Posts
      22
      For comparison:
      2015 BMW X5 (18/27)
      2015 Audi Q7 (16/22)
      2015 Acura MDX (20/28)
      2015 Lexus GX (15/20)

    8. #6
      Global Moderator Paradox's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2014
      Location
      🇺🇸
      Posts
      3,747
      2015 Infiniti QX60 AWD (19/25)
      2015 Toyota Highlander AWD (18/24)

      Edit: The EPA has the 2016 MDX AWD numbers above and they are lower than the 2015 you posted above.

      2016 Acura MDX AWD (18/26)
      Last edited by Paradox; 03-27-2015 at 12:37 PM.
      Currently Own:

      2018 Volvo XC60 Inscription — Replaced my 2016 XC90 First Edition

      2018 Cadillac Escalade ESV Platinum — Replaced my 2017 Audi Q7

    9. #7
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Mar 2015
      Posts
      22
      Per the Owner's Manual:
      Octane rating
      Volvo recommends premium fuel for best performance, but using 87 octane or above will not affect engine reliability.

      It is recommended, not required, unlike many luxury SUVs and Cars

    10. #8
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Mar 2015
      Location
      Atlanta
      Posts
      52
      That's interesting. I too thought the T6 required premium fuel. I wonder what decrease in performance you would experience with 87 octane?

      I am a bit disappointed in the 25mpg highway rating. I expected more out of a 4-cylinder. But it would not change my mind in getting the new XC90.

    11. #9
      Global Moderator Paradox's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2014
      Location
      🇺🇸
      Posts
      3,747
      Quote Originally Posted by newtovolvo86 View Post
      Per the Owner's Manual:
      Octane rating
      Volvo recommends premium fuel for best performance, but using 87 octane or above will not affect engine reliability.

      It is recommended, not required, unlike many luxury SUVs and Cars
      Indeed, the manual on the Volvo app says 87 unless equipped with the high performance 4 cylinder engines (B4204T9 and B4204T10) which require premium fuel. I wonder which engines they are referencing with those model numbers that require premium.

      Currently Own:

      2018 Volvo XC60 Inscription — Replaced my 2016 XC90 First Edition

      2018 Cadillac Escalade ESV Platinum — Replaced my 2017 Audi Q7

    12. #10
      Junior Member turbomama's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2015
      Posts
      104
      Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post
      Indeed, the manual on the Volvo app says 87 unless equipped with the high performance 4 cylinder engines (B4204T9 and B4204T10) which require premium fuel. I wonder which engines they are referencing with those model numbers that require premium.

      That's pretty important here in cost analysis. Wonder how we find out?


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    13. #11
      Global Moderator Paradox's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2014
      Location
      🇺🇸
      Posts
      3,747
      Quote Originally Posted by turbomama View Post
      That's pretty important here in cost analysis. Wonder how we find out?


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

      Yannis (GrecianVolvo) said this in the past about the Drive-E T6 engine, when talking about it in the XC60:

      Quote Originally Posted by GrecianVolvo View Post

      As noted in previous posts, the T6 will require premium fuel. That does not mean using regular fuel will damage the engine. However, if you want to get the posted fuel mileage and performance, you will need to use 91-octane grade or higher. That is not a requirement for the T5 version.

      Link to the post:https://forums.swedespeed.com/showthr...=1#post2278015

      Those engine numbers (B4204T9 and B4204T10) got discussed in there as well although I didn't see any mention to what exactly they refer to.


      More: https://forums.swedespeed.com/showthr...=1#post2269790

      Lol, this whole topic of fuel rquirement versus those engine numbers has come up before because of the T6 Drive-E in the XC60: https://forums.swedespeed.com/showthr...=1#post2312054
      Last edited by Paradox; 03-27-2015 at 12:15 PM.
      Currently Own:

      2018 Volvo XC60 Inscription — Replaced my 2016 XC90 First Edition

      2018 Cadillac Escalade ESV Platinum — Replaced my 2017 Audi Q7

    14. #12
      While solid numbers, it seems to not live up to the "hype" as we've seen over and over "class-leading". I thought it was going to be better than the X5 diesel as well, but it's far from it. Still, at this price level a few MPG isn't going to probably be a deciding factor. 3rd row seat space probably is the most important, and it clearly is amazing in this aspect. I wonder if the T5 version we will get later will be significantly better, or in 2wd variants? Considering it's better than the XC60 but is much larger does show the vast improvements being made.

      After seeing 2 in person and the Chicago Auto Show it still doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for this vehicle....it's still very impressive. Can't wait for the SPA sedans so I can actually get into one myself.
      Last edited by VolvoFaRmeR; 03-27-2015 at 03:01 PM.

    15. #13
      Guest
      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Location
      PNW
      Posts
      4,289
      20MPG City is very good number for such a big car. It is so close to highway mpg. So auto stop engine on red helped a lot?

    16. #14
      Member Adrian-C30R's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      Location
      Bellflower, California
      Posts
      2,201
      Quote Originally Posted by newtovolvo86 View Post
      I was hoping for more, but for me it is still an improvement over my current vehicle. To put it in perspective, I drive a 2014 Infiniti Q50 which gets 20/29 and this is a sedan, but requires premium gas. I will be happy with the 20/25 and being able to use regular unleaded.
      The Drive-E T6 is recommended for premium gas as well.
      NEW! 2013 Fiat 500 Abarth Manual
      2007 S40 T5 White
      Previous: 1989 740 Turbo, 1995 960, 1999 V70 XC AWD

    17. #15
      Member Adrian-C30R's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      Location
      Bellflower, California
      Posts
      2,201
      It's actually better MPG than the P80 models were getting. It's not miraculous, but that's what the T8 is for.
      NEW! 2013 Fiat 500 Abarth Manual
      2007 S40 T5 White
      Previous: 1989 740 Turbo, 1995 960, 1999 V70 XC AWD

    18. #16
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Sep 2014
      Location
      East bay
      Posts
      116
      The MPG is quit disappointing with all the hype about using a fancy 4 cylinder with weight savings etc., and the 2015 BMW X5 that is close to 200 lb heavier with a sweet sounding turbo 6 is rated at 19/27 and a 0-60 time of 6.1 to boot !

    19. #17
      Quote Originally Posted by Shopaholic View Post
      The MPG is quit disappointing with all the hype about using a fancy 4 cylinder with weight savings etc., and the 2015 BMW X5 that is close to 200 lb heavier with a sweet sounding turbo 6 is rated at 19/27 and a 0-60 time of 6.1 to boot !
      ....which is no quicker than the Volvo and probably costs $10-20,000 more when similar equipmed.....and has NO third row seat that could ever be used by an adult. The X5 may be a competitor, but when it comes to seating 7 it's laughable. Not sure too many people will cross shop these two for any reason. REAL WORLD results will be the deciding factor.

    20. #18
      Junior Member DCPattie's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2008
      Posts
      977
      Geez, it seems like just paring the old 3.0L I-6 (T6) with the new eight-speed transmission would get you close. My 2012 T6 XC70 gets 17/23. I was expecting more with the all-new drivetrain! The overall weight seems to be in check at ~4400 lbs but still, this is what you get when you pair a small motor in large car. Ford is seeing the same thing with the new Mustang with the 2.3L ecoboost engine - weaker than expected EPA numbers (even worse in real driving).
      Dave in VA

      2012 XC70 T6, AWD (new T6 motor installed 8/27/2015)
      2016 Cadillac ATS-V

    21. #19
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Aug 2013
      Posts
      64
      Quote Originally Posted by VolvoFaRmeR View Post
      ....which is no quicker than the Volvo and probably costs $10-20,000 more when similar equipmed.....and has NO third row seat that could ever be used by an adult. The X5 may be a competitor, but when it comes to seating 7 it's laughable. Not sure too many people will cross shop these two for any reason. REAL WORLD results will be the deciding factor.
      Both cars have their drawbacks and strong points. Shopaholic's point is that the X5 is heavier, has a way better sounding engine and gets comparable gas mileage. I drove an XC60 (with T6 Drive-E) the other day again. It's quiet, but not at all refined sounding. If there is no ostensible MPG benefit to the 4cyl that Volvo used, they should have just gone with a (better sounding) 6cyl.

    22. #20
      Except that the 4 cylinder BMW is always called our for sounding like a truck engine, I'd say Volvo has one of the best sounding 4 cylinders in this segment. And I think you will find the engine does have a HUGE increase in fuel economy over a six. Take the 3.2 in the old XC90 ad 16/25....that's a 20% improvement in city fuel economy on a car this is now larger, matches the highway economy AND makes 20% more power while doing it. 20% more power and 20% better fuel economy indeed sounds like huge improvement to me. Consider a XC60 T6 6 cylinder gets 15% worse economy in the city and seats 2 less people while having the same power. Sure it's not what we wished it was, but lets not overlook the marked improvement for what it is. We'll see what Audi's new Q7 is rated out and then you can compare.

    23. #21
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Apr 2007
      Location
      Austin, TX
      Posts
      732
      Ugh, this is definitely a bit disappointing, but I had somewhat expected it given the FWD-only XC60 with this engine gets 22/30. Adding AWD eats 1-2 mpg, then the added weight, size, height takes its toll as well.

      We need a new car due to a growing family, the XC90 was high on our list, but I have to seriously consider the X5 35i which gets an impressive 27 mpg and is more dynamic. I understand Volvo really focused on these new green engines as they had significant issues being efficient. Unfortunately, only offering a 4-cylinder choice in such a large SUV and only getting 25 mpg will ultimately hurt them I fear.
      '16 Volvo XC90 R-Design - Passion Red - Polestar, Convenience, 4C Suspension, Bowers & Wilkins, CarPlay
      '18 Tesla Model 3 Performance - Tri-coat Red - Performance Upgrade Package, Enhanced AutoPilot
      SOLD - '13 XC60 R-Design - Ice White - Platinum, Climate Pkg w/ Boosters, BLIS

    24. #22
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2003
      Posts
      580
      If these numbers are true, HUGE disappointment! After all the hype, class leading mpg etc, this? These numbers makes me think that what was the Volvo management smoking when they decided to put a 4-cylinder engine in a heavy SUV? I bet BMW and Audi are laughing right now.

      VolvoFarmer, to compare the mpg of the new XC90 to the old 3.2 liter XC90 and say "look, what an improvement!" is a bit laughable. I understand you're trying to put a positive spin on this, but come on. This engine was supposed to give superior mpg against the competition and redefine Volvo's future. With these mpg numbers, the XC90 does not stand out from the crowd and actually stands behind some of it's competitors.

      Perhaps you can tell I am disappointed. I truly hope these numbers are not true. I was so hopeful that Volvo would have come out with an engine formula that would help redefine the future for car engines and save the Volvo brand. Now I have my doubts. End of rant, time for my morning coffee.
      2004 XC90 T6 - member of the Quarter Million Miler Club - Sold!

    25. #23
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      May 2003
      Posts
      580
      Quote Originally Posted by Adrian-C30R View Post
      It's not miraculous, but that's what the T8 is for.
      I think the highway numbers for T8 will actually be worse than T6 because of the battery weight.
      2004 XC90 T6 - member of the Quarter Million Miler Club - Sold!

    26. #24
      Global Moderator Paradox's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2014
      Location
      🇺🇸
      Posts
      3,747
      Quote Originally Posted by finnvolvo View Post
      I truly hope these numbers are not true.
      Unless you mean you hope real world numbers are somehow better, I pulled them straight off Volvo's website.

      I think their reason for going small engine/alot of power through twin charging has more to do with emissions than superior MPG, but I could be totally off. I wasn't expecting this engine to beat an X5 diesel like someone else was but I also thought mated to the 8 speed transmission it would have fared a tad bit better on the highway, at 27 mpg. Maybe those with the air suspension can get 26 highway if they set it to lower at highway speeds, but even that's just 1 mpg and honestly who cares, well I don't.

      Overall, they pretty much matched similar size and weight vehicles (like an Infiniti QX 60 AWD that gets 19 city, 26 highway but with a 3.5L V6 making 50 less horsepower) while probably getting better emissions which makes Volvo content.
      Currently Own:

      2018 Volvo XC60 Inscription — Replaced my 2016 XC90 First Edition

      2018 Cadillac Escalade ESV Platinum — Replaced my 2017 Audi Q7

    27. #25
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Aug 2013
      Posts
      64
      Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post
      Unless you mean you hope real world numbers are somehow better, I pulled them straight off Volvo's website.

      I think their reason for going small engine/alot of power through twin charging has more to do with emissions than superior MPG, but I could be totally off. I wasn't expecting this engine to beat an X5 diesel like someone else was but I also thought mated to the 8 speed transmission it would have fared a tad bit better on the highway, at 27 mpg. Maybe those with the air suspension can get 26 highway if they set it to lower at highway speeds, but even that's just 1 mpg and honestly who cares, well I don't.

      Overall, they pretty much matched similar size and weight vehicles (like an Infiniti QX 60 AWD that gets 19 city, 26 highway but with a 3.5L V6 making 50 less horsepower) while probably getting better emissions which makes Volvo content.
      Like someone else said, the real test will be what the Q7's fuel economy numbers are. That 3.0 supercharged motor, like the BMW I6 turbo, is one sweet engine. Better than the Volvo T6 Drive E motors that I've driven by quite a ways. Yeah, the XC90 looks better but I suspect the Q7 may drive better. Also, the Infiniti QX60 is due for a refresh in 2016 or 2017. Curious to see what, if any, changes they make to the drivetrain. That 3.5/CVT combo is awful. Passable (barely), in a 35K pathfinder, but totally unacceptable for a 55 to 60K lux crossover.

    28. #26
      Global Moderator Paradox's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2014
      Location
      🇺🇸
      Posts
      3,747
      Quote Originally Posted by GolfEsq View Post
      Like someone else said, the real test will be what the Q7's fuel economy numbers are. That 3.0 supercharged motor, like the BMW I6 turbo, is one sweet engine. Better than the Volvo T6 Drive E motors that I've driven by quite a ways. Yeah, the XC90 looks better but I suspect the Q7 may drive better. Also, the Infiniti QX60 is due for a refresh in 2016 or 2017. Curious to see what, if any, changes they make to the drivetrain. That 3.5/CVT combo is awful. Passable (barely), in a 35K pathfinder, but totally unacceptable for a 55 to 60K lux crossover.
      Agree, it's awful in the qx60 but price you mention is loaded and sticker. They sell for MUCH less if you shop around. I got a fully loaded hybrid AWD qx60 stickered at $61k for $53k and it was not a left over, but rather 3 months after the 14's were released. The refresh may just be a minor cosmetic refresh, who knows but they definitely should consider dumping that cvt they are using.

      Agree also, while the XC90 certainly looks better to most, the Q7s numbers and driving reviews may push people to it, just have to wait and see now.
      Currently Own:

      2018 Volvo XC60 Inscription — Replaced my 2016 XC90 First Edition

      2018 Cadillac Escalade ESV Platinum — Replaced my 2017 Audi Q7

    29. #27
      Member
      Join Date
      Jan 2005
      Location
      Central Florida
      Posts
      2,740
      If the numbers are correct, then they are disappointing. They're not bad, but the hype is over blown and I don't see the promises being delivered. Those of us not blinded by love for Volvo saw this coming. And there's still the issue of what will the real world numbers be. A lot of DriveE 60s owners are not achieving epa numbers. Other brands have also run into this issue with turbo 4 cylinder engines and have had to deal with unhappy customers not achieving mpg ratings. The less cylinders and with turbos etc, the harder to achieve rated mpgs. Throw in the weight of an SUV, and it's going to be that much harder. If you have a heavy foot, then you are going to burn even more gas than if you'd just gotten more cylinders.

      With more traditional engine design and more cylinders, it was easier to do better than the epa ratings. Throw in cylinder deactivation which I believe in and it's even that much better.

      I wonder how much of the city 20 mpgs is coming from start/stop? And what is the rating if people turn that off?

      And what is the epa rating on regular NON-premium fuel?

      For me, I would glady give up a few mpg in exchange for a less complicated engine (no turbos or superchargers), 2 more cylinders, regular gas, and a better smoother engine sound that stays nice even when being pressed hard.

      I've always wished Volvo would have offered a 5 or 6 cyl DriveE.

      What will be interesting is what numbers does Audi achieve, and what percentage of buyers opt for a 4cyl vs 6cyl Q7 since Audi is offering that option.
      06 XC90 V8
      98 V70 T5M

    30. #28
      Member rfkuehn's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2003
      Location
      Fairfax, VA
      Posts
      1,631
      City #'s are just fine, but agree highway is a bit disappointing, especially considering the 8-speed. Could the Aerodynamics By Geoff be a factor? (Top Gear viewers will understand.) Does the 4-cyl cruise at borderline-boost at highway speed just to keep moving the box through the air?

      Makes me wonder if T5 will be any better. If the T5's turbo is tuned for low end (where the T6's supercharger operates), will the T5 be able to get the XC90 up a hill against a stiff breeze?

      I think the narrow 4-cyl strategy was for better leverage of powertrain investments & margin, but the XC90 may be pushing it given weight & size. Another reason the next-gen 60-series may truly be the real deal.
      Last edited by rfkuehn; 03-28-2015 at 10:04 AM.
      2004 XC90 2.5T AWD - BSR ECU upgrade, ViVA strut bar conversion, IPD control arms/sway bars/end links/subframe bushing inserts, OE 336mm front rotors, Nokian WRG4 SUV. 200k miles and counting
      2011 Sienna AWD - Wife + 3 kids (incl. twins). 140k miles and counting (down)
      XC Coupe PHEV - Waiting patiently (and expecting a very long wait)

    31. #29
      Member
      Join Date
      Sep 2004
      Posts
      1,670
      Quote Originally Posted by BrianV View Post
      Ugh, this is definitely a bit disappointing, but I had somewhat expected it given the FWD-only XC60 with this engine gets 22/30. Adding AWD eats 1-2 mpg, then the added weight, size, height takes its toll as well.

      We need a new car due to a growing family, the XC90 was high on our list, but I have to seriously consider the X5 35i which gets an impressive 27 mpg and is more dynamic. I understand Volvo really focused on these new green engines as they had significant issues being efficient. Unfortunately, only offering a 4-cylinder choice in such a large SUV and only getting 25 mpg will ultimately hurt them I fear.
      I had expected 20/27/23 mpg on the basis of the XC60 T6 comparison - the typical Volvo 1 mpg penalty for AWD and another 1-2 mpg for other factors. The city number is on target but the highway number is both disappointing and a bit strange. It's unusually close to the city number, 5 mpg down from the XC60, and less than that of some 6-cyl competitors.

      Comparison:

      Gas
      Volvo XC90....................20/25/22
      Acura MDX....................18/27/21
      Audi Q7........................16/22/18
      BMW X5 x35i.................18/27/21
      Infiniti QX60..................19/26/22
      MB ML350.....................17/22/19
      Porsche Cayenne 6-cyl ...19/24/21

      Diesel
      Audi Q7 diesel...............19/28/22
      BMW X5 x35d................24/31/27
      MB ML250.....................22/29/25
      Porsche Cayenne...........20/29/23

    32. #30
      Member rfkuehn's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2003
      Location
      Fairfax, VA
      Posts
      1,631
      Quote Originally Posted by Calhon View Post
      I had expected 20/27/23 mpg on the basis of the XC60 T6 comparison - the typical Volvo 1 mpg penalty for AWD and another 1-2 mpg for other factors. The city number is on target but the highway number is both disappointing and a bit strange. It's unusually close to the city number, 5 mpg down from the XC60, and less than that of some 6-cyl competitors.

      Comparison:

      Gas
      Volvo XC90....................20/25/22
      Acura MDX....................18/27/21
      Audi Q7........................16/22/18
      BMW X5 x35i.................18/27/21
      Infiniti QX60..................19/26/22
      MB ML350.....................17/22/19
      Porsche Cayenne 6-cyl ...19/24/21

      Diesel
      Audi Q7 diesel...............19/28/22
      BMW X5 x35d................24/31/27
      MB ML250.....................22/29/25
      Porsche Cayenne...........20/29/23
      This is a crude/unfair comparison, but the 5 mpg city-to-highway bump is at the low end of the range you've cited, here's the others in your order: 9, 6, 9, 7, 5, 5 (gas), 9, 7, 7, 9 (diesel).

      I figured they'd tune to certify 20 city, but expected 20/27/23. Do we know the combined rating? 20/25/22 perhaps?
      2004 XC90 2.5T AWD - BSR ECU upgrade, ViVA strut bar conversion, IPD control arms/sway bars/end links/subframe bushing inserts, OE 336mm front rotors, Nokian WRG4 SUV. 200k miles and counting
      2011 Sienna AWD - Wife + 3 kids (incl. twins). 140k miles and counting (down)
      XC Coupe PHEV - Waiting patiently (and expecting a very long wait)

    33. #31
      Global Moderator Paradox's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2014
      Location
      🇺🇸
      Posts
      3,747
      Quote Originally Posted by rfkuehn View Post
      This is a crude/unfair comparison, but the 5 mpg city-to-highway bump is at the low end of the range you've cited, here's the others in your order: 9, 6, 9, 7, 5, 5 (gas), 9, 7, 7, 9 (diesel).

      I figured they'd tune to certify 20 city, but expected 20/27/23. Do we know the combined rating? 20/25/22 perhaps?
      I think combined is going to be 22. They use 45% and 55% but I forget if it is 55% highway 45% city or the other way around.

      Edit, they use 55% city 45% higheay for the combined rating. http://epa.gov/fueleconomy/documents/420f14015.pdf
      Last edited by Paradox; 03-28-2015 at 10:41 AM.
      Currently Own:

      2018 Volvo XC60 Inscription — Replaced my 2016 XC90 First Edition

      2018 Cadillac Escalade ESV Platinum — Replaced my 2017 Audi Q7

    34. #32
      Guest
      Join Date
      Nov 2014
      Location
      PNW
      Posts
      4,289
      Real mpg, eg, how many miles it runs with one tank of gas in real life, varies very much for several reasons:
      - average speed for city drive. 10mph and 20mph makes a lot difference.
      - uphills, affects mpg a lot, on both city road and highway.
      - driving habit. Slow cruiser certainly gets much better number than rush and stop.
      - engine efficiency, car weight and aero shape, eg, likely can be indicated by EPA numbers.

      The first 3 reasons create a lot difference. For similar car weight, be it 4cyl turbo or 6cyl or 6cyl turbo, it does not surprise me if same car is 27mpg under one person's foot and 24 mpg by someone else.

      I know people love comparisons and numbers are excellent things to compare. But bear in mind, if you really are so emotionally attached to mpg of your car, a smaller car or hybrid is your better choice.

      This XC90 number is in line with my expectation. Only thing is how it compares to XC60 drive E on highway. One can really drive both cars and get the real milage.
      Last edited by goVolvo; 03-28-2015 at 11:08 AM.

    35. #33
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Mar 2015
      Posts
      22
      Quote Originally Posted by goVolvo View Post

      I know people love comparisons and numbers are excellent things to compare. But bear in mind, if you really are so emotionally attached to mpg of your car, a smaller car or hybrid is your better choice.
      This. If you wanted a higher mpg, wait for the T8. I personally am tied to the styling and technology inside the vehicle. Any mpg would be a bonus.

    36. #34
      Member volvocu's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      ISTANBUL
      Posts
      1,969
      Yannis had previously stated that the T6 would not only better X5 35i but also X5 3.0D if I recall correctly, so whats the deal with those numbers?

    37. #35
      Member
      Join Date
      Sep 2004
      Posts
      1,670
      Quote Originally Posted by rfkuehn View Post
      This is a crude/unfair comparison, but the 5 mpg city-to-highway bump is at the low end of the range you've cited, here's the others in your order: 9, 6, 9, 7, 5, 5 (gas), 9, 7, 7, 9 (diesel).
      It's the lowest percentage spread between the city and highway numbers.

    38. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast