2006 S60 2.5T MPG

That may be part of the problem (the 72 MPH comment). Back off on the right foot a bit.

I drive a V40, and right from the get-go, I'll have about a 20% better fuel mileage than you will, all other things being equal (4 cyl versus

5 cyl)

Read the on-line stuff about how driving habits affect gas mileage.

Smooth/steady driving, no sudden accelerations or starts, no excessive idling. Maintain the car (oil, fluids, filters, washing, cleaning.....)

Of course, you didn't say which engine you got in the car -- bigger engine means worse fuel mileage. Also, are you running in economy or sport mode? Which fuel type -- regular or high-test?

I had the same experience with a 2005 2.5T. I now have about 16,600 miles on the car and the mileage has increased to almost 24 mpg, with about the same mix of driving. My speed selection is a bit higher, though; it's in the low 80s, as that's the speed I'm most comfortable with, with occasional bursts of 90+, as required.

One thing I've learned, despite protestations of "experts": it's better to accelerate briskly to speed and then back off on the throttle. This gives you better mileage because you're at higher power settings for a lower amount of time. I learned this in the transit industry, where it's more energy efficient to accelerate a train to maximum running speed quickly and then immediately go to the power setting necessary to maintain speed.

I use the mid-grade fuel of 89 octane, with no ill effects.

Also, I understand that the transmission has a "learning mode" feature, which adjusts shift points, based on your driving style.

Good luck with your S60. I love mine and would consider another one in a heartbeat. I let people drive mine and unanimously, people say the car "glides" and are favorably impressed.

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

24mpg in mixed driving is not too bad. I checked my mileage tonight and was at 20 with about 50/50 city/hwy mileage.

I, however, love my car in just about everyway. Even the stock stereo is very good which surprised me. The S60 is not given the respect it deserves from reviewers. There are only 2 things that I'm not thrilled about. First is the mileage and the second thing is the size of the remote/key. It's like a small cell phone.

Things I like: Styling, acceleration, exteremly comfortable seats, dash layout, quality of buttons, and switches, all the cool options, stereo, dual climate control, silky smooth transmission, and so much more. I would lease this car again in a second.

pkallis wrote:

I just returned tonight from a 982 mile round trip. The mix of driving was about 75% highway and 25% local, which, due to excessive traffic on both ends, as well as highway repairs, might even have a slightly higher local component.

While on the highway, I had the cruise control set at 79 mph, with occasional bursts up into the 80s, perhaps once at 90. My average mileage was 25.6, according to the trip computer.

I used mid-grade fuel (89 octane) for this trip.

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

24mpg in mixed driving is not too bad. I checked my mileage tonight and was at 20 with about 50/50 city/hwy mileage.

I, however, love my car in just about everyway. Even the stock stereo is very good which surprised me. The S60 is not given the respect it deserves from reviewers. There are only 2 things that I'm not thrilled about. First is the mileage and the second thing is the size of the remote/key. It's like a small cell phone.

Things I like: Styling, acceleration, exteremly comfortable seats, dash layout, quality of buttons, and switches, all the cool options, stereo, dual climate control, silky smooth transmission, and so much more. I would lease this car again in a second.

pkallis wrote: I had the same experience with a 2005 2.5T. I now have about

16,600 miles on the car and the mileage has increased to almost 24 mpg, with about the same mix of driving. My speed selection is a bit higher, though; it's in the low 80s, as that's the speed I'm most comfortable with, with occasional bursts of 90+, as required.

One thing I've learned, despite protestations of "experts": it's better to accelerate briskly to speed and then back off on the throttle. This gives you better mileage because you're at higher power settings for a lower amount of time. I learned this in the transit industry, where it's more energy efficient to accelerate a train to maximum running speed quickly and then immediately go to the power setting necessary to maintain speed.

I use the mid-grade fuel of 89 octane, with no ill effects.

Also, I understand that the transmission has a "learning mode" feature, which adjusts shift points, based on your driving style.

Good luck with your S60. I love mine and would consider another one in a heartbeat. I let people drive mine and unanimously, people say the car "glides" and are favorably impressed.

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

My new Volvo is only on the second tank but I'm barely getting 22MPG with 75% hwy and the rest city. Does the engine have to break in first or is this about right? I drive about 72MPH on the highway. Thanks in advance

--------------040704000101070404060709--

tonight

getting 22MPG

My 2004 V70 with the same 2.5T gets aroung 28mpg on the highway with speeds ranging from 65 to 75mph. In town mpg drops to around 22 or so.

I think the difference between what you and I are are getting in mpg is mostly the result of driving style. I consciously attempt to maximize mpg on the road by holding a constant if slightly fast speed. In town I try to hold a constant speed, minimize rapid acceleration and deceleration and use engine braking whenever possible. I'ts kind of a game, but I keep the immediate mpg display on and try to keep that number as high as possible.

I own a 2002 S80 T6. I can drive on the interstate at 55 miles per hour and consistently get 34 miles to the gallon. Most people would say "what fun is that driving 55 MPH with twin turbos?" I say "$3 a gallon fun." I wonder how accurate the computer is in determining the miles per gallon.

You need to break the engine in, even in modern cars. It needs at least

5000 miles to get rid of all the rough spots. You'll see consistent improvements in mileage with each tank after about 1000 miles.

*FACK*! I drive my 5th Volvo now and I bought them all factory new. It took at least 10'000 to 15'000 km to reach the lowest fuel consumption and the difference is at least 10 % bewtween new and beyond 10 tkm. Consider changing the oil and the oil filter after 5000 km and refill with a fully synthetic motor oil.

Have a nice and sunny Sunday!

Joerg

OK, sounds like he knows, run your new car for 5000 to 8000 miles, then check it out.

In my experience the average reading is quite accurate. I compared the reading for each of several tankfuls to mpg computed with pencil and paper and results were very close.

Obviously the key to using the car computer for measuring mpg per tankful is to reset it at each fillup. Otherwise you get a sluggish average spread over several tanks.

Typically the mpg computers are very accurate, often within 5% and almost always within 10%. That may seem like a lot of margin of error, but that would be 1-2 mpg at 20 mpg.

The computer knows most of the variables with great accuracy: the distance traveled (as displayed by your odometer), the engine speed, the amount of time the ECU is commanding the fuel injectors to stay open. All it does not know directly is the fuel pressure, which determines the actual amount of fuel injected compared to the expected amount.

Mike

That was always true for the Volvos with gasoline engine. My new V70 D5 is producing results on the trip computer which are roughly 10 % to low (liter/100km). The readings with the gasoline engine consistently was within 2 % of the real values.

Joerg