So I finally got a hold of our 2012 Volvo S60 T5's fuel log and updated its fuel numbers for September. Its best mpg went up from 26.4 in August to 28.1 in September. (In July its best was 21.9!) Its worst mpg stayed the same at 15.9. FYI, EPA rates the S60 at 20 mpg city and 30 mpg highway.
The Volvo achieved some of its best fuel numbers in September, up in the 20s rather than the high teens earlier in its term with us. This could be attributed to the fact that editor Brent Romans had it for most of last month and maybe, just maybe, isn't as much of a leadfoot as other editors on staff. At least, according to the numbers. When I asked Brent how he managed to get better mpg he replied, "Umm, probably just drove it conservatively. Staying out of turbo helps. Noticed that on GTI, too. And some of my fill ups are all highway from home to office."
By the way, looking at this picture I feel compelled to wish all of you a Happy October. Happy October!
Caroline Pardilla, Deputy Managing Editor
louiswei says:
04:45 PM, 10/ 5/11
Another not-so-pleasant result for turbo'd cars... This is becoming the norm.
explorerx4 says:
05:27 PM, 10/ 5/11
Yummm, pumpkin pie.
subytrojan says:
05:29 PM, 10/ 5/11
Because of where Brent lives, he might've done more highway driving, too. :)
bimmerjay says:
08:17 PM, 10/ 5/11
That color reminds me of either baby food or baby poop. Or both.
peartree1 says:
10:42 PM, 10/ 5/11
@louiswei:
Yeah, 28.1mpg. Soooooo awful for a car this size and with this power!
(And fyi, in L.A., I doubt they're doing much that would qualify as "highway" driving.)
louiswei says:
06:57 AM, 10/ 6/11
@ peartree1,
Did I say it was "awful"? I said it was "not pleasant". According to this: http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2011/10/big-list-of-fuel-economy-september-2011.html they did not meet the EPA average number so I don't understand what was the problem with my statement.
Oh and FYI, I live in LA so I know what's it like here.
bodyblue says:
06:57 AM, 10/ 6/11
The more I see this car the more I like it.....one of the best looking cars in its class......
ed124c says:
08:49 AM, 10/ 6/11
I have always liked the s60. It has probably been in production for about 20 years. Anyone know for sure?
I like Subaru's version of this color. (Actually, Subaru calls it "Caramel Bronze Pearl"-- a bit darker than the Volvo's.)
Speaking of car colors and pumpkin pies: Ford now offers "Cinnamon Metallic" on the 2012 Fusion. Combining it with a light titanium or camel colored interior makes me almost swoon.
fordson1 says:
10:31 AM, 10/ 6/11
I don't care what the EPA numbers are - I look at how much room it has for people, how much for cargo, how fast it accelerates, amenities...you know, basically what the car can do for me...and that's how I compare.
The Cruze has good room for 4, poor for 5, pretty big trunk, crappy power...and I think it's got pretty lousy fuel economy for what it can do.
The GTI, good room for 4, fair for 5, pretty big trunk/hatch, way more power than the Cruze...and still got the same fuel economy...and I think it does pretty well.
We bitch about the EPA regimen...and then complain that the car did not meet the EPA numbers? This is IL - we're car enthusiasts. I can read a spec sheet, a dyno and a timeslip and decide whether a vehicle is getting good mileage for what it is and can do - I don't go by the damn EPA number.
The Sienna got less than its EPA combined of 20...but it will carry 8 people and all their luggage, or just the driver and passenger and a freaking dining room set, plus it's pretty fast. What if the EPA said it should get 24 combined - would that mean the Sienna is a failure?
This Volvo - the amenities it provides, the number of people it provides those for, the performance...according to the list, all of the LT cars that got better mpg carried fewer passengers, less cargo AND had lesser performance. Jesus, sounds pretty good to me.
EPA numbers are like Consumer Reports road tests - they're for people who don't know anything about cars. I would not get too worked up about them.
louiswei says:
12:54 PM, 10/ 6/11
Speak it for yourself please, I do care about EPA numbers and I also care whether or not cars meet the EPA numbers. Oh and yes, I want to go fast too but that doesn't mean I don't want something fuel efficient...
sherief says:
07:50 PM, 10/10/11
Last I checked, 30mpg for a 300hp AWD sedan is really, really good...
onramp says:
08:43 PM, 10/25/11
What is needed here is an additional metric to bring a more sobering concept to what is a fuel miserly engine vs what is a powerful engine. The idea of a "300 hp engine that gets 30 mpg" is inherently fraught with giving the wrong message to consumers. The sobering element is that car manufacturers *should* spec how much hp is really in effect *while* you are getting that 30 mpg.
If it works out to only 35 hp available @ 30 mpg, that should tell you how realistic it is to expect similarly good mpg if you really dip into that 300 hp for your indulgence. If 35 hp is all you can work with to really get 30 mpg to emerge, then it really doesn't matter if you are driving a Civic or a Volvo or a Camaro SS. It's still the "econo-Civic experience", no matter which of those cars you chose. Wouldn't it surprise most people that it is more like 60 hp that is in-use while traversing the city streets, and that 60 hp incidentally correlates to 17 or so mpg (maybe even 14 if you aren't traveling at a speed that allows you to put the 1st overdrive gear into use). This point really goes down in the vein of "you don't get something for nothing". Physics should tell you the same. Modern powerful engines don't suddenly give you more power from nothing. If you want to generate that power, it is going to consume the requisite fuel to make it happen. If you want 30 mpg, then you better plan on loading that engine accordingly...sustained 35 hp or very short bursts of much high hp followed by liberal coasting. Fuel economy isn't going to just happen by accident just because "300 hp" and "30 mpg" are combined in a marketing spec.