I am looking for a nice 2001+ V70 to replace my old 850 which is closing on 200K miles.

It seems that the most common is AWD version (XC70). I really do not need added complexity and fuel consumption of AWD.

I am curious about fuel economy of a plain V70 (NA) and a turbo version. Is it almost the same or different? I am not comparing AWD with FWD, but turbo and non-turbo engines.

Another question for V70 owners. many V70s come with a third row seat. I would not need one - can it be removed from the car? Is it practical to remove it?

Thank you,
Yuri

I drive a 2001 V70 T5. I ran 93 octane until about 60k. My city mileage was about 20 mpg. Highway mileage at 75-85 mph is 23-25 mpg. As gas prices have gone up I've started filling up with 87 and 93 octane. The resulting 90 octane average is usually 3-4¢ cheaper per gallon than the mid-range 89 octane at the pump. I tend to drive smoother now also. Town driving is stop and go congestion, but mileage now averages 22+. Once in a while I'll just run 87, but I take it easy. Long trips, hot weather: 93 octane. Unlikely I will ever drive 450-500 miles to West Texas at an economic 55 mph. I didn't get a Valentine One to save gas. I do have a Scan-Gauge velcroed to the steering column though.

Well, most of the guys below must've driven 90/10 highway/city alone... ;-)

In my case V70 T5'01 is about 5/95 highway/city with signal light
every 300 yards. It gets 18mpg summer, 17.5mpg winter, computer calculations
match actual fuel filled +-3%.

True, on the highway with no load but the driver and coasting at 52mph
it will get around 32mpg. However with realistic highway driving conditions -
loaded car with 4 adults and 200-300lbs cargo coasting at 75mph - it will be
around 22mpg again.

It's a good car but decent fuel consumption figures can be achieved only in the lab or if you just _want_ to achieve them, IMNSHO.

Thanks,
Andrey M.

I probably should have added I'm driving almost ALWAYS single, with little load other than a set of golf clubs ;-)) My city traffic isn't near as bad as yours, and I usually cruise at 65 to 70. I also see worse mileage in the winter, and worse when raining. I get better milage the hotter it gets (up to a point). This has never made sense to me figuring more dense air would result in better burn and better economy. Anyone in the forum have ideas on this? My guess was cooler air was higher density and the air resistance was the main factor, but really just a guess on my part.

There are articles on the internet that discuss this. Your question led me to look. Here is one:
http://www.sciam.com/earth-and-environment/article/id/why-is-the-fuel-economy-o

Denser air and more friction of moving parts when vehicle is colder are some factors. I guess the temperature of air for combustion is a smaller effect, since it isn't mentioned. A few statistics - air resistance 16% lower at 70 degrees than at 0 degrees. Friction of tires/road interface 20% higher at 0 degrees than at 80 degrees.

I get about 2 mpg lower in the winter. 22mpg mixed winter, 24mpg summer
Don '95 854T

I have a 2001 T5 Automatic with 87K. I'm a pretty easy driver and find that streching my drift into stops is my best tatic for better milage, that and accelerating easy (but we all know this already). Using the low grade gas I get about 26 MPG in a mix of city and highway going to work. Straight highway no wind or hills (which we can have in N. California) I average about 28-29. My best ever was 32, but never even came close to this again. I think it was because the traffic was heavy (but steady) on the freeway and we held about 45 MPH. BTW the onboard computer reads my MPG usually low by about 1.5 MPG, but on occasion hits it right on! I've always used synthethic oil, and found that when I replaced the original Pirelli P6's with Kuhmo ECSTA's I dropped about 1.5 MPG until I upped the tire pressure and wore them down some. I run 235/45/17's. I LOVE my Volvo!!

> Using the low grade gas I get about 26 MPG in a mix of city and highway going to work.

Your manual clearly states "premium gas only", correct ?

Yep, you are correct in that the manual requires premium. I only tried a few tanks of premo, and didn't notice that much difference. However as I stated, I drive like there was an egg between my foot and the gas pedel. Since I don't ask much for power I guess the computer doesn't have to retard spark much so I do OK. I also only run Chevron, perhaps that makes some difference. I have a 69 Ford truck that seems to run just fine on anything but Mobil which it hates, so go figure.

I thought the 91 was "recommended". Maybe things changed after my car ('95 T5). Too cold to go look, but I think mine says 87 minimum, 91 recommended.

I use regular and let the antiknock sensors figure it out. I also drive with a light foot (usually).

I suggest you use the octane specified in the owner's manual. You may see a slight improvement in fuel economy compared to low-test.

BG, I have used a tank or 2 of premium and really didn't see any difference other than a bigger bill, Ha Ha!! TimeToBakeTheDonets had an EXCELLENT link that explained several things for me. They did mention an offset of better gas milage at colder temps, but applicable at high engine load.

Here in California, getting the owners manual (2001 V70 T5), was a piece of cake at a balmy 50 degrees. Here is what they say: Designed for optimum performance using AKI of 91, or above. Anti Knock Index (AKI) is an average of the Research Octane Number (RON) and the Motor Octane Number (MON) The MINIMUM octane requirement is AKI 87 (RON 91). Which don't make sense since the AKI is an average, DUH!!!!

Question to the group: So what's stated on the pump? I'm thinking RON, and I don't think AKI or MON is ever mentioned! Anyhow, I went off for a bit and hit the Chevron web page which didn't help any (however I didn't look too long), so I wrote "Mr. Gasoline" a link at the Chevron sight as follows:

"My owners manual states I should use an AKI (anti Knock Index) of 91 or better for peak performance and a min of 87 required. It also mentioned Motor Octain Index (MON) and Research Octain Number (RON). It further states that the AKI is the average between RON and MON. Seems I only remember RON being posted at the pump, but since I'm not there I could be mistaken. Can you tell met the AKI, MON and RON for all 3 grades Chevron makes so I can be sure I getting what I need? Jerry Woomer Volvo V70 T5"

I will post once I hear back form Chevron! You are a GREAT bunch of guys!

Jester
'01 V70 T5 and a now gone P1800ES with 370K (dang I miss that car)!

All pumps in the U.S. have the A.K.I. posted, although it isn't named that.

They often show RON+MON/2, which is the traditional display. But you wrote, yourself (as it is in our owners manuals) that A.K.I. is the average of RON plus MON.

I have a 2003 v70.2.4T live in so.calif. now am getting 20.7p/gal. considered a easy driver. but use it when I need it. 16"Michlen, I would not get a AWD.. as it is more to deal with. I see a lot here in L.A. Plus I came from a 85,245.T..I am very happy so far. I would like to put IPD sway bars on next year..

Klaus is dead on with his figures. I have a very unequiped na manual V70. Thirty is close for my everyday commute, slow with no traffic. Highway is also close to 30, with some variation due to temperature and gasoline. Fuel composition varies with the area and the time of year. I got some stuff in Canada that ran through at an unbelievable 36 mpg, and there was a couple of hundred miles of two lane mountain driving on that tankful.
--
01 V70 2.4 M5 and a Mini

You can unbolt the 3rd seat cushions, leaving the backing plates in place. This gives you a larger covered area to keep things out of sight in the spare tire well. The 3rd seat is not very useful for anyone over about 3 ft tall.

There would still be seat belts to take out. Usually people are looking to install them, not the other way around. But, they can be removed pretty easily and sold.

'97 855na 176Kmi Mobil 1, K&N, various IPD's and eBays (3rd row seat)

My wife's 1999 V70 has averaged annually about 26 miles/U.S. gallon for 7 years. The best we get on the freeway is about 29 mpg, and winter stop-and-go driving is only 21 mpg. This is with manual transmission and 15-inch wheels. As for the third row seat, I have seldom seen it. I recall that it was an expensive option, so at least around here, very few people ordered it.

If you don't want AWD, then don't get it. It costs about 2mpg.
The plain jane V70 gets close to 30 on the highway. 28mpg for the lightpressure turbo and 26mpg for the T5.

Get as new as you can afford, with the fewest options. Still, the T5 is a lot of fun :)

Klaus
--
The 164 has a new home, all I am left with are a 95 854T and a 98 V70R :)

We have a 2002 V-70 turbo and a 2004 V-70. Turbo 30/26;non-turbo 32/28. The turbo has tremendous torque at low rpm-great for pulling a trailer...

Thank you guys this was most helpful!