To enlarge on the gasoline quality thing, I think I may have proved it today. I made the round trip to Bangor or thereabouts. Close to 130 miles each way. Bought enough gas to make it there before I left home base. Gas has been waaay cheaper in Bangor...it wasn't today but that's not my point. I bought Citgo here; I hardly ever buy Citgo. Got about 26mpg on the trip north. Bought Irving, my usual brand, in Bangor. Got a bit over 29 on the trip home. I took the same route both directions. Bangor is close to sea level, the elevation at my home is about +300 or so, so there is no question of either direction being seriously uphill. Goes to show something.
--
09 V70, 03 Mini, 06 Camry

My first calculations on our 2012 XC 70 - we call her Jane, as in Plain Jane.

She is a fwd wagon with NO options. I called 3 dealers to find her.

Our mileage so far - around town - 986 miles - 20% highway = 23,39 MPG

on a trip - 3545 miles - 98% highway =26.37 MPG - this included driving across Ohio, Wisconsin, and half-way up Minnesota at 74 MPH and 2 hours at 110 degrees going through Chicago.

total miles 5831 = 26.98 MPG

I guess my wife is a pretty good local driver!

The computer says - average speed 40 MPH - average MPG 27.5

I think that a difference of .52 MPG is pretty accurate!

Klaus - the only thing that has been a problem is that the light fixture fell out of the right mirror - after looking at the fixture, one end is made to pry out and the other is a long tab that5 broke when someone tried to pry out the wrong end - or someone at the factory tried to snap the wrong end in.

My service rep wants to take a better look at it before committing to a warranty replacement.
--
'96 855R,'64 PV544 driver, '67 P1800 basket case, '12 XC70, the first three are mine, heh, heh, 525,000 miles put on 10 bricks

Its all so psychological. The difference between 25 mpg and 20 over a 10000 mile year is $400. BFD. So, I am getting the twin turbo 3.0 XC70 next. And going to Gothenburg to pick it up. $400 is not going to affect my retirement. But yes, the T5 S70 with M56 remains the best, sportiest and most economical Volvo I've ever had. The T5 is back in the S60, so who knows, maybe something will change for the XC70.

I have put 36000 miles on my 09 V70 3.2. At first I was getting 26 or 27 mpg at about 70. I have learned that 55 really does save gas, and can get an honest (well, according to the computer) 32 or even better. I find that mileage on secondary roads, the two lanes, is actually better than highway mileage. Now, slightly broken in, the car will do somewhere between 29 and 31 at 65 on a highway with a light load. That is actually better than the na 2.5 in the 01 V70! Of course gasoline makes a difference. If I even try to use the full potential of this engine the mileage drops. Hard.

I find, or think that I find, differences between brands. There is a different formula sold here in the winter that is reputed to be a bit worse. Then there is the tank of stuff that I bought in Montreal five or six years ago that gave me 36 mpg with the old V70. That was driving at 75 on the highways and crossing the White Mountains on a two lane just as tight as she'd go. I have no idea what it was, but it came out of a 91 octane pump.

Klaus. Not to quibble, but since the 09 doesn't have a key I am a bit puzzled by the service reminder reset.
--
09 V70, 03 Mini, 06 Camry

A couple of months ago, we purchased a new, stripped, 2012 FWD XC 70 for $27,500.

We drove 1500 miles around town, then made our annual trip to Bemidji (I know that you do not need me to specify the state!) from Massachusetts, 3500 miles, with a few side trips.

When we got home, the cumulative mileage on the computer just got up to 28.0 MPG. How accurate is the computer?

I'll let you know what the real mileage is, as I have all the gas receipts since we bought the car.

I drove 4 miles per hour over the limit as often as I could - 74 MPH where possible.

The car performed well, enough power, even at 74 MPH. I do purchase fuel at least onde during the day, and fill up at the end of the day.

My '96 855R is a little sportier, and the XC 70 is a lot nosier over 3000 RPM - of course the 855R is a sweet car. We got an actual 27,9 with our 855 on our last trip.

Both trips we had our wagons fully loaded with my daughter's stuff on our outbound leg.

We are really quite pleased with our new XC.

The friday before the holiday it took us two hours to get through Chicago, the outside temperature reading was 110 degrees much of the time. I did shut off the AC as soon as it was stop and go. We had to do this because we were behind schedule and drove 700 miles that day. THEN we got lost in Madison! DOH!
--
'96 855R,'64 PV544 driver, '67 P1800 basket case, '12 XC70, the first three are mine, heh, heh, 525,000 miles put on 10 bricks

Mine is only rated at 16/25 (2009 V70 3.2). I have only had it for about 2 weeks, but I am averaging just under 24mpg in mixed driving (average speed 24mph according to the trip computer). The average shoots up when I drive highay at the speed limit (65mph here) and I think it will do very nearly 30mpg with a very disciplined foot. With less discipline (call it 72mph which is closer to average flow) the 25mpg is probably quite realistic. I have always done better than EPA in my cars so I think the 3.2 will be tolerable...as long as I don't let my wife drive it. Drive 75 to 80mph in the left lane and fuel economy clearly isn't your first priority in any vehicle, so take what you get. Slow down and you will likely meet your desired range. It's not like you have to rush to escape an uncomfortable seat or something. ;)

I would have preferred the 2.5 turbo instead of the 3.2 N/A. It would have been off boost most of the time in my hands so lower displacement would have been to my benefit. But as much as I loathe automatic transmissions in general, I like how the 6-speed A/T has adapted to my own sedate driving style. It shifts right up to the tall gears and holds them better than I would have expected. That does a bit to offset the extra displacement. Plus the whole package does a nice job when I just want to get out of the way (or make my wife slightly uncomfortable, which is a good yard stick.)

In short, I think that the engine is going to be what you make of it. At high speed (which requires enough power to load it up) there is no mechanical reason that the 3.2 would burn fuel significantly less efficiently than something smaller. At 80mph you are fighting aerodynamic drag more than thermodynamic efficiency. The benefits of a smaller powerplant would be more evident around town and at more sedate higway speeds where the big I6 is just loafing along and fighting its own throttle plate. But that doesn't change the fact that you will see better fuel economy at lower speeds either way. This is why, as always, YMMV.

Tim

I had a 2009 XC70 and got good milage (Aveg 25 from RI to NC).. Like the engine very much; smooth and quiet... Did not like the increase in size or feel of the car and went back to the 2007 XC70.

(Thanks for your comments with my xc70 questions over the years. When I go the the local Volvo shop, I would have abetter understanding of the problems.)

Ethanol blended fuel can account for a 10-20% increase in fuel consumption.
Nasty stuff.
--
"Differences of opinions should be tolerated, but not if they're too different' - Sharon Craig

Historically the EPA estimates always favored the domestic brands. People I knew that bought Chevy's, etc. would always say they got nowhere's near the EPA estimate. Conversly, the import owners would report getting equal to or better mileage than the EPA estimate. Possibly the same swaying still exists.