Volvo 850 Fuel economy
Mike Ellison
Gerardo P. Fragante wrote:
>
> Can you comment on the fuel consumption of your Volvo 850? What approximate
> mileage are you getting for city, highway and combined driving?
>
> My 96 850 turbo wagon seems to be consuming more fuel than the rated specs.
> I am bringing the car to the dealership soon for some adjustments covered
> by the first-year adjustment period. I would like to have them check the
> fuel consumption. What should I ask them to check? Air-fuel ratio? O2
> sensor?
>
> Thanks,
> Gerardo
How much is too much fuel consumption? You've got the 2nd quickest production
front wheel drive car ever manufactured (the other being the 850R or 850 Turbo
or whatever Volvo is calling it this week). You have a car, yes a wagon which
is supposed to be quicker than a Mustang GT, Camaro Z-28, Pontiac Trans-Am and
just about every other car except the exotics, so one would have to expect fuel
economy to suffer for this. It takes quite a bit of fuel to develop the 325+
hp your wagon produces. Nevertheless, good luck with your wagon.
Gerardo P. Fragante
In article <32D3F8...@gte.il.net>, ell...@gte.il.net says...
> How much is too much fuel consumption?
The rated consumption of the Volvo 850 Turbo Wagon is 26 mpg on the highway
(according to the Edmunds web site) . However, my trip computer shows I am
getting less than that, around 23-24 mpg. I've not seen the trip computer
register a 26 mpg reading at any part of the highway drive even if I am
cruising at a leisurely 65 mph. BTW, I was the only occupant and the car
was empty when I did the readings, so there was no extra payload.
I understand that I should expect increased fuel consumption given the
performance charateristics of the car. I wanted to compare my readings with
other Volvo owners. And if my readings is out-of-line, I'd have the
dealership look into it as part of the adjustment period.
>It takes quite a bit of fuel to develop the 325+
>hp your wagon produces. Nevertheless, good luck with your wagon.
Hhmmm, I believe mine is more like 222 hp. for the street version. You're
probably referring to the 325+ hp. racing version. I'm enjoying the wagon a
lot, though. Thanks.
Gerardo
Gerardo P. Fragante
GNC
Gerardo P. Fragante wrote:
>
> Can you comment on the fuel consumption of your Volvo 850? What approximate
> mileage are you getting for city, highway and combined driving?
My '95 non-turbo GLT gets an overall average 24 MPG. I guess it will
get about 21-22 in city traffic and 28-29 pure highway going 70 mph.
Regards,
GNC
Shou Chen
For my 97 850 GLT (Has low boost Turbo), I got about 25 mpg in mix
city/highway driving around L.A.
Shou Chen
scc...@earthlink.net
Leo Montreuil
My 97 855 GLT (light pressure turbo 192 HP 199 lb-ft torque) get around
21-22 mpg in mixed city highway driving with the automatic transmission set
in sport mode.
Leo
Gerardo P. Fragante <frag...@ucs.ubc.ca> wrote in article
<MPLANET.32d3ef6...@news.ucs.ubc.ca>...
> Can you comment on the fuel consumption of your Volvo 850? What
approximate
> mileage are you getting for city, highway and combined driving?
>
Jim Bennett
Gerardo P. Fragante <frag...@ucs.ubc.ca> wrote in article
<MPLANET.32d4000...@news.ucs.ubc.ca>...
> In article <32D3F8...@gte.il.net>, ell...@gte.il.net says...
>
> > How much is too much fuel consumption?
>
> The rated consumption of the Volvo 850 Turbo Wagon is 26 mpg on the
highway
> (according to the Edmunds web site) . However, my trip computer shows I
am
> getting less than that, around 23-24 mpg. I've not seen the trip computer
> register a 26 mpg reading at any part of the highway drive even if I am
> cruising at a leisurely 65 mph. BTW, I was the only occupant and the car
> was empty when I did the readings, so there was no extra payload.
>
> I understand that I should expect increased fuel consumption given the
> performance charateristics of the car. I wanted to compare my readings
with
> other Volvo owners. And if my readings is out-of-line, I'd have the
> dealership look into it as part of the adjustment period.
>
If you have your trip computer set to monitor continuous fuel mileage, you
should see it changing up and down all the time. Mine often varies on the
highway from around 15mpg if climbing a grade to over 30mpg if holding a
steady speed on a perfectly level stretch. Of course it also goes to
99.9mpg when I'm coasting! I end up averaging about 26mpg when I do
continuous highway driving (but it's hard to average 65mph unless you have
no traffic). I did average 70mph once last year going from Las Vegas to
L.A. (obviously I ended up spending many miles above 80 to get that
average) and still got at least 25mpg. That was with 3 adults in the car.
Jim
uth...@ix.netcom.com
When I drive my 94 TW gently (tranny in ECON, wife awake in the car )
I've gotten over 30 mpg on highway trips - I've checked this
independent of the trip computer, which I've NEVER reset and tells me
I've averaged 23.9 mpg in the 50,000 miles I've driven her.
When I drive LESS than gently (wife absent or unconscious, in SPORT
mode) I've averaged 19 mpg. Still pretty good, I think for a brick
shaped Q-ship.
BTW, anybody have any experience with IPD performance upgrades for
this car? They say they have an ECU replacement/exhaust upgrade that
boosts HP to 275. Also various suspension mods & upgrades.
die email spammers!!!
In article <32D3F8...@gte.il.net> Mike Ellison <ell...@gte.il.net> writes:
> Gerardo P. Fragante wrote:
>
>
> How much is too much fuel consumption? You've got the 2nd quickest
production
> front wheel drive car ever manufactured (the other being the 850R or 850
Turbo
> or whatever Volvo is calling it this week). You have a car, yes a wagon
which
> is supposed to be quicker than a Mustang GT, Camaro Z-28, Pontiac Trans-Am
and
> just about every other car except the exotics, so one would have to expect
fuel
> economy to suffer for this.
Umm..no, the 850 Turbo (yes even the R model) is not quicker than the LT-1
f-cars or the 5.0 powered <96 Mustangs. How do I know ? I have a friends
with a 5.0 mustang, and 850 Turbo and I have a 94 Formula Firebird. The 850
is pretty fast once underway and will certainly out run a Mustang on
the highway. But a dragster it's not. My friend's 93 SHO can even beat it
in the 1/4.
The 850 is quick, but not that quick.
CD
Lloyd R. Parker
die email spammers!!! (cdo...@vortex.cac.stratus.com***) wrote:
: Umm..no, the 850 Turbo (yes even the R model) is not quicker than the LT-1
: f-cars or the 5.0 powered <96 Mustangs. How do I know ? I have a friends
: with a 5.0 mustang, and 850 Turbo and I have a 94 Formula Firebird. The 850
: is pretty fast once underway and will certainly out run a Mustang on
: the highway. But a dragster it's not. My friend's 93 SHO can even beat it
: in the 1/4.
:
: The 850 is quick, but not that quick.
:
: CD
Hmm... C/D's latest test shows the 850 GLT, with the light pressure turbo
and only 190 hp, faster to 60 and in the 1/4 mile than the Taurus SHO.
So I doubt the 222-hp T-5 or 240-hp R would be slower than an SHO.
Stephen M. Henning
In article <MPLANET.32d3ef6...@news.ucs.ubc.ca>,
frag...@ucs.ubc.ca (Gerardo P. Fragante) wrote:
> Can you comment on the fuel consumption of your Volvo 850? What approximate
> mileage are you getting for city, highway and combined driving?
>
We have 2 850 non-turbos, a '93 sedan with 90k and a '95 wagon with 20k.
They both get 25-26 mpg locally and 29-31 mpg on trips.
You might ask them to check the weight of your foot if all else fails. I
do keep the transmission in economy since it saves a lot of shifting. I
find that when I am in cruise with the transmission in economy, I can
maintain an even speed going up and down hills without the transmission
shifing into second. I do use the cruise control a lot. Also, I use the
brakes very little. I try to anticipate stops and slow down first. I am
nearly always the first one away from a stop light, but then try to set the
cruise to maintain an even speed.
--
Cheers, Steve Henning, Reading, Pennsylvania, USA
http://www.users.fast.net/~shenning
Gerardo P. Fragante
Thanks to everyone who've replied to my question.
Gerardo
die email spammers!!!
In article <5b5pln$2...@curly.cc.emory.edu> lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R.
Hmm... read much ? If you look you'll see I quite clearly said "93 SHO".
This was the (faster) 6 cyl 5-speed. The #'s you are quoting are for a
96 v-8. I've *been* in the SHO pulling *away* from the 94 850 turbo so
I think I know what I'm talking about. Unlike you Lloyd - (self appointed)
master of magazine-based 3rd-hand car reviews and performance data
regurgitator.
Don't believe everything you read in magazines. Some cars perform better
in the hands of a very talented driver.
CD
Scott
>In article <32D3F8...@gte.il.net>, ell...@gte.il.net says...
>
>> How much is too much fuel consumption?
>
>The rated consumption of the Volvo 850 Turbo Wagon is 26 mpg on the highway
>(according to the Edmunds web site) . However, my trip computer shows I am
>getting less than that, around 23-24 mpg. I've not seen the trip computer
>register a 26 mpg reading at any part of the highway drive even if I am
>cruising at a leisurely 65 mph. BTW, I was the only occupant and the car
>was empty when I did the readings, so there was no extra payload.
>
>I understand that I should expect increased fuel consumption given the
>performance charateristics of the car. I wanted to compare my readings with
>other Volvo owners. And if my readings is out-of-line, I'd have the
>dealership look into it as part of the adjustment period.
>
>
>>It takes quite a bit of fuel to develop the 325+
>>hp your wagon produces. Nevertheless, good luck with your wagon.
>
>Hhmmm, I believe mine is more like 222 hp. for the street version. You're
>probably referring to the 325+ hp. racing version. I'm enjoying the wagon a
>lot, though. Thanks.
>
>Gerardo
Why worry about fuel economy with a car that lists at over $30,000?
If you wanted good fuel economy, then get a civic, neon or a geo.
Scott
Patrick Gattafoni
>
> die email spammers!!! (cdo...@vortex.cac.stratus.com***) wrote:
>
> : Umm..no, the 850 Turbo (yes even the R model) is not quicker than the LT-1
> : f-cars or the 5.0 powered <96 Mustangs. How do I know ? I have a friends
> : with a 5.0 mustang, and 850 Turbo and I have a 94 Formula Firebird. The 850
> : is pretty fast once underway and will certainly out run a Mustang on
> : the highway. But a dragster it's not. My friend's 93 SHO can even beat it
> : in the 1/4.
> :
> : The 850 is quick, but not that quick.
> :
> : CD
There is a guy who has been racing his Volvo 850 turbo at one of the
dragstrips up here in Canada last summer, and the best time I ever saw
him do was a 14.9, and most of the runs he was around 15.0-15.1.
I have a 95 Trans Am and it has run a best quarter mile in bone stock
trim of 13.94 at 98.8 mph. I also have an 87 Mustang GT that is now
supercharged (plus a few other mods) and runs 12.16 at 112mph in the
quarter, but when it was bone stock it ran a 14.70 at 95mph. Most 5.0
Mustangs have no trouble whatsoever running mid 14s in bone stock trim.
Against most 5.0 Mustangs, the 850 doesn't really stand a chance unless
the car is a heavy convertible with an automatic transmission. As far as
the new 4.6 Mustangs go, it would be a very close race, as the best et
I've heard of a 4.6 Mustang (96 and up) running is a 14.99. The only one
I've ever seen at the dragstrip last summer ran a best time of 15.1.
Patrick Gattafoni
Lloyd R. Parker
: > So I doubt the 222-hp T-5 or 240-hp R would be slower than an SHO.
: >
: >
:
: Hmm... read much ? If you look you'll see I quite clearly said "93 SHO".
: This was the (faster) 6 cyl 5-speed. The #'s you are quoting are for a
: 96 v-8. I've *been* in the SHO pulling *away* from the 94 850 turbo so
Have you had the same driver drive both?
: I think I know what I'm talking about. Unlike you Lloyd - (self appointed)
: master of magazine-based 3rd-hand car reviews and performance data
: regurgitator.
:
: Don't believe everything you read in magazines. Some cars perform better
: in the hands of a very talented driver.
Probably true of the 850 too!
:
: CD
And of course, (1) you're not a professional; (2) you didn't drive both
cars back to back, after runs to find the best technique for each; etc.
C/D found the 850 GLT **significantly** faster than the SHO V8. And the
V6/5-speed wasn't THAT much quicker.
Regardless, you can't buy an SHO/5-speed, so arguing about a 93 vs a 96
car is pointless. We might as well mention that a Road Runner would
outrun both!
Bentley
uth...@ix.netcom.com said something like:
: When I drive LESS than gently (wife absent or unconscious, in SPORT
: mode)
Lucky bastard -- I can't get my wife into sport mode no matter how hard I
try :)
: I've averaged 19 mpg. Still pretty good, I think for a brick
: shaped Q-ship.
Especially one that will dust Mustangs.
--
> B E N T L E Y < ben...@access.digex.net
Charles Marks
In article <MPLANET.32d3ef6...@news.ucs.ubc.ca>,
frag...@ucs.ubc.ca says...
>
>Can you comment on the fuel consumption of your Volvo 850? What approximate
>mileage are you getting for city, highway and combined driving?
>
>I am bringing the car to the dealership soon for some adjustments covered
>by the first-year adjustment period. I would like to have them check the
>fuel consumption. What should I ask them to check? Air-fuel ratio? O2
>sensor?
I have had my '95 Turbo Wagon for a little over two years and now about 35k
miles. For the first 25k miles, I have accurate and complete mpg information
but then lost interest in keeping it. For the first roughly 2,000 miles, the
average was 22.1 mpg and then my area switched to oxygenated fuel. For the
next 4300 miles, the average was 21.3 mpg. From then on, I have the data but
have not compiled it as for the first 8500 miles. Looking through the whole
book and doing a sight average, I would say that the 25K mileage would be
about 23 mpg. The highest was 25.7 mpg in the summer of '95 on a long road
trip. Note that the car was delivered in November which means that the first
8500 miles was mostly winter driving.
Of course, this car is a disgusting piece of motoring crap so YMMV.
Charles Marks
First and last time Volvo driver
Charles Marks
In article <5c0lv8$2h8$1...@news2.alpha.net>, cfm...@mixcom.com says...
Original snipped
>I have had my '95 Turbo Wagon for a little over two years and now about 35k
>miles. For the first 25k miles, I have accurate and complete mpg
information
>but then lost interest in keeping it. For the first roughly 2,000 miles,
the
>average was 22.1 mpg and then my area switched to oxygenated fuel. For the
>next 4300 miles, the average was 21.3 mpg. From then on, I have the data
but
>have not compiled it as for the first 8500 miles. Looking through the whole
>book and doing a sight average, I would say that the 25K mileage would be
>about 23 mpg. The highest was 25.7 mpg in the summer of '95 on a long road
>trip. Note that the car was delivered in November which means that the
first
>8500 miles was mostly winter driving.
>
>Of course, this car is a disgusting piece of motoring crap so YMMV.
>
>Charles Marks
>First and last time Volvo driver
Forgot to add that for the last 1500 miles, the average mpg has been 19.2 mpg
as reported by the trip computer which is usually accurate and especially so
over that distance. Our winter, so far, has been relatively mild and it has
only been in the last week or so that it has been quite cold. Also note that
I live in a rural area and rarely drive at speeds less than 35 mph.