Quote:
Originally Posted by Piwoslaw
Well those pictures reveal the problem: The S40's roof is more or less parallel to the airflow lines, but the V50's roof is perpendicular to them!!
|
LOL
Quote:
|
There is also the possibility that whatever you are using to see FE is miscalibrated.
|
Sure, but there are other signs as well.
The fuel level meter works independent from the OBC.
Tank size is identical, but the needle is dropping slower than on my V50.
I got an extra 50-70 km before hitting the first 1/8 marker.
On CC, the fuel consumption doesn't shoot up as fast on an incline, and it doesn't get as high. Killing the CC uphill, it also responds far better to manual throttle application. Speed hardly drops, while FC remains constant on inclines where my V50 would either loose speed or increase FC.
The average is at 3.9 L/100km or 60mpg.
@ 100kph on the motorway, it's often indicating 75+ mpg
Estimated remaining range and distance driven combined, have indicated over 1600km / 1000 miles.
Quote:
|
The Scan Gauge may need a few tanks in the S40 to get used to it, while the onboard computers are far from accurate.
|
On my diesel, I feel the SG gets calibrated to my driving style, not to the car.
So I don't really use the scangauge to keep track of fuel economy.
The funny part:
The oil level on the replacement car is as high as on mine.
It already went through 2 DPF cycles, only 200km apart.
I only noticed them because I saw the intake temp increase on the SG.
On my V50 the process usually starts with a small jerk, just enough to notice something's up.
So either both cars have the same issues or these Volvo's can't take mild hypermiling.