A work in progress.
 

When I bought my Volvo V50 1.6L diesel in 2005, it had the best FE of any Volvo : 5L/100km combined, or 47.0 mpg (US).
The roofrails were left off - a factory option - as I wouldn't use them anyway, and they'd only add drag. (Does that qualify as a "mod" ? :p )
The car was also fitted with the free but unpopular optional diesel particle filter - a rarity in those days in Belgium.

The V50 came with fuel saving Michelin Energy E3 tyres which I disliked.
In its first year, the car got 3 sets of tyres, going from 195/65/15 to 205/50/17 in the process.
Fuel consumption was well above the advertised numbers :
5.97 L/100km or 39.4 mpg (min 5,42 Ø 5,97 max 6,92 )

The second year was a little bit better in terms of FE :
5.83 L/100km or 40.4 mpg (min 5,05 Ø 5,83 max 6,60 )

Late in its 3rd year - mid 2008, just as the economic crisis was about to hit and fuel prices were soaring - I made a trip to the UK and discovered the positive effects of driving 10 km/h slower.
5.76 L/100km or 40.8 mpg (min 5,39 Ø 5,76 max 6,26 )

During the car's 4th year, I finally saw the light : fitted Michelin Energy Saver tyres on 16" rims and really started changing my driving style
5.43 L/100km or 43.3 mpg ( min 4,89 Ø 5,43 max 6,13 )
Still above its rated FE, but going in the right direction.

In the 5th and current year, FE has gone down a bit due to the unusually long harsh winter we've seen in Europe, and a leaking injector.
5.51 L/100km or 42.7 mpg (min 4,94 Ø 5,51 max 6,35 )


Going from 39.4 to say 43 mpg is just over 9% improvement - but it's still 10% above the rated fuel consumption of 47 mpg.


I wouldn't call it a success story yet, but it's a start :)

Mods done to the car so far :

• Roofrails not fitted (10/2005)
• Michelin Energy Saver LRR tyres (1/2009)
• Tyre pressure gradually increased from 2.3 bar / 33psi to 3.0bar / 43.5psi
• Added Cruise Control (4/2010)
• Weight reduction : 35.8 kg / 78.9 lbs (8/2010)
  1. removed temporary spare tyre: 15.0 kg / 33.1 lbs
  2. removed jack: 2.3 kg / 5.1 lbs
  3. removed rear mats 0.9 kg / 2 lbs
  4. removed luggage cover: 8.0 kg / 17.6 lbs
  5. removed assorted junk: 2.1 kg / 4.6 lbs
  6. removed extra container of windshield washer fluid: 5.0 kg / 11.0 lbs
  7. filling windshield washer reservoir only halfway: 2.5 kg / 5.5 lbs
• ScanGauge2 (08/2010)
• 90% upper grill block (8/2010)
• Volvo Libra aerodynamic 16" wheels, adding 13.6 kg / 30 lbs (9/2010)

Mods done to the nut behind the wheel :

• increased ecological awareness
• driving slower (from 120 down to 100 km/h - 74.5 to 62 mph)
• recently started coasting
• reduced idling time
• use the AC less often
• shift up earlier

The goal I've set will be a tough one: achieving EM hypermiler status, 20% over the rated FE numbers.

As Euro-cycle fuel consumption figures are less realistic than the US EPA figures, it'll be a tough challenge.
All mods will need to be reversible and (at least superficially) legal.

20% better than 47 mpg means 56.4 mpg or 4.17 L/100km consistently.

Spritmonitor.de lists no-one with this kind of FE, the lowest average for non-DrivE Volvo's being 4.36 L/100km.


But then, 100mpg from a Civic hadn't been seen before either :D

What is the gearing in the V50 1.6 Diesel, is it quite long - 6 speed or 5 ?

Although the weight loss is quite intense the V50 is pretty heavy as standad so the overall gain probably isn't all that much. I've left all that stuff in my Fabia. You could think about taking out the reat seats if you are serious about less weight.

Keep an eye on the DPF with short shifting, I have read it can clog up. An occasional 'full beans' blow to clear it out may be worthwhile.

Good luck though, 50 MPG (US) should be within easy reach with that 1.6D engine and some coasting. I can get the average MPG on Mrs A's Octavia estate (2.0 litre) to read 60+ (UK) around town, I'm sure I could get it more on a run but I'm not allowed to drive it that far...:p

The 1.6D has a 5 speed box.
The gearing is fairly short - the DrivE versions have a longer gearing.

Officially, it's 1375kg / 3031 lbs, including a "standard" driver (75 kg/165 lbs) and 90% fuel, but I plan to have it weighed.

Well, combined with my own weight loss, and only filling up halfway, It'll have 5% less weight. That should start to have a small effect.

At the moment, I think that's still a bit too extreme.

I usually have to gun it on the short on-ramps of the motorway.
But I'm already keeping an eye on the DPF as I didn't have it replaced at 120.000 km ;)
It's still OK, so no need to swap it out.


... let alone mod it :D

That may happen.

I've had my car 5 years which is a record for me and Mrs A said I could change if I did, and one option is to exchange mine for her new one and I take over hers.

If it does then all sorts of mods.

Do you have a built in MPG calculator, if not do you have a scangauge ?

I'm almost sure that you have same engine that I do: DV6TED, a 1.6 commonrail turbodiesel, designed jointly by PSA and Ford, found in all sorts of cars like Citroen/Peugeot (1.6HDi), Ford (1.6TDCi), Volvo, Subaru, etc. Mine is also 2005, so should I also be expecting a leaky injector?

Svietlana officially weighs 1466kg, but I checked that it's actually less, only 1300kg without the rear seats.

Taking into account that we both have the same engine (and probably transmission) and that your Volvo is not as tall as mine (smaller frontal area), has a lower drag coefficient (0.32 compared to my 0.334) and is slightly lighter, plus LRR tires, I'm amazed that your fuel consumption is so high:confused: My car should average 5.6 l/100km, over 10% more than your's, so I think it's the diesel particulate filter that's killing you. Is it the PSA's FAP filter, or does Volvo have its own, different model of filter (do you have to add a liquid called Eloys at the service station every so often?)?

Those filters are wicked! Not only do they cause problem codes all the time, but they also require a high exhaust temperature to burn out every 500km or 1000km, so unless you are chased by the police very often, the engine's computer will add more fuel when the burn process is in need to raise the exhaust temp. This causes your fc to go through the roof. And the best part about it is that you won't find anything about it in the official numbers, since the fc testing is done with a car with a clean filter, not by a car in need of a burn out. Wicked wicked wicked!!!

I don't know exactly by how much the dpf improves emissions, especially after 3-8 years of use, but I wonder if it is worth the extra fuel burned (not taken into account when calculating fc and emissions), or the loads of $$$ spent at the service station clearing codes, adding Eloys, or regenerating the filter. Many Peugeot and Citroen owners have dealt with the problem by removing their FAP and adding a sensor emulator to trick the computer. Many of them do it thinking they'll get better performance numbers, others because of all the trouble the FAP has caused. Unfortunately, emissions aren't checked here as regularly as they should be, so I have no idea how this is effected by FAP removal.

I am by no means suggesting you should remove your filter!! It may, or may not, be better to keep it, I don't know.

That's right.

MTX75 transmission in the Volvo.
That box is also used in other diesel and non-diesel Volvo's so it may not be the PSA gearbox.

Yeah.
OTOH, my overall fuel consumption is average on spritmonitor.de
The overall FC is only coming down since mid 2008 or thereabout, with the LRR tyres being fitted in Jannuary 2009.

When I drive it without paying attention to FE, I'll average 6L/100 km even when driving fast. Only city driving tends to push it even higher.
Fuel consumption can rather easily be brought down to around 5.5 L/100km by driving a bit slower.
However, getting it to 5L/100km is pretty hard, and going below that is a real challenge in this car.

Also, driving conditions in this congested part of Europe are far from ideal.

The V50 is rated for 5.0 L/100km.
So it's easier for you to become a hypermiler :thumbup:

It's in the exhaust path, and it does quite the opposite of all engine tuning tricks to reduce backpressure in the exhaust ...
So yes, it must have some negative effect on FE.

It uses the PSA technology with Eolys fluid - though I doubt the filters are the same externally.

I have had my share of problems with it, and it has taken Volvo until the 80.000km service to sort them out ...

Using constant throttle, the car would buck like a wild horse when the particle filter was burned free.
It'd accelerate and decelerate in rapid succession, which is then made even worse by involuntary movement of the throttle.
Sometimes it'd just slow down if I did nothing.

Pushing down the throttle always solved these problems instantly, but I wasn't happy with it.


Though it's a lot less noticeable now, I can tell when the filter is burned free.
Fuel consumption can go up slightly, or even go down while the process is taking place !

I don't know if the Volvo onboard computer counts in the extra fuel needed to burn the filter free.

Since the last service - at 120.000 km - the onboard computer appears to be reading lower than it used to, and the difference between the indicated and actual fuel use is greater.

After 4 years, there were no measurable particles in the exhaust. 0 .
Normally, they usually read 2 to 4 (? units ?) even on cars with particle filters.

I can't tell how much extra fuel it's costing, but on spritmonitor.de , there are a number of drivers with DPF and better FE.
However, my recent figures are becoming better than theirs :cool:

(The DPF was far more common in Germany than it was in Belgium at the time I bought the car - in fact the DPF added a couple of months to the delivery time ! )


Eolys is around 100 euro every 60000 km
The particle filter however, is almost 1000 euro's to replace (every 120000 km).
I didn't have it replaced at 120000km because it's not causing me any troubles anymore - don't fix it if it ain't broken - and to stretch out the total mileage the car will get with the new filter.
I tend to keep my cars for a long time.
If I can do so by replacing the filter just once instead of twice, that's a lot of easy money saved. ;)

That's not the way I want to go.
The DPF is doing its job, even if it may cost a few mpg.

My car was tested in 2009, got a 2 year approval, so it's due for retesting in 2011, and yearly from then on.

Possibly.
It happens, but not too often I'm told.
If it happens, you'll start smelling exhaust fumes in the passenger compartment.

As it turns out, it was just a cheap seal that needed replacing and not the injector itself.
Unfortunately, it's a lot of work to clean up the mess and get to it.

Parts : 20 euro.
Labour : 400+ euro :eek:

:eek: I can buy a new injector for the equivalent of 300€, or a used one for 100€ on an auction.

Ordered a Scangauge 2
 

Though my V50 has an onboard computer (instant + avg mpg / avg speed / remaining distance) I've ordered a Scangauge 2 to have more details about my actual fuel use and to be able to monitor other parameters like TPS, temperature, quantity of fuel used etc.

We have a saying here : Meten (measuring) is weten (knowing) :)

My Fab has onboard too (TDI) but I still got one for the same reasons - mainly temps but I'm finding the GPH (Gallons per Hour) and MAP (Manifold Abs Pressure) interesting.

If you use instant and average MPG on the SG (even if they are not accurate) you can try and keep instant above average. Result is less money to Shell, BP, Exxon etc.

LOD (Engine Load apparently) seems a little random to me and not much info on what it actually means - if it really is a percentage of engine power available then my engine is much less powerful that I think, and as it smoked an annoying dumb woman in a Merc CLK today (don't ask, I just ruined my tank I know) I don't think that is the case.

As I am now getting over 650 miles a tank (before I was on 450 max) my calibrating tank is taking much much longer than I thought it would so my GPH and so on is inaccurate as it is based on wimpy US gallons and not HM The Queen's (gawd bless her) gallons. I'm actually keen to refuel to set it all up, but then again a tank costs about 3/4 the price of an SG2 at the moment and I have 200 miles to go :D

On the plus side my Credit Carb bill this month, including the SG2 purchase and fuel (they are the only things I spend on CC) is about half the one in January when I drove fewer miles (longer crimbo / new year hols in Scotland).

Thats more beer tokens for, er, beer - so its win win :thumbup:

When it's got to be done, it's got to be done :D

I had gotten to within 11 km of the magical 1000 km (621.5 miles) before joining EM, but my current tank is going to be well over 1000km - the remaining distance keeps hinting at a total of 1100 to 1200 km !

OK, it's always reading a bit too optimistic, just like the tank average indication of 4.5 L/100km (52.3 mpg US / 62.8 mpg UK), but still ...

Even engine-on coasting is greatly adding to my overall FE.
I was reluctant to try it, but I'm really surprised at how far this cage will coast - I've had to constantly increase the starting distance, because I still had to (engine) brake !

It's very tempting to do a full fill-up and register a record tank rather than do a partial fill-up to keep the car's weight down. :cool:

Why not use a few "early fill-ups" to calibrate it quicker, then fine-tune with a few full tanks ?

Yeah, diesel prices in the UK are really horrendous !
In my fuel log I can pick out my fuelings in the UK just by looking at the price :mad:
Your beloved Majesty's government is a tad on the greedy side :p

Using less fuel is always a win, no matter what you use the savings for :)

Arragonis-good to see you thinking like a scotsman:)

As for this volvo-has anyone taken volvo to task over the mpg claims?
It sounds as if you've done considerable, and good work to get to that mpg.. But its below what they sold it as?

They've got their official test results, and that's what counts officially ...

The car will match its economy figures if you match the silly driving style during the official tests.

Recently, lots of car manufacturers have come under some flak because their "eco" cars simply don't match their claimed FE in real life - hence no fiscal bonusses should be handed out for buying them.
(We get 15% off the price for buying a car with less than 104 gr/km CO2 , paid for by the government.)

But that's not due to the car manufacturers, it's the very tests themselves that are ridiculously unnatural and should be changed quickly to reflect a more normal car use. And that's a political issue.
EPA has done so in the recent past.

The ECE test is not realistic which is the issue. The V50 is quite heavy and the 1.6 is quite small but with some coasting you will be getting much better MPG. The key one is to work out when to use EO(n)Coasting vs overrun when running downhill. I don't use EO(ff)Coasting very often - I have a thread about EOC vs turbos - basically remember the turbo is very hot and when you switch off suddenly the oil in the turbo stays there and absorbs lots of heat, which can affect the seals.

The ECE figures for the V70 2.5D (not the D5) matched what Mrs A got in hers pretty closely though between 2000 and 2005. It was the attitude of the dealer in wanting to sting me for about 1KGBP in unrequired repairs and their inability to fix what we had already told them about on visit after visit that made me vow to never have another one.

Somewhat ironically the beer I have is Tennents too. :mad:

At the risk of demanding this bus go to Cuba (aka Hyjack alert) I would be interested in your experiences with the SG.

I decided I couldn't wait so I topped up my tank. The tank itself was my best (or second best I can't remember) and when I told SG it recorded an adjustment % which I assume is the difference between what it thinks I used vs what I did.

The immediate 2 effects of this were :

- GPH adjusted from 0.2 GPH at idle to 0.14 to 0.16, not stable yet.

- MPG has adjusted but doesn't match the OBI (On Board Instrument). Having tapped that the OBI is optimistic and the SG2 is below that so maybe its more realistic.

I may do some video comparisons and maybe people can comment. However I would be very interested to know what your V50 does.

Disclaimer - I do realise that the SG2 vs TDi MPG issue has been debated, but

http://planetarybargains.net/PBPictu...nt-Closeup.jpg

You owe me a few Havana's now ;)


The ScanGauge arrived today - from Greece of all places - more toys ! :)

For starters, I'll be calibrating the indicated speed and distance against GPS.
I already know true speed is off by roughly 2 or 3 km/h across the range when compared to the tacho speed, but the ScanGauge will give a better speed reading than the tacho.

I'll have the car weighed later this week.
I know what's gone out, by filling up shortly after that, I can calculate how much fuel was in there, so I'll also know the original weight and be able to compare that to its official weight.

Calibrating the ScanGauge and determining actual vehicle weight will require topping up the fuel tank, rather than filling up only halfway and save some more weight.


Unfortunately, I'm less happy with the way my current tank is going.
Winds and heavy rain during the last 2 days have taken their toll on FE.
I was all too often between 0.5 and 1 L /100km over the usual FC for a given stretch of road. That hurts badly !

A lot of the driving I do is on roads with severe lane grooves.
They're bad enough when dry, but become a real FE killer in the rain.
Driving faster in the fast lanes that are less affected, might actually be the better option.

I was working my way down to 4.4L/100km from 4.5 (indicated) but instead it's gone up to 4.6 - while the total distance prediction is now barely over 1100km :(

Interesting, I didn't look at the speed the SG2 puts out, its not a gauge I used - I assumed it was getting the same signal from the ECU that the instrument pack gets so I never checked that with GPS.

And I did a trip last week involving GPS - DOH!

Looking forward to more info and notes to compare against :D

Whats your static and max MAP ?

so if the ratings in europe dont reflect reality-is there a certain generic weighting you can apply to the figures to give indicative values?

My instrument panel claims 103-105 km/h when the GPS says 100, the ScanGauge agrees with the GPS.
I believe it's something about speedos showing a higher speed than actual for both safety and performance reasons. But the real info is in there, only the speedometer signal is scaled.

That's exactly what I have found as well.

The Scangauge reads the same as the GPS.
Speed indicated on both is within 1 km/h - which is the smallest variation both show.

The Volvo tacho OTOH, reads some 3 km/h high all across the normal speed range.


BTW : The Volvo CC is very good at keeping a very steady pace.

Using 20-25 % more fuel than the official fuel rating is still considered to be normal ... or even good FE.
Nobody really expects to be able to achieve the official FE in their daily driving.

I'll take a look.
I didn't have MAP showing.

Turns out I'm not getting FPR IGN TPS TFC and LP inputs :confused:
FPR is seldom reported according to the manual, but I'd have liked to see the other values.

I glanced at mine a few times. Idle pressure is under 15, the largest I've seen is 31, but it could be more as I usually keep my eyes on the road when accelerating hard.
Don't expect IGN in a diesel!! I also don't get LP, TFC or FPR either. I'll have to see if I have TPS.

Idle @ 14.5 kPa
Max. I've seen was just over 33 kPa (going up an incline).
Min. 11.5 kPa (engine braking)

Doh ! What was I thinking ... :o


Though the tank is not looking really good anymore (remaining distance is dropping like a brick), I'll go over 1000 km/tank - but probably not by much.

1045 km @ 4.58 L/100km (51.4 mpg)
 

It has taken some effort, but I finally got my first 1000+ km tank :)

1045 km (649 miles) with 60 km remaining range indicated

Fuel economy was also a personal record : only 4.58 L/100km or 51.4mpg (US)


Guess what : I forgot to use the fill-up function of the ScanGauge. Doh ! :o

Congratulations! thats some good mileage!

I'm suprised it went down, we don't get a vacumn in a Diesel - no throttle. Mine is 14.8 at idle which is normal atmo pressure at sea level (I'm by the coast). No idea about max.

I have IGN (TDI :D ) and TPS.

*Does little dance.

But I have no idea what it means :cool:

Also have LOD but it seems random, as I tapped. Apparently full chat in 3rd overtaking only gets 75, but pottering along behind a truck gets 55. :confused:

First real mod : grill block
 

I've made good use of the EM downtime :D

Took the grill off yesterday evening, and slapped together my quick & dirty proof-of-concept grill block using black tape.
It goes a bit further than the 70% Volvo DrivE grill block, but still lets through some air to get to the battery and into the engine compartment as the intercooler is on that side as well.

Time to take it out for a test drive, the weather is rather hot again after a cool spell - we're back to 26-28° C, more than 10°C more than earlier this week.


If it works well, I'll make a more aesthetically pleasing permanent block.

Weight issues.
 

Though I've always seen Volvo's brochures claim a 1375 kg weight for my car - including a 75 kg driver and fuel - the official weight on its registration papers says 1408 kg.

Official weight here means ready to roll, all fluids filled up.

As I had it weighed at an official testing station, they can't but add the weight of the fuel when the tank is near empty (as mine was, trying to go over 1000km)

The result is that it weighs 1410 kg with a full tank, so it's still very near its official weight despite the 25+ kg of stock items I had already taken out, without a driver inside :mad:

Grill block testing : whoohoooo !
 

I just got back from testing the grill block - over 150km or nearly 100 miles.

I've tested it mostly at 100, with stints up to 110 and 120 kph to see if these speeds caused a rise in coolant temperature.
3 flat-out acceleration tests to 120 kph were done on the on-ramp of the motorway, 2 of these uphill.

• Warm-up is obviously quicker - even in summer (ambient temp. 25C / 77F), should be even better in winter.
• Coolant temperature is up by only 3 to 4 C (80 -> 83/84C)
• Max. temp. is up by only 2 C according to the ScanGauge2 (83C to 85C)
• No difference is to be seen on the car's temperature gauge.
• Feels like its accelerating quicker, smoother.
• Butt feeling is it coast further, with less aero braking @ higher speed.
• But most importantly, it's definitely reducing fuel consumption !
  1. I've run my normal commute, and FC is lower everywhere.
  2. Previous lows are now the regular thing, while the new lows are pretty stunning - to me anyway ;)
  3. The reductions seen are between 0.3 and 0.5 L/100km less - that's HUGE !
  4. Despite the testing at higher speeds, quicker accelerations, and rather intense traffic, the car's FE indicator dropped from 4.4L/100km down to 4.2L/100km (ScanGauge is still being calibrated), which was usually hard to do but now went without any effort !

Took the car to the DIY carwash afterwards, and it doesn't look like the black tape mod is going to hold up well in wet conditions.
I'll have to make it permanent rather quickly.


I've also debadged the rear of the car.
Soaked the badges overnight with WD40, and got them off using flossing wire. All that remains now is a bit of goo :cool:

looks good! the testing sounds about right from what I have seen with mine.

Hill climbing will almost always raise the temperatures more than speeding, especially with a heavy car. But the best way to raise your temps is a traffic jam on a hot day...

Bummer !
 

Bummer :o
2 traffic jams and 3 days of heavy rain and wind have ruined a tank which looked very promising for the first 250 km.

Despite the grill block, I've only managed 49.1 mpg (4.79 L/100km) .
Oh well, 2 months ago I'd have been quite happy with that :)

Tyre pressure has been increased to 3 bar (43.5 psi) for a long trip tomorrow.

Good luck with the trip, not bad figures for the heavy car. Must get my block done - it is done but not attached as I now have some rust to deal with before the snow and rocksalt come back...

Well, the trip has set a new record, but not by as much as I'd hoped for.

I ended up at 4.49 L/100km or 52.3 mpg while the car's FE indicator was showing a solid 4.0 L/100km or 58.8 mpg for the last 100 miles.
That's double its usual error. :mad:

Around 107 miles were done on the old wheels and tyres @ 3 bar / 43.5 psi.

The remaining 440 miles were on Volvo (DRIVe) Libra 16" rims and new Michelin Energy Saver tyres with unknown pressure (probably 36psi)
They will be inflated to 43.5 psi when cold.


The old rims and tyres went in the boot - a lot of weight !
I've also picked up a used 5th rim that'll serve as a full-size spare on longer trips - adding even more weight.

In Germany, you need a Feinstaubplakette to get into the Umweltzones (vehicle emission control zones), so I got me a green sticker while I was near a TÜV test facility.
http://www.tuv.com/tib/mediadatabase/38956.jpg

I've also found out that hypermiling at 100 kph / 62 mph is not easy on the German Autobahn :o