1.6D and 57mpg? - Brian Tryzers
Just followed a pop-up to the Volvo site and found that I can now order my tonne-and-three-quarters of V70 with the DRIVe package and the 1.6D engine from the C30. I'm intrigued - not so much because I'd rather have this engine than a D5 in a V70, but that Volvo seems to think it's a viable combination.

Is this merely Volvo's attempt to counterbalance the effect of all those XC90s on its average CO 2 value - i.e. all for show and not seriously expected to sell - or should those to whom the V70 represents family motoring nirvana be rushing to place their (all right, our) orders now?

I may just have to ask my local Volvo shop if they have one I can try. Haven't test-driven anything for a year and a half and there'd certainly be points to look for in this one.
1.6D and 57mpg? - loskie
Itest drove this engine in the V50 also the 2.0d. Bought the 2litre in the end because of the extra grunt and more relaxed cruising. Average 45 to 48 mpg(mainly rural roads) and engine has only done 3500m.
Had a 1.6d courtesy car again V50 when towbar was being fitted to mine confirmed my choice that the 2.0d was the better of the two for my needs. If you want to tow the towing weights of the 1.6 stop start are poor.
1.6D and 57mpg? - Focus {P}
IIRC you can also get this engine in the S80, giving it a 0-60 of 12s. HJ reckoned it was ok, again IIRC (couldn't find thread).
1.6D and 57mpg? - daveyjp
You buy a V70 because you need the space.

If you need the space you will be carrying lots of weight.

Lots of weight means the requirement for more grunt than the 1.6 will offer.

I remember Ford putting a 1.3 in the Sierra - they didn't sell many.

1.6D and 57mpg? - NowWheels
You buy a V70 because you need the space.
If you need the space you will be carrying lots of weight.

Not necessarily. Plenty of people will just be carrying suitcases and other relatively light stuff, or even leaving the boot as a dog zone. Two big labradors weigh less than one person.
Lots of weight means the requirement for more grunt than the 1.6 will offer.

But ... look at the sort of power output of engines in this size of car in the early 90s (see for example the Volvo 940 at www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/index.htm?md=472 ). 100BHP was good going then, and the 1.6D will do 110BHP, with a lot more torque.

OK, cars have gotten heavier in that time, so that'll probably balance out the extra power. But diesel Volvo estates from that period were good load-luggers. They didn't accelerate like a bullet even when empty, let alone when fully laden ... but not everyone wants a car which can take off like a scalded cat to allow high-speed overtaking uphill when fully laden.

I suspect that the V70 1.6D will cruise comfortably at 70mph on the flat, even with a bit of a load, but won't have much in reserve on a motorway incline. For many family uses, that will be fine -- it's much how that sort of car behaved in the early 90s, except this one will be safer and use less fuel.

1.6D and 57mpg? - Manatee
For once I agree violently with NW. Most cars are much more powerful than they need to be for what they do, and just about all of them have more than enough for what they need to do.

I'm quite sure a 1.6 V70 would be plenty good enough for me, and I tow 1200kg and don't hang about unduly.

I'd just rather have a D5. I doubt my youngest will ever have such a car though, and I'm pretty sure my prospective grandchildren won't. Is that a good reason to have one?

I doubt the 1.6 is "underpowered" enough to make it less economical than the more powerful versions, even without the benefit of the stop-start.
1.6D and 57mpg? - Brian Tryzers
If you need the space you will be carrying lots of weight.

I think that's a common misconception about estate cars. The heaviest load most cars will carry is five adult humans and a bootful of luggage, and you don't need an estate car for that. Luggage is generally less dense than people, so carrying a fridge-freezer, for example, will leave the car weighing less overall than if the rear seats were upright and occupied. Even, I suspect, a full load of grand cru Burgundy weighs less than the people it displaces. In other words, most estate owners appreciate enclosed volume more than outright weight-lugging capability.

Of course there are people who regularly fill their estates with bags of cement, but I suspect not many of them buy a new V70 for that purpose. As for trailers, roof boxes, bike carriers and so on, you can attach those to pretty well any car, so the only extra weight a V70 carries over an S80 is the additional stuff that will fit in the boot plus the weight of the estate bodywork itself.

Reading Davey's comment again, I realize he doesn't actually make the link between luggage and weight, but plenty who should know better do, so I thought I'd get my retaliation in first.
1.6D and 57mpg? - Brian Tryzers
Only NW got hers in even firster.
1.6D and 57mpg? - daveyjp
The phone rang and so I didn't finish the post, then it was too late to edit!

I was going to add

"If you need the space for carrying your labrador the 1.6 is probably OK"

I would need a good test drive though. I've driven underpowered cars and it can be a frustarting experience.
1.6D and 57mpg? - Brian Tryzers
I'm a little suspicious about how close to that 57 mpg it would get in real driving on UK - well, English - roads. My S60 D5 does most of its miles on a busy but fast-moving M40 and gives me 47 mpg, but that has the grunt to go easily and stresslessly with the flow, easing off when necessary and getting back to cruise speed with a gentle nudge of the right hoof. If the 1.6D requires a downshift and serious revving to achieve the same thing, it's unlikely to be much lighter on fuel than the D5, while sacrificing the relaxing quality of a smooth, torquey engine.

As Davey says, the only way is to drive one and see. I'll have a go and report back when I can.
1.6D and 57mpg? - TheOilBurner
I'm sure the 1.6 will be fine, if you can stand underpowered engines with little or no refinement... I mean this is a 1.7t car, the old 940 2.0S only weighed 1.4t and that still had 111bhp to push it along.

For me, I'd take the newer twin-turbo D5 with 203bhp and enjoy the car instead of feeling like I'm in purgatory! Sure, it will only do mid-40s mpg, but at least it'll be enjoyable.

Perhaps my expectations need managing... ;)

Also worth mentioning that the V70 1.6D tows 300kg less than the rest of the range, so it's not just a matter of 0-60 times either. I'm sure a lot of Volvos are bought for pulling tin sheds, so in this respect the baby diesel just doesn't cut it no matter how patient you are...

Edited by TheOilBurner on 10/09/2009 at 16:44

1.6D and 57mpg? - gmac
We have a variation of this engine in a Citroen C4 Grand Picasso with EGS. This car has just passed the 10k mile mark. Over the last 6k miles in mixed driving we have averaged 37.4mpg.

The engine itself is adequate and capable of cruising effortlessly at UK motorway speeds.
1.6D and 57mpg? - Brian Tryzers
Crikey, gmac - and you've had a D5 too, if memory serves. 37 mpg suggests an engine that's having to work too hard to shift a bulky body. For context, 37 is about the worst fill-to-fill mpg I've had in almost 100,000 miles of D5 driving, including a couple of years when it didn't get out of town much. Styles and results vary, I know, but that makes me more sceptical than ever about Volvo's 57 mpg claim for the V70.
1.6D and 57mpg? - gmac
I've still got the S60 D5 and it's currently averaging 48.7mpg

We all know Euro4 diesels do not average what the official test states.
This is what the official Euro test is producing not the manufacturers figures.

I do wonder what the real world 1.6D in a V70 will produce though as the C4 has a minimum kerb weight of 1530kgs to the V70's 1667kgs.

Edited by gmac on 10/09/2009 at 17:53

1.6D and 57mpg? - Brian Tryzers
>We all know Euro4 diesels do not average what the official test states.

True, but they don't miss by that much, do they? If I've looked it up right, the 1.6D Grand Picasso has an official Combined of something like 51 mpg. Our Euro IV Toyota Verso manages 41 against an official value of 44, which is tolerable - but that's a 2.2 engine in a body that's lighter than the Picasso. Even that, subjectively, seems to be working harder than the D5 in the heavier but more aerodynamic and Euro III S60.

Incidentally, I only ever intended this thread to toss the idea around - I'm not trying to talk myself or anyone else into or out of anything. Gmac's Picasso example is interesting, though, in that it shows the idea of an apparently under-equipped diesel engine in a big, heavy body at least has precedent. And I'd bet (ref the discussion with Davey and NW) that many 7-seat Picassos actually lug heavier loads than the typical V70.
1.6D and 57mpg? - NowWheels
Crikey gmac - and you've had a D5 too if memory serves. 37 mpg suggests
an engine that's having to work too hard to shift a bulky body.

Despite my defence of the 1.6 engine, you may well be right that it's engine working too hard, and that a slightly bigger (but less-stressed) engine may a much better bet.

Unfortunately, I fear that this will be the recipe of cars for the next decade: undersized engines which give very low CO2 readings in the completely unrealistic tests from which official CO2 and MPG figures are derived, but which can't achieve anything like that in real life.

The low Co2 figures mean that this sort of vehicle is basically a tax-dodging cheat: an artificial test gives an artificial Co2 figure which results in artificially lowered tax rates, leading to a proliferation of under-engined cars which probably emit more CO2 in real usage than bigger-engined versions.

If the tax was levied on actual C2 outputs rather than these crazily low "official" figures, the most efficient V70 would probably be the 2.0D
1.6D and 57mpg? - gmac
The low Co2 figures mean that this sort of vehicle is basically a tax-dodging cheat:
an artificial test gives an artificial Co2 figure which results in artificially lowered tax rates
leading to a proliferation of under-engined cars which probably emit more CO2 in real usage
than bigger-engined versions.

It does appear mad that I pay less tax for a more polluting vehicle but that's what we've got. I didn't believe for one second I would get much more than 40MPG from a 1.6 turbo diesel moving more than 1.5 tonnes and that's on Primacy energy saving tyres too.
1.6D and 57mpg? - stunorthants26
These samll diesel engines in large cars are a prime candidate for hybrid systems to run alongside the derv unit giving the extra torque when required.
1.6D and 57mpg? - Focus {P}
FWIW official urban, combined and extra urban figures, and 0-62 times, for the various diesel V70s are:

1.6 (109ps): 47.9, 57.7, 65.7; 12.8
2.0 (136ps): 37.7, 47.9, 56.5; 11.1
2.4 (175ps): 34.9, 47.1, 58.9; 9.5
D5 (205ps): 32.5, 44.1, 55.4; 8.2
1.6D and 57mpg? - madf
In mixed - but mainly urban driving - my diesel experience over 15 years says my average mpg = urban +2 to 3 mpg.
1.6D and 57mpg? - TheOilBurner
FWIW official urban combined and extra urban figures and 0-62 times for the various diesel
V70s are:

The 2.0d looks quite pointless in that list. No more economical than the 2.4D on average and quite a bit slower. In fact, on the motorway the 2.4D is even more economical than the 2.0D, which I guess proves what people say about bigger, less stressed engines not working so hard. Only around town does it really suffer and I can't imagine many people buying a V70 just to do short runs around town and nothing else.

The 1.6D doesn't look so bad on paper, I've had cars with 12-13s 0-60 that were perfectly drivable in the real world, however they didn't have 1.7t to drag around...

I'm looking forward to seeing what people who actually buy a 1.6D and have to live with it every day have to say.
1.6D and 57mpg? - b308
These samll diesel engines in large cars are a prime candidate for hybrid systems to

I agree Stu, but until they start producing hybrids for the European market rather than the American one I doubt we'll see any...

I do wonder just how many times we really need all this extra power and speed we seem to be having forced on us these days... looking at that other thread discussing overtaking it would seem that for the majority of drivers this engine would be quite sufficient, only those who like to drive fast (or in their words "make progress"!) would perhaps need more... 0-60 times and top speeds are very over-rated when it comes to family cars, whats more important to most is fuel consumption and flexibility.
1.6D and 57mpg? - stunorthants26
I always liked those low-pressure turbo cars which seemed to always be adequate where the non-trubo lacked something, but they werent OTT.
My old Astravan had a LPT and while it didnt have the punch of the full bore turbo versions, it had a sort of relentless urge in any gear. Cars have obviously got heavier since my '95 example, so the next stage does seem to be a hybrid assist to cover the torque lacking in smaller units without the need for vast cubic capacity.

It would also be nice if there was some further work on aerodynamics as it seemed to be the thing back in the 80's but it has fallen almost silent these days in terms of press coverage.
It amazes me that VAG has managed to create these Bluemotion models simply by applying some rather simple tweaks, which makes me wonder what else they are holding back.
1.6D and 57mpg? - b308
I had one of the 1.7D Astra Estates with the low blow engine (same car, Stu?!), and yes it was very flexible, in fact the only diesel I've driven since with the same urge from low revs right up to the red line is the VAG 1.9PD TDi I have now... that "variable vane" turbo works really well in the 100/105 versions...

One thing they've done with the Greenline stuff in the Fabia range is use the 1.4 engine mated to the 1.9 gearbox ratios, tbh it was something they should have done in the first place, the low gearing on my old style 1.4 Fabia drove me nuts, it was obvious that the engine could cope with the higher gearing but they insisted on using that 'box which meant that you were revving at 3k at a true 70mph, daft for a diesel!

Edited by b308 on 11/09/2009 at 10:44

1.6D and 57mpg? - stunorthants26
>>I had one of the 1.7D Astra Estates with the low blow engine (same car, Stu?!)<<

Sure is, I think the engine was the GM unit rather than the Isuzu, could be wrong though! I must admit, I didnt know mine was a turbo charged example until three oil changes as the oil oil in it was clogging it up big time, but after the third, the distinct whistle of the turbo and black smoke under hard throttle made themselves known ( oil seals in the turbo were suspect ).
Nevertheless, one of the better vehicles ive owned and remarkably comfortable on a long run. Squeeze the throttle at 70 and you were very soon doing 85. Same effect at 50 to 60. Keep the revs in the mid-range and it was uncannily quick. It would also pull away in 2nd easily with no throttle. Proper diesel!

1.6D and 57mpg? - V70
Hi there,

It is really astonishing for me that there are almost no informations available from people who drove that car so far. This thread is pretty much the first and therefore longest I have seen so far.
Coming back of what many of you said above - There are other reasons why one might buy this estate: If you are a tall person who drove already some kind of boring Passats and Modeoes and - you face a tight budget for a company car - than you might think of that type of car. At least in Germany the V70 is cheaper as the S80.
Therefore my decission to order the V70 was based on economical reasons as well as the wish to drive something "different".
I was as well studing the performance figures of my cars in the late 80ies and came to the conclusion that this car has to fit considering the much better torque of the modern diesel engines. Call me Berk, as I have not even to pay for the fuel. I just like the design and the space this car offers for taller people. As well I like the overview in that car which is much better than - say a Mondeo or Passat estate.
Well I let you know in a few weeks if this is not only wishfull thinking when I got the car :-)
1.6D and 57mpg? - tyro
Interestingly enough, what has been said of the V70 1.6D could be said of every single diesel engine in the new Citroen Berlingo Multispace.

One buys a Berlingo to carry stuff. So are the engines powerful enough? There are 3 diesels available, all PSA 1.6 diesels in different states of tune. (If I'm correct, this is the engine in the V70 1.6D)

Their 0-60 figures are, respectively, 17.1 seconds, 14.3 seconds, and 12.5 seconds.

Two of them appear to be much more significantly underpowered than the V70 1.6D.
1.6D and 57mpg? - pd
Peugeot and Citroen have been offering this engine in the C5 and 407 for years. I can't believe a 407 weighs much more or carries much more than a V70 and it seems to work OK and sell in large number if not exactly setting the world alight.

I'd agree with some other posters that I've always found the 2.0d V50 pretty rubbish. Apart from needing a £1000 service at 75k to replaced the particulate filter it simply isn't economical enough using more fuel in pretty much all circumstances than the D5 version.

Value my car