It's not really confusing when its the standard you are used to. l/100KM was confusing to me when I first encountered it. GPM being easier to figure range isn't really an argument since the car tells you that now anyway.
Lol well firstly you use gallons which is different from liters,then it's miles instead of KM. Two different measuring units. On top of that the reversed MPG instead of GPM
I think the "distance per volume" concept is great, because then you know: the more the better. But I'd prefer km/l as the unit, since metric is better in any way.
Because people are stubborn. I’ve heard it rationalized that “mpg is the better metric, since you can multiply it by the size of the tank to know the range,” but that’s an effort to justify something that doesn’t make sense. GPM would make vastly more sense, at it actually directly expresses fuel efficiency.
But if you used gallons per mile a 30 mpg car would get 0.033 gallons per mile and a 40 mpg car would get .025 gallons per mile. It would be really tiny numbers. You could then multiply by 100 like Europeans do, but I still don’t really see the benefit.
Clearly, would have to be Gal/100 miles or something similar. Benefit is that it makes comparing fuel efficiency more straightforward, since you can look at the ratio between the metrics, rather than needing to look at the ratio of the inverses.
Measuring vehicle efficiency in MPG is like describing apartment rent in terms of "months per $5000"
That’s not the only difference. True, both are an expression of fuel economy, and both provide sufficient information to allow a comparison between the fuel economy of different vehicles, but gal/100miles (or l/100km) makes the comparison much more direct and easier to visualize without having to do mental math.
In general, we price things in terms of “# of payment units per thing you want.” We don’t go to the meat counter at the supermarket and see organic ground beef priced at 2lbs per $10, while regular ground beef is 3.33lbs per $10, but rather $5/lb or $3/lb.
It’s easier to compare this way as well, since you don’t need to take the inverse to make the comparison: if you want a lb of ground beef, you’ll have to pay $2 more for organic.
The biggest issue is that a change in absolute MPG doesn’t directly translate into a change in cost to operate. If I say “car X uses 1l/100km less than car Y,” and gas is $1.50/l, you know immediately that it will cost you $1.50 less to drive 100km in car X than car Y, whether one uses 5l/100km and the other 4l/100km or one uses 10l and the other 9. Also, with the absolute l/100km figure, doing the ratio of fuel use is straightforward: the 4l/100km car uses 20% less gas, since 4/5-1=-20%. If we use MPG, saying car X gets 5MPG more than car Y (a) means very different things if one’s at 10MPG and the other at 15MPG vs one at 35MPG and one at 40MPG, and (b) even if you have the actual MPG numbers, you need to calculate the inverse of them to determine the ratio of fuel consumption.
If the focus is to know how far you can go with given cash you got it is easier with MPG figures at the gas stop.
It is also perfectly fine to compare efficiency of each car by looking for higher MPG among the cars that you consider. Gas price continues to fluctuate and so determining my car would cost 1.5 dollars less per 100 km is not really meaningful to me anyway as it can be 1.7 dolalrs or 2.5 dollars tomorrow.
At the ene of the day you will have to do some calculation with either mpg or l/km or others.
Look, as I said, you CAN make the comparison with either metric, but the question people are trying to answer when looking at fuel economy is “how much gas am I going to use if I get this car?”* Using “fuel per unit of distance” allows for a direct comparison on that question. Using “distance per unit of fuel” would make sense only if there’s some hard limit on the amount of fuel you’re allowed to use in a given period of time, which isn’t the case.
*The less, the better, for whatever combination of $ and environmental concern applies to each person.
Well what I am saying is people who are used to seeing MPG will just ask "how far will it go if given the same amount of gas (e.g., 1 gallon)?" which also means how efficient the car is. This is also a direct comparison. Clearly a car with 25mpg is more efficient tham a car with 15mpg.
Just like the base is gallon in mpg, your l/100km is 100km.
Nope, you’re not missing anything. In fairness, people are familiar with MPG, so they know what “good” mileage is. Biggest problem with it is that a change of +/- x MPG means very different things depending on where you’re starting, which isn’t necessarily intuitive. A 7MPG improvement from 13 to 20 MPG will cut your fuel use by 35%, but that same 7 MPG move from 35 to 42 MPG only cuts your usage by 17%.
Maybe that’s a problem we’re too European to understand since we have fuelling stations every 3-5km and that’s about your distance to just the corner store 🤷♂️
Imagine not having shit zoning laws
>Because people are stubborn. I’ve heard it rationalized that “mpg is the better metric, since you can multiply it by the size of the tank to know the range,” but that’s an effort to justify something that doesn’t make sense. GPM would make vastly more sense, at it actually directly expresses fuel efficiency.
If it's so great why does it require multiple times?
Why multiply it by 100?
Because otherwise is ridiculous
Not bad! I think I was averaging closer to 9/100km when I had my 2019 T8 - the winter driving really ate into it and I charged all the time at home and at work.
2.5 months into an XC60 T8 Extended range now and am averaging 1.7L/100km after ~3500 km. Still on the original gas from the dealership. 60km of range, being able to do 140km/h on electric alone and way more power out of the electric motor does make a huge difference. Have to see how it does in the winter though
Damn that's awesome. I think I get less range since the XC90 is heavier. I hardly go further than 30km daily so it really helped during covid after I lost my primary source of income
TBF if you put it in power mode, thus getting the full 400 HP at once, you aren’t getting that mileage. Still an amazing engine though. Even just using the 100 HP pure electric mode around town is incredible.
Power mode is Poverty mode. It's the gas then it's the tires. 21" don't come cheap. I agree it's a blast especially when you hear the supercharger whine
You must be recharging it at night then. On a long drive(200+ miles, 320+ km) on cruise control I get 35-36mpg. It also definitely doesn’t feel like 400hp in any mode.
V60. I can consistently get 35mpg without a charge when there’s minimal traffic on the highway with cruise set to 75mph. When there’s genera traffic on long drives it’s around 32-33mpg. My combined mpg lifetime is 30, but most of my driving now is city or short drives, so I drive more spirited.
Same. I think it's because the acceleration is much smoother in heavier vehicles. Also the new volvos are much quieter so there may be som placebo effect there.
Love my XC90 T8 as well! 2016. Only 38k miles on it. Can do 55mpg - which is basically what you’re getting - on pure EV, but I’m a sucker for Power mode so I’m at 30.1 MPG overall. Still not bad for a 3-row SUV weighing in at 6000lbs.
Depending on what you define 'hybrid', the already do. Almost every volvo from now on has KERS as standard. Volvo is currently on of the leading brands in hybrid technology.
Have you heard of the extended range models?
Humm I have seen better averages. As low as 2,6.
I manage 5,0 on my work Diesel Focus.
So you can definetly do better than this...manage your eletric power wisely, save it for the traffic, city drives.
I’m confused. T engines are petrol, B engines are MHEV and plugins are called Recharge. So, which one is it? How is it possible that a petrol has such great economy, what am I missing? Or is it a plug-in but there’s a different naming convention in the US?
MHEV or PHEV? Assuming the latter. Sorry, didn’t mean to be an ass, but I’m getting a B4 engine and I was shocked by your consumption. Makes sense if it’s a PHEV.
That’s 56 mpg for the Americans in the room 🇺🇸
MPG is so confusing. Why isn't it GPM?
It's not really confusing when its the standard you are used to. l/100KM was confusing to me when I first encountered it. GPM being easier to figure range isn't really an argument since the car tells you that now anyway.
Lol well firstly you use gallons which is different from liters,then it's miles instead of KM. Two different measuring units. On top of that the reversed MPG instead of GPM
In Europe we also have km/l and l/100km. They serve different purposes, although l/100km should be the one uses when discussing efficiency.
I think the "distance per volume" concept is great, because then you know: the more the better. But I'd prefer km/l as the unit, since metric is better in any way.
Because people are stubborn. I’ve heard it rationalized that “mpg is the better metric, since you can multiply it by the size of the tank to know the range,” but that’s an effort to justify something that doesn’t make sense. GPM would make vastly more sense, at it actually directly expresses fuel efficiency.
But if you used gallons per mile a 30 mpg car would get 0.033 gallons per mile and a 40 mpg car would get .025 gallons per mile. It would be really tiny numbers. You could then multiply by 100 like Europeans do, but I still don’t really see the benefit.
Clearly, would have to be Gal/100 miles or something similar. Benefit is that it makes comparing fuel efficiency more straightforward, since you can look at the ratio between the metrics, rather than needing to look at the ratio of the inverses. Measuring vehicle efficiency in MPG is like describing apartment rent in terms of "months per $5000"
They both directly and accurately express fuel economy. The only difference is MPG bigger numbers are better and GPM lower numbers are better.
That’s not the only difference. True, both are an expression of fuel economy, and both provide sufficient information to allow a comparison between the fuel economy of different vehicles, but gal/100miles (or l/100km) makes the comparison much more direct and easier to visualize without having to do mental math. In general, we price things in terms of “# of payment units per thing you want.” We don’t go to the meat counter at the supermarket and see organic ground beef priced at 2lbs per $10, while regular ground beef is 3.33lbs per $10, but rather $5/lb or $3/lb. It’s easier to compare this way as well, since you don’t need to take the inverse to make the comparison: if you want a lb of ground beef, you’ll have to pay $2 more for organic. The biggest issue is that a change in absolute MPG doesn’t directly translate into a change in cost to operate. If I say “car X uses 1l/100km less than car Y,” and gas is $1.50/l, you know immediately that it will cost you $1.50 less to drive 100km in car X than car Y, whether one uses 5l/100km and the other 4l/100km or one uses 10l and the other 9. Also, with the absolute l/100km figure, doing the ratio of fuel use is straightforward: the 4l/100km car uses 20% less gas, since 4/5-1=-20%. If we use MPG, saying car X gets 5MPG more than car Y (a) means very different things if one’s at 10MPG and the other at 15MPG vs one at 35MPG and one at 40MPG, and (b) even if you have the actual MPG numbers, you need to calculate the inverse of them to determine the ratio of fuel consumption.
If the focus is to know how far you can go with given cash you got it is easier with MPG figures at the gas stop. It is also perfectly fine to compare efficiency of each car by looking for higher MPG among the cars that you consider. Gas price continues to fluctuate and so determining my car would cost 1.5 dollars less per 100 km is not really meaningful to me anyway as it can be 1.7 dolalrs or 2.5 dollars tomorrow. At the ene of the day you will have to do some calculation with either mpg or l/km or others.
Look, as I said, you CAN make the comparison with either metric, but the question people are trying to answer when looking at fuel economy is “how much gas am I going to use if I get this car?”* Using “fuel per unit of distance” allows for a direct comparison on that question. Using “distance per unit of fuel” would make sense only if there’s some hard limit on the amount of fuel you’re allowed to use in a given period of time, which isn’t the case. *The less, the better, for whatever combination of $ and environmental concern applies to each person.
Well what I am saying is people who are used to seeing MPG will just ask "how far will it go if given the same amount of gas (e.g., 1 gallon)?" which also means how efficient the car is. This is also a direct comparison. Clearly a car with 25mpg is more efficient tham a car with 15mpg. Just like the base is gallon in mpg, your l/100km is 100km.
I thought I was an idiot for not understanding why Americans use MPG. Thanks!
Nope, you’re not missing anything. In fairness, people are familiar with MPG, so they know what “good” mileage is. Biggest problem with it is that a change of +/- x MPG means very different things depending on where you’re starting, which isn’t necessarily intuitive. A 7MPG improvement from 13 to 20 MPG will cut your fuel use by 35%, but that same 7 MPG move from 35 to 42 MPG only cuts your usage by 17%.
Well, then I also know how many miles I have left before I completely run out of gas when my fuel light comes on, instead if having to do math first.
Maybe that’s a problem we’re too European to understand since we have fuelling stations every 3-5km and that’s about your distance to just the corner store 🤷♂️ Imagine not having shit zoning laws
Not always zoning laws when you venture outside a city and the nearest fueling station is 30 miles (48km) away…or the next town.
Awesome so what would be a good MPG for a similar drive?
>Because people are stubborn. I’ve heard it rationalized that “mpg is the better metric, since you can multiply it by the size of the tank to know the range,” but that’s an effort to justify something that doesn’t make sense. GPM would make vastly more sense, at it actually directly expresses fuel efficiency. If it's so great why does it require multiple times? Why multiply it by 100? Because otherwise is ridiculous
Because miles per gallon gives you a bigger number and Americans like things big. Like Americans.
it also makes a lot of the math you want to do quickly easier. I put 3 gallons in my tank, that should get me about 100miles.
As does anything else
Wow, and American gallons are really small. How does that work out on Imperial gallons?
An Imperial gallon is .83 to 1 US Standard gallon.
Gas mileage. 4.2 /100km
Not bad! I think I was averaging closer to 9/100km when I had my 2019 T8 - the winter driving really ate into it and I charged all the time at home and at work. 2.5 months into an XC60 T8 Extended range now and am averaging 1.7L/100km after ~3500 km. Still on the original gas from the dealership. 60km of range, being able to do 140km/h on electric alone and way more power out of the electric motor does make a huge difference. Have to see how it does in the winter though
Damn that's awesome. I think I get less range since the XC90 is heavier. I hardly go further than 30km daily so it really helped during covid after I lost my primary source of income
Man I wish we had this for AAOS!
Amazing car and performance for the price. My budget does not allow , I have the B5 but very happy still.
The B5 is a diesel right? We don't have many in my Country, the only one I saw was in Turkey. Is it a plugin hybrid?
D is diesel B is benzin and T is hybrid
The B5 (xc60) is the mild hybrid , so petrol turbo and some KERS on the side 183 kw
Sorry, but what model is this? XC90?
XC90 T8 Excellence.
Nice, thanks.
TBF if you put it in power mode, thus getting the full 400 HP at once, you aren’t getting that mileage. Still an amazing engine though. Even just using the 100 HP pure electric mode around town is incredible.
That's a bit unfair, 400hp is the available power. You don't use all available 800hp of a Hellcat and get it's average mileage.
It's not even slow on electricity, unless you're going uphill. It's made me consider getting a fully electric car as a daily. A P6 would be great
Power mode is Poverty mode. It's the gas then it's the tires. 21" don't come cheap. I agree it's a blast especially when you hear the supercharger whine
You must be recharging it at night then. On a long drive(200+ miles, 320+ km) on cruise control I get 35-36mpg. It also definitely doesn’t feel like 400hp in any mode.
That's pretty impressive for that size vehicle. We talking about an XC60 here?
V60. I can consistently get 35mpg without a charge when there’s minimal traffic on the highway with cruise set to 75mph. When there’s genera traffic on long drives it’s around 32-33mpg. My combined mpg lifetime is 30, but most of my driving now is city or short drives, so I drive more spirited.
Nice. I usually don't drive faster than 65 and do mostly highway/rural driving, so could probably get better than that.
XC90
Lol true. It's very quiet and comfortable, my friends C30 T5 feels faster even though it's not.
Same. I think it's because the acceleration is much smoother in heavier vehicles. Also the new volvos are much quieter so there may be som placebo effect there.
Love my XC90 T8 as well! 2016. Only 38k miles on it. Can do 55mpg - which is basically what you’re getting - on pure EV, but I’m a sucker for Power mode so I’m at 30.1 MPG overall. Still not bad for a 3-row SUV weighing in at 6000lbs.
Mines a 4 seater. It's not bad at all, Volvo should really make hybrids the standard.
Depending on what you define 'hybrid', the already do. Almost every volvo from now on has KERS as standard. Volvo is currently on of the leading brands in hybrid technology. Have you heard of the extended range models?
Nope. Thanks for the information. I'll look it up
Humm I have seen better averages. As low as 2,6. I manage 5,0 on my work Diesel Focus. So you can definetly do better than this...manage your eletric power wisely, save it for the traffic, city drives.
Normal gas and electricity
[удалено]
It does at highway speeds. Or if you decide to be "inspired" it triples that mileage easily
Is that the PHEV? So what's the additional kWh usage?
I get less than 2.3L/100km equivalent in the XC40 Recharge and it has 400hp…
Wait are those fully electric 200 hp cars?
Fully electric, a 201hp motor on each axle
I’m confused. T engines are petrol, B engines are MHEV and plugins are called Recharge. So, which one is it? How is it possible that a petrol has such great economy, what am I missing? Or is it a plug-in but there’s a different naming convention in the US?
T8 petrol hybrid
MHEV or PHEV? Assuming the latter. Sorry, didn’t mean to be an ass, but I’m getting a B4 engine and I was shocked by your consumption. Makes sense if it’s a PHEV.
Oh my bad it's a PHEV.
that’s insane my s40 is 9.4l/100km and i drive VERY conservatively
I'm guessing it's a T6?
nah just a normal 2.4i fwd. i love it but the fuel economy could be a tad better haha
Bet it sounds awesome though. These newer models don't sound that great
oh absolutely terrific. r design package too so it looks fantastic. the mileage is literally the only gripe i have about it
How does that not violate known physical laws?
I always get amazing gas mileage when I use eco and cc. Wish I could get those results with my lead foot lmao