New Volvo Hybrid Uses More Fuel Than Diesel!
December 26, 2017
By Paul Homewood
I came across this review of the new Volvo XC60 Hybrid in the Express last week.
It contained the usual glowing comments that most expensive cars get, but it did contain this criticism:
Given that the hybrid cost about £9000 more than its diesel equivalent, which has a spec of 49.6 mpg, it hardly offers value for money. I guess that the sort of people who would be prepared to fork out £56000 for one might not regard that as a problem though.
More to the point though, the government is banking on hybrids to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. If this Volvo is typical of the breed, hybrids may not make as much difference as our glorious leaders hope!
20 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
You must remember though, Paul, cars are not designed to be driven – they’re designed to pass artificial fuel-consumption tests.
I believe you nailed that one, Joe.
Possibly closer to the truth than might be thought. The advantage of hybrid cars is that they can be used to provide backup generation for when the national grid crumbles under the strain of renewables.
“our glorious leaders” – yes there’s definitely a touch of North Korea about the UK energy policy.
Cars are now being politically engineered. A sad state for we engineers. Hybrids have interesting potential; but when it comes to marketing success the political CO2 bug is a great problem. Do you design boring cars for boring green blobs or do you provide a zipp to to those who seek the quality of engineering excellence? An excellence which could be available for many if the green blob was put in its place.
Electric Volvo not as good as promised
– Well even the BBC rowed back from its on air hype,
there is scepticism in its stealth edited article How electric is electric?
– Volvo are being sued for overstating battery claims when a XC90 25 mile battery could only manage 10.
– XC90 T8 Plug-in Hybrid Gets Battery Upgrade and Range Boost
9.2 kWh to 10.4 kWh means rise from14 up to 19 mile range
– POLESTAR 1 IS A 600-HP HYBRID SPORTS COUPE WITH 93-MILE EV RANGE (150km)
600hp and 400hp
Seems Volvo specialise in huge cars with small batteries..of course they will be inefficient.
… People used to believe that buying Chinese could be a con, but Swedish quality was great.
It’s largely forgotten that the battery pack in hybrids add a significant amount of weight to push around.
There is a limit to car makers’ MPG jokes…
‘I went to court when my car didn’t meet its mileage claims’
Doug was so annoyed when his car failed to achieve the fuel economy that he’d been promised that he took legal action against the dealer – and won.
http://conversation.which.co.uk/motoring/misleading-car-mpg-claims/
My Saab 9-3 1.9TD does between 45 and 55 mpg depending on the length of the journey. It is an estate so it has cavernous carrying capacity and, for a diesel, the acceleration is quite startling. It has done 135,000 miles to date and I really love it. It makes me sad that the company that bought out what was left of the Saab company when it went under want to make useless electric cars.
I drive a MY2007 Ford AWD Escape hybrid small SUV (not plug in, same architecture as Prius). 206 net HP, so class 1 tow hitch. Get 32 mpg city and 28 highway. The comparable 200 HP V6 Escape gets 18 city and 22 hwy. The biggest cost saving is that the Atkinson cycle I4 (supplemented by battery and electric machine uses regular while the comparable Otto cycle V6 requires premium. Not only 1/3 less gallons, each gallon costs ~$1 less. No direct diesel comparison as US carmakers only put diesel options on big pickup trucks.
Those in the UK should add 20% to Rud’s mileage numbers to convert to Imperial gallons.
I believe Volvo are committed to going all- electric – so this is their swansong.
Not quite. They said that they will not be selling any new designs after 2019 that aren’t hydrid or EV. The key is the new bit. They can keep selling any existing designs if there is the demand and nobody wants enough of the virtue-signalling models. Who knows if they might not just keep a few designs in the background in case the inevitable collapse of hybrids/EVs comes.
Maybe 210? Seems like a coding error.
I couldn’t get home from the dealer if only 21.
Yes, I know — there’s also carbon based fuel therein.
I’m old school, I prefer petrol.
With all the flooded roads around and the flood under the rail bridge I didn’t see – wasn’t there 6 hours earlier – I am glad I have diesel.
Diesel – yeah, I bet you were.
‘134.5 mpg’!!! Surely the ASA should be requiring proof of such a claim. Or is this another VW scam yet to see light of day?
Re: “More to the point though, the government is banking on hybrids to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. If this Volvo is typical of the breed, hybrids may not make as much difference as our glorious leaders hope!”
The government doesn’t have a clue how much hybrids save, else it wouldn’t be subsidising vehicles such as as this. Using HMRC’s forms, I recently compared the tax penalties/benefits of equivalent Porsche Panameras, for just this purpose, after seeing a report in a car mag. As with the Volvo, the hybrid Panamera is about £10K more expensive than the petrol equivalent. On the basis of 20000 miles/year for a company car, which doesn’t seem unreasonable, the comparative HMRC stats are as follows, based on HMRC believing the claims about consumption:
Hybrid – Car benefit £10400, car fuel benefit £2938. Total taxable amount £13338.
Petrol – Car benefit £23800, car fuel benefit £7684. Total taxable amount £31484.
Since most cars at this level will have some sort of company connection, it makes sense to buy the dearer, heavier, less economic on engine-only mileage, more particulate-generating (from increased tyre/road wear) model. Further, this doesn’t take into account the overall reduction in mileage for a car than does this sort of distance over a year.
I wouldn’t mind if the tax benefits were biased towards small cars that would/could actually contribute significantly to the “problem”, but this is just ridiculous, when MPs are bleating about fuel-for-heating poverty.
The “fat-cats” continue to be sponsored and rewarded beyond any sense by government and its civil service. Mrs May really does show how much she cares about the JAMS!