im close to 4k now, and it has not improved any.I have read some other posts here on SS that dig deeper into this, and I seem to recall people saying the first 1,000 miles of engine break-in produced lower MPG than longer-term. I'm hoping it gets a little better as time goes.
These MPG numbers are not that good for a car with a 2.0L 4 cylinder. The Q7 and Mercedes GL do just as well with bigger more powerful 3.0L 6 cylinder engines. These numbers are further proof that the move to smaller more forced engines does not improve actual numbers..it just improves numbers in fuel economy tests. I suspect a large motivation for Volvo in using only 2.0L engines is due to the displacement taxation schemes in eurozone nations, and not having the engineering resources to develop 2 engine families simultaneously.Averaging 18.6 (rounded to 19 for the poll) and 25 mph over 2,800 miles so far, about half highway using comfort mode and half city using dynamic. About the same as the V6 Mazda CX-9 before this so I'm fine with it.
Oh boy, haters gonna hate.
They can make it consistently good on fuel by muting the throttle response, but then we'd complain that 4 cylinders don't work because they're slow. I'd rather have the ability to do either, have good fuel mileage or good throttle response. Even an electric car has trade offs for throttle response, stomp on it and watch your range decrease.....until we get our nuclear cars! Woohoo!!