10L/100km, I believe, is around 23.5 miles per gallon of gas USA. For mostly city driving, using premium fuel, that's about what I get between 23 and 25. I am a fairly conservative driver, at least around town.

 

Exclusively city driving 21mpg.
Mix City/Highway (my typical use) 24mpg.
Exclusively highway 27mpg.

 

Based on calculation at the pump, 10.95l/100km overall, or 21.48mpg
Mixed driving.
It can go from 8.8l/100km (26.7mpg) in best conditions, highway in summer, to 13.2l/100km (17.8 mpg) on worst condition, city in winter with lots of stop and go and spinning!

Edit: Here's the link I used ffor conversion: L/100 km to MPG Conversion

 

I have to admit that I'm mildly disappointed in my mpg. According to my VOC app, my average fuel economy is 20.6 mpg; I always use the eco setting, and I am one of those annoying jerks who actually drives the speed limit on all roads, including the 55 mph highways.

My one caveat is that I bought the car at the beginning of November, just as the weather was getting colder, and I have snow tires on the car. So I'm hoping with warm weather and summer tires, my mpg will notch up at least a few points.

 

I have to admit that I'm mildly disappointed in my mpg. According to my VOC app, my average fuel economy is 20.6 mpg; I always use the eco setting, and I am one of those annoying jerks who actually drives the speed limit on all roads, including the 55 mph highways.

My one caveat is that I bought the car at the beginning of November, just as the weather was getting colder, and I have snow tires on the car. So I'm hoping with warm weather and summer tires, my mpg will notch up at least a few points.

I'm also a little disappointed with my fuel economy. I was expecting mid 25mpgs. However, like you, I also just recently got my car right in the middle of winter. Although I'm still running the stock all seasons. Hopefully mileage will improve come summer time. I recently filled up with "ethanol free" gas, maybe that'll help.

 

Not sure where you are located. In the US, the "winter" gas is infused with ethanol, which tends to retard mpg. This, combined with snow tires and the cold weather, will tend to further reduce mpg. My guess is the snow tires on your car may be the biggest contributor to your lower mpg.

I live in the NorthEast USA, and am also a conservative driver. MPG local driving is between 23 and 25, while highway is around 29 to 30, with all season tires and premium gas. The areas where I tend to drive are relatively flat.

 

I'm in Detroit. We're actually having a fairly mild winter by our standards -- temps haven't gone below zero, no snowfall more than 6 inches -- so I'm especially surprised. But even before putting on the snow tires, I was averaging low 20s at best.

 

One word: Horrible.

My friend who has a V8 Mustang gets better fuel economy than me.

Stats:
20.5 MPG - Mixed ; Comfort Mode
25 MPG - Highway ; Comfort/Eco Mode depending on the traffic and stretch of road.
16.5ish MPG - City ; Comfort/Individual (Basically Dynamic without the twitchy brake setting)

But then again, I am a little lead footed and can't help but listen to the supercharger whine up on acceleration. But my old R-Design XC60 had the same issue, dealer installed a new software update but it still drank fuel like a V6/V8. I'll admit I'm a little disappointed in the performance but the driving experience makes up for it personally.

 

I get around 11.5-12.5 predominantly city driving and I have a heavy foot (generally short trips as well). I haven't had it long enough for real-world mix city/hwy driving.

 

You get 12 mpg in your car on a regular basis? I don't think that's anywhere in the realm of normal, it sounds like your vehicle has a serious issue.

 

My fuel economy other than pure highway driving has been bad. In city driving I'm getting around 16mpg (14.7 l/100km). I bought the car in November (2019 CPO with 19,000 miles), so I've only been driving it in cold weather. I do tend to have a heavy foot (what's the point of getting the T6 if I don't use it?). Mixed driving is around 19.5mpg (12l/100km). Pure highway driving I actually get the EPA estimated 27-28mpg (8.7 l/100km). I'm hoping the city and mixed driving will improve in warmer weather. I do have the 21" wheels, which I suppose can somewhat negatively affect economy.

 

I noticed that Volvo typically provides "Improvements of the engine control system's optimization" with their periodic software updates. I wonder if any of these updates have an impact on fuel economy (either positive or negative)?

 

We all wish you'd switch over as well. I googled who uses Imperial Measurements and it is only you folks, Liberia and Myanmar...

 

I say the USA should switch to metric when England, and all other countries that drive on the "wrong" side of the road switch to the "right" side. LOL!

driving waynes world GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

Discover & share this driving waynes world GIF with everyone you know. GIPHY is how you search, share, discover, and create GIFs.

giphy.com

 

Apples and oranges as about 1/3 of countries drove on the left or in right side of the vehicle. You are 1 of 3 counties that use metric.

 

I’m getting around 17.5 in the xc60. Wife gets 17 in the xc90.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'd be very sad if we switch to 10L/100Km. This would sound we are poor and care too much on how much fuel to use. It is dumb that greater number means worse. 25mpg is much better in that it tells you how far we can go. And the purpose of driving is to drive farther. So naturally greater mpg means better.

I love metric otherwise. Give me km/litre number please.

Sent from my Z978 using Tapatalk

 

Actually, statistically speaking, L/KM (or G/M) is a better measure. Think of it this way...In 1 gallon, how many miles might you travel? Lets say 20. How many changing conditions might you encounter over the 20 miles (e.g., traffic, road conditions, traffic signals, weather, etc.)? Now change that to 1 mile. You have reduced the noise in the measurement. It is a simple transform (1/x) but it is a better measurement. See here:

The distortion of fuel consumption measurement

datagenetics.com

 

It's the same darn thing, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter which is the numerator and which is the denominator... The two numbers can be easily converted and have a direct, inverse relationship.

Saying that one is a "better" measure than the other because of the numerator/denominator is simply being pedantic. Saying that one is a "better" measure because it's more accurate (which is what I think you are implying with the "1 mile" comment) is downright stupid.

 

It is not about accuracy or number transform that easily done by calculator. It is about how we the human feel it.

A number the greater the worse? No please. We all like a number the greater the better.

And now look at your fuel gauge, you see about 10gal left, and tell me you are going to make it home or not. A miles-per-gallon number is much more useful. Your estimation is usually better than the miles-to-empty number guessed by computer, as you know the road ahead is freeway or stop-and-go.

Sent from my Z978 using Tapatalk

 

Statisticians use data transformations (See Box-Cox transformations) for many reasons. First and foremost to simplify the model, but also to meet analysis assumptions (NID(0,s^2)). We're not talking accuracy, but precision (variability in the measurement system). In this case, the inverses does 2 things, it simplifies the model (more robust to ambient noise) and meets the assumptions.

Not trying to offend anyone. Peace.

 

I still don't see how inverting numerator or denominator affects accuracy or precision.

My dissertation was on transformations (on how to develop a unidimensional process capability index for multi-dimensional tolerances... it required a couple of transformations to get to a closed form solution...). I have a book out on them. But I don't pretend to understand the topic. My younger self perhaps did. I was smarter then. I think the first edition published in 1996. Since then, I have been working in finance, first in the "real world" and then as an academic. I truly don't remember that stuff. I picked up that book recently, and I wow'd myself ;-)

 

As I said, it has nothing to do with accuracy. The transform can though affect the variability (precision, two components of which are repeatability and reproducibility). Would you agree that as noise in the system increases variability increases? Thus if we can transform the response variable such that noise is reduced wouldn't that reduce the variability of the system? That is the intention of the transform. I haven't read your dissertation, but my guess is you had to figure out how to combine "multi-dimensional" tolerances into a index that typically uses one estimate of the mean and one of the standard deviation. In such a case, the standard deviations are not additive (where the means are) so you'd need to use the squared transform, add the components and then take the square root. But that is just a guess.

 

Since March 1 2018, my mixed use driving, with a daily 40 mile round trip commute and other typical errands was 20.1 MPG ( 11.7 L/100km ) and nearly 3 years later, with no commute, since I am working from home, I am still at the same MPG (20.2 MPG) average fuel consumption on my dashboard display and the VOC app.

 

I made a round trip (206 km each way) 2 days ago with the studded winter tires on and cruise control set at 115 km for 1/3 of the distance, 120 for 1/3 and 125 for 1/3. The trip computer showed 8.9 l/100 km which is about 31 mpg.....close to what I calculated manually.

 

did you wonder, how many liters of gasoline this car can eat in american units:
L/km to MPG converter (amazingconverter.com)

 

I'm curious how sensitive the T6 is to the weight of its wheels. I have the 20in inscription wheels and have seriously considered putting much lighter 18s on it, both for a wider selection of tires and better performance. Does anyone have any experience with this? I know there's one guy on the forum who put on 18s, but then slapped on some beefy off-road tires, which probably wouldn't make much difference to economy.

 

Wouldn't the tires weigh more so it kinda cancels out? 20" wheels are going to handle better than 18" wheels. The XC60 handling is okay, but not class-leading... I wouldn't want to degrade handling performance.