I'm trying to get some intial fuel mileage figures on my recently purchased V70. The manual lists the tank capacity as 17.5 gallons - with a 1.6 gallon reserve when the fuel light is lit. Yesterday, I fueled the car for the second time. Since I am trying to get a reproducible number, I ignored the "do not top off" lables on the nozzle and carefully filled the tank to the base of the restrictor - with 18.2 gallons! This suggests that (a) the 1.6 gallon reserve is in addition to the stated 17.5 gallon capacity or (b) the filler line is pretty long or (c) Volvo is quoting Imperial gallons or (d) the gas station has fiddled their pumps! (Although the guage was near the bottom, the refill light had not gone on and the computer advised nearly 100 miles to empty).

Any suggestions?

 

If you are trying to get fuel mileage figures than the exact capacity of your tank is irrelevant. Fill up your car and reset the trip. Drive till you feel like filling up again. Take note of the fill up amount and of the trip. That gives you your fuel mileage. It isn't so great to take your tank down to very empty anyway, it reduces the amount of lubrication to the fuel pump in the tank.

Gas pumps are not calibrated that often so it is very possible that they are not very accurate, but using the same station and pump should give you some consistency.

FWIW, my 98 V70 is rated to have a 19 gallon tank and it seems to be a pretty accurate figure.

Hope that is some help.
Gino

 

Thank you. I understand the principle (and also recognize that the only meaningful figure will be derived from a series of fills and calculations) I do like to have a sense of a "typical" distance that one can go on a tankful as a backstop for the fuel guage (failure of which is not unknown) and I was really curious about the actual capacity. In the past I drove a Mercedes E320 wagon. The fuel fill system had some type of venting issue. Any auto-shut off nozzle would stop 3+ gallons short of full. The remainder could be put in only by running the nozzle at a very low rate. i was simply surprized at adding 18+ gallons to a 17.5 gallon tank that was not registering as empty.

 

How would you compare the quality between your volvo and the past Mercedes? Just curious. My brother is contemplating a c series wagon. He knows my woes about my first volvo experience.
Gino

 

That's a good question and one that I have spent some time thinking about. Let me start with a little history:

I drove Mercedes for 23 years. My first was a 300D (diesel) that I bought, interesting enough, to replace my 1976 Volvo 265 wagon (great car, terrible Volvo-Renault-Peugot V6 engine- dumped it after 4 years and 46,000 miles based on my mechanic's warning that I was nearing the typical "replace the camshafts" job). I drove the 300D for 13 years. It was the best and cheapest car I have ever owned when maintainance, repairs and depreciation were all added up. In 1994, I sold it and bought a '94 E320 wagon. Beautiful car, great space, ride, handling and behavior and a total disaster from a reliability and maintainance standpoint! In the course of 10 years and 100,000 miles it had a new front main seal, new head gasket, new water pumps (2) new wiring harness! (I have owned a series of British cars with cotton and tar wiring and they never needed replacement), new A/C evaporator ($3500) new alternator, new ECM as well as sundry other electronic bits. It had a ravenous appetite for brake pads and disks and even the LED outside temperature read-out died - a $400 replacement. When it became clear at 100,000 miles that the transmission was failing, I drove out of the shop, went 3 blocks to the Toyota dealer and traded it for an '04 Toyota Sequoia.

The Toyota was a nearly 3 ton truck - but a beatifully finished truck. I did not feel that I had given up anything in terms of fit, finish or build quality in going from the Merc to the Toyota. There were a few trade-offs in both directions - the Merc had a memory for the driver's seat but the Toyota had remote locking/unlocking. The Toyota drove well but one was always aware of both mass and height. The biggest failing was the Toyota's ergonomics - controls scattered illogically and instruments unreadable in daylight although I appreciated a full set of instruments including oil pressure and voltage (I prefer to be made aware of incipient problems rather than to be informed that a problem has occurred) Our needs changed, I didn't need to tow a horse trailer and so, after only 18 months it was bye-bye truck. My Merecedes experience had been so bad both from a functional standpoint and a corporate attitude (We are Mercedes, our engineering is the best in the world, if there is a problem, you pay to fix it) that another Merc was not even a consideration.

I decided that I didn't want to accept the steep initial year or two depreciation on any new car so I went to the internet and within a day had located the car I bought, an '03 V70 2.4T with 27,000 miles on the clock and in my favorite silver color. I had driven the non-turbo model and felt it was a little underpowered.

I have had the car for 3 weeks and am very pleased. The seats are better than the Mercedes and the ergonomics far better than the Toyota. It has the best combination of features and conveniences of any car that I have driven - memory seats, auto on/of headlights, remote lock/unlock etc (but, of course, the newer Mercs will offer the same or more)

So far as quality is concerned - there are several measures - functional (behavior, reliability), longevity, and "feel" or impression. I am expecting a long life from the car. It is not unusual for me to keep a car for 10 or more years. Judging from the number of old Volvos that I see on the road, I hope to achieve that but time will tell. The road behavior is excellent allowing for some adjustments that I recognize that I need to make. This is the first car that I have driven with 50 series tires - they are harsher than a taller tire but I like a stiff suspension. My only previous experience with a front wheel drive car was a 1970 Saab with much less power than the Volvo and I am more accustomed to a twitch from the rear rather than a "******" from the front when accelerating out of a corner. So far as longevity is concerned - we shall see. I will be watching for electrical gremlins of which I gather Volvo has had its share. (In this respect, I think the Ford connection may be no bad thing. In my experience, U.S. and Japanese electrics are far better than anything that Bosch, Siemens, Magneti Marelli or Lucas produce). So far as I can tell, parts fit and quality are excellent. Does it have the "wow" factor that hits you when you climb into a Merc of BMW - no. There are little things that one wonders about - Will the matte finish inside door handles wear as well and be as easy to clean as thick chrome plating? Will the semi-matte grey center console show finger-tip wear? You can feel the engine at idle and the starter is a bit raucous. Is the interior trim real "tree" wood or well executed plastic? etc. But - are these little things worth 1.5 -2 X the price (both in purchase and maintainance) - in my mind, no.

I hope I have answered your question -BTW, at one point, I looked at the C series wagon but concluded that it was too small. A better comparison might be the VW Passat/Audi A6 (Ithink the latter has the best 4WD system currently available) Several years ago, I had a BMW 5 series wagon as a rental car in Ireland - absolutely superb machine but an astronomical price!

 

Very nice comprehensive qualified assesment. Thanks!