BTW, that Volvo does look pretty good. I look forward to seeing them on the road and maybe taking one for a drive sometime. It needs two more doors for it to be on my shopping list, so I'll take a V50 instead.
2008 Volvo C30
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
the 318i is rated at 17/25 with 5sp MT, the is, with the same everything is 19/25. I have an LSD from an is, does that get me to count as far as the 'is numbers' go?
Yep mine has been "adjusted" at least twice now by the EPA. Next go around mine will be at 19 hwy, the 330 will be at 23...
I average 24 in city only to/from work comuting, and 31 on the highway. I log every tank and go from full to light every time. Mine is modded with a chip, fwiw, which some have seen improved fuel economy with, I cant say. I dont trust the old numbers: based upon our 9 cars, only two of which are pre-1994, ~4 MPG over the highway estimate is about what Ive seen to be easy to consistently get on the so-called OBDII era cars...
I wonder what the original EPA book had my 318i listed at.
JMH
My girlfriend in university had a pontiac firefly 1.0L 3 cylinder that was rated by the epa (under the old system) to return 45/50 MPG. They've downrated it by 5 mpg.
That was truly a bare-bones economical vehicle. She had the 5 door hatch with a 5 speed. I didn't want to like it, but it was a peppy little car to drive, seemed well built, was cheap to buy used, and was very reliable. It ended up being one of the best automotive values I have ever seen, and for that reason it is still one of my favorite cars of all time. The only downside was when you were driving it, you knew that any collision would likely result in severe injury.
But to get back to the point, we are currently not at the peak of fuel economy. It is my understanding that emissions concerns have set peak fuel economy back a little both in gas and diesel vehicles.
From what I've read, the emissions standards in Europe are concerned primarily with how much CO2 the car puts out.
The emissions standards in the USA are concerned with how much NOx, CO, and HCs the car puts out, among others. (I know for a fact that emissions standards in the USA do not control how much CO2 the car puts out, other than indirectly through CAFE and of course a manufacturer can pay their way out of that one).
I think the restrictions on NOx are why cars aren't as fuel efficient as they could be..run them even slightly lean and NOx goes up. Cars that used to not require an EGR valve now do due to the decreased in allowable NOx emissions.
I remember one particular car that didn't need an EGR valve unless it was a CA car.
The emissions standards in the USA are concerned with how much NOx, CO, and HCs the car puts out, among others. (I know for a fact that emissions standards in the USA do not control how much CO2 the car puts out, other than indirectly through CAFE and of course a manufacturer can pay their way out of that one).
I think the restrictions on NOx are why cars aren't as fuel efficient as they could be..run them even slightly lean and NOx goes up. Cars that used to not require an EGR valve now do due to the decreased in allowable NOx emissions.
I remember one particular car that didn't need an EGR valve unless it was a CA car.
brianl703, I'm sure you already know this, but VVT systems can be used to effectively replace an external EGR valve, which is why most new, VVT equipped cars, don't have the EGR valve.
I also once had a girlfriend with a Firefly, which she bought for $100 off a friend leaving the country. It was a 5-speed, and since tires were $25 each I enjoyed doing many burnouts with it. Fun little car to drive, but I agree that they just aren't very safe; not enough to justify the fuel savings to me, anyway.
That Civic's fuel economy was more impressive than the Firefly/Metro of the same year though (1995):
Civic VX
1.5L, 92 hp, 97 lb-ft
2094 lb
Original EPA ratings: 47/56 mpg
Geo Metro
1.0L, 55 hp, 58 lb-ft
1808 lb
Original EPA rating: 44/49 mpg
The Geo was $8,000 new, while the much more refined Civic VX was almost $12,000. I think the VX died mainly because it was $700 more than the slightly more powerful and equally optioned Civic DX, which had a respectable 34/40 mpg rating anyway. I just like the VX because it really shows what kind of mileage a decent little car can get if that's the priority.
Interesting. I didn't know that.
I'm aware of that...I'm talking about cars that had neither EGR nor VVT, like the 1.9L Ford Escort. The 49-state version of that car had no EGR. The CA version did. In 1996, IIRC, both versions had to have EGR.
Incidentally Ford first used VVT on the 2.0L Zetec engine for the sole purpose of doing away with the EGR valve.
Somethings to note.
When comparing EPA numbers, compare apples to apples, there are at least three "formulas" for calculating the EPA numbers. Model year 2008 cars are using a new formula, so those numbers cannot be compared with earlier estimates.
Many of the 50+ MPG cars were rated prior to what I believe (but could be wrong) the second formula.
So really, one must ensure that the comparisons of two vehicles is really comparing the same rating system.
On to the EGR topic, my 1994 Geo Prizm with the 1.6L engine does NOT have EGR, but the larger 1.8L engine that one can get in that care DOES have EGR.
The Zetec came both ways. Early Zetec's had EGR and later Ford introduced the VCT and eliminated the EGR.
When comparing EPA numbers, compare apples to apples, there are at least three "formulas" for calculating the EPA numbers. Model year 2008 cars are using a new formula, so those numbers cannot be compared with earlier estimates.
Many of the 50+ MPG cars were rated prior to what I believe (but could be wrong) the second formula.
So really, one must ensure that the comparisons of two vehicles is really comparing the same rating system.
On to the EGR topic, my 1994 Geo Prizm with the 1.6L engine does NOT have EGR, but the larger 1.8L engine that one can get in that care DOES have EGR.
The Zetec came both ways. Early Zetec's had EGR and later Ford introduced the VCT and eliminated the EGR.
I think Ford called VVT VCT (Variable Cam Timing) on the Zetec. Maybe they used both terms. However, I recall seeing VCT on Zetec cam covers.
Don't confuse reliability with durability.
Hondas are more reliable. But the traditional Volvo owner buys them for durability (and safety). Volvo's have been historically more durable than Hondas. And they should be, as they cost significantly more. Whether the latest Volvo models continue that tradition . . . time will tell.
Both are high value vehicles, but in very different ways.
80,000 miles on my wife's 2003 Volco XC90. There have been a couple of things replaced under warranty (the motor for the rear windshield wiper, and I think there was some kind of recall for the tie rods). The oil gets changed every 5,000 miles (using Penzoil Platinum now that I can't find GC), the spark plugs were changed at 60,000 miles, I think. I don't consider that a big deal. It has been a great vehicle. I would definitely buy another Volvo in the future based on our ownership experience.
I kind of like this little Volvo.
JHZR2: I hear you about the old BMWs. It is alot of fun to drive these older, lighter weight, cars out to the edge of their capabilities.
I kind of like this little Volvo.
JHZR2: I hear you about the old BMWs. It is alot of fun to drive these older, lighter weight, cars out to the edge of their capabilities.
Has anybody here test driven a C30 yet?
I just went to the dealership to look at the C30. It looks very nice on their website but it look awesome in person. I didn't have time to test drive it though. The sales guy said that they will start selling them soon. They had two on the lot, both were not for sale
Volvo C30 Efficiency
I can't believe no one has brought this up yet. Probably b/c it won't be available in the US.
Those other changes include a reduced ride height; aero-optimized wheels, underbody panels, and spoiler; low-rolling-resistance tires; higher gearing for the third, fourth, and fifth cogs; and lower engine friction through the use of a special oil .
I can't believe no one has brought this up yet. Probably b/c it won't be available in the US.
Those other changes include a reduced ride height; aero-optimized wheels, underbody panels, and spoiler; low-rolling-resistance tires; higher gearing for the third, fourth, and fifth cogs; and lower engine friction through the use of a special oil .
I just had a listen to the high end Dynaudio system in the C30. VERY NICE SYSTEM!!!
All you have to do is add a real subwoofer and it will be better than 99.9 % of the aftermarket systems out there.
All you have to do is add a real subwoofer and it will be better than 99.9 % of the aftermarket systems out there.
Patman
Staff member
In Canada you can get the C30 with a 2.4L non turbo engine that makes 168hp:
http://www.volvocanada.com/Showroom/2007/C30/Specs.aspx?lng=2
- Status
Similar threads
