• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

Volvo that gets the best MPG

John W said:
This is interesting as my car is also lowered. Although, I am getting 26-27 mpg so far, the PO logged all of his mileage, and was routinely achieving 30-33 mpg. I am not overly optimistic I will do the same, but it would be nice. I'm also running 93 octane and recently switched over to synthetic in the engine and trans.
Click to expand...

I remember reading a post on the forum about 9 or 10 years ago about lowering your car and/or installing a belly pan for less aerodynamic drag thus improving gas mileage. I'm sure you'll see a little increase in mileage once you do what you listed. Good luck!
 
Lying on this thread about your fuel economy is useless, you are still shelling out the cash at the pump. Try convincing your car it doesn't need that much gas to run and see how far that gets you.

It all really depends on where you are driving your car. I know in L.A. you take what is a normal city EPA anywhere else, and you cut about 10mpg off of that. That's your real world average. I average about 12mph in this city, no wonder I get terrible gas mileage.
 
gsellstr said:
Stock my wagon got around 23-24 on the highway, best I EVER got. We'll see what the new motor does, might be better. Gwen's R got 26-27 once we left Cali, with the cruise set around 72 rolling out to Colorado, with the auto trans. Manual trans, headed up north to Eureka it got about the same.
Click to expand...

23-24 is the peak i've seen on a 7xx/9xx turbo in cali, 90% freeway, 10% mixed. I think I could probably get 26-27 ALL freeway, staying out of boost. On summer gas.

I can't speak for out of state, but i'd be amazed if anyone can beat those numbers on a stock b230ft + non-locking AW.

If I boost around town and do very little freeway driving, i'll be at 18-19mpg in no time.

My friends 2000 v70 N/A gets about 32MPG with a moderate foot on mostly highway/freeway driving. About 25-26 around town. This one has variable valve timing on the intake.
 
Group A said:
Ummmm... bull droppings... unless those cars were heavily modified for fuel economy.
Click to expand...

The '91 244 is lowered, with a partial "belly pan", IPD skid plate, a full 2.5" exhaust, 3.31 gears, NGK BP6es, IPD wires/cap/rotor, Accel coil, an electric fan, diesel mounts and a ratchet strap, Redline fluids, Michelin 195/60/15s at 40psi, and a better flowing intake. It is getting an M47 this month.

The '90 245 is lowered even more, with the early metal skid plate, all sound deadening removed from the interior, ~50% of the undercoating removed, IPD wires, a full, factory A/C delete, Michelin 195/75/14s at 40psi (it is hard to find 185R14s) and an IPD exhaust. It is a slicktop wagon with all factory aero stuff in place, an M47, and 3.31 gears. I kept it under 2k rpm (that lengthened the drive by quite a bit), and it gave me awesome highway mileage.

The '90 244 was lowered the most, with skinny tires, a completely stripped out interior, no sunroof, manual windows and locks, an electric fan, no radio, no power steering, no A/C, no heat, a swiss-cheesed intake, no cat, no crash triangles, and half an exhaust. That 3.1/M47/3.31 combo with Redline fluids was great for fuel economy.

All of the cars run/ran 86/87 with a shot of acetone, and are/were at perfect stage 0s.
I don't see why that's so hard to believe.:e-shrug:
You can think whatever you want, but when it comes down to it, I'm not paying as much at the gas pump, and that's what matters to me.
 
I believe you 243_Phantom. I have a normally aspirated 1989/240 sedan, manual tranny, skinny 14" tires, factory belly pan and that flap that goes from the air dam to radiator in place. After saying all that, I can get 35mpg if I keep it at 55mph on fairly flat surface and trail big rigs when possible. If there are no big rigs to tail and I'm driving solo AND keep it at 55mph I can pull an easy 33mpg. I haven't even gotten round to an efan and synthetics in the tranny and rear end. That's coming soon. Btw, the car isn't lowered. I have no clue what my gearing is but it is tall. My city mileage isn't so good. I run 87 octane fuel.

Since I have to replace my heater fan and core, I intend to pull the ac out all together. I haven't used it in years so there's no point in dragging it around. It may show a difference in the city.

It's funny how people don't believe you because they can't do it. :e-shrug:
 
243_Phantom said:
The '91 244 is lowered, with a partial "belly pan", IPD skid plate, a full 2.5" exhaust, 3.31 gears, NGK BP6es, IPD wires/cap/rotor, Accel coil, an electric fan, diesel mounts and a ratchet strap, Redline fluids, Michelin 195/60/15s at 40psi, and a better flowing intake. It is getting an M47 this month.

The '90 245 is lowered even more, with the early metal skid plate, all sound deadening removed from the interior, ~50% of the undercoating removed, IPD wires, a full, factory A/C delete, Michelin 195/75/14s at 40psi (it is hard to find 185R14s) and an IPD exhaust. It is a slicktop wagon with all factory aero stuff in place, an M47, and 3.31 gears. I kept it under 2k rpm (that lengthened the drive by quite a bit), and it gave me awesome highway mileage.

The '90 244 was lowered the most, with skinny tires, a completely stripped out interior, no sunroof, manual windows and locks, an electric fan, no radio, no power steering, no A/C, no heat, a swiss-cheesed intake, no cat, no crash triangles, and half an exhaust. That 3.1/M47/3.31 combo with Redline fluids was great for fuel economy.

All of the cars run/ran 86/87 with a shot of acetone, and are/were at perfect stage 0s.
I don't see why that's so hard to believe.:e-shrug:
You can think whatever you want, but when it comes down to it, I'm not paying as much at the gas pump, and that's what matters to me.
Click to expand...

This is some good stuff. Do you have any mpg numbers from your 90 244? My 244 had (iirc) a 3.54 rear end. Your 3.31 must have done pretty well especially without the extra rotating accessories you removed.
 
I was getting 28-29 mpg on an 86 245 with an M46 and a motor that had 350k miles on it. Then I got a GPS and realized that the speedo AND odo were off by about 8%. So I wasn't driving as fast or putting on as many miles as I thought. (Crazy thing was that, other than going to 195/60 R15s, nothing in the driveline was changed from the factory that I was ever aware of). I confirmed this with two other GPS units and by having a friend in another, newer car clock me.

My 90 245 w/AW71 gets around 26-27 when cruising. It's speedo is about 4% off (reads faster).

Of course, all of this is moot, since I actually get about 20-21 mpg freeway. It's LA, where 101 and 405 are four letter words in the commuting world.

So the real question for some of you folks with high mileage claims is -- how well calibrated is your speedo/odo? (My truck is 1% faster, my 82 242Ti is 4% slower -- that's the dangerous one).
 
MistrThou said:
Like maximum stamped on the tire??
Holy harsh ride and premature tire wear batman.
Click to expand...


Yes, the maximum stamped on the tire. It gives a harsher ride. It does not affect tire wear. A properly sized tire will wear the same whether it is at 28 psi or 35 psi if the 35 psi is the max pressure. IOW, it is not going to bulge the tread. Tire technology has changed a lot in the last 20 years. I like to run the newer style 44 psi tires. They handle great because of increased stiffness and give the least rolling resistance.
 
My 84 244 usually gives me about 18-19 average per tank. On highway, 24 is the max i've gotten. It increased MPG slightly when i replaced the spark plugs... maybe i'll check my tire psi and see what they're at... any idea how much a bellypan increases the mpg? it seems like the shape of the cars will naturally prevent any great fuel economy regardless of what we do.
 
boisebricks said:
My 84 244 usually gives me about 18-19 average per tank. On highway, 24 is the max i've gotten. It increased MPG slightly when i replaced the spark plugs... maybe i'll check my tire psi and see what they're at... any idea how much a bellypan increases the mpg? it seems like the shape of the cars will naturally prevent any great fuel economy regardless of what we do.
Click to expand...


There is more than one reason they are called "bricks". They have ~ the same aerodynamic coefficient as a brick.
 
varg said:
16mpg average with the car in my sig. Wish I knew how so many of you are getting a claimed 20+. We'll see how my mileage improves when I finish my sequential megasquirt project.
Click to expand...
Just to give you something to shoot for, my 4x4 Suburban gets 14.5 towing 3500 LB.
I'll tow you around if you want to split fuel 50/50:rofl:
 
varg said:
16mpg average with the car in my sig. Wish I knew how so many of you are getting a claimed 20+. We'll see how my mileage improves when I finish my sequential megasquirt project.
Click to expand...

My 86 240 (in sig) when it was n/a I would get a solid 26 week in and week out. If I drove very easy I could sqeak out 27. When I did the plus T it dropped to 24 and that didnt change either with the m47 or the AW70. In the winter when I let it warm up for 10 min in the am it dropped to about 22. If it dropped below 20 and it never has , I wouold assume it was broken.
 
My 2 cents: I've owned two stock 1993 240s. Both AW transmissions with working OD gear.

The first one I drove generally like a grandma and could get MAX of 26 on the highway (ONLY highway with little accel or braking). The other one I squeaked 27 MPG on the highway out of JUST ONCE. Usually 25 was the absolute best for highway mileage.

One time I got 18 hwy and I knew something was wrong... The O2 sensor was out.

My 2008 C30 can get 30 mpg on the highway with conservative driving (6-speed manual), probably more if I absolutely grandma the thing (no passing, stay in the 60 to 65 mph range). City with a little bit of hwy I get like 24.
 
Last edited:
i'm wondering if that's what is going on with mine... I talked with the shop today (they're replacing my wiring harness that caught on fire) and they said it's running really rich... which would explain my crumby fuel economy.
 
v8volvoman1 said:
This is some good stuff. Do you have any mpg numbers from your 90 244? My 244 had (iirc) a 3.54 rear end. Your 3.31 must have done pretty well especially without the extra rotating accessories you removed.
Click to expand...

I didn't drive enough on the freeway with that car to get a "highway mpg"; it was not a fun, quiet, climate controlled, or particularly safe car to drive. In town I got a really consistent 30.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top