Print 111 comment(s) - last by Penti.. on Dec 30 at 11:26 PM

Volvo S60 Concept  (Source: AutoblogGreen)

  (Source: AutoblogGreen)

  (Source: AutoblogGreen)
Volvo says the S60 concept will be the first Volvo to use GTDi technology in 2009

In the car world, you can find vehicles that are sexy, vehicles that are fuel-efficient and vehicles that are very safe. The catch is that you seldom find all three of these things in the same vehicle and even less likely is to find all three of them in a Volvo.

Volvos may not be known for sexy looks traditionally, but the new S60 concept will change that in many minds. The car stands out for more than its pretty face though with the promise of low emissions and good fuel economy in a package that is safer for the driver and for pedestrians in the event of an accident.

The S60 concept uses a 1.6-liter gasoline engine that features Gasoline Turbocharged Direct Injection (GTDi). The S60 concept is the first Volvo vehicle to use GTDi and will be introduced in production Volvo models during 2009. Fuel in the GTDi engine is directly injected at high pressure into the combustion chamber.

The technology allows Volvo to create an engine that offers 20% lower fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. AutoBlogGreen says that the S60 concept will be good for 47 miles per gallon and Volvo says that the engine produces only 119g/km of carbon dioxide emissions.

Volvo VP of Powertrain Derek Crabb said in a statement, "GTDi technology is an important CO2-cutting technology for petrol engines. In the S60 Concept we have also added a number of other developments that further reduce fuel consumption. Several of these features will make their way into our production models in the coming year."

The S60 concept also has some other interesting features like a Powershift gearbox that uses two manual transmissions working in parallel that are regulated by separate clutches. Power steering in the car uses electric servo motor rather than hydraulic pumps. A special driving mode called DRIVe-Mode is features as well that reduces fuel consumption and a number of other select electrical and mechanical systems for ultimate economy.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I'll believe it when I see the production model.
By Ordr on 12/16/2008 2:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
Concept cars =/= remotely accurate mileage estimates.

By Brandon Hill on 12/16/2008 2:48:48 PM , Rating: 5
The engine will be in production next year. The design of the car is probably a 90% representation of the production next gen S60 save for the roof and suicide doors -- and of course a toned down interior.

RE: I'll believe it when I see the production model.
By Ordr on 12/16/2008 2:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
Has the engine been demonstrated?

RE: I'll believe it when I see the production model.
By 67STANG on 12/16/2008 3:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yes-- This is the 1.6L EcoBoost engine from Ford. (Ford owns Volvo-- until they sell them off like everyone else).

Can't find the horsepower figures on the 1.6L, but I read somewhere it will have an estimated 172 horsepower. Personally, that sounds low considering the 2.0L EcoBoost is rumored to have 275 horsepower....

By omnicronx on 12/16/2008 4:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
Ford has made it clear they will not sell Volvo.

By teldar on 12/16/2008 5:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, they have been looking for a buyer recently....
They need the cash...

By othercents on 12/16/2008 5:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
"Ford Motor said on Wednesday Dec 10th it was still evaluating an option to sell its Volvo car unit but declined to comment on a local media report which named its China partner Changan Automobile Group as a potential buyer."

I have seen plenty of companies who said one thing and took a different approach because announcing that they are selling or were trying to sell would cause a dramatic swing in their stock which would adversely effect their stockholders or even cause the sell to fall through. We won't know exactly what Ford will do until after we are out of the current financial crisis.


By Ordr on 12/16/2008 7:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you.

By DeepBlue1975 on 12/17/2008 6:39:43 AM , Rating: 2
180hp is the figure for the prototype.

PS: some people confuse concept cars with prototypes. Concepts are just that: representations of ideas, which might never go into production.
A prototype, on the other hand, is more like a pre production model, but featuring many eye-catching details that will probably never make it through the production stage.

One of those stupid gizmos is that this prototype projects a sail boat off its headlights, and Volvo reps talk about seeing "a dark and misterious Scandinavian sea blah blah blah"...

Dude, do they smoke something powerful at volvo :D

By JS on 12/17/2008 1:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
Here in Gothenburg (Volvo's home town, or at least it was pre-Detroit) we DO smoke powerful stuff!

Herring and mackerel, mostly.

By Alexvrb on 12/17/2008 9:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
The rumored 2.0L DI turbo with 275 HP is a high-performance variant. This 1.6L DI turbo is tuned for economy. No mention, however, if this mileage is achieved on 87 octane or 91+.

For what its worth, when the 2.0 comes out, I want to see the power curve. It might have more peak HP, but does it put out a flat (along pretty much the entire usable RPM range) 260 ft/lb line like GM's 2.0 LNF? We'll see. ;)

By Gul Westfale on 12/16/2008 7:48:45 PM , Rating: 2

G for gasoline- not exactly new
T for turbocharged- been around for a while as well
Di for direct injection. as in, teh technology other carmakers had years ago.

how is this new? porsche recently switched their 911 line to Di engines, improving both power and fuel effiency (through a more complete combustion, logically). when they bring the tech to the 911 turbo can they then call it "the 911GTTDi"? the extra T for Twin , of course. and then we could finally have my dreamcar, the Mercedes-Benz E 420 OTTEHBOMDDTMABDOOIBWHNETO, which stands for:
Old Technology That Everyone Has But Our Marketing Deparment Decided To Make A Big Deal Out Of It Because We Have Nothing Else To Offer.

and it would get 200mpg... on mercedes' test track, with the engine switched off.

By rudolphna on 12/17/2008 10:32:32 AM , Rating: 2
ford has been talking about getting rid of fuel hungry V8s, and replacing all their engiens with smaller, more efficient, turbo-charged direct injected engines. Ford might be the first car maker to do away with V8s altogether, instead building medium size, twin turbo Di engines that are far more fuel efficient. Its a good idea. 4 cylinders in place of 6 cylinders, etc. The good thing about this idea is they can apply it to every single car, and not raise the price too much. Unlike hyrbrids.

RE: I'll believe it when I see the production model.
By afkrotch on 12/16/2008 2:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
How many concept cars never make it into production? I'd see the tech making it to other cars and this actual car never being made. Instead something else that'll be called an S60.

By Brandon Hill on 12/16/2008 3:05:06 PM , Rating: 4
The current S60 is a PRODUCTION car. This is a concept car that foreshadows the next generation production S60 model. The overall design will be retained and as stated in the article, the engine is going into production.

For example, the XC60 Concept foreshadowed the production model:

Volvo XC60 Concept:

Volvo XC60 Production:

RE: I'll believe it when I see the production model.
By afkrotch on 12/16/2008 3:59:14 PM , Rating: 1
No one said in either article about the overall design being retained. I can't imagine they'd keep that window top, if it does go into production.

Just cause the car name is already in production, doesn't mean a concept car will get the name and go into production. It's possible the design disappears and the tech goes into a different concept car and gets the name, then goes into production.

Who really knows. Look at some difference in markets too. US 2008 Ford Focus vs Euro 2008 Ford Focus. Same make, same model, same year, super super different looks.

By Brandon Hill on 12/16/2008 4:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
The Volvo S60 concept headed for the Detroit auto show in January carries a heavy dose of fantasy features while offering a strong hint of the 2010 production car. Volvo says much of the basic appearance of the concept sedan will show up in the production version, and the car's lines are a bit more dramatic than the current S60.

By BZDTemp on 12/17/2008 4:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
Don't be so sure about the window roof thing. Take a look at fx. the Peugeot 407 SW and you will find a mid-range car with a big roof window thing.

By Penti on 12/16/2008 4:04:28 PM , Rating: 1
Good thing more Belgian Volvos get options with <120g CO2 per km emissions or less then ~0.5L per 10km but I wonder what the Swedish factory will live on in the future now when they can't live on americans buying XC90's.

Don't really think it will look like that in the future though. Looks to americanized. But who knows, they have to put out new looks some day.

We have S40, V50 and C30 as diesel DRIVe now, but there doesn't seem to be happening anything with the monster cars built in Torslanda (Sweden). V70 is the most popular (sold) car here in Sweden, but why would a swede buy one today when E85 isn't cheap at all and V50 is more economical to drive. The development isn't good at all, the Torslanda plant produce way too many big cars. I guess the Torslanda plant will need to fire even more people. The S60 Concept doesn't feel like a european car at all though. Automatic? S40 DRIVe, C30 DRIVe and V50 DRIVe are all manuals. The geartronic are only available for larger engines here. Sounds more like a Ford car for the American markets (Fords here are manual too). Sounds interesting to go with a gasoline engine though.

By Dreifort on 12/17/2008 8:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder what the plans are for the S80?

I personally know owners of the S80 who purchased an S80 primarily for its spacious interior/leg room.

Besides a few of the dual electric motor high-end SUVs from Lexus and such - are any of the car manufactures planning on making any hybrid/greener large sedans for the business professionals?

By uhgotnegum on 12/16/2008 3:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
"...toned down interior."

The choice of "toned" made me laugh.

My first thought when I read the article's title and saw the pictures...

"it's amazing that Volvo does a decently good job of making an attractive looking car on the outside, but limits the interior design to a circle and two rectangles (steering wheel and gas and break pedals)"

By Brandon Hill on 12/16/2008 4:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
Your observations might be accurate if it weren't called the "S60 Concept". The overall profile, front fascia, headlamp shapes, grille, rear design, and greenhouse will more than likely carry over. It's just the details that have been thrown in for show car "bling" that will have to be tossed out (see-through roof, suicide doors, big wheels, etc.).

Nothing else about the overall exterior design of the vehicle is out of the norm for a production vehicle.

All you have to do is look at past Volvo concepts (XC60, C30, etc.) to see that this is the basically the next generation S60 that has been dolled up for Auto Show duty with exaggerated features.

By omnicronx on 12/16/2008 5:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
All you have to do is look at past Volvo concepts (XC60, C30, etc.) to see that this is the basically the next generation S60 that has been dolled up for Auto Show duty with exaggerated features.
Bingo, I have only seen one Volvo concept in the last 10 years that did not very closely resemble the finished product. (the XC90 with the ugly glass ceiling)

My family has owned every volvo except the S80 and 740 since the early 80's (the 240 lasted forever), if this car lives up to its expectations I am sure they will be buying another ;)

By foolsgambit11 on 12/16/2008 9:04:05 PM , Rating: 1
The 240 is one of the greatest cars ever made. Period.

RE: I'll believe it when I see the production model.
By teldar on 12/16/2008 2:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
It's only a 1.6L engine, should probably have like 150hp and lb-ft of torque, so it should be economical, the ePAS electric Power Assisted Steering, should add about 5% ot MPG according to Ford, more efficient transmission, I'm sure, probably more aggressive fuel shut off on deceleration, decreased weight.....
But 47 does sound a little too good to be true.


By psychobriggsy on 12/16/2008 3:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's 180HP, the linked article says that, and converting the kW specification in the press release gets the same figure.

RE: I'll believe it when I see the production model.
By teldar on 12/16/2008 5:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't follow the linked article.
That sounds like it's even a little better than what Ford's been expecting out of it's ecoboost engines.
Pretty impressive.

I have a Contour with a 2.5L V6 that is only 177hp and 155lb-ft. 180 out of that engine is quite impressive.

By lagomorpha on 12/16/2008 7:38:47 PM , Rating: 3
Did you miss the part where its turbocharged?

By foolsgambit11 on 12/16/2008 9:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
See, now this is what auto manufacturers should have been doing for the past 15 years. I kept hearing about how much more power they were able to get out of engines. And I hoped they'd make smaller engines that could do the same work of the old engines. But they just made more powerful engines. I figured that the improvements only made a big difference in higher-displacement engines. Maybe not.

My first car (Honda Accord) had a 1.8L 75hp engine. It moved that car just fine. They could probably squeeze 75hp out of a sub-1-liter engine these days, huh?

RE: I'll believe it when I see the production model.
By xNIBx on 12/16/2008 10:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
They have been doing that, in Europe(and in Japan). Americans are notorious for making big engines that underperform.

By Alexvrb on 12/17/2008 10:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
All manufacturers do this for cars sold in the American market. Furthermore, sometimes a 6 or 8 cylinder (domestic or import) is a better option than an overtuned smaller 4/6 cylinder, especially when the bigger motor generates similar power and mileage on 87 octane, while the high-revving motor requires premium. You can't look at displacement or number of cylinders to determine how efficient a particular setup is. HP/Liter or anything/liter is asinine. Results count, and a lot of "big engines" are very competitive.

By Stan11003 on 12/16/2008 5:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
I drive a 1.6l turbo Mini Cooper S. Its always been fast. Great gas mpg. 0-60 6.7 seconds top speed 139 mph.

By Spuke on 12/16/2008 7:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
Thinking about one of those in a couple of years for the wife.

RE: I'll believe it when I see the production model.
By UNCjigga on 12/16/2008 3:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
Not really that hard to believe either. Modern 2-liter turbo direct-inject gasoline engines (i.e. VW/Audi) achieve between 31-34mpg highway, at 100hp/liter. Upcoming vehicles with Ford's EcoBoost promise roughly the same or slightly better mileage at up to 120hp/liter. I'm guessing this Volvo is using a prototype EcoBoost (possibly the twin-turbo?) that allows for 200+ hp with 1.6L displacement, and that the quoted mpg is only achieved with "DRIVe" mode under optimal conditions.

By FITCamaro on 12/16/2008 4:36:30 PM , Rating: 3
Cobalt SS Turbocharged gets 30-31 mpg @ 130hp/liter. No direct injection either.

RE: I'll believe it when I see the production model.
By Spuke on 12/16/2008 6:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
Cobalt SS Turbocharged gets 30-31 mpg @ 130hp/liter. No direct injection either.
The Cobalt SS Turbo IS direct injected. It's got the same engine (LNF) as the Solstice GXP/Sky Redline. The HHR SS also shares this engine.

By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 6:33:57 AM , Rating: 2
I would think they'd advertise that on their website if it was. Not even mentioned.

RE: I'll believe it when I see the production model.
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 9:27:03 AM , Rating: 3
By Spuke on 12/17/2008 12:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks dude for posting that.

By Spuke on 12/17/2008 12:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares! That is indeed what's in the car. The Solstice GXP/Sky RL, HHR SS, and Cobalt SS owners are currently in cahoots to crack more of OUR ECM's code for more power. We're also ALL giddy over the GM Performance Upgrade that was just released, which is the same upgrade for ALL of our cars. A few Sol GXP/Sky RL owners also own Cobalt SS's and HHR SS's. We're all using the SAME mods because it's the same engine.

RE: I'll believe it when I see the production model.
By teldar on 12/16/2008 5:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
I think they're all supposed to be dual turbo. Not quite twin because they are different sized low end and high end turbo units.

Could be wrong on it though..

RE: I'll believe it when I see the production model.
By Spuke on 12/16/2008 6:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
That would be kind of laggy with a 1.6L but maybe they could get some more oomph from a high compression ratio and some trick cam timing. Maybe the turbo's are compounded.

By Manch on 12/16/2008 11:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think you both are alluding to a sequential turbo setup. smaller turbo for lower rpm's and a larger one for the top end. This will not eliminate but it will mask the turbo lag as it provides some boost at the hit of the throttle. The smaller turbos in these type of setups have an aggressive profile to spin up quickly at low rpms but they max out well before the top end of the usable powerband. Therefore the larger turbo takes over usually about half way through.

Twin turbos are usually two smaller turbos running in parallel instead of using a single larger turbo. While the larger turbo can make more boost than the twin setup it's only usable at the high end of the rpm range and can be very laggy. The Twin Turbo setup is an excellent compromise if you even want to call it that.

I prefer a twin turbo setup over a sequential or a big single turbo.

If you're lucky enough to own a porsche some models have the turbos with variable vane technology to create a lot of boost from one end to the other. I'd love to see two of those in a twin setup!(drool!)

Sexy car
By GrandMareg on 12/16/2008 2:21:29 PM , Rating: 5
I really hope they keep that design.

RE: Sexy car
By Motoman on 12/16/2008 2:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. I like. 47MPG certainly doesn't suck either. The question would remain about whether America will buy a car with a 1.6l engine...which also probably predicates a lot on what this Volvo (premium brand) costs on the market.

RE: Sexy car
By mooncancook on 12/16/2008 3:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
S60 is a little too large and heavy for a 1.6 engine. I think the 1.6 in the smaller S40 and a 2.0 in the S60 would make more sense

RE: Sexy car
By Penti on 12/16/2008 5:04:44 PM , Rating: 3
It does fine with a 2.4 that just have 125 kW now, so the 1.6 would do more then well. It has 134 kW. It's big enough for the XC70.

RE: Sexy car
By omnicronx on 12/16/2008 5:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
This concept looks smaller than the current s60, in fact it looks like they cut off a 1 foot off the end. The s60 was also never a big car either, I can barely fit in the back seat, and if it is standard, I can't sit behind the driver at all. I'm not a 'big' guy either.

RE: Sexy car
By Spuke on 12/16/2008 6:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's a turbo 1.6L not a normally aspirated 1.6L. It could power the S60 given enough power/torque to do so. Actually, a heavy car would put more load on the engine and spool the turbo quicker than a lighter car would.

RE: Sexy car
By Manch on 12/16/2008 11:25:32 PM , Rating: 2

No, a heavier car would put more load on the engine. The engine would take longer to reach redline and spool the turbo slower.

RE: Sexy car
By rudolphna on 12/17/2008 10:35:58 AM , Rating: 2
If it was a manual that would be true. But with an automatic, at slower speeds the torque converter will slip, allowing the engine to reach higher, more powerful speeds off the line, spooling the turbo much more quickly than a light car. With a light car, or a manual, the engine doesnt have to rev much to start off, so the turbo speeds up slowly.

RE: Sexy car
By Spuke on 12/17/2008 12:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, didn't know that.

RE: Sexy car
By Manch on 12/17/2008 11:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Even with an automatic i don't see that happening. Even if it lets the engine rev up, as soon as it stops slipping the car will bog down and the heavier the car the more it will bog down. Plus with a turbo you will eventually have to downshift to maintain boost. Food for thought tho. i'll check it out with my friends car and let you know.

RE: Sexy car
By rudolphna on 12/19/2008 9:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
no because torque converters generally dont luck up until ~40 MPH or so.

RE: Sexy car
By Penti on 12/16/2008 4:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
The S60 isn't a premium model. Thus not really premium price. It's not a Focus though.

RE: Sexy car
By omnicronx on 12/16/2008 5:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it is, it directly competes with the BMW 3 series..
The interior is also nicer than many 'premium' domestic vehicles.

RE: Sexy car
By Penti on 12/17/2008 9:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
Sure the 316i, but it's still a every day car for normal people. Both are still cheaper then a V70. Which is the standard family car here.

RE: Sexy car
By DeepBlue1975 on 12/23/2008 7:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
Volvo is a premium brand, as are audi, bmw, and mercedes.
You can't get a non premium car from a premium brand, though some non premium brands try to compete with premium brands on their highest end models.

The fact that mercedes or bmws are quite more expensive than volvos or audis, doesn't make the latter two "less premium".

V70 IS an mpv, not a sedan. MPV versions are always more expensive than the sedans they're based off.

RE: Sexy car
By Penti on 12/30/2008 11:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
It's a station wagon which happens to be the most sold care here. Ergo Sweden's family car. The only Sedans Volvo has now days is S40, S60 and S80. Look back 15 years and you see that Volvo isn't a premium brand, 240 was the working mans car here not something stockbrokers drove. Then you have the dutch cars like the 360, 440 and 340 before they sold of that factory to Mitsubishi. Of course in the 70's there where also the 140 series.

It's only the XC70 and XC90 that is MPVs. And yes the XC70 is more expensive then the V70. Like $4350 or $6600 so as it's an AWD. Plus people here buy the 2.0 or 2.5 L flexifuel not the 3.2L sold in the US. Thus the difference here between V70 and XC70 is even larger here. The difference here is more then $22 000 between V70 and XC70. An XC90 which hardly any one buy here is about $22 000 more in Sweden then a V70 or actually over $40 000 more then a V70 when it's the V8 version.

So you can see that it is actually a normal family car here. It's not a BMW X5. Volvo doesn't have a heritage as a premium brand, that's just US marketing. The premium factory in Kalmar closed in 94. Not all the cars are luxury cars.

RE: Sexy car
By chmilz on 12/16/2008 2:48:31 PM , Rating: 3
I really hope they keep that design.

I really hope Ford keeps Volvo... would be a shame if they had to sell.

RE: Sexy car
By JS on 12/17/2008 1:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
As a Swede I think it was a shame Volvo was sold in the first place. :o)

But hey, that's business. China would feel weirder than Detroit though.

RE: Sexy car
By GhandiInstinct on 12/16/2008 3:01:33 PM , Rating: 1
Nobody keeps a concept design to full products, so sorry that I have just shattered your hopes, go /afk out of life now.

RE: Sexy car
By DASQ on 12/16/2008 3:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
Volvo has cut pretty close to their original CC designs in the past, I don't see why this would be different (other than a more practical dash). Minor changes here and there, but otherwise I'd see that on the road nearly as is.

RE: Sexy car
By Eomer of Aldburg on 12/16/2008 4:31:11 PM , Rating: 3
Me too, usually these fuel efficient cars are butt ugly. This one actually is very easy on the eyes.

By superflex on 12/16/08, Rating: 0
By AmazighQ on 12/16/2008 3:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
why would you need something that eat tarmac
if you will use to go to work and go back home

By Spivonious on 12/16/2008 3:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't the Audi 1.8T do 0-60 in about 8s? Contrary to popular belief, that is more than enough to merge onto a highway.

By superflex on 12/16/2008 3:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
I have an 04 Audi A4 with the 1.8t. 175 HP stock. 225 HP with an ECU chip mod. The stock motor blows, especially with an auto tranny.

The S60 is a bigger car the the A4 (the S40 is similar to the A4) and would probably be heavier with less power. Granted, the Volvo doesn't have to lug around the extra weight of the quattro system, but I would think 150 HP would be an insult to such a nice looking car.

By Gzus666 on 12/16/2008 3:31:51 PM , Rating: 3
If you want a fast car, buy a fast car. If you expect MPG, get an economy car. Not everyone needs to blow the doors off everything driving to work, I had a modified 2002 Trans Am and it was annoying to drive everyday anyway. Granted It was about 400HP, it was rare I got to open it up anyway. This would be a daily driver, not a haul ass sports car.

By psychobriggsy on 12/16/2008 3:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's 180HP, the linked article says that, and converting the kW specification in the press release gets the same figure.

And since when do you need so much HP to do everyday driving? You can overtake perfectly well with 180HP, no problem accelerating there. Yes, high HP cars are fun and all that, as long as they're German or Italian, but to go to and from work and the supermarket?

By Gzus666 on 12/16/2008 4:01:36 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, high HP cars are fun and all that, as long as they're German or Italian

Didn't realize fun was so dependent on who the designer of the performance vehicle was. And to think, those guys with Vipers, Vettes and Saleen S7s are just thinking they are having fun.

By Spuke on 12/16/2008 4:48:28 PM , Rating: 3
180hp is plenty especially when getting 47 mpg in the process. I wonder if the mpg figure is imperial or US. Probably Imperial. GM's direct injected turbo engines get 30 mpg in the Cobalt SS and 28 in Solstice/Sky. I've gotten as much as 33 in my Solstice, some owners have reported 35 mpg. Direct injection is just awesome. I can hammer on the car all day and still get 27-28 mpg (live in a rural area). My worst gas mileage was 26 with a week of city driving mixed with a freeway drive to and from that city (one tank of gas all week).

By Penti on 12/16/2008 4:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's US MPG. 5L per 100 km.

By 67STANG on 12/16/2008 7:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
I get ~32/hwy doing 80mph on cruise control in my Chrysler 300. And it has a 3.5L V6 and weighs 3,800lbs.... Granted, the city mileage blows.

By Spuke on 12/17/2008 1:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
But that's the only place you can get that kind of mpg. I can get that literally anywhere WITH a heavy foot. Dude, I get 28 mpg with full throttle blasts from stop signs mixed in with some 130 mph freeway driving. Earlier this year, I drove 190 miles to meet with some other owners for a day drive, drove another 170 miles of mountain and back roads at a spirited pace (heavy in the boost) then drove almost halfway back all on one tank of gas. Your car could not do that.

By Hoser McMoose on 12/16/2008 10:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
You can overtake perfectly well with 180HP

A person can overtake perfectly well with 100HP if they know how to drive and aren't in some giant land-yacht. Ok, maybe 120 or 130hp if you mate it to an automatic transmission.

I've driving in my friends old Kia Rio with a 90-something HP engine and an automatic transmission and could overtake in that thing. Granted I needed to turn off the air conditioning to do so but that car could still be pushed up to 130km/h (85mph) without much difficulty.

Remember that only about 30 years ago some Ferrari and Porsche models came with sub-180hp engines. This idea that we "need" 200hp+ to get a vehicle up to speed is crazy. We might WANT 200hp+, but we most certainly don't NEED it.

By DeepBlue1975 on 12/17/2008 6:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
1 mile = 1.609344km.

130km/h = 81.2mph, not 85, which would equate to almost 137km/h.

By rudolphna on 12/17/2008 10:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
I can overtake just fine in a Jeep Wrangler with a 100HP Inline 4. Keep in mind im running 33" tires, and 3.73 axle gearing on an automatic slushbox. Granted its redline most of the time if I have to, but it can do it.

By Spuke on 12/17/2008 1:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
A person can overtake perfectly well with 100HP if they know how to drive and aren't in some giant land-yacht.
Given enough room, any car can overtake any other car. Big deal. And if you're talking about overtaking on the freeway, big deal again. If you're doing 65 mph and the car you're passing is doing 60 mph, that's going to happen irregardless of hp.

By Manch on 12/16/2008 11:18:53 PM , Rating: 2

I'll drive my 06 Mustang GT supercharged @~505HP w/485lb/ft tq

I also enjoy my 24mpg on the highway @ 75mph which is pretty damn good for a car like that.

By DeepBlue1975 on 12/17/2008 6:58:29 AM , Rating: 2
180hp is plenty of power for a sub 1500kg car (3300 pounds).
It starts to feel inadequate only when you climb past a 1800kg kerb weight.

A ratio of 10kg/hp (2.2pound/hp) or better is enough to drive safely and overtake with no problems...

Of course, acceleration is not only dependent on weight and power alone, gear shift ratios play a very important role, as the power curve, and efficiency of the traction system.

A 180hp engine power is not as efficient on a 4wd than on a 2wd vehicle weighting exactly the same.

And if your gears are very badly stepped, you can totally ruin the fun of even some very powerful engines out there (Chrysler sebring, 200hp 2.7L engine, less than 1600kg, and a run of the mill 0-62 time of over than 10 secs because of a crappy 4 gear autostick... how's that for a fun spoiler?)

By 306maxi on 12/16/2008 3:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
Wow! Clueless or what. My wifes Subaru Legacy Turbo is 15 years old and it gets 200bhp from a 2l engine and does 0-60 in ~6 secs which is pretty fast in anyones books. Now lets consider the fact that this car has an engine which is about 20 years newer in terms of it's design design it won't be a "slug" at all. It might not be up there with Ferrari's and Lamborghini's but it'll do for most people.

By UNCjigga on 12/16/2008 3:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
See my post *might* be a low-displacement variant of the twin-turbo EcoBoost engine that Ford's been working on. My VW Passat (similar size/weight to the S60) only has a 2.0L engine, yet still manages to do 200hp/210 lb-ft while averaging 31mpg highway.

By DeepBlue1975 on 12/17/2008 6:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
You are stranded on the stone age mate.

European VWs are using 170hp, 1.4L turbo engines.

It's not the size that matters, its the power. Granted, these turbo engines won't last as long as atomspheric ones pouring out the same power, but they are lighter, and the durability is not so much worse as to be something to get worked up about.

By Spuke on 12/17/2008 1:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
European VWs are using 170hp, 1.4L turbo engines.
And supercharged too. GM's upcoming engines will be at the same displacement but turbocharged and direct injected. I read that the power will be around 150 with roughly the same in torque.

By Radnor on 12/17/2008 7:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
I have a 1.6 liter Turbo. 150Hp 0-140Km/h 9.4secs and 0-240Km/h on 34 secs. Weights about 900-1000kg.

It is a Lancia Delta HF Turbo. Americans never met Rallye Serie B cars. Or you would see a 1.8L engine pulling 300HP.

Combined with Hybrid tech?
By Whedonic on 12/16/2008 2:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
If this gets 47 mpg with this new tech, wouldn't it be logical to combine it with hybrid tech and send the fuel efficiency through the roof?

RE: Combined with Hybrid tech?
By Gzus666 on 12/16/2008 2:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
This is Volvo and if you have ever worked on a Volvo, you know there is no logic going on there.

RE: Combined with Hybrid tech?
By Davelo on 12/16/2008 4:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
But would the gas savings from the hybrid system make up for it's added cost? Hybrid is not free. I can't see buying one between the cost and the complexity.

RE: Combined with Hybrid tech?
By Penti on 12/16/2008 5:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
This is a 5L per 100 km car, a Prius is a 4.3L per 100km car.

So you can see it doesn't really makes sense, especially since neither Volvo Cars nor Ford does have any hybrid power trains laying around to use.

RE: Combined with Hybrid tech?
By Spuke on 12/16/2008 6:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
especially since neither Volvo Cars nor Ford does have any hybrid power trains laying around to use.
Like the Fusion Hybrid's powertrain?

RE: Combined with Hybrid tech?
By Penti on 12/17/2008 9:55:27 AM , Rating: 2
Sure which hasn't been released yet and then there is the Ford Escape Hybrid.

RE: Combined with Hybrid tech?
By Penti on 12/17/2008 9:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
Both of which are on completely different platforms and the Fusion Hybrid does only 47 MPG any way. Nothing to gain here.

RE: Combined with Hybrid tech?
By Spuke on 12/17/2008 12:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
YOU said,
especially since neither Volvo Cars nor Ford does have any hybrid power trains laying around to use.

There's a HUGE difference between this quote and "both of which are on completely different platforms". Which is it?

RE: Combined with Hybrid tech?
By Penti on 12/30/2008 11:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
No European Ford has a hybrid drivetrain today. I wasn't thinking about the Escape Hybrid at the time, and had forgotten about it so in there I was wrong. As I recognized the existence of the Ford Escape Hybrid and the soon to be released Fusion Hybrid I had already said I was wrong and had corrected that error.

But apparently I'm not allowed to correct myself. It's nothing more to it, they still hasn't anything to gain by those hybrid drivetrains. And I had already pointed out a hybrid system wouldn't make sense as it's already a low fuel consuming car.

Some folks have some funny ideas about cars.
By jabber on 12/16/2008 3:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
150bhp is plenty to shift any sedan sized car at a decent lick.

Car would be fine with 125hp. Remember you only need about 8hp to keep a car bounding along at 60mph.

Americans dont have to give up on their relationship with the car. They just has to re-assess exactly what what it is they need a car to do and what type of car to do it.

If a car is to purely do the daily urban commute it doesnt necessarily need much more than 75hp (my current car has 54hp and it cruises at 85mph as long as you want it and I can join motorways etc. just fine). If you are pulling trees all day and lugging 1 ton loads then yes you may need that 200bhp pickup (a decent diesel might be better though).

BHP isnt everything, its how that power is transmitted to the road. I'll take a 100bhp car that can go round bends like its on rails and return 40mpg over a 300bhp monster that can only go in a straight line for 15mpg.

RE: Some folks have some funny ideas about cars.
By Davelo on 12/16/2008 5:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
I had a 100 bhp Honda Civic. It was fine until you turned on the air conditioning (it's all but mandatory out in these parts). Then the car was painful to get moving.

By misuspita on 12/17/2008 9:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
There's something wrong with your Civic. I have a Kia ProCee'd 1,4 with 109 HP, and when turning the air conditioning nothing happens. Just when idle the rpm goes from 600 to 800, a 200 rpm change. When actually driving, at 2000 rpm or higher, you don't sense the difference

By Spuke on 12/16/2008 6:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
BHP isnt everything, its how that power is transmitted to the road.
HP is the result of a mathematical equation applied to torque at the particular rpm.

HP = RPM x Torque/5252(constant)

RE: Some folks have some funny ideas about cars.
By Spuke on 12/16/2008 6:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
150bhp is plenty to shift any sedan sized car at a decent lick.
Really? Weight doesn't have anything to do with it right?

RE: Some folks have some funny ideas about cars.
By jabber on 12/17/2008 9:12:22 AM , Rating: 2
Weight does come into it of course but what are you driving that 150bhp cant shift at a decent pace? Thats still a lot of power. Maybe look at buying a lighter car that doesnt utilise 1950's suspension and transmission technology?

I would say the average euro car has around 100bhp or less. They get about just fine, if not better than most.

Maybe ditch all that crap in the trunk?

By jabber on 12/17/2008 9:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yes and ditch that lump of pigiron V8 in the front too.

Thats quite a reduction already.

By Spuke on 12/17/2008 12:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe look at buying a lighter car that doesnt utilise 1950's suspension and transmission technology?
Suspension doesn't have much to do with acceleration other than weight transfer and that has little effect unless you're looking for that extra tenth of a second when drag racing. Funny that you say ancient transmissions when GM was making transmission for BMW, Mercedes and quite a few others for the longest time. It's also funny that your Fords and GMs use the same transmissions as US cars. Regardless, sure you can use some numerically high ratio but then you're reving at higher rpms on the freeway and consequently getting crappy gas mileage. Looking at your cars, I don't see anything different between your gear and differential ratios that would show you having an advantage. 150hp in a 3500-3600 lb car (S60 weights) is going to be slow. That slowness may be acceptable to you but that doesn't mean it's not slow.

I prefer lighter cars myself because not as much power is needed to make a car fast. Braking is better as there's less mass to slow and brake components are lighter which enhances turn in and overall handling. My car is 2900 lbs which, IMO, still isn't light enough but much lighter than most cars. The perfect car for me would weigh 2000 lbs and have 300 to 350 hp. Take the Ariel Atom and enclose the cockpit, fit some A/C and power windows/locks, sell it for $35k and I'll be in line waiting for one. :)

By JackBurton on 12/16/2008 3:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm, how much?

RE: $$$$$$$$$$$
By FITCamaro on 12/16/2008 4:41:40 PM , Rating: 1
Doesn't matter since I still would never buy a Volvo.

Politicians are now safe.
By Dreifort on 12/16/2008 2:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
The car stands out for more than its pretty face though with the promise of low emissions and good fuel economy in a package that is safer for the driver and for pedestrians in the event of an accident.

Safer for pedestrians? Guess we won't see the Volvo in any resurrected Carmageddon games.

Imperial measurements
By psychobriggsy on 12/16/2008 3:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
Converting into UK measurements from the source press release:

20 (km / l) = 56.4962106 miles / Imperial gallon

Hmm, that's pretty nice from a non-diesel engine! Especially if it can achieve it, which remains to be seen.

By Strunf on 12/16/2008 4:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
If this wasn't about Volvo I would have bet that car was a Audi...

By Kibbles on 12/16/2008 11:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
I hope this thing is cost competitive with other cars in it's class. It's hard to justify paying $5k more to save $200 a year in gas. Sure saving the environment is nice and all, but I'm not exactly driving a 15mpg SUV. Plus I car pool to work.
My car doesn't see but maybe 40 miles per day, probably an over estimated number. So 35mpg vs 46mpg is only maybe 100gal difference for me. If the difference was under $2k though I might consider it.

Never in the U.S.
By ElvisLives on 12/18/2008 1:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
Volvo will never introduce this in the U.S., at least as long as Ford owns the company. Volvo already sells a 43mpg C30 in France, but you can't get the C30 in the U.S. with anything smaller than the T5.

<generalization>The problem with American car companies is that their marketers and executives all long for the days of 35 cent gas, big blocks, dual exhaust, and posi rear ends. It's Happy Days and American Graffiti every night in their dreams. Good luck trying to convince them that the American car buying public actually wants to buy a 1.6 liter diesel.</generalization>

"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki