Define large step backward. My 745 2.3 litre 4 cyl 16 v stick averaged 24 USmpg over the last 6 years - including winter driving mostly in town. By way of contrast, my 3.0 litre V6 Taurus wagon averages maybe 19-20 USmpg (not too sure since I don't track that car closely). Our 2000 Chev Impala with a 3.2 V6 does a bit better than the Taurus, perhaps because it is a sedan but worse than the 745. It is hard for a 6 cyl to beat a 4 or 5 cyl on a level playing ground.

Can the new V70 be that much worse? The Volvo US site says 16-24 mpg and the weight of the car is about the same as the Taurus. So while that is nothing to write home about, it is in the range of what I would expect. Nothing has recently changed in gasoline combustion chamber design to lead to significantly better efficiency. Modern engines are well metered and otherwise well controlled so for a given weight and power demand, the die is cast. Volvo does not use regenerative breaking, electrically driven 43V water pumps or whatever so no gains there. Wish they has a diesel here in NA.

I am all for hybrids and such as long as the total life cycle cost and environmental impact looks good but I'd just as soon have a simple, long lasting, safe and reliable car. Seems to me that is the best balance of personal, societal and environmental costs and benefits. Safety standards are up on most modern cars. Mechanical reliably is up on most modern cars. Pollution control is up on most modern cars. So long life and reliability seems to be the distinguishing features.

So, getting back to my original question, how do you think the new V70 will fare in what I think is the weak point of the new fangled FWD Volvos: the multiplexed electrical instrumentation and control systems. That is where the Japanese makers win out over most other cars these days. Has Volvo learned yet? Too early to tell from actual data but maybe someone knows enough about the redesign to speculate.

Bill