And people wonder why I keep my 97 960. I can't believe that all that S90 got with a 2.0 liter 4 banger is 28 mpg. My old 87 740 Turbo wagon 2.3 liter inline four with a four speed automatic transmission before I modified it for fuel mileage got, 26.5 on the highway. That was with the cruise control set at 65 mph. The car had a .39 Cd and weighed around 3200 lbs
Two weeks ago I had my 960 out and I got 28.2 mpg with the cruise control set at 65 mph and the trip was a little over 500 miles. The car has a 2.9 liter, 24V, dual over head cam, inline six cylinder with a four speed automatic. This is a 3550 lb car with a .36 Cd.
Every Volvo I've ever owned got better than EPA on the highway from the 1981 242 Turbo-to my 1997 960. I looked at getting another Volvo in 2009 but opted for a Prius because the fuel mileage at the time was abysmal in the new Volvo's.
I will say the new S90's are really nice looking but check out how bad the depreciation is on those cars. I just priced one a 2018 S90 T6 Inscription AWD, 13K miles, $32K. MSRP on that car in 2018 was $58,600, that's a 45% hit on depriciation over three years? The techs I know at the dealer have told me to lease, never buy the new Volvo's because they are rolling nightmares in maintenance costs as they get older. I saw that with my own eyes or should I say heard when a service writer was quoting prices for work on a XC90 that was in for service two weeks ago. It needed brakes, a secondary battery that resided under the dash, plus a couple minor things like an oil change, updated software and the bill was close to $2,000. I was like *** who would keep a car that it cost $1000 to do a brake job on all four wheels?