Frankfurt 2007: Volvo C30 Efficiency keeps it simple, stupid
by John Neff on Sep 12th 2007 at 1:01PM 
click above image to view high-res gallery of the Volvo C30 Efficiency
As we told you earlier, the new Volvo C30 Efficiency achieves better fuel economy by incorporating off-the-shelf ideas available to any automaker with an eye on higher mileage. Its 105 HP 1.6L turbodiesel engine is optimized for fuel efficiency, and its transmission even uses low friction oil so as not to sap the power running through it. The tranny's third, fourth and fifth gears are also taller, and low rolling resistance tires, an aero-optimized undercarriage and special rear spoiler all contribute to lifting the C30 Efficiency's fuel economy to an incredible 4.5L for every 100 kilometers, or 52.26 MPG in the U.S. cycle. That's all, no whiz bang hybrid drives or vaporous hydrogen fuel cells on board this car.
One interesting design detail we didn't notice when the official pics were first released is the car's wheels, which are odd to say the least. It appears that the material between the spokes is something like chicken wire with a very fine weave. We're not sure if it cuts down on the production of turbulent air behind the wheel or a designer just had a brain fart, but it comes off as one of those "green" details this car could do without.
Check the original post for the nitty gritty details, and view our high-res gallery of live shots by clicking below.
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Robert O 1:16PM (9/12/2007)
The wheels are fine. What would be better is if they painted the lower body and wheel wells the color of the body instead of flat black - the black makes the car look cheap!
Reply
SPG 3:29PM (9/12/2007)
To a euro and especially Swedish car fan the flat unpainted black is almost a must have.
However for people who share your taste you can buy these with a rather tasteful bodykit that's fully painted.
autohobby 1:19PM (9/12/2007)
Kudos to Volvo. A cool machine and efficient. As for the wheels, they look fine to me but I do wonder about snow, ice, brake dust and mud. Could be a maintenance problem?
Reply
Colin Smith 1:30PM (9/12/2007)
"Low friction oil".
As opposed to the high friction stuff, eh?
Reply
MikeW 2:07PM (9/12/2007)
Extra low viscosity.
A lot of German cars used Xw-40 engine oil so that when they drive 150mph (and the oil gets hot) there will be enough oil [film] strength.
Isn't MB requirement of HTHS 3.5?
But if don't drive that fast, or the car isn't capable of putting that much heat into the oil, do you really need Xw-40 oil. Kind of explains the proliferation of 5w-20 in the US.
CH 1:48PM (9/12/2007)
"... lifting the C30 Efficiency's fuel economy to an incredible 4.5L for every 100 kilometers, or 52.26 MPG in the U.S. cycle."
John, it's 52.26 mpg on the European test cycle. Converting from l/100 km to miles per US gallon doesn't change the test cycle. The numbers on the US, i.e., EPA, test cycle would be lower. For example the C30 T5 manual is rated at 8.7 l/100 km or 27.1 m/US gal on the Euro test cycle. However, it's EPA estimate is only 23 mpg.
Reply
wslcrew 1:53PM (9/12/2007)
I'd assume they covered the wheel to reduce drag. At the same time, it's got little holes so that a cool air can go through and cool down the disk brakes.
Anyway it's very interesting that Volvo achieved good mileage mostly by tweaking aero and mechanical parts, and I think this should be the way forward for achieving better fuel economy. I don't think hybrid technology is the future as having two heavy motors in a car just isn't that efficient.
Reply
Alex 2:05PM (9/12/2007)
"...special rear spoiler ... contribute to lifting the C30 Efficiency's fuel economy... "
I read this then looked up the main photo and thought "WTF? that spoiler looks more like an air dam!" Then i took a closer look... ohh, the hatch is open.
Reply
Nick 2:10PM (9/12/2007)
I'd buy this in a second. Hell, I'm seriously considering the C30 we're getting here in the US.
Reply
The Other Bob 2:15PM (9/12/2007)
I always thought that selling an "efficiency" model could get consumers to see models without the largest engines as not necissarily the cheapo version.
Reply
Level 4:02PM (9/12/2007)
This is just an experiment to show that if they really wanted to have cars with high mpg they could but they not realy going to make them.....
Reply
Calebe 2:24PM (9/12/2007)
I think the wheels look fine. My problem with them is what are they going to look like with brake dust imbedded in those tiny holes. What is that mesh made of ? Will it dent easily? Will cleaner ruin it? As for mileage, unless the Europeans have a different size litre/liter than we do in the USA 4.5 L per 100 KM is just a touch over 52 mpg. I'm sure the driving conditions are probably different but still on a flat area under the same conditions I'm assuming the car would get about the same.
Reply
zamafir 2:27PM (9/12/2007)
"incredible 4.5L for every 100 kilometers, or 52.26 MPG in the U.S. cycle. That's all, no whiz bang hybrid drives or vaporous hydrogen fuel cells on board this car."
Silly me, I thought 2.99L for every 100 kilometers, or 78.6 MPG in the U.S. cycle Six years ago with no whiz bang hybrid drives was incredible (audi a2)... Odd how perspectives change with time.
Reply
mk 5:04PM (9/12/2007)
first off...
The boarded up grille and wheels... why bother. I doubt the mesh on the wheels lessens that much drag, and causes more problems, and adds unsprung rotational weight. Not all that efficient. The grille is just a gimmick to "look the part" like most successful hybrids that advertize themselves.
Second, the low drag under-floor, rear valance, and aero rear wing... Why not incorporate that model-wide? The other models shouldn't be more efficient, for some reason? I thought efficiency was good?
The unpainted plastic is to advertize the economy-status of the car, and save money on dinged paint, both initially, and in the event of a prang or road chips.
the low viscosity oil for a 1.0 liter car sounds fine, as well as the taller gears (as long as you don't mind not being able to pass on the motorway, but again, it's a 1.0 liter engine...)
But all in all it seems like a marketing ploy to play-up a cheaper car. Not that it is bad, or won't work. I do wonder why some of the aero improvements, that are actually substantive, aren't model-wide.
Reply
mk 5:05PM (9/12/2007)
sorry, 1.6 liter diesel, I was thinking of the Justy, that has a 1.0 liter.
Reply
Seminole 5:10PM (9/12/2007)
Look at the wide panel gap between the front door and the front fender, and where the hood closes. That Chinese CEO (The copy of the X5) has better panel gaps.
Volvo's today are built like crap, and I was dumb enough to buy two. I can't wait to get rid of it.
Reply
Dreizehnernuss 5:25PM (9/12/2007)
The "normal" C30 has the worst body panel quality i've seen in the last 10 years.
Its unbelievable if you take a closer look.
British_Rover 6:46PM (9/12/2007)
I am driving a US spec C30 today and tomorrow and I gotta say the panel gaps are fine. You guys are just picky.
SPG 6:04PM (9/12/2007)
For people like me who look into the future and say "what's a fifteen year old car with a broken iDrive worth?" and "is it worth it to fix it?" this car answers another question.
"How much will it cost to replace a hybrid system when the car is off warrenty"?
Reply
Coleman Foley 7:02PM (9/14/2007)
that's pretty cool
Reply