Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Volvo V40 2016 fuel consumption

Volvo V40 from 2016 to 2021 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 20% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 16% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 24% higher. Since 2016 the Volvo V40 average difference between owner-reported real-world fuel consumption and declared fuel economy has been significantly higher than average.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline carsDiesel cars
All carmakersVolvo V40All carmakersVolvo V40
2016+28%+40% +36%+49%
Show all years
2017+28%+40% +38%+49%
2018+28%+40% +39%+49%
2019+27%+36% +37%-
2020+27%+36% +36%-
2021+26%+36% +37%-

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Volvo V40.

2016

Volvo V40 2016 hatchback fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines42.5 MPG
5.5 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines30.3 MPG
7.8 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+40%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines63.3 MPG
3.7 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines42.5 MPG
5.5 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+49%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Volvo V40 2016 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.1 liters per 100 km or 4% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Volvo V40 with automatic transmission consumes around 0.4 litres per 100 km or 7% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Volvo V40 advertised fuel economy is among the best, beating more than 80% of other cars, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is slightly better than average.
The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 2.0 diesel engine and manual transmission (Volvo V40 2016 2.0 D3 150 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Volvo V40 with 2.0 diesel engine and manual transmission (Volvo V40 2016 2.0 D4 190 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.5 liter petrol engine
Volvo V40 2016 1.5 T2 122 HP automatic 29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km
Volvo V40 2016 1.5 T2 122 HP automatic 42.8 MPG
5.5 l/100km
29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km+45%
Volvo V40 2016 1.5 T2 122 HP automatic 43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km
29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km+48%
Volvo V40 2016 1.5 T3 152 HP automatic 30.9 MPG
7.6 l/100km
2.0 liter petrol engine
Volvo V40 2016 2.0 T2 122 HP manual 43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km
33.1 MPG
7.1 l/100km+31%
Volvo V40 2016 2.0 T2 122 HP automatic 43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km
29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km+48%
Volvo V40 2016 2.0 T3 152 HP manual 42.0 MPG
5.6 l/100km
34.1 MPG
6.9 l/100km+23%
Volvo V40 2016 2.0 T3 152 HP automatic 42.8 MPG
5.5 l/100km
30.9 MPG
7.6 l/100km+38%
Volvo V40 2016 2.0 T4 190 HP manual 42.0 MPG
5.6 l/100km
29.8 MPG
7.9 l/100km+41%
Volvo V40 2016 2.0 T4 190 HP automatic 42.8 MPG
5.5 l/100km
30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km+40%
Volvo V40 2016 2.0 T5 245 HP automatic 39.9 MPG
5.9 l/100km
27.4 MPG
8.6 l/100km+46%
2.0 liter diesel engine
Volvo V40 2016 2.0 D2 120 HP manual 69.2 MPG
3.4 l/100km
48.0 MPG
4.9 l/100km+44%
Volvo V40 2016 2.0 D2 120 HP automatic 63.6 MPG
3.7 l/100km
43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km+46%
Volvo V40 2016 2.0 D3 150 HP manual 65.3 MPG
3.6 l/100km
43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km+50%
Volvo V40 2016 2.0 D3 150 HP automatic 60.3 MPG
3.9 l/100km
41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km+46%
Volvo V40 2016 2.0 D4 190 HP manual 63.6 MPG
3.7 l/100km
41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km+54%
Volvo V40 2016 2.0 D4 190 HP automatic 58.8 MPG
4.0 l/100km
38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km+53%

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.