Volvo misleading customers

I've noticed a poster that has popped up around where I live, with a picture of a Volvo XC60, and the text, translated from my language, "The most fuel efficient car in its segment". Well, now, is it really? I've already written about the XC60 and how it's competitors are light years ahead when it comes to fuel efficiency, so the answer is obviously no. If anything, it's the least fuel efficient car in its segment, and nothing to brag about at all. Granted, there's a new version coming, in around 4 months (!), with a newly developed diesel engine that is bound to be better than the current one. Also, this particular version of the XC60 will be a front-wheel drive, and it is expected to have a fuel consumtion of 0,6 liters/10 km.

That would all be fairly impressive, if it wasn't for the fact that this car lacks the 4WD that all of its competitors have, with only slightly higher fuel consumption. In other words, Volvo are not directly competing against all these cars (Audi Q5, BMW X3, Land Rover Freelander, Mercedes GLK) with this one.

I understand the financial situation Volvo's in, but misleading your customers is really never a good idea.

The small SUV segment - Will Volvo make it?

We've got some really interesting small SUV's coming this fall, all competing within the same "premium" segment: Audi Q5, Mercedes GLK and Volvo XC60. I've already expressed my frustration with the Volvo and its hopelessly outdated engines. This frustration isn't getting any better after looking up some numbers:

Audi Q5 2.0 TDI (170 hp/350 Nm) - Fuel consumption: 6,7 l/100km CO2: 175 g/km
BMW X3 2.0d(177 hp/350 Nm) - Fuel consumption: 6,5 l/100km CO2: 172 g/km
Mercedes GLK 220 (170 hp/400 Nm) - Fuel consumption: 6,9 l/100km CO2: n/a
Volvo XC60 D5 (185 hp/400 Nm) - Fuel consumption: 7,5 l/100km CO2: 199 g/km

All these cars are equipped with four wheel drive, and have comparable engine specs and prices, although the Volvo is a bit on the slow side when it comes to acceleration, and a bit expensive (comparable to the Merc and BMW, and more expensive than the Audi). And if you want an XC60 with fuel consumtion on par with the other competitors, you'll have to wait until the spring, and buy a 2,4D with 163 hp and front wheel drive only (consumption: 6,5 l/100km). Now, who will buy that, instead of a proper four wheel drive from Audi, BMW or Mercedes? And why on earth didn't Volvo keep the brilliant ethanol-enigine from the prototype, that could have given it an advantage amongst its competitors? I don't know. I just don't know.