# Ford's fuel consumption is way off the mark....



## Wash'n'Go (Mar 13, 2007)

I know when car makers test their cars for their fuel consumption figures they go to great lengths which cannot and will not be achieved in the real world.

We picked up my wife's brand new Focus zetec S 1.6 TDCI three weeks ago and while the car is great the fuel consumption is disappointing to say the least.

According to What Car online Ford claim it will give 814 miles to the tank which I took with a very big pinch of salt but the 572 miles we got on the last fill up were far less than I'd hoped for and only 100 miles better than her old 1.8 petrol focus.

My wife does a lot of motorway miles so would have thought the figure would be in the 600-700 region.

Maybe I was expecting too much. I'm tempted to look at having the ECU remapped to see if it can give a better return with a bit more power but wary as it's under warranty.

Anyone else got a new diesel Ford and equally as disappointed with the fuel economy?


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Ahem Peugeot diesel ahem. How Ford wreck them God only knows 
I steered clear of the 1.6 diesel in the 407s (I've heard of turbo issues), and stayed with the 2.0 HDi for both my 407s. Mine is doing mid 60s mpg and should be on course for over 900 on this tank (66l)


----------



## SteveTDCi (Feb 8, 2006)

If its brand new then it will take a good 10k before it starts improving.if it helps the focus itself we had on hire last week was showing 53.9mpg, it had only covered 1700 miles and was a hire car.


----------



## Guitarjon (Jul 13, 2012)

I was expecting a lot more from my wives, she has a 1.25 fiesta zetec or something along those lines. She was getting around 34mpg for the first 5k but its gone up to 39 now. It has a economy gauge type thing on and gives her 5/5 for driving in all areas. I'm getting between 30- 32mpg in my 2.0 mx5 that gets driven fairly hard.


----------



## Bulkhead (Oct 17, 2007)

SteveTDCi said:


> If its brand new then it will take a good 10k before it starts improving.if it helps the focus itself we had on hire last week was showing 53.9mpg, it had only covered 1700 miles and was a hire car.


This ^^

The ST was returning around 26 mpg when new but after 45k I get around 32 mpg. Also, being turbocharged, a lot depends on how heavy your right foot is:car:


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

Although new engines do not have a running in period they will loosen up and slowly get more efficient with time.

You should always ignore figures that manafacturers say as there done on test beds not the road


----------



## phillipnoke (Apr 1, 2011)

I had the same problem with my new 125 fiesta i have done 9000 and on the motor way it was only doing 42 mph know i can get 50/52 mph because the engine has broken in.
I took it back to fords to complain the tested it and they found everything was ok it just need time to break in


----------



## Wash'n'Go (Mar 13, 2007)

Thanks chaps for your replies, I guess I was hoping for more miles really. It's a 53lt tank but when we get it down to about 10 miles and fill right up in only takes 46lts so I'm guessing when it's showing nearly empty its still holding 7 lts or so.....

Anyone got any views on ECU remapping on a new car good/bad?

Thanks again


----------



## nick_mcuk (Jan 4, 2008)

SteveTDCi said:


> If its brand new then it will take a good 10k before it starts improving.if it helps the focus itself we had on hire last week was showing 53.9mpg, it had only covered 1700 miles and was a hire car.


+1 to this my 2010 A6 TDIe was the same untill it had done 9-10k miles it wouldnt get close to the book figures.

No that it has 65k on the clock it breezes 60+mpg on a motorway run!

Having said that I track the MPG on my iPhone app (Road Trip) and over the last 6 months the average is 45.66mpg

Still only does 35-40mpg round town though


----------



## djgregory (Apr 2, 2013)

Wash'n'Go said:


> Thanks chaps for your replies, I guess I was hoping for more miles really. It's a 53lt tank but when we get it down to about 10 miles and fill right up in only takes 46lts so I'm guessing when it's showing nearly empty its still holding 7 lts or so.....
> 
> Anyone got any views on ECU remapping on a new car good/bad?
> 
> Thanks again


Waste of time until the car has been run in properly and it has freed up, if it hasnt improved, then go for a re-map, however they dont drastically improve MPG.


----------



## Bill58 (Jul 5, 2010)

phillipnoke said:


> I had the same problem with my new 125 fiesta i have done 9000 and on the motor way it was only doing 42 mph know i can get 50/52 mph because the engine has broken in.
> I took it back to fords to complain the tested it and they found everything was ok it just need time to break in


My daughter has the Fiesta Edge 1.25 and averages just over 40 mpg. Official figure is 53 mpg. My Sportage 1.7 has official 52 mpg and that is close to what I'm getting at 49.6 mpg (my average this year).


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

My 2.2 Mondeo got better by about 8 mpg over the first 10000 miles. It now always gets between 42 and 47mpg depending on driving style.

I doubt you'll see much improvement from a remap, just let it bed in. Mine runs crap on supermarket diesel too.


----------



## renton (Nov 27, 2005)

Ford claim 35mpg combined for my smax but I get around 27mpg out of it really.

Thats with 33k on the clock.

On a run down the mway at 70 Im lucky to get 35mpg


----------



## MEH4N (Mar 15, 2012)

SteveTDCi said:


> If its brand new then it will take a good 10k before it starts improving.if it helps the focus itself we had on hire last week was showing 53.9mpg, it had only covered 1700 miles and was a hire car.


I know figures are usually off due to their tests but i would agree with steve.


----------



## craigeh123 (Dec 26, 2011)

I saw a tv show on thus . The way they are tested means you'll never get close . From.what i remember they are tested without alternators ac etc etc all.this stuff drains .


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

craigeh123 said:


> I saw a tv show on thus . The way they are tested means you'll never get close . From.what i remember they are tested without alternators ac etc etc all.this stuff drains .


I can beat the figures on mine if I want, the drive just becomes boring as hell...


----------



## nick_mcuk (Jan 4, 2008)

SteveyG said:


> I can beat the figures on mine if I want, the drive just becomes boring as hell...


Dont rely on the computers read out either they are normally way off the mark too.

Only way to get a REAL mpg figure is to do it the old way with the sums!


----------



## Summit Detailing (Oct 9, 2006)

nick_mcuk said:


> Dont rely on the computers read out either they are normally way off the mark too.
> 
> Only way to get a REAL mpg figure is to do it the old way with the sums!


+1 every car seems to offer differing accuracy. An old (03) plate 320d Auto I was smoking about in for a while has been the most inaccurate to date - 53.1 on the dash = 44.3 via Roadtrip app!:wall:



nick_mcuk said:


> +1 to this my 2010 A6 TDIe was the same untill it had done 9-10k miles it wouldnt get close to the book figures.
> 
> No that it has 65k on the clock it breezes 60+mpg on a motorway run!
> 
> ...


+1 again, it'll improve once it's got a few miles under it's belt.
The Roadtrip app is great if like me you want to keep a check on these sort of things.

Regarding brochure mpg figures, to get an realistic everyday mpg figure from them follow this simple advice handed down to me from a Toyota Jpn engineer -
Take the Urban figure & Combined figure and the real world figure will be around halfway between the two!
E.g - urban 20mpg / combined 40mpg = real world 30mpg!

Safe driving:car:


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

nick_mcuk said:


> Dont rely on the computers read out either they are normally way off the mark too.
> 
> Only way to get a REAL mpg figure is to do it the old way with the sums!


Trip computer is spot on with my sums :thumb: The car knows exactly what distance you've travelled and the ecu knows exactly how much fuel is being injected so the figure displayed is always correct, but the interpretation of it is where the layperson will be fooled.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

The provided tested fuel consumption figures are absolute nonsense. 

The tests are done on a rolling road (not the real roads) and the total test is only about 6-7 miles. 

Manufacturers know how important fuel consumption is to many buyers, and I bet they do their best to maximise their cars ability in the test rather than the real world. 

The gap between tested figures amd real wrld figures is getting further apart. 

Occasionally in the right conditions you can get close and maybe occasionally better them if you drive like a snail, downhill and wind assisted, but in the long term real world most of the figures are nonsense.


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

Kerr said:


> The gap between tested figures amd real wrld figures is getting further apart.


Between cars though they do offer a valid comparison, just not an expectation of what you will get.



Summit Detailing said:


> +1 every car seems to offer differing accuracy. An old (03) plate 320d Auto I was smoking about in for a while has been the most inaccurate to date - 53.1 on the dash = 44.3 via Roadtrip app!:wall:


I'll bet it was correct in what it was actually displaying.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

My old man works his out the old fashioned way. He calculated (with pen and paper) his 140hdi 407 to have done 63.6mpg over the last 4000 miles. 
I might try getting him to work mine out for me too at some point. See how far the readings are out in reality.
I reckon about + 10%


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

PugIain said:


> I might try getting him to work mine out for me too at some point. See how far the readings are out in reality.


You don't need your dad to calculate this :thumb:


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

SteveyG said:


> You don't need your dad to calculate this :thumb:


Well, it'll keep him out of mischief for a while


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

SteveyG said:


> Between cars though they do offer a valid comparison, just not an expectation of what you will get.
> 
> I'll bet it was correct in what it was actually displaying.


I don't agree that they are valid.

If you take the same car to the same rolling road on different days and conditions, you get different results.

6-7 miles of testing car easily throw up some irregularities.

Some cars are slower to reach operating temperatures and this hits economy. This isn't part of the test but it does affect the real world figures.

Also who calculates factors such as aerodynamics and the weight of the car?

I've seen tests where cars are not as aerodynamic as the manufacturer claims and over 100kg heavier too.

I drive the same roads on a very regular basis. My driving doesn't change but I can get a significant variance on my consumption.

The claimed figure for my car is an average 32.5mpg. I average 28mpg real world long term which is almost 14% down.

I had a loan of a Kia Venga with a claimed combined average of 65MPG. I had it for a long motorway journey at 70MPH and cruised the rest and it managed about 42mpg.

That's 35% percent out from the combined cycle.

My last 2009 Citroen C5 2.0HDi averaged low 40s too. 22.5% out from the claimed 53.3mpg combined.

So even comparing the averages based on me, they aren't accurate.


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

Kerr said:


> I don't agree that they are valid.
> 
> If you take the same car to the same rolling road on different days and conditions, you get different results.
> 
> ...


They'll be trying to get the best figures they can for their cars so they'll all be tested under the best possible conditions.

I'm not saying they represent real world figures, but they should allow some comparison. I do the same journeys each week and my fuel fill up each week is always within 3 litres


----------



## Wash'n'Go (Mar 13, 2007)

When I spoke to the Ford dealer the last week he had a laminated print out with all the info on it how they test to get the mpg he said its ridiculous the lengths they go to to get the max mpg, they tape the doors and vents up.

How can they get away with it as it's so far removed from everyday driving, it's almost like mis-sealing....

We are happy with the car and it came with a boat load of extras as it was a static demo but as stated I was expecting more mpg hence we went for a diesel over the 1.6T.

I'll see how it pans out once its got a few miles under its belt which won't be long due to my wife's job....

Thanks again for your input chaps....


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Wash'n'Go said:


> When I spoke to the Ford dealer the last week he had a laminated print out with all the info on it how they test to get the mpg he said its ridiculous the lengths they go to to get the max mpg, they tape the doors and vents up.
> 
> How can they get away with it as it's so far removed from everyday driving, it's almost like mis-sealing....
> 
> ...


They don't need to tape up anything.

When the car is being tested on a rolling road it's not moving. There is no wind resistance to overcome.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

SteveyG said:


> They'll be trying to get the best figures they can for their cars so they'll all be tested under the best possible conditions.
> 
> I'm not saying they represent real world figures, but they should allow some comparison. I do the same journeys each week and my fuel fill up each week is always within 3 litres


They aren't tested under all conditions.

The urban cycle is calculated over a 2.5mile run and the extra urban is calculated over a 4.3 mile run.

That is far too little to build up a fair result.

The fact you can get some cars that are 5-10% out and others 30-40% out, it's clear these tests are neither accurate or fair.

I know a lot is dependent on the driver, but even sitting at a smooth steady speed many cars can't get close to claimed figures.


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

It's now considered common knowledge that manufacturers are very wise to how the tests are ran and as such, the ECU, throttle response (fly-by-wire), and auto gearbox software will be specifically adjusted accordingly.
That the same mappings and software is not always what the general public has in theirs, is why the US tests are considered to provide more realistic results.

That said, published figures can be exceeded in the right circumstances......http://www.lexusownersclub.co.uk/forum/topic/78040-obc-mpg-vs-pump-maths/


----------



## S63 (Jan 5, 2007)

It's possible your wife's driving style isn't the most fuel efficient method.

I'd like to think as a chauffeur for so many years my smooth style and anticipating the way ahead couldn't be better. my new Clio has the RLink system, one of its features is an app which monitors your style i.e braking, accelerating and gear changes, it gives you marks out of ten for each aspect and tells you how to improve your technique. I thought it was going to be something of a gimmick but by taking its advice (mainly changing up quicker) has already improved the mpg.

Even after just 500 miles I have noticed an improvement too.


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

S63 said:


> I'd like to think as a chauffeur for so many years my smooth style and anticipating the way ahead couldn't be better. my new Clio has the RLink system, one of its features is an app which monitors your style i.e braking, accelerating and gear changes, it gives you marks out of ten for each aspect and tells you how to improve your technique. I thought it was going to be something of a gimmick but by taking its advice (mainly changing up quicker) has already improved the mpg.
> 
> Even after just 500 miles I have noticed an improvement too.


The Mondeo has a similar application, but it encourages you to change gear far to early. Reckon you'd need a new DMF in no time if you followed it's instructions.


----------



## Poohbore (Aug 10, 2013)

I have a 1.6tdci mondeo and I get 47-49 out of it. My old 2.0tdci mondeo used to average 44mpg.

SWMBO did on several occasions on a run get 58mpg out of the 2.0tdci

A lot comes down to how heavy the right foot is!

Ill be glad to see the back of the mondeo on Thursday as its too underpowered for a mondeo sized car


----------



## R14CKE (Aug 10, 2012)

Mondeo st tdci currently doin 57on a run now 
Had been remapped


----------



## Sirmally2 (Feb 28, 2011)

You wont get anywhere near the 73mpg on a run unless you do 50mph all of the time and constantly keep feathering your foot (i know, i tried it) and its the only time you'll get anywhere near.

Practically my 1.6tdci gets about mid 50's combined and thats been reasonable. If i have a few weeks of been heavy with my foot it drops to very high 40s to low 50's so still not too bad but i did expect much better from it, and mine is clocking on for 40k on the clock.


----------



## Imme (May 7, 2013)

How do you guys manually calculate your MPG?
The reason I ask is if you are using the trip meter to tell you how many miles you have done, that can be 10% out just as the speedo can. So any calculation based on it can only be a guide!
I'll stick to the on-board readout that says I get just over 40MPG on a run in a 2.0 petrol Focus. 
I don't think that is very accurate either but it makes me feel like I've got the most miles for my money that this car will give me.


----------



## Fiesta-125 (Mar 18, 2012)

Imme said:


> How do you guys manually calculate your MPG?
> The reason I ask is if you are using the trip meter to tell you how many miles you have done, that can be 10% out just as the speedo can. So any calculation based on it can only be a guide!
> I'll stick to the on-board readout that says I get just over 40MPG on a run in a 2.0 petrol Focus.
> I don't think that is very accurate either but it makes me feel like I've got the most miles for my money that this car will give me.


Fuelly.com


----------



## Sirmally2 (Feb 28, 2011)

Imme said:


> How do you guys manually calculate your MPG?


Road Trip App. Tell it your mileage and literes input and it works it out for you


----------

