Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ford Focus 1.8 TDCi
Ford Owners Club - Ford Forums > Ford Models > Ford Focus Club
focusdriver
I've had this car for a few days, it's a 55 plate which has done 80,000 miles.

I was expecting good mpg from this but so far I'm getting 37mpg - I do mostly motorway travelling and always set the cruise control to 80mph. I filled the tank this morning and the trip computer showed that I would do 407 miles.

Is this normal for this car? I was expecting 40-45mpg at least!

TIA ;)
hillmangimp
Hi,

Just as a comparison I bought a Focus 2.0 TDCI last December with 90k on the clock (2005 55 plate). The car has now done approx 97k. At 70 mph I get 60 mpg. Above this it averages anywhere between 50-55 mpg. The only time I got mpg the same as yours was this summer travelling around West Midlands Safari Park (35-37 mpg with the air con on)! Your MPG does look to be on the low side but it may be due to driving style (harsh accelaration maybe?), but even still I would expect it to be in the 40's at least. If the car is otherwise running well I would not expect low mpg to be due to any technical problems with the car. Does the car run ok? (start well, pick up speed etc)? I have a friend who does have a 2006 1.8 Tdci and he claims that he easily gets between 55-65 mpg.
InstructorPiggy
Big jump down in mpg from 60 to 70 and even bigger to 80.

Plus, the limit is 70.

What is the service history like?

Old oil and blocked fuel filter can make quite a big difference.

Plus the fuel itself, I can get an extra 4/5mpg over a whole tank if I get Shell/BP rather than cheaper fuels.

Hope these help,

Piggy :)
focusdriver
Thanks for the advice guys.

I drive pretty conservatively, and don't accelerate hard (I think). The car runs really well, no problems with starting or picking up speed.

I forgot to mention - it has no service history whatsoever - this may be the problem now I think about it :rolleyes: . I bought the car on the weekend from a local garage - the salesman did say he'd change the air and fuel filter but I haven't checked if they have - I'm ringing them in the morning.

I suspect an oil change may be due - can you recommend anything else?

I'll do 70 on the way to work tomorrow and see if that makes a major difference in the mpg.

Thanks Again.

;)
thesilverfox
[quote name='focusdriver' post='50542' date='Nov 24 2009, 09:12 PM']Thanks for the advice guys.

I drive pretty conservatively, and don't accelerate hard (I think). The car runs really well, no problems with starting or picking up speed.

I forgot to mention - it has no service history whatsoever - this may be the problem now I think about it :rolleyes: . I bought the car on the weekend from a local garage - the salesman did say he'd change the air and fuel filter but I haven't checked if they have - I'm ringing them in the morning.

I suspect an oil change may be due - can you recommend anything else?

I'll do 70 on the way to work tomorrow and see if that makes a major difference in the mpg.

Thanks Again.

;)[/quote]

Better still, do 60mph. I occasionally do a 60mph run from Liverpool to Luton or Liverpool to Southampton etc. Only when bored of course.

I've returned over 65mpg frequently on those runs, with the car in my sig, also a 1.8TDCi (2007/07)

Sit at 80mph, I get around 45mpg. 70 is more 50-55mpg.

If you change gear above 2k rpm on the way there, it really makes a difference to consumption - try gear changes aroun 1500-1700 revs where possible and you can get some ridiculous efficiency from this engine.

Shame it's absolutely pig slow (I had an ST170 before it though)
hillmangimp
If a service is due I'd get it done ASAP as diesels don't like having services delayed/missed. As you say would be ideal to change the fuel, air and oil filter. With regards to oil, as long as the right one is used it should be ok. For the record I used Ford Formula E which is ok in price and the oil that Ford reccomend. Also might be worth checking tyre pressures, if the car has been standing for a while at a dealer, these may have dropped below the specified level.
mkaminski100
There is a massive difference between TDDI and TDCI consumption. TDDI can do 65 on the run and I can only get around 37-38 from TDCI. My colleague has the same problem and is also doing 37-39MPG. These engines are just bloody thirsty.
I will readjust timing belt in mine and recode injectors.
You can also try disconnecting MAF sensor (connection on pipe going from air filter) and check if there’s any difference. It should have less power, but if there’s no difference, your MAF is knackered.
I have also noticed that the trip computer is showing instant consumption of even 5MPG when the car starts moving. It’s odd, but this computer is more or less useless..
hillmangimp
[quote name='mkaminski100' post='50636' date='Nov 25 2009, 12:19 PM']There is a massive difference between TDDI and TDCI consumption. TDDI can do 65 on the run and I can only get around 37-38 from TDCI. My colleague has the same problem and is also doing 37-39MPG. These engines are just bloody thirsty.
I will readjust timing belt in mine and recode injectors.
You can also try disconnecting MAF sensor (connection on pipe going from air filter) and check if there’s any difference. It should have less power, but if there’s no difference, your MAF is knackered.
I have also noticed that the trip computer is showing instant consumption of even 5MPG when the car starts moving. It’s odd, but this computer is more or less useless..[/quote]


Disagree that TDCI is 'bloody thirsty'. As mentioned in a previous post I can get similar MPG to an older TDDI engine from my 2.0 TDCI engine travelling at the legal limit. Even pushed hard on the motorway I get 50 plus MPG. I also know of people who get better MPG from their Focus than me without having to drive like a nun. However TDCI (and common rail in general) appears to be far more complex technology than previous gen diesel's. As it stands I would much rather have a TDCI compared to TDDI due to the performance and refinement it offers (and happy with MPG as well). If it goes wrong might be a different story though!
focusdriver
I spoke to the dealer who sold me the car - he said that he'd changed the oil, and changed the air and oil filter. I haven't checked yet - will make sure that he actually has tonight. Also, I'll check the tyre pressures tonight too.

Will changing the fuel filter make any difference??

I drove in at 70 today all the way - all motorway travel and the trip computer showed 40.2 mpg. The dealer also said that this might be reset as it's been sitting idle on the forecourt for a while.

Tomorrow I may even try 60!!!

Even 40mpg is not what I was expecting. I sold my SAAB 93 Turbo to get a more economical car but that was doing 37mpg.... (the Focus is still half the price on road tax though).
focusdriver
FINAL UPDATE:

Seems the salesguy was right - I reset the mpg before I left work. Drove home (about 25) miles and the mpg indicator said 50.5mpg.

Suppose the moral of the story is always reset the mpg before taking a reading. Possibly the car had been test driven a couple of times and probably driven hard to see what the power was like. This must have caused the low mpg reading.

BTW : the garage had changed the oil, oil filter and air filter before I had the car. I'm still to check the tyres but doubt they will be low.

Thanks Guys.

:P :P
mkaminski100
Quick question. Does anyone have a proper trip computer manual? The one in User manual is crap as there ary many extra options, like when pressing right button, average consumption will change and might go down to 5.5 MPG.
mjt
That's because the average is just that - the sum of a number of instantaneous readings divided by the number of readings. The instantaneous readings jump around all over the place so the initial average reading reflects what the instantaneous value is at the instant you press the reset.
mkaminski100
Yes, I know that, but start pressing big button (is it “R”?) when on idle and find that average consumption will change few times and will go down to 5.5MPG. what’s that for? Saved readings from some time period (like last hour, last 3h, last day?) Manual doesn’t say anything about it.
Vx trip computer is very easy. Reset every full tank and it will give you an accurate average reading, whereas this one showed 46MPG and real consumption was 40MPG.
thesilverfox
[quote name='focusdriver' post='50721' date='Nov 25 2009, 07:59 PM']FINAL UPDATE:

Seems the salesguy was right - I reset the mpg before I left work. Drove home (about 25) miles and the mpg indicator said 50.5mpg.

Suppose the moral of the story is always reset the mpg before taking a reading. Possibly the car had been test driven a couple of times and probably driven hard to see what the power was like. This must have caused the low mpg reading.

BTW : the garage had changed the oil, oil filter and air filter before I had the car. I'm still to check the tyres but doubt they will be low.

Thanks Guys.

:P :P[/quote]

Don't use the trip computer for MPG calculations - it's unreliable. Fill to the brim, reset miles. Drive, make a note of miles (after a good 300-400), fill to the brim, make a note of the miles and work out MPG that way.

The on-board computer is a guide, not a definitive.
thesilverfox
[quote name='mkaminski100' post='50810' date='Nov 26 2009, 10:10 AM']Yes, I know that, but start pressing big button (is it “R”?) when on idle and find that average consumption will change few times and will go down to 5.5MPG. what’s that for? Saved readings from some time period (like last hour, last 3h, last day?)[/quote]

On idle, the trip computer should revert to gallons per hour consumption, rather than MPG, as the car recognises it is stood still.
mkaminski100
[quote name='hillmangimp' post='50643' date='Nov 25 2009, 01:50 PM']Disagree that TDCI is 'bloody thirsty'. As mentioned in a previous post I can get similar MPG to an older TDDI engine from my [color="#FF0000"][b]2.0 TDCI[/b][/color] engine travelling at the legal limit. Even pushed hard on the motorway [color="#FF0000"][b]I get 50 plus MPG[/b][/color]. I also know of people who get better MPG from their Focus than me without having to drive like a nun. However TDCI (and common rail in general) appears to be far more complex technology than previous gen diesel's. As it stands I would much rather have a TDCI compared to TDDI due to the performance and refinement it offers (and happy with MPG as well). If it goes wrong might be a different story though![/quote]
This discussion is about 1.8 TDCI not 2.0 which is different unit. But...my [b][color="#00FF00"]TDDI[/color][/b] is doing around [b][color="#00FF00"]65 MPG on the run and 50 MPG in Basingstoke.[/color][/b] Can any 1.8 TDCI beat that? I investigated it and it looks like lucky 1.8 TDCI owners can do around 50 on the run and 40 in town. Anything above that is big advantage. Isn't it bit disappointing for a diesel engine when most developed petrol engines can go around that? And petrol engines don't suffer from expensive injectors, DMF or pump failures.
Other thing is that I must say that these extra 25 BHP don't seem to make a big difference. I have both cars and drives them every day and 1.8 TDCI is not that much faster. Brother's 1.9 TDI 115 (the only reasonable) drives like rocket and leaves TDCI far behind... shame :(
hillmangimp
[quote name='mkaminski100' post='51051' date='Nov 28 2009, 09:35 AM']This discussion is about 1.8 TDCI not 2.0 which is different unit. But...my [b][color="#00FF00"]TDDI[/color][/b] is doing around [b][color="#00FF00"]65 MPG on the run and 50 MPG in Basingstoke.[/color][/b] Can any 1.8 TDCI beat that? I investigated it and it looks like lucky 1.8 TDCI owners can do around 50 on the run and 40 in town. Anything above that is big advantage. Isn't it bit disappointing for a diesel engine when most developed petrol engines can go around that? And petrol engines don't suffer from expensive injectors, DMF or pump failures.
Other thing is that I must say that these extra 25 BHP don't seem to make a big difference. I have both cars and drives them every day and 1.8 TDCI is not that much faster. Brother's 1.9 TDI 115 (the only reasonable) drives like rocket and leaves TDCI far behind... shame :([/quote]

mkaminski 100,

I am well aware that this post is about the 1.8 TDCI. So why then have you mentioned the 1.8 TDDI and VW 1.9 TDI (different units to the 1.8 TDCI) in your recent post? I would imagine it is for comparison purposes? Thats why I inlcuded the 2.0 TDCI post, for comparison purposes. The original post was querying the fuel consumption of the 1.8 TDCI and I gave my 2.0 TDCI figures for this purpose. Had I been the owner of the 1.8 TDCI and found that the bigger and more powerrful 2.0 TDCI was outperforming in both performance and MPG terms I would be concerned that there may be an issue with my car. In the same way that I look at VW 2.0 TDI figures to compare to my 2.0 tdci figures as a siginificant difference may be an indication of a problem. I also gave in my original post figures from my friends 1.8 TDCI (which are not too disimilar from your 1.8 TDDI figures by the way). There are probabaly many owners of the 1.8 TDCI that can get similar or better figures than you suggest, its all down to driving style. The key difference between the 1.8 TDCI and 1.6 and 2.0 TDCI is Ford, i.e. the 1.6 and 2.0 TDCI are Peugeot units whilst the 1.8 is a Ford design. That is not to say that the 1.6 and 2.0 don't have issues, we know that they do.
thesilverfox
[quote name='mkaminski100' post='51051' date='Nov 28 2009, 09:35 AM']This discussion is about 1.8 TDCI not 2.0 which is different unit. But...my [b][color="#00FF00"]TDDI[/color][/b] is doing around [b][color="#00FF00"]65 MPG on the run and 50 MPG in Basingstoke.[/color][/b] Can any 1.8 TDCI beat that? I investigated it and it looks like lucky 1.8 TDCI owners can do around 50 on the run and 40 in town.[/quote]

Yes, I can beat that easily. I can get 65mpg from my 1.8TDCi on a run and in the summer, it recorded almost 70 mpg on an efficiency run.

The TDDI is definitely more sluggish than than the TDCi. Funny though, as everyone I know who's tried both agrees too. As mentioned above, driving style plays a huge part in how a car performs. If the turbo kicks in at different times for the TDDI and TDCi, you should therefore adjust your gear changes to compensate.

Likewise as mentioned above: variances from the overall reported average suggests that there is something not quite right with the car.
mkaminski100
hillmangimp -I guess your're right but 2.0 consumpion don't prove that 1.8 TDCI is economical. TDDI is older twin brother of TDCI so I compared both to show that going from TDDI to TDCI was a step backwards to Ford, especially that extra power is not very noticeable between both and TDCI is so faulty (injectors, DMF, fuel pump...). VW was just an addition to show that 115 in 2 cars means very different.

thesilverfox - I've investigated TDCI consumption before making a decision about keeping my TDCI. I have found that most people struggle to get more than 51 MPG on the run comparing to 65 I am doing in TDDI. We have 3 TDCI Focuses in our company and all 3 are the same. But I decided to keep mine in hope that my driving will help to get more. I must say I am even more disappointed. I hope to get few MPG extra, but it will be no near TDDI.
hillmangimp
[quote name='mkaminski100' date='Nov 28 2009, 09:14 PM' post='51189']
hillmangimp -I guess your're right but 2.0 consumpion don't prove that 1.8 TDCI is economical. TDDI is older twin brother of TDCI so I compared both to show that going from TDDI to TDCI was a step backwards to Ford, especially that extra power is not very noticeable between both and TDCI is so faulty (injectors, DMF, fuel pump...). VW was just an addition to show that 115 in 2 cars means very different.


Don't think everypne will agree with that. Out of the countless Common Rail diesel cars on the road it is only a small percentage that go wrong. yes when the TDCI does go wrong it can be expensive but to be honest TDCI is a step up from TDDI technology. Maybe Ford dropped the ball with the 1.8 TDCI in some respects but there are many people who are happy with the unit. I know Ford have had problems with some of their own diesel units and have taken steps to rectify this (e.g. in the 2007 mondeo the Ford 2.0 TDCI was replaced by the PSA 2.0 HDI as found in the Mark 2 Focus). So no, in my opinion TDCI was not a step backward, I'd have a TDCI over TDDI any day, if it goes wrong then I'll bite the bullet and have it fixed, but I'd make sure I enjoyed all the benefits it has to offer.
thesilverfox
Plus, if I am not mistaken, the 1.8TDCi is quite torquey compared to other engines in the same class. The 1.8 TDCi in the MKII has more torque than the MKI as well.

I maintain that if there is such a huge variance to what people are reporting, then the car itself may need investigating.
hillmangimp
[quote name='thesilverfox' post='51567' date='Nov 30 2009, 12:26 AM']Plus, if I am not mistaken, the 1.8TDCi is quite torquey compared to other engines in the same class. The 1.8 TDCi in the MKII has more torque than the MKI as well.

I maintain that if there is such a huge variance to what people are reporting, then the car itself may need investigating.[/quote]

And to add to this is that fact that TDCI tech is proven to be relaible. Just look at the hundreds of thousands of transit vans on the road today and still going strong. Also, the many mondeo TDCI taxis and company cars that we see every day. A 2004 [b]Mondeo 2.0TDCI [/b]115 LX Estate currently holds the [b]BCA mileage record at 534,491[/b] miles, selling at BCA Enfield in Spetember 2009 for £825.
mkaminski100
[quote name='hillmangimp' post='51705' date='Nov 30 2009, 09:47 PM']And to add to this is that fact that [color="#FF0000"][b]TDCI tech is proven to be relaible[/b][/color]. Just look at the hundreds of thousands of transit vans on the road today and still going strong. Also, the many mondeo TDCI taxis and company cars that we see every day. A 2004 [b]Mondeo 2.0TDCI [/b]115 LX Estate currently holds the [b]BCA mileage record at 534,491[/b] miles, selling at BCA Enfield in Spetember 2009 for £825.[/quote]
Common Rail or TDCI?
TDCI was a test field for Ford and Delphi up to around 2006.
- TDCI injectors failures that were only resolved in 2006, both in Focus and Mondeo. Famous flashing glow plugs symbol. Delphi and diesel specialist are making fortune - each for £100 minimum.
- Delphi fuel pumps up to late 2003 failures due to wrong bearing material (it peels and blocks injectors which have to be replaced as well).

Not a TDCI related but what about dual mass fly wheels that fail even at 70k miles? Delphi made a conversion kit to install a standard flywheel with modified cluch, both for Mondeo and now Focus.
Forums are full of those so I don't have to prove it. Ford was a pioneer in CR technology so they had to make many mistakes, but is should have taken them less than 4 years to fix them.
hillmangimp
[quote name='mkaminski100' post='51712' date='Nov 30 2009, 09:03 PM']Common Rail or TDCI?
TDCI was a test field for Ford and Delphi up to around 2006.
- TDCI injectors failures that were only resolved in 2006, both in Focus and Mondeo. Famous flashing glow plugs symbol. Delphi and diesel specialist are making fortune - each for £100 minimum.
- Delphi fuel pumps up to late 2003 failures due to wrong bearing material (it peels and blocks injectors which have to be replaced as well).

Not a TDCI related but what about dual mass fly wheels that fail even at 70k miles? Delphi made a conversion kit to install a standard flywheel with modified cluch, both for Mondeo and now Focus.
Forums are full of those so I don't have to prove it. Ford was a pioneer in CR technology so they had to make many mistakes, but is should have taken them less than 4 years to fix them.[/quote]

Out of how many? Forums only report the small percentage of owners who are unhappy. If there was a forum with 1000 complaints about TDCI is that representative of the millions of TDCI units that run without fault? You can go to any forum that and will find complaints that TDCI is unreliable vs TDDI or that VW PD engines are better than VW Common rail. As regards flywheels failing, riding the clutch perhaps which makes them more prone to failing? Also most of the Jaguar and Land Rover diesels are Ford TDCI units-they seem to do ok. If TDCI was that unreliable I'm sure that consumer watchdogs would make more of the issue, but they do not as the issue is not widespread as some would have us believe. Again I come back to Transit tdci tech-if it was that unreliable white van would have jumped ship ages ago but he has not because it is reliable.
DavidUK
[quote name='focusdriver' timestamp='1259084124' post='50461']
I've had this car for a few days, it's a 55 plate which has done 80,000 miles.

I was expecting good mpg from this but so far I'm getting 37mpg - I do mostly motorway travelling and always set the cruise control to 80mph. I filled the tank this morning and the trip computer showed that I would do 407 miles.

Is this normal for this car? I was expecting 40-45mpg at least!

TIA [img]http://www.fordownersclub.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Thats very low.. Town driveing I get about 40-42 mpg. on a long run looking about 50-60 mpg.. If I dont go over 70 mph. I got ford focus 1.8 tdci mk2..

What I have found that the airfilter tends to get a blocked within six months. This causes performance lost. Pop in a new airfilter every six months.. £10 off ebay.

try redx.


Full Colour Version: Ford Focus 1.8 TDCi
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.

Warning: require_once(/var/www/applications/ipb/3.4.5/upload/sources/classes/class_email.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/applications/ipb/3.4.5/upload/lofiversion/ipsclass.php on line 1615