62 replies to this topic

[Flash]

Hi all

On seperate posts I have indicated that I have a New 1.4 TDCi and on the whole - am very impressed with it....

HOWEVER

The economy is SO FAR away from the claimed....sorry, claimed is not good enough.....Advertised MPG from Ford and all magazines that I can see this being a real bug-bear for me, so I wanted to start a new topic to keep you informed.

The Advertised MPG of 67 was THE reason behind me getting this car. My aim is to save cash.....most new small cars are pretty much of a muchness (Sorry, crap saying I know) - but the Ford MPG was a clincher (Secondary came the fresh design and handling of course!!)

I have been told, along with others on this board obviously, that it should improve over time. While I think this shouldn't be the case - I am willing to give it a go. If the figure does not improve from it's current level - I have decided I am going to start writing to whoever I think should be listening - this will probably waste my time, and more importantly theirs - but I do not find it acceptable that they can advertise one figure and yet the reality is SO much different.

I also don't accept the argument "The advertised MPG is under strict controlled conditions" as explained by my local dealer. As far as I know there are 3 figures quoted by Ford (and magazines) - Urban, Extra Urban and Combined. Again, my understanding is that the Combined is "supposed" to reflect real driving conditions / situations - so should be a good reflection.

So, as we stand at the moment - I have just gone past 1,500 miles and I am currently averaging 47MPG. By my quick reckoning - this is about 200 miles per tank short of the advertised.....NOT ACCEPTABLE!!

Well, thanks for getting this far. I apologise if these seems a pointless rant over something we should all just accept - if so, thanks for your time and please feel free to ignore any further posts under this heading. Otherwise I will keep you updated as to the ongoing economy of my little motor (my god, how dull does that sound? but it may prove useful for any prospective buyers doing some research) and also any responses I may (or may not) get from anyone in authority.

Cheers

Flash

[KeithC]

Hi all

On seperate posts I have indicated that I have a New 1.4 TDCi and on the whole - am very impressed with it....

HOWEVER

The economy is SO FAR away from the claimed....sorry, claimed is not good enough.....Advertised MPG from Ford and all magazines that I can see this being a real bug-bear for me, so I wanted to start a new topic to keep you informed.

The Advertised MPG of 67 was THE reason behind me getting this car. My aim is to save cash.....most new small cars are pretty much of a muchness (Sorry, crap saying I know) - but the Ford MPG was a clincher (Secondary came the fresh design and handling of course!!)

I have been told, along with others on this board obviously, that it should improve over time. While I think this shouldn't be the case - I am willing to give it a go. If the figure does not improve from it's current level - I have decided I am going to start writing to whoever I think should be listening - this will probably waste my time, and more importantly theirs - but I do not find it acceptable that they can advertise one figure and yet the reality is SO much different.

I also don't accept the argument "The advertised MPG is under strict controlled conditions" as explained by my local dealer. As far as I know there are 3 figures quoted by Ford (and magazines) - Urban, Extra Urban and Combined. Again, my understanding is that the Combined is "supposed" to reflect real driving conditions / situations - so should be a good reflection.

So, as we stand at the moment - I have just gone past 1,500 miles and I am currently averaging 47MPG. By my quick reckoning - this is about 200 miles per tank short of the advertised.....NOT ACCEPTABLE!!

Well, thanks for getting this far. I apologise if these seems a pointless rant over something we should all just accept - if so, thanks for your time and please feel free to ignore any further posts under this heading. Otherwise I will keep you updated as to the ongoing economy of my little motor (my god, how dull does that sound? but it may prove useful for any prospective buyers doing some research) and also any responses I may (or may not) get from anyone in authority.

Cheers

Flash

Quite a few years ago, a colleague bought a new Nissan or Renault (can't remember which now but not important) diesel saloon, based on it's MPG. He was doing a lot of motorway miles and couldn't get near the quoted MPG that the car was supposed to do. He tried everything to hit the target, ie driving frugally on the motorway etc etc. he had the car in the dealers, rigged up to diagnostics numerous times without any faults showing. He argued till he was blue in the face, but all they would say is the car was inside the parameters set and there's nothing they could or would do. He tried rejecting the car and failed. He ended up cutting his losses and selling the car on.

As far as I'm aware, the official figures are no way guaranteed to be replicated and should only be used as a measuring stick and i'd be surprised, unless there's something wrong with the car, if you make any headway with the dealers. As I stated in the other thread, the figures are done under test circumstances which don't portray natural driving. That's the way they do them, whether it's right or wrong is debatable, but that's the way it is.

What they say is, they can only be used as a comparison over other car and not a yardstick to how many miles the car will do on a tank of fuel.

The only advantage of picking the Fiesta over other cars whose figures were less, is that you're more than likely still have the car with the better figures, as the others you compared we no doubt fail to hit the official figures as well.

have a look at these links.

One

Another

And another

[dja55]

Hi all

On seperate posts I have indicated that I have a New 1.4 TDCi and on the whole - am very impressed with it....

HOWEVER

The economy is SO FAR away from the claimed....sorry, claimed is not good enough.....Advertised MPG from Ford and all magazines that I can see this being a real bug-bear for me, so I wanted to start a new topic to keep you informed.

The Advertised MPG of 67 was THE reason behind me getting this car. My aim is to save cash.....most new small cars are pretty much of a muchness (Sorry, crap saying I know) - but the Ford MPG was a clincher (Secondary came the fresh design and handling of course!!)

I have been told, along with others on this board obviously, that it should improve over time. While I think this shouldn't be the case - I am willing to give it a go. If the figure does not improve from it's current level - I have decided I am going to start writing to whoever I think should be listening - this will probably waste my time, and more importantly theirs - but I do not find it acceptable that they can advertise one figure and yet the reality is SO much different.

I also don't accept the argument "The advertised MPG is under strict controlled conditions" as explained by my local dealer. As far as I know there are 3 figures quoted by Ford (and magazines) - Urban, Extra Urban and Combined. Again, my understanding is that the Combined is "supposed" to reflect real driving conditions / situations - so should be a good reflection.

So, as we stand at the moment - I have just gone past 1,500 miles and I am currently averaging 47MPG. By my quick reckoning - this is about 200 miles per tank short of the advertised.....NOT ACCEPTABLE!!

Well, thanks for getting this far. I apologise if these seems a pointless rant over something we should all just accept - if so, thanks for your time and please feel free to ignore any further posts under this heading. Otherwise I will keep you updated as to the ongoing economy of my little motor (my god, how dull does that sound? but it may prove useful for any prospective buyers doing some research) and also any responses I may (or may not) get from anyone in authority.

Cheers

Flash

My new fiesta 1.6TDCI is only doing 47 MPG. Well below claimed MPG which i always thought it might. Have done nearly 3000 miles in it and to be honest ive given up driving like a slow pathetic middle aged git jus to try and get better fuel consumption.
The trip computer/fuel soncumption read out is actually 2MPG out as ive calculated it myself so you could say 49MPG
Go into your local dealer and ask for a copy of "The Fuel Consumption Challenge"..its so ridiculous its almost hilarious. I gained a copy when i complained. The ford staff have all been on courses to talk to the customer, i.e receptionist first just to make sure their is a problem. "Dont just hand the job to the workshop-talk to the customer about their driving habits etc etc.

In a nutshell you havent got a leg to stand on but the saving grace is that all manufacturers are a bunch of lying t.ssers.
God help anyone who buys the Econetic version just for the MPG...you wont get it

Dont forget to wind up your windows, dont go too fast, dont accelerate rapidly and of course the clincher....take the roof rack off. Watch your fuel consumption disappear...NOT

[Russ]

Hi all

On seperate posts I have indicated that I have a New 1.4 TDCi and on the whole - am very impressed with it....

HOWEVER

The economy is SO FAR away from the claimed....sorry, claimed is not good enough.....Advertised MPG from Ford and all magazines that I can see this being a real bug-bear for me, so I wanted to start a new topic to keep you informed.

The Advertised MPG of 67 was THE reason behind me getting this car. My aim is to save cash.....most new small cars are pretty much of a muchness (Sorry, crap saying I know) - but the Ford MPG was a clincher (Secondary came the fresh design and handling of course!!)

I have been told, along with others on this board obviously, that it should improve over time. While I think this shouldn't be the case - I am willing to give it a go. If the figure does not improve from it's current level - I have decided I am going to start writing to whoever I think should be listening - this will probably waste my time, and more importantly theirs - but I do not find it acceptable that they can advertise one figure and yet the reality is SO much different.

I also don't accept the argument "The advertised MPG is under strict controlled conditions" as explained by my local dealer. As far as I know there are 3 figures quoted by Ford (and magazines) - Urban, Extra Urban and Combined. Again, my understanding is that the Combined is "supposed" to reflect real driving conditions / situations - so should be a good reflection.

So, as we stand at the moment - I have just gone past 1,500 miles and I am currently averaging 47MPG. By my quick reckoning - this is about 200 miles per tank short of the advertised.....NOT ACCEPTABLE!!

Well, thanks for getting this far. I apologise if these seems a pointless rant over something we should all just accept - if so, thanks for your time and please feel free to ignore any further posts under this heading. Otherwise I will keep you updated as to the ongoing economy of my little motor (my god, how dull does that sound? but it may prove useful for any prospective buyers doing some research) and also any responses I may (or may not) get from anyone in authority.

Cheers

Flash

Go to the DVLA website and you`ll see how the figures are achieved, once you understand how they get the figures you'll then understand the mpg stated by manufacturers will never ever be achieved.

[Nipz]

Go to the DVLA website and you`ll see how the figures are achieved, once you understand how they get the figures you'll then understand the mpg stated by manufacturers will never ever be achieved.

Could you post a link? just looked and can find nothing!

[Flash]

I do understand that it would be ambitious to expect to match to figures......what really grates me is just how far off they are yet are still permitted to advertise!

[Russ]

Could you post a link? just looked and can find nothing!

Been trying to find it since i posted lol, i posted a link in the forum about it a few weeks ago and trying to find it!!

[Russ]

Been trying to find it since i posted lol, i posted a link in the forum about it a few weeks ago and trying to find it!!

Ok found the link ( and sorry it wasnt dvla )> read this first.........Urban cycle
The urban test cycle is carried out in a laboratory at an ambient temperature of 20°C to 30°C on a rolling road from a cold start, i.e. the engine has not run for several hours. The cycle consists of a series of accelerations, steady speeds, decelerations and idling. Maximum speed is 31 mph (50 km/h), average speed 12 mph (19 km/h) and the distance covered is 2.5 miles (4 km). The cycle is shown as Part One in the diagram below.

Extra-urban cycle
This cycle is conducted immediately following the urban cycle and consists of roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder accelerations, decelerations, and some idling. Maximum speed is 75 mph (120 km/h), average speed is 39 mph (63 km/h) and the distance covered is 4.3 miles (7 km). The cycle is shown as Part Two in the diagram below.

Combined Fuel Consumption Figure
The combined figure presented is for the urban and the extra-urban cycle together. It is therefore an average of the two parts of the test, weighted by the distances covered in each part.


taken from > fuel consumption testing

[Flash]

Cheers - those descriptions are very useful.

Looking at the What Car Website....the 3 figures for the 1.4 are:-

Town mpg 53.3
Out of Town mpg 80.7
Average mpg 67.3

By all accounts - people on here seem to be getting less than 50 - and that is after a few k's on the engine and some very varied driving styles....surely we cannot all be ragging the thing to within an inch of it's life.

[KeithC]

Cheers - those descriptions are very useful.

Looking at the What Car Website....the 3 figures for the 1.4 are:-

Town mpg 53.3
Out of Town mpg 80.7
Average mpg 67.3

By all accounts - people on here seem to be getting less than 50 - and that is after a few k's on the engine and some very varied driving styles....surely we cannot all be ragging the thing to within an inch of it's life.

Those are more than likely the official figures Ford have given them.

As has already been stated, driving normally on the road will never replicate the same MPG as done during test conditions on rollers. They have to have specific test conditions otherwise they would be uncomparable with other manufacturers if sone on the road, as all roads and drivers aren't the same.

They are to be used as a guide and not definitive figures.

[hendrix]

Car manfaturers have been doing this for years try to match 0-60 time they quote (on a track cant ecourage racing). Unless you have a spare stig youll struggle no matter what boy racers claim. MPG figures are there to tempt you in as suddenly everyones watching there pockets. We all know there unreal.Yet guess what you all keep buying the cars anyhow. the only way well change the way its done is not to buy the cars. Untill then they will keep lying because they get away with it.(this includes all mnfrs of motorcycles as well as cars).

[davethescoot]

I've had my 1.25 zetec just over 2 months, with so far , less than 1000miles.Ok.. its still 'tight', and 'running in', but I agree with earlier posts, it does seem to 'drink the juice' for a small car.

I'm sure it will improve...........hope so, nice looker, and well built little car, I like it !!

Dave

[Flash]

Don't get me wrong - I really do like the car. Also, if you accept that all manufacturers are doing the same - then we should still benefit from a Fiesta quoted at 67 rather than a.n.other quoted at 55 (for example)

What I am going to try and find out though is how they (not just Ford) are allowed to use such (accepted) misleading figures in their literature. Surely this goes against some kind of Trading Standards guides. There must be paramaters that they are required to stay within (or they may as well quote 100 mpg) - I am just curious to find whether this is +/- 30%

Please also don't assume I am simply very naiive on this - I have had a large No of cars that averaged from as low as 18mpg to 50+ ..... I have honestly been surprised that this Fiesta, ignoring the claimed 67 for a sec, is not getting any higher than 47!!

[sussex]

My 1.4 petrol new fiesta is giving me between 35 and 39mpg at best. I drive the same if not better than I did in my mk6 1.4 petrol and get fewer miles per tank in what should be a lighter car. Ive done nearly 4k miles in mine and most of my work commute is dual carridgeway and motorway.

[KeithC]

Don't get me wrong - I really do like the car. Also, if you accept that all manufacturers are doing the same - then we should still benefit from a Fiesta quoted at 67 rather than a.n.other quoted at 55 (for example)

What I am going to try and find out though is how they (not just Ford) are allowed to use such (accepted) misleading figures in their literature. Surely this goes against some kind of Trading Standards guides. There must be paramaters that they are required to stay within (or they may as well quote 100 mpg) - I am just curious to find whether this is +/- 30%

Please also don't assume I am simply very naiive on this - I have had a large No of cars that averaged from as low as 18mpg to 50+ ..... I have honestly been surprised that this Fiesta, ignoring the claimed 67 for a sec, is not getting any higher than 47!!

I do agree with you, they shouldn't be using those figures to sell cars, especially in this day and age when the figures they use are so far out of reach. What we have to remember also, is that these cars are test drove for thousands of miles on various roads in various conditions before they get to the consumers, like us, so they will have a good idea how many mpg the cars will do in the real world, away from the test restraints the figures are logged from.