• Savings Up to 15% Off For Members
      Savings Up to 15% Off For Members
    • 1000's Of Fords For Sale
      1000's Of Fords For Sale
    • Get Your Club gear
      Get Your Club gear
    • Join Premium & Save
      Join Premium & Save
    • Huge Range of Ford Parts
      Huge Range of Ford Parts
    • Share Your Car Experience
      Share Your Car Experience


Flash

New Fiesta Economy ***Poss Rant Alert***

63 posts in this topic

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 B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

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 B)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 B)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 B)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!

There allowed to do it as all cars are tested from the same standard. Yes the figures are unobtainable but you just have to use the same set of figures for each car to compare

So youll find most manufacturers are probably 20% out so knock that figure off all cars whether it be a VW, Alfa, porsche etc and whether it is a 1.25 or 2.5 or 5.0 litre

In saying all that, i still drive my clio 2005 1.5dci 100bhp and it never ever drops below 54mpg no matter how fast i drive it and on what roads. On the motorway i can get 62mpg if i stay between 60 and 70mph. Now those figures are not that far off the official figures. So i suppose sometimes you can drop lucky

ill keep you all posted as to what the wife and i get out of the fiesta 1.6TDCI but remember ive found the fuel computer to be 2mpg out. Tested it 3 times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There allowed to do it as all cars are tested from the same standard. Yes the figures are unobtainable but you just have to use the same set of figures for each car to compare

So youll find most manufacturers are probably 20% out so knock that figure off all cars whether it be a VW, Alfa, porsche etc and whether it is a 1.25 or 2.5 or 5.0 litre

In saying all that, i still drive my clio 2005 1.5dci 100bhp and it never ever drops below 54mpg no matter how fast i drive it and on what roads. On the motorway i can get 62mpg if i stay between 60 and 70mph. Now those figures are not that far off the official figures. So i suppose sometimes you can drop lucky

ill keep you all posted as to what the wife and i get out of the fiesta 1.6TDCI but remember ive found the fuel computer to be 2mpg out. Tested it 3 times.

On a positive note my 1.6 has done 1100 miles now and I'm getting 40 mpg.

This is a combination of town / country driving but the book says 47.1 so I'm a bit lower at present.

However, it does take a few thousand miles (allegedly) for the engine to bed in and so I'm prepared to be quite patient with it.

When we went to Suffolk last week I got 44mpg and there was a lot of 70mph motorway driving in that.

I reckon you're right about the fuel computer though--best to check the old fashioned way!! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I had a brand spanking new one of those whilst in the I.O.M working recently, what a superb motor, I loved it, my own car is a Focus, anyway whilst thrashing it around the TT course for a few laps (as much as the snow and ice allowed) I couldent get it to show below 61 mpg, I suspect your car is faulty, my old 1.6 tdci

focus on long trips 600miles round regurlaly returned 72mpg when driven concervatively with ecconomy in mind

Brian :

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiesta 1.6TDCI 2800 miles and upto 51.2 mpg with mostly town driving around gateshead and a little a1 and motorway.. its improving slowly with normal day to day driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've now done just over 3200 miles and am still getting around 48mpg on average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've now done just over 3200 miles and am still getting around 48mpg on average.

Try resetting your trip computer/mpg status back to 0 and see what happens. also try maually calculating it as it seems to be about 2mpg out mainly. ive done this 3 times and every time its been 2 mpg out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try resetting your trip computer/mpg status back to 0 and see what happens. also try maually calculating it as it seems to be about 2mpg out mainly. ive done this 3 times and every time its been 2 mpg out

In car computer is saying 44mpg, worked mine out myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In car computer is saying 44mpg, worked mine out myself

I'm surprised that trading standards don't have a say on misleading fuel economy figures, if I sold you a bag of potatoes & told you there was 67 in it, you'd expect what was advertised, not 47 just because my neighbour's selling them at 47 per bag.

To me, that is a load of waffle, if they advertise 67 mpg, they should be able to tell you how you could achieve a similar figure.

We have a 2005 Fusion 2, 1.6 auto we bought 6 months ago & the mileage per gallon is a lot lower than the 1.6 Honda Accord auto we part ex'd for it, but we're stuck with it now.

Regards,

Malc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm surprised that trading standards don't have a say on misleading fuel economy figures, if I sold you a bag of potatoes & told you there was 67 in it, you'd expect what was advertised, not 47 just because my neighbour's selling them at 47 per bag.

To me, that is a load of waffle, if they advertise 67 mpg, they should be able to tell you how you could achieve a similar figure.

We have a 2005 Fusion 2, 1.6 auto we bought 6 months ago & the mileage per gallon is a lot lower than the 1.6 Honda Accord auto we part ex'd for it, but we're stuck with it now.

Regards,

Malc.

Its not the poor mpg i would be worried about, it would be the fact that you bought a FUSION.

As for the mpg well we all know the truth about the figures by now so knock about 20% off the claimed mpg and just use the official figures for comparison.

enough said really unless someone wants to start a petition up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

I can report mine has crept up to 51 for a long Motorway journey (about 250 miles).

I think the next fill though is going to report a fall back to the 49 mark. I am going to take it back for the garage to run it over the diagnostics....see if that gives any joy.

Flash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now