AdBlock Warning

Parts of this website do not function properly with AdBlock enabled on your device. To get the best user experience on our website, please disable Adblock for this website (domain) on your browser.


Flash

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

63 posts in this topic

Firstly you'll find Fords figures are formed on a rolling road not actual driving. This in mind, they wont have uphills to contend with, wind resistance, differing road surfaces. They also wont have any electricals on which undoubtedly you have. Tyre pressures affect MPG, fuel affects it even the damn weather affects it. Short answer is you will NEVER achieve near the figures quoted by Ford, well not unless you drive in a test area all the time. Worth remembering too, it can take a good 10,000 miles for a diesel engine to loosen up and get better mileages.

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

Do not waste your time...

They will do absolutely nothing about it and say to you what has already been said on here.

I enquired about mine when having a few niggles fixed and he gave me a booklet on how manufacturers achieve the MPG. Fascinating read that clarifies that the only way to meet the official fuel consumption figures is.............. Oh actually You wont ever !!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly you'll find Fords figures are formed on a rolling road not actual driving. This in mind, they wont have uphills to contend with, wind resistance, differing road surfaces. They also wont have any electricals on which undoubtedly you have. Tyre pressures affect MPG, fuel affects it even the damn weather affects it. Short answer is you will NEVER achieve near the figures quoted by Ford, well not unless you drive in a test area all the time. Worth remembering too, it can take a good 10,000 miles for a diesel engine to loosen up and get better mileages.

I'd heard that the same is true of petrol engines as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the same for any engine. Manufacturers dont get their figures on the road they get them in the test lab under ideal conditions. We as drivers never have ideal conditions because a) theres always weather b ) road surfaces differ rollers on a rolling road are nice and smooth, no excess of friction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To stand up for the fiestas economy.

I have a new 1.6 diesel, and last night i was doing an economy run and managed to get 96mpg, this was on a straight road over a distance of 20 miles, driving along mostly sitting behind a lorry. mostly on a motorway but also included pulling off and going through my local village, also the car was low on motion lotion hence the frugalness of the driving.

Again today i was driving economically and over a 125 mile trip which was 90% motorway and included crawling in traffic for 10 miles i got an average of 64mpg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALSO STANDING UP FOR FIESTA'S ECONOMY!!!

Having read the posts I have to say I'm very suprised at the MPG you lot are getting.

I have a Sea Grey Zetec S 1.6TDCi with street pack (including 17" wheels and tyres). My daily commute is a mix of dual carriageway and town driving. Overall mileage is approx 1200 miles.

Overall economy is 62MPG, falling to about 56 if i drive more "enthusiastically". In town I'm getting 54MPG easy. Even with my non eco wheels and tyres.

The posts seem to show you guys have low mileage. Remember that all engines need time to loosen up, and this is why the MPG improves with age.

Sure, I haven't reached 67MPG, but then I don't live in a lab. Perfectly happy with the above though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is interesting to hear the stories of higher performance - cheers guys.

I have now gone over 2000 miles and am still averaging just shy of 50mpg in my 1.4

Seems to be a big variance between different cars. Will let you know when I have taken mine back to the dealers.

Flash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Hi, What's up with Fusions? I thought it was a slightly bigger version of a Fiesta & smaller than a Focus, do they build Fusions with potential faults? are they known to go wrong more often than most?

Cheers,

Malc.

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)

Hi,

I bought my Fiesta diesel for exactly the same reasons. I'm getting exactly 48.5mpg whether i'm on a run or around town, whether i drive hard or frugally!!!! I've done 1000miles in 3 weeks and still it's the same. To say I feel misled is a gross understatement!!!! I took the car back to Ford's and they said not to take any notice of the figures in the handbook!!!! Well, I purchased the vehicle on the basis of it's fuel economy figures!! The salesman didn't tell me not to take any notice of the fuel consumption figures, cos if he did, it would've been adios amigo!!!!

The sales manager has agreed to take my vehicle for a week to do his own checks. Working out mpg in between filling the car up is hardly rocket science!

I must say though, that I'm extremely disappointed and will be contacting Trading Standards. I do not agree with other posters who say that all manufacturers are the same. I've owned brand new Peugeots, Renaullts and Alfa Romeos and they do exactly what they say on the tin!!!

My Renaullt did 55.5mpg combined, my Alfa 166 does 35mpg on unleaded and 25 mpg on LPG and that's a huge car!!! I think that this is a Ford problem. I'll explain, I haven't owned a Ford since the late 90's, but I was given a Ford Focus just before Christmas as a courtesy car by my insurance company because my Peugeot was involved in an accident.

The 1.6 Petrol struggled to do 30mpg, needless to say I continued to use my Alfa instead!! My new Fiesta struggles to do 50mpg, a chap who owns a 1.2 Fiesta Zetec close by me is struggling to achieve, wait for it.........25mpg (Christ it's a 1200cc not a 3.0 V6!!!!!!!!) around town (the book states 38mpg). The diesel Focus my local dealership has loaned me does 40mpg (the book states 60mpg combined!!!).

How can Ford get away with this? They are quoting figures that people are basing their purchasing decision on, yet the reality is 40% on average worse than quoted!! Let's do the maths shall we? The little economy carbon footprint ratings guide states (quite clearly) that covering 12000 miles will cost around £900. To be more precise it'll cost £1200!!!!! They don't tell you that do they?? That extra £300 would pay for my insurance and car tax. And have enough to take my bird to the pictures and buy a fish supper!!!

I am going to see my local Trading Standards people tomorrow. Basically, as a reasonable person, I am prepared to give Ford's the opportunity to it seems wave a magic wand and solve the consumption problem. I would have been better off buying a petrol Alfa Mito (OK so it's a £1000 more) and converting to lpg. Therefore achieving 40mpg on LPG which represents nearly 75mpg compared to the cost of unleaded.

It'll be interesting to see what my local trading standards say........maybe I'll give the guys at watchdog a ring.

Let me know how your cars compare, Kiddercocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on my fiesta titanium i have a 1.4 petrol, and its doing about 44.7 at the mo, which i thought was pretty good .... is it good???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I bought my Fiesta diesel for exactly the same reasons. I'm getting exactly 48.5mpg whether i'm on a run or around town, whether i drive hard or frugally!!!! I've done 1000miles in 3 weeks and still it's the same. To say I feel misled is a gross understatement!!!! I took the car back to Ford's and they said not to take any notice of the figures in the handbook!!!! Well, I purchased the vehicle on the basis of it's fuel economy figures!! The salesman didn't tell me not to take any notice of the fuel consumption figures, cos if he did, it would've been adios amigo!!!!

The sales manager has agreed to take my vehicle for a week to do his own checks. Working out mpg in between filling the car up is hardly rocket science!

I must say though, that I'm extremely disappointed and will be contacting Trading Standards. I do not agree with other posters who say that all manufacturers are the same. I've owned brand new Peugeots, Renaullts and Alfa Romeos and they do exactly what they say on the tin!!!

My Renaullt did 55.5mpg combined, my Alfa 166 does 35mpg on unleaded and 25 mpg on LPG and that's a huge car!!! I think that this is a Ford problem. I'll explain, I haven't owned a Ford since the late 90's, but I was given a Ford Focus just before Christmas as a courtesy car by my insurance company because my Peugeot was involved in an accident.

The 1.6 Petrol struggled to do 30mpg, needless to say I continued to use my Alfa instead!! My new Fiesta struggles to do 50mpg, a chap who owns a 1.2 Fiesta Zetec close by me is struggling to achieve, wait for it.........25mpg (Christ it's a 1200cc not a 3.0 V6!!!!!!!!) around town (the book states 38mpg). The diesel Focus my local dealership has loaned me does 40mpg (the book states 60mpg combined!!!).

How can Ford get away with this? They are quoting figures that people are basing their purchasing decision on, yet the reality is 40% on average worse than quoted!! Let's do the maths shall we? The little economy carbon footprint ratings guide states (quite clearly) that covering 12000 miles will cost around £900. To be more precise it'll cost £1200!!!!! They don't tell you that do they?? That extra £300 would pay for my insurance and car tax. And have enough to take my bird to the pictures and buy a fish supper!!!

I am going to see my local Trading Standards people tomorrow. Basically, as a reasonable person, I am prepared to give Ford's the opportunity to it seems wave a magic wand and solve the consumption problem. I would have been better off buying a petrol Alfa Mito (OK so it's a £1000 more) and converting to lpg. Therefore achieving 40mpg on LPG which represents nearly 75mpg compared to the cost of unleaded.

It'll be interesting to see what my local trading standards say........maybe I'll give the guys at watchdog a ring.

Let me know how your cars compare, Kiddercocker

I think your missing the point.

The MPG tests are done to government regulations and in strict lab conditions. So the official government figures are only there, and i mean only there, for comparison. Yes it appears !Removed! misleading but all they are saying is that if you drive in these near perfect conditions then you can achieve such and such

I was given a booklet from fords about mpg problems and it really does open you eyes. I doubt you will ever hear a salesman say yes you can easily achieve these figures.

You just have to use them as comparisons between models and or manufacturers.

Perhaps some models are easier to get to replicate the lab conditions so the MPG doesnt seem as bad. i dont know why some models seem to get near the official figures.

My wifes 1.6 tdci titanium is doing 51.6mpg no matter how its driven. im happy with that but also a little curious as to why some people with the same car can achieve much higher figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have averaged 52mpg for the last month, and I haven't managed to get the car to dip below 45mpg (actual - not on the onboard computer) when thrashing it a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

I bought my Fiesta diesel for exactly the same reasons. I'm getting exactly 48.5mpg whether i'm on a run or around town, whether i drive hard or frugally!!!! I've done 1000miles in 3 weeks and still it's the same. To say I feel misled is a gross understatement!!!! I took the car back to Ford's and they said not to take any notice of the figures in the handbook!!!! Well, I purchased the vehicle on the basis of it's fuel economy figures!! The salesman didn't tell me not to take any notice of the fuel consumption figures, cos if he did, it would've been adios amigo!!!!

The sales manager has agreed to take my vehicle for a week to do his own checks. Working out mpg in between filling the car up is hardly rocket science!

I must say though, that I'm extremely disappointed and will be contacting Trading Standards. I do not agree with other posters who say that all manufacturers are the same. I've owned brand new Peugeots, Renaullts and Alfa Romeos and they do exactly what they say on the tin!!!

My Renaullt did 55.5mpg combined, my Alfa 166 does 35mpg on unleaded and 25 mpg on LPG and that's a huge car!!! I think that this is a Ford problem. I'll explain, I haven't owned a Ford since the late 90's, but I was given a Ford Focus just before Christmas as a courtesy car by my insurance company because my Peugeot was involved in an accident.

The 1.6 Petrol struggled to do 30mpg, needless to say I continued to use my Alfa instead!! My new Fiesta struggles to do 50mpg, a chap who owns a 1.2 Fiesta Zetec close by me is struggling to achieve, wait for it.........25mpg (Christ it's a 1200cc not a 3.0 V6!!!!!!!!) around town (the book states 38mpg). The diesel Focus my local dealership has loaned me does 40mpg (the book states 60mpg combined!!!).

How can Ford get away with this? They are quoting figures that people are basing their purchasing decision on, yet the reality is 40% on average worse than quoted!! Let's do the maths shall we? The little economy carbon footprint ratings guide states (quite clearly) that covering 12000 miles will cost around £900. To be more precise it'll cost £1200!!!!! They don't tell you that do they?? That extra £300 would pay for my insurance and car tax. And have enough to take my bird to the pictures and buy a fish supper!!!

I am going to see my local Trading Standards people tomorrow. Basically, as a reasonable person, I am prepared to give Ford's the opportunity to it seems wave a magic wand and solve the consumption problem. I would have been better off buying a petrol Alfa Mito (OK so it's a £1000 more) and converting to lpg. Therefore achieving 40mpg on LPG which represents nearly 75mpg compared to the cost of unleaded.

It'll be interesting to see what my local trading standards say........maybe I'll give the guys at watchdog a ring.

Let me know how your cars compare, Kiddercocker

Be interested to hear how you got on with Trading Standards.

Have now gone past 3,500 miles and the best return so far is 52.... averaging 49!

Flash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who in their right mind says they purchase a car because the quoted mileage was THE reason for buying it? For one, it's a KNOWN fact that claimed mileages NEVER achieve the figure. There is also a statement that ACTUAL fuel figures will be down to individual driving styles, road conditions, weather conditions etc so whinging that 'we' are not achieving the quoted figures is NOT acceptible. It would be more advisable to do a bit research before venturing into purchasing a particular model of car after all, would you just buy a house without first viewing it and looking into the surrounding area?

Lets face it, if you were after a high mpg vehicle a quick search online would find you other vehicles with higher mpg figures that a 1.4 tdi fiesta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 1.6 zetec S is giving me about 39mpg but my trips are 99% of the time, less than 10 min trips everyday, I wonder what sort of mpg I will be getting when I am fully mountuned up in a couple of weeks, although its still a saving from my 4.5ltr merc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who in their right mind says they purchase a car because the quoted mileage was THE reason for buying it? For one, it's a KNOWN fact that claimed mileages NEVER achieve the figure. There is also a statement that ACTUAL fuel figures will be down to individual driving styles, road conditions, weather conditions etc so whinging that 'we' are not achieving the quoted figures is NOT acceptible. It would be more advisable to do a bit research before venturing into purchasing a particular model of car after all, would you just buy a house without first viewing it and looking into the surrounding area?

Lets face it, if you were after a high mpg vehicle a quick search online would find you other vehicles with higher mpg figures that a 1.4 tdi fiesta.

Surely you have just contradicted yourself - "Lets face it, if you were after a high mpg vehicle a quick search online would find you other vehicles with higher mpg figures that a 1.4 tdi fiesta" - but you also point out we would be stupid to do that.

As for your main points - i do fully accept that it would be very naiive to make this kind of purchase on the quoted figures alone. Having said that - with the current financial climate leading more and more people (me included) to make decisions heavily based on running costs etc - do you not agree that to freely publish figures so far off the mark in the real world is only asking for the kind of "whinging" that obviously bugs you. how would you suggest I look for a car then, and get a good idea of the costs, if I cannot take anything said by the manufacturer as accurate?

My own annoyance is not helped by the fact I have previously owned a 2.0 TDi Golf. With your knowledge on cars.....would you expect that Fiesta to have a better or worse MPG than the Golf? Same driver, same driving conditions and ignoring quoted figures from Ford or VW.

Wouldn't the world be a dull place if we all had the same opinion!

Flash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a Eco car, then buy a little crappy eco box. Simple really.

As for your question about the Golf, i'd expect the golf to be better because you don't have to work the engine as hard to get the same level of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely you have just contradicted yourself - "Lets face it, if you were after a high mpg vehicle a quick search online would find you other vehicles with higher mpg figures that a 1.4 tdi fiesta" - but you also point out we would be stupid to do that.

As for your main points - i do fully accept that it would be very naiive to make this kind of purchase on the quoted figures alone. Having said that - with the current financial climate leading more and more people (me included) to make decisions heavily based on running costs etc - do you not agree that to freely publish figures so far off the mark in the real world is only asking for the kind of "whinging" that obviously bugs you. how would you suggest I look for a car then, and get a good idea of the costs, if I cannot take anything said by the manufacturer as accurate?

My own annoyance is not helped by the fact I have previously owned a 2.0 TDi Golf. With your knowledge on cars.....would you expect that Fiesta to have a better or worse MPG than the Golf? Same driver, same driving conditions and ignoring quoted figures from Ford or VW.

Wouldn't the world be a dull place if we all had the same opinion!

Flash

Not once have i claimed it would be stupid to go online and search for "another vehicle other than a fiesta with a higher mpg factor". A quick check on the website i have listed previously in this section will show you how the fuel figures are achieved, meaning that the figures will never be replicated with real, "on the road driving" conditions. Fuel mpg figures between a Golf 2 litre TDi and a 1.4 tdi Fiesta can't be compaired because the two cars use totally different engine systems albeit one being a 2 litre and the other being a 1.4. Smaller engines do not always mean better consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want a Eco car, then buy a little crappy eco box. Simple really.

As for your question about the Golf, i'd expect the golf to be better because you don't have to work the engine as hard to get the same level of power.

Fair point on the Golf - think in hindsight the 1.4 is just not powerful enough!

Disagree on the eco box though. Size wise I couldn't (didn't want to) go much smaller than a Fiesta.....and comparing all of the information available - the Fiesta is allegedly still a front runner. If it turns out that each car is the same proportion down on the Combined Cycle figures....then fine, all things are equal and you take your pick. It seems from this thread though that the Ford actual performance is further away from the advertised level than some other manufacturers.

Just want to point out - I am still very happy with my choice, the Fiesta is achieving the goal of saving me money from my last car (Meganne R26). Another factor on my personal choice was the car is a private lease....and the Fiesta was cheaper (monthly) than some of the other cars in the sector (Mazda 2, Corsa, Ibiza etc). So all in I am still getting a saving.......just surprised at how much lessit is to what was calculated when making the initial decision.

Flash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want a Eco car, then buy a little crappy eco box. Simple really.

As for your question about the Golf, i'd expect the golf to be better because you don't have to work the engine as hard to get the same level of power.

Just out of curiosity.....the golf I had was advertised with a combined cycle economy of 57 - from which I averaged about 51.

The Fiesta advertised at 67 - from which I am getting (at best) 51!

I take all the points about research and getting an eco car etc - but, for me at least, the above figures kind of highlight the point I was trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual fuel figures are calculated by a government body, not ford.ford supply a car and the 'body' actually test it then supply ford with the figures as they do with other vehicle manufacturers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just gone over 4000 miles now in the 1.6 TDCI titanium and we are averaging 57mpg, mainly journeys of around 10 - 14 miles. Very pleased with this to be honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just gone over 4000 miles now in the 1.6 TDCI titanium and we are averaging 57mpg, mainly journeys of around 10 - 14 miles. Very pleased with this to be honest

I've done just over 2000 miles in mine now and averaging 40 mpg based on journeys of 10-12 miles.

I'm not complaining as the engine is still tight but I'm hoping to get the quoted 47 mpg average eventually. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Done nearly 4000 miles in my econetic and the computer is telling me I'm getting 60.9mpg, which is pretty amazing stuff. No where near what the marketing figures are but I'm very happy with it. I do about 50/50 motorway and town driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Done nearly 4000 miles in my econetic and the computer is telling me I'm getting 60.9mpg, which is pretty amazing stuff. No where near what the marketing figures are but I'm very happy with it. I do about 50/50 motorway and town driving.

ive done just over 250miles in my 1.4tdci ,mostly doing about 15-20 miles a day and my trip computer says im doing 61mpg , so im pretty pleased so far

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