Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#31 blahblahblah

blahblahblah

    Newbie

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Ford Model: Fiesta
  • Location:

Posted 25 February 2009 - 02:21 PM

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!

Have something to contribute?

Sign in or register to start a topic...

#32 Flash

Flash

    Member

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Ford Model: New 1.4 TDCi Style +
  • Location:

Posted 25 February 2009 - 02:56 PM

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

#33 Malc Tulloch

Malc Tulloch

    Newbie

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Ford Model: 2005 Fusion 2

Posted 26 February 2009 - 03:14 PM

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.

#34 kiddercocker

kiddercocker

    Newbie

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Ford Model: fiesta 1.4 TDCi

Posted 25 March 2009 - 05:30 PM

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

#35 johnnymac16

johnnymac16

    Feet Under The Table

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 370 posts
  • Ford Model: Fiesta Titanium X

Posted 25 March 2009 - 06:35 PM

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???

#36 dja55

dja55

    Settling In Well

  • New Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Ford Model: fiesta 2009 1.6TDCI titanium
  • Location:

Posted 25 March 2009 - 06:45 PM

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.

#37 Inked

Inked

    Feet Under The Table

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Ford Model: Focus Titanium 2.0
  • Year: 2008
  • Location: Buckinghamshire

Posted 25 March 2009 - 07:09 PM

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.

#38 Flash

Flash

    Member

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Ford Model: New 1.4 TDCi Style +
  • Location:

Posted 26 March 2009 - 09:16 AM

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

#39 Russ

Russ

    Feet Under The Table

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 293 posts
  • Ford Model: Fiesta 1.4i zetec

Posted 26 March 2009 - 09:48 AM

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.

#40 MichellefromEssex

MichellefromEssex

    Too much time on the boards

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 898 posts
  • Ford Model: Zetec S Mountune
  • Location:

Posted 26 March 2009 - 02:36 PM

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.

#41 Flash

Flash

    Member

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Ford Model: New 1.4 TDCi Style +
  • Location:

Posted 26 March 2009 - 03:27 PM

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

#42 Mark M.K

Mark M.K

    FOC Supporter

  • FOC Supporters
  • 1,467 posts
  • Ford Model: 1.6 Fiesta Titanium
  • Year: 2010
  • Location: Buckinghamshire

Posted 26 March 2009 - 03:34 PM

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.

#43 Russ

Russ

    Feet Under The Table

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 293 posts
  • Ford Model: Fiesta 1.4i zetec

Posted 27 March 2009 - 01:58 AM

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.

#44 Flash

Flash

    Member

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Ford Model: New 1.4 TDCi Style +
  • Location:

Posted 27 March 2009 - 10:20 AM

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

#45 Flash

Flash

    Member

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Ford Model: New 1.4 TDCi Style +
  • Location:

Posted 27 March 2009 - 10:32 AM

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.

Have something to contribute?

Sign in or register to start a topic...


Not what you're looking for?

Register now, we have a huge community of enthusiasts to answer any questions you might have



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users