Ford Focus ST3 MPG

[the_cheeky_badger]

Hi all!

I'm new to this forum and only acquired my Ford a few days ago! I was wondering if you could all help me with a query?

According to the tech specs for my car it should get 61 - 67 MPG but I'm only getting about 40Mpg.

I know it depends on your driving style but this is me taking it easy, not using 'sport mode' and doing a 70 mile journey consisting of some city driving and motorways, the exact description to qualify for the 'combined' category of MPG.

I'm trying to figure out if it is what it is, or whether I need to contact Ford to investigate a potential problem, so I thought best idea was to see what other Ford Focus ST3 users get?

Thanks in advance for any help!

[alexp999]

Petrol or diesel?

I only ever got 29 MPG out of my petrol mk3.5 and getting exactly the same out of my Mk4, lol.

My 2.0 TDCi 163PS Mk3 used to get about 38 MPG, but I did a lot of short journeys.

[WireyWhenWet]

Unsure what fuel you are but ST TDCI, avg ~56mpg usually, just lately with the cold and a hell of alot more traffic on my morning run over the past two months I'm hitting 38-42mpg.

 

Hope that helps and welcome!

[the_cheeky_badger]

Hi both!

My apologies for not coming back to you sooner, I don't think I've setup notifications for when people post!

alexp999 it's diesel, WireyWhenWet that's really interesting. I've run it for a few weeks now and I'm getting 42mpg - 43mpg. But of course we're using heated seats, fans are on high (climate control set to auto) and for the first week or so I had a/c on to keep the windshield clear so I've not doubt that's having an impact too.

[DaveT70]

With constant Motorway cruising you should get early to mid 50's MPG, slightly less in the winter (48+)

Round town should see early to mid 40's

All depends on how heavy your right foot is of course

[alexp999]

The 2.0 TDCi isn't the most efficient engine. I think I saw 45 MPG, from a long run to Cornwall once, lol.

[Eric Bloodaxe]

Different version - but the 140ps 2.0TDCi in my Focus Mk 2.5 averaged 49.8 over the 3 years I had it. 

[WireyWhenWet]

On 12/18/2019 at 9:47 PM, the_cheeky_badger said:

But of course we're using heated seats, fans are on high (climate control set to auto) and for the first week or so I had a/c on to keep the windshield clear so I've not doubt that's having an impact too.

The toys do have quite the impact, I've noticed that over a month I can save a few mpg (2-3 easily) by not whacking the AC to 'HI' and having the fan at up to two thirds of max, little tweaks there have done me wonders which surprised me. I find stop-start to be useful, but you need to know when to use it. A cold car it'll be pointless to the point of causing issues if used like ritual. Say you're at lights or traffic for >9secs, then you'll actually be saving fuel.

Theres a very good couple of videos online for this and one showed that a 1.6, 4-cylinder petrol will use less fuel starting back up than it does idling for 7 seconds, similar is applicable to the ST but of course it's a little bigger.

Little tweaks here and there really do help, but keep in mind the temperature this time of year is against you for economy anyway so I wouldn't worry. I had a run of 69 mpg to Wath-upon-Dearne from Bradford and back with a fuel stop at Costco (recommend that stuff), but then back to routine work traffic and such has crippled it again down to 39 a week or so after, the slow stop-start traffic is kryptonite for MPG.

[the_cheeky_badger]

Thanks for all your posts and information! I'm currently getting about 47 - 49 with air con off and I ran a tank of BP Ultimate Diesel through the engine that may or may not have had an impact.

Pretty happy with that for winter when the heated seats are on too.

[Botus]

turbos and lazy driving will take off 20mpg.... if you use ANY of the turbo's boost you will use more fuel than you need to.  we used to get on fine with 25bhp in cars 60 years ago.... as our roads are now far more congested... we could probably get away using even lower power engines than they had.... after all 3 to 10mph can be done on bicycle with about 1/8 hp

I'm not a kill joy mines got 386 bhp and it nowhere near enough WHEN you can find an empty bit of road - but that's not the point - to go to work I cycle as its 4 times as fast

look for WLTP consumption figures these are about 10% optimistic vs the old 100% optimistic crap they used to publish

https://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars/economical-cars/907/mpg-meaning-wltp-can-you-trust-the-new-fuel-economy-test

40 mpg on a tractor with 50 50 cruise and town work is about right - make that 33mpg for a petrol 

Buy a new 320d drive like a cabbage and get 60mpg, drive a 1.25 focus hard and get 25mpg

 

[Vernon charles]

I've got a focus estate st line tdci 2.0  163bhp with chipped box so about180bhp probably and average 47 mpg with light foot !

[Botus]

just been reading about Mazda 3 / CX3 and their hatred of turbo's even though all the magazine's are slagging them off as gutless wrecks.  These things are shopping cars with 150 or 180 bhp 2 litre petrol engines !  The world has gone stark raving bonkers.

go back 15 years everything did 0 to 60 in 12 seconds (or far slower) and you could still drive these twice as fast as anyone else on the road.  A fast car just did under 10 seconds 0 to 60 and something exotic might get under 7 if the guy could drive.  Now the journalists think anything over 5 seconds isn't fast enough for you grandmother to get to evening song.

So we get turbo's on everything.  Why ? everyone's actually driving half as fast as we used too and only getting 20 mpg.  Then complain its not the 55mpg they expected.  Get off the f**king throttle pedal and learn to change gear... and if you don't like doing that get a DSG, not a turbo.

Which brings us back to the Mazda's point.  After 6 month the journalist woke up and admits its a great car, after he realised its fun driving a non turbo car with a good gearbox....    and he might have a very good point if only the traffic actually moved.  So go get the sky active x with a DSG box and enjoy not killing the planet with sooty diesel death and get the 55 mpg you wanted !

 

[Luke4efc]

On 1/8/2020 at 10:39 AM, Botus said:

we used to get on fine with 25bhp in cars 60 years ago....

Those cars were much lighter and had no aircon or other gadgets (which use a fair amount of the engines power). They had so little power they couldn't even get to 70mph and felt like the engine would explode after 50mph. Plus there's other things like tyres thinner than the latest iPhone, ***** poor brakes etc.

On 1/8/2020 at 10:39 AM, Botus said:

after all 3 to 10mph can be done on bicycle with about 1/8 hp

Right... but a car is in excess of 120x what a bike weighs lol.

Using my broken maths (and please dont take this seriously 😅), 1/8 x 120 = 15hp, however we want to do 70mph not 10, so multiply 15 x 7 = just over 100hp which is about what I'd expect for a small hatchback weighing a just over a tonne.

[Botus]

heavier cars = need for bigger brakes & bigger engine = more cost & dead planet

do we need 7 foot wide monster trucks to get jimmy to school?  No ! get the children to walk and develop their brains and spatial awareness.... then we can have half the cars on the road and the traffic will move.  Helping economy and the planet.  At present we have 15 million computer modules so bad drivers are less likely to hit everything, yet still need 300kg of high strength steel and 70 airbags so they can survive a crash they shouldn't be having (half of which are caused by heavy, overly powerful cars and dumb idiots that like arguing with physics whilst texting).