So, the car is a Ford Focus 69 plate 1.5 diesel automatic with 9971 miles on it. The problem is the fuel consumption. I took the car from Farnborough to Hayling Island LATE last night, when there wasnt much on the roads to get in my way, stuck the cruise control on at 70 and watched the MPG. Seems like either I am expecting too much, or there is a problem with my car. The absolute best I managed was 51.4.

 

Tried the same deal tonight with no traffic on the motorway, went from Farnborough (M3)  to the Andover turnoff, then turned round and did the return journey, thinking as its the same journey the ups and downs gradient wise will level out and i will get a true reading. return journey figure was 50.9 MPG.....

I  have a few days to get the dealer  to take it  back and give me my money  back,but need to know sooner  rather than later, whether this should be  considered normal or if there is a problem

I checked the fuel economy history over the last 2744 miles and over that distance its only been doing 43MPG....

I also noticed while driving the car it  makes a very strange mooing  noise, then  stops doing it, then repeats it again within about another 5 or 10 minutes.

This is not a good introduction to Focus ownership, and  just wanted to know  whether to persevere with it, as its near normal economy, or get it back to Ford in Fareham ASAP.

MPG sounds about right at around 51.

You don't know how it has been previously driven so it will take a couple of tanks of diesel before it will start to show your average. 

Mpg sounds about right as @unofix says, you don't know how it's been driven by the previous owners.

If you are cruising on the motorway the dip into Eco mode  around town then sport mode trips inbetween then pick which ever one.

One thing of note though if you cut your speed from 70 to 60 and sit around the 1750 revs or keep the needle under 2000rpm then you should see an improvement.

We do about 4 trips a year to the coast 140 mile round trip mainly on A and B roads and easily return 65 to 70mpg but ours is manual.

Overall since weve had the car from 6 months old and it sits at 19k miles its average at 52mpg.

 

It sounds as if you are relying on the computer readout for an mpg figure?

These are rarely accurate and you need to use the "brim to brim" method to calculate a true figure.

(Brim the tank, drive a few hundred miles, brim the tank again and divide distance travelled by fuel used.)

You don't mention what you have had before, or what your expectations were. FWIW, I have had many diesels in the past, from 1.6 to 2.2 litres, and rarely saw more than 52 as a long term average.

 

The book figures for the 5 door Auto are 51.4 to 54.3 mpg, the manual ones are better at 57.6 to 62.8.

Is it a conventional auto on the 1.5TDCI?  Don't usually expect such a large difference between auto and manual nowadays.

34 minutes ago, TomsFocus said:

Is it a conventional auto on the 1.5TDCI?  Don't usually expect such a large difference between auto and manual nowadays.

Those figures are from the 2019 brochure and it says that the auto is an 8-speed Auto, I don't have any more details.

The 2.0 Diesel has a similar difference between Manual and Auto, the petrol models have slightly less of a difference.

58 minutes ago, TomsFocus said:

Don't usually expect such a large difference between auto and manual nowadays.

I think you're right, in the real world of daily driving the difference between auto and manual is almost the same. In some cases of driving the auto might slightly creep ahead. Given that manual drivers are rarely in the correct gear 100% of the time, where as the auto will always change to the highest gear possible at the earliest time even if that's only for a couple of hundred yards. I think the book difference comes about by 'simulated' driving and unrealistic preempted gear changes in the manual.

3 minutes ago, unofix said:

I think you're right, in the real world of daily driving the difference between auto and manual is almost the same. In some cases of driving the auto might slightly creep ahead. Given that manual drivers are rarely in the correct gear 100% of the time, where as the auto will always change to the highest gear possible at the earliest time even if that's only for a couple of hundred yards. I think the book difference comes about by 'simulated' driving and unrealistic preempted gear changes in the manual.

I've just checked, it looks like the 8 speed is a conventional auto which explains why the book economy is so poor.  Dual clutch transmissions are often better than manuals for economy, as long as they're mapped well of course.

I have the manual 1.5 diesel, and according to the car I average around 58mpg, but I did a long motorway + A road trip a fortnight ago and got 76 mpg ( never above 60 mph and in eco-mode)

I got my car with 2600 miles on it, and it did improve once I'd got a few thousand more miles on it.

 

I reckon in the EU or the USA on a long FLAT autobahn/interstate I could get the stated 80 mpg

2 hours ago, unofix said:

I think you're right, in the real world of daily driving the difference between auto and manual is almost the same. In some cases of driving the auto might slightly creep ahead. Given that manual drivers are rarely in the correct gear 100% of the time, where as the auto will always change to the highest gear possible at the earliest time even if that's only for a couple of hundred yards. I think the book difference comes about by 'simulated' driving and unrealistic preempted gear changes in the manual.

Whilst I agree with you to a certain extent I do think that many Manual drivers change up their gears far too early and labour their engines as well as putting strain on the rest of the drivetrain. I have been in cars where I wanted to slap the driver on the back of the head. A laboured engine uses more fuel than one in the correct gear.

1 hour ago, Mark-UK said:

I have the manual 1.5 diesel, and according to the car I average around 58mpg, but I did a long motorway + A road trip a fortnight ago and got 76 mpg ( never above 60 mph and in eco-mode)

The Book figures are surprisingly accurate for everyday driving judging by your experience as well as my own and others that have posted on this forum.

A long journey at a reasonable speed does seem to give a much better than book figure as well.

Try cruising at 60 rather than 70, makes a world of difference 

1. Honest John says real mpg 54.2 mpg, so that doesn't suggest that your mpg is really REALLY poor, I would say.

2. You say you can return the car within a certain timeframe - is this because you bought the car remotely without seeing it first and can return it just because you've you've changed your mind? e.g. Cazoo or similar - just curious.

Ok, so a reply to all those who took the time to leave comments, and massive thank you for so doing.

Eric Bloodaxe first, yes you are right I am very much relying on the trip computer. The car I  have just returned was a 70 plate Vw Golf 2 litre diesel which had a very hard life and there were signs of it being an ex hire car and bodged incredibly badly and then sold on to me with very Very badly resprayed  front bumpers and doors and boot ., and on my regular run up north about 160 miles it was achieving around 65 to 70 MPG but again according to the trip as well as my wallet,lol.

Tom's Focus, yes it is an 8 speed automatic.

 

Alanfp, I guess that i was just expecting more. I don't drive like a loony, happy to stick the cruise and lane assist on and just take it  easy, but not at 60 sadly.

I did not get a chance to truly test the car out before i bought it, and I am thinking of swapping it over for a honda civic 1.6 ex  diesel auto, as the test drive i had on that was somewhere in the 60 MPG bracket BUT I fully appreciate it isn't as well specced as the Vignale I have now.

No one knows about the mooing noise but on the motorway i can hear it if i turn the radio down a bit, lasts for a few minutes then goes away then comes back for a few minutes.

 

Mark UK...... I guess I will find out about the long term economy exceeding expectations when i take it up north probably at the end of this week if i decide I'm going to keep it.

VAG diesels have always achieved better MPG than equivalent Ford diesels in my experience.  Plus, if it must be auto, you're getting a DSG 'box in those which is more efficient than a conventional auto.

Not sure which type of box the Civic uses, they're generally CVT fans?

 

My previous car was a Nissan Micra 1.5 Diesel, I averaged 70 mpg all the time, best long run 110 mgp (Manchester to Bristol),  unfortunately I don't think any modern diesel get the same mileage as older cars, I think one big differents for me will be the Focus is a much heaver car than a 2003 micra and all the extra tech need something to power it.

 

 

2 hours ago, TomsFocus said:

VAG diesels have always achieved better MPG than equivalent Ford diesels in my experience.

and also they have much lower NOx emissions.  Oh! wait a minute, I think there was a reason for that 🤣

That's about right for a 1.5 auto.

The 2.0 Auto was better on fuel than the 1.5 Auto.

Most efficient Diesel was the 1.5 manual

On my manual 1.5 MK4 I found that cruise control used more fuel than holding it at speed yourself.

I also found that Sport mode was more efficient than Normal or Eco but as you're an auto that would put the transmission into Sport mode too, which will not be effective.

Make sure you use good quality fuel and keep to the same fuel and keep your tyre pressures set correctly (34 all round)

Keep the oil changed regularly and ensure that the DPF regens fully each cycle 

My advice would be to get the vehicle remapped so it is more responsive without changing the transmission out of normal mode 

2 hours ago, TomsFocus said:

VAG diesels have always achieved better MPG than equivalent Ford diesels in my experience.

And in mine. Even then, best I ever saw was 60mpg (calculated "brim to brim").

2 hours ago, TomsFocus said:

VAG diesels have always achieved better MPG than equivalent Ford diesels in my experience.  Plus, if it must be auto, you're getting a DSG 'box in those which is more efficient than a conventional auto.

Not sure which type of box the Civic uses, they're generally CVT fans?

 

It's the DSG that's more efficient.

BMW auto Diesels are quite good

4 minutes ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

And in mine. Even then, best I ever saw was 60mpg (calculated "brim to brim").

I did slightly edge that with about 62mpg calculated average on the 1.9PD Mk4 a few times, but I was doing 50 miles a day on rural roads back then.

The only car I've had with a better average was a non-turbo 106 diesel...67mpg calculated!  But it was horrendously slow, and with tiny solid front discs that meant it stopped about as quickly as it accelerated.   Honestly believe it was the most dangerous car I'd ever owned, give me tonnes of torque and big brakes any day! 

47 minutes ago, DaveT70 said:

On my manual 1.5 MK4 I found that cruise control used more fuel than holding it at speed yourself.

I have always thought that too although others swear by the opposite. 

I hardly ever use Cruise Control myself so I have not tried to do any comparisons. If Accelerator pedals were still hinged at the floor I don't think I would use it at all.

24 minutes ago, TomsFocus said:

I did slightly edge that with about 62mpg calculated average on the 1.9PD Mk4 a few times, but I was doing 50 miles a day on rural roads back then.

My 60 was also with a PD, (2.0 in the A3). Always seemed more lively to me than the later common rail engines, but that was probably because the torque came in with a big bang. Fairly noisy though. 

2 minutes ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

My 60 was also with a PD, (2.0 in the A3). Always seemed more lively to me than the later common rail engines, but that was probably because the torque came in with a big bang. Fairly noisy though. 

Yes, I must admit I haven't ever quite cracked 60mpg over a tankful on the 2.0CR, but my mileages were considerably lower by the time I got that.  Long term average is 55mpg on the spreadsheet, but Covid really skewed the average with the last few tanks. 

I did also have a 2.0PD A3 when I bought the Mk6 Golf, but didn't keep it long enough to get through a whole tank.   Far too uncomfortable with low profile 17s, firm half leather seats and what I hope were knackered shocks...though they were 'Sport' spec.  Lesson learnt, pretty exterior is not the main criteria.  Oh hang on, didn't I then buy an orange Leon in Sport spec as well?   

48 minutes ago, TomsFocus said:

Far too uncomfortable with low profile 17s, firm half leather seats and what I hope were knackered shocks...though they were 'Sport' spec.  

Lol probably not knackered - I had mine from new and it was pretty firm!😀