Ford Fiesta Ecoboost Mpg

[MattDRX]

Because it's an average figure, take into account the old measurement of Gallons per hour, stop start would send that figure through the roof,

Simple to try, I don't have it, but do it for a weeks commute with it on and a week off and see how different it is, it'll be surprising how much fuel you are burning over a week just sitting still.

[StripeyMiata]

Because it's an average figure, take into account the old measurement of Gallons per hour, stop start would send that figure through the roof,

Simple to try, I don't have it, but do it for a weeks commute with it on and a week off and see how different it is, it'll be surprising how much fuel you are burning over a week just sitting still.

That's a great idea, I'll fill her up on Sunday night, drive a week with it on and repeat with it off and report back. My weekly commute barring accidents is pretty much identical so it will be an interesting experiment.

[Ffoxy]

I did for a month. I may have forgotten a few times to be fair but I didn't get much if any improvement, maybe 2-3 mpg. I don't do much town driving though.

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC mobile app

[fiestalux]

I think we are all getting hung up on saving 1-2 MPG. Overall just try to be as fuel efficient as you can while keeping some sense of fun :)

My general view is to sit on the speed limit on the motorway in whichever country I am in (in Germany this is of course flexible) and if you do that then the fuel efficiency improves significantly. Last year I was getting 5.1-5.5l/100km which is a bit better than my current 6.3 average. However, recently I was doing a lot of fast stuff in Germany. Even with that though I am relatively happy.

We will never get anywhere near what Ford claims so we just have to live with that.

[paul001]

I made note of how long the engine was off during several weeks using stop/start, and it was about 15 mins per week. It generally only works Wed-Fri as it loses charge during the weekends. Recently I've only been getting it on a Friday as we've had some bank holidays and other things where I haven't been using it every day and it takes all week to re-charge.

So if we say 15 mins a week saved at 0.53 (ish) Litres per hour used when idle, that's about 0.13 litres saved per week. So, something like 6.5 litres per year. Something like £7.70 (probably closer to £6) per year saved by having the engine stopped. That's for me, anyway. Everyone else will be different depending on your route to work.

[StripeyMiata]

I think we are all getting hung up on saving 1-2 MPG. Overall just try to be as fuel efficient as you can while keeping some sense of fun :)

My general view is to sit on the speed limit on the motorway in whichever country I am in (in Germany this is of course flexible) and if you do that then the fuel efficiency improves significantly. Last year I was getting 5.1-5.5l/100km which is a bit better than my current 6.3 average. However, recently I was doing a lot of fast stuff in Germany. Even with that though I am relatively happy.

We will never get anywhere near what Ford claims so we just have to live with that.

One thing I found interesting in Germany was the effect aerodynamics have on cars at higher speeds. I drove to the Nurburgring and back in my MK1 MX5 with pop up lights. When on the unrestricted parts of the Autoban and I put my lights on when I pulled out to overtake, you could feel the car hesitate a bit at 100MPH+

With the roof up on the way there because of rain, the car was a lot faster getting from 100MPH to 120MPH than it was with the roof down on the way back. Having the rood down seemed to cause a lot of drag.

[tomroscoe]

@Ffoxy. Does stop start improve economy? Look at it this way. If you were driving 45 miles on a gallon that's be good, right? How about if you drive zero miles on a gallon of fuel, !Removed!-poor, right? Well, that's what you're getting if the engine runs while you're stationary, a big fat zero mpg. It's the drip effect; lots of engine offs all add up, it's a cumulative saving. And all for no effort on your part. What's not to like?

[Ffoxy]

Like I said in Post #203 the savings in fuel are minimal, I tried it.

But the reduction in emissions for the whole range justifies a reduced or chopped Road Tax rate.

That's why I think, personally it's an emissions reducer rather than a fuel saver.

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC mobile app

[tomroscoe]

I really don't think the Fiesta 100/ecoB is being 'miss sold'. It really does get 65mpg on that standardised test, the same test incidentally that all cars are subjected to. It doesn't mean to replicate real driving, it's just so that you can compare different cars that have undergone the same test.

I'm one of those lucky people that hardly ever does any town driving and the little 1 litre ecoB does an indicated 56mpg. As the ambient air temperature increases, so too do the miles I cover on a single gallon. I'm mightily impressed. Diesel economy without the cost, weight, shake, rattle and roll of Ford's clunky diesel engine.

[StripeyMiata]

I really don't think the Fiesta 100/ecoB is being 'miss sold'. It really does get 65mpg on that standardised test, the same test incidentally that all cars are subjected to. It doesn't mean to replicate real driving, it's just so that you can compare different cars that have undergone the same test.

I'm one of those lucky people that hardly ever does any town driving and the little 1 litre ecoB does an indicated 56mpg. As the ambient air temperature increases, so too do the miles I cover on a single gallon. I'm mightily impressed. Diesel economy without the cost, weight, shake, rattle and roll of Ford's clunky diesel engine.

I am coming around to the idea though that the test really isn't fit for purpose anymore, seems to either to easy to cheat or the new generation of small 3 cylinder turbo engines seem to give over optimistic figures for it.

This hasn't put me off buying another EcoBoost car, I'll just go into it with my eyes wide open next time. Diesel isn't an option for me, my wife and I hate it with a passion.

From Wikipedia:

The NEDC was conceived at a time when European vehicles were lighter and less powerful. The test offers a stylized driving speed pattern with low accelerations, constant speed cruises, and many idling events, however the transient accelerations are much steeper and more dynamic in practice,^[6] in part caused by the power surplus of modern engines, as the 0–100 km/h (0–62 mph) average time decreased from 14 seconds in 1981 to 9 seconds in 2007.^[7] The UK consumer group Which? criticise the NEDC as being out of date, having been first introduced in the 1970s and not updated since 1997 - before hybrid cars and stop-start technology was generally available. They also criticise it for not replicating real-world driving conditions and having numerous loopholes which mean the test figures are unachievable in practice. Weaknesses noted are: that tests are not necessarily repeatable and comparable, the test cycle does not include sustained motorway driving, test cycles can be performed using optional economy settings which will not typically be selected by drivers, the test cycle is performed with ancillary equipment such a air conditioning and heated windows switched off, the tests can be carried out at 1.2mph below the required speed thus using less fuel, roof rails and passenger door mirror can be removed for the test, tyre pressures for the test can be set above the recommended values thus reducing rolling resistance, no official body polices the tests and the car companies can arbitrarily reduce their results by 4% at the end of the cycle.

[panjuices]

Yeah it's a complete sham and gives some people totally the wrong impression - the figures should be attainable and the fact that they're not makes them useless. There ARE people who don't research cars and who go in thinking these figures are attainable or that "I'll get within 10% of them" though because that is their experience of driving other cars.

The fact is that modern engine technology AND manufacturers have combined to start taking the !Removed! with the results and this can mean some cars getting close to claimed and some cars getting 25% + off what is claimed - that is just laughable.

The 1.0 Ecoboost has good economy but what pisses people off is the claim that it has GREAT economy and Ford perpetuating that more than most is actually quite insulting. In reality you would say that the economy from this engine is a touch above average really and certainly not amazing.

Just like we had a revolution in the transparency of foot packaging and a lot of the outlandish claims there, the motor industry needs to pull its finger out. There really is no excuse and if VAG introduced a new test for example you know everyone else would be pressured into following.

Rant over.

[tero521]

Yes this current test system is shady, but i really really like the lower tax that i'am paying.

[Ffoxy]

I'm happy there's no need for cambelt swaps lol!

Saving everywhere, including a spark plug, plug lead and coil pack haha!

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC mobile app

[MattDRX]

The ecoboost needs a cambelt every 10 years or 125k. it will be expensive when it does come to it too being internally sealed and bathed in oil.

You haven't really saved, wait until it's replacement turbo time or one of the pony little rods makes the freedom jump :D

The fuel test is never fit for purpose, it's impossible to make a fair one too. like what's the economy for someone living in the Highlands and Brecon beacons compared to me in flat old Berkshire? It's too hard to guage, like the drive from me to Brum is way more fuel consuming on the way there just because of the elevation difference, it's almost downhill all the way on the M40 southbound, makes a huge difference, real world testing wouldn't ever really work.

[Phil 87]

real world testing wouldn't ever really work.

Correct, there are just too many variables. It has to be done in a lab, where all the variables such as air temperature can be controlled.

[Ffoxy]

I won't have it at 10 years or 125k.

What's this "rod" you mention?

You mean con-rods?

Never been heard of!

And isn't here a turbo failures record with the Ecoboost that's being kept quiet then?

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC mobile app

[MattDRX]

Even 0-60's are pathetic, fair enough the ST actually does the stated speed, however my mate who spent 23k on a Corsa VXR Clubsport ( no hate mail needed ) which is supposed to do 6.5s is infact slower, using all GPS and other methods it's about 7.4 on average, there is a huge sticker on the fuel flap saying 100RON recommended!!!!!!! methods like that should be banned imo how anyone can get their hands on the stuff without buying racefuel or 4 star is beyond me. it cannot be acquired on UK forecourts anymore. joke.

Not to mention his abysmal MPG getting like 26 and driving like Miss Daisy looooooool, think everyone should be grateful not hateful they chose a Fraud in these cases.

[Trewithy]

With all the different cars I have had (not just fords) my average MPG is usually about the quoted urban figure and I don't go my the on-board figure I work it out from the amount of fuel in against actual mileage. I have not had my Fiesta Powershift long so I have not yet started to work out the MPG but if it is about 43 I will be happy.

I read that cars with Stop Start require a bigger battery. Well Powershift models do not have Stop Start but the battery is rated 60 Amp/hour which I think is rather large for a small car. What size battery do other models have?

[MattDRX]

^ Piston rods, turbo cars bend them every now and then.

these failures haven't occurred yet as the car is too new, wait 5 years or so and we'll just how well built the car really is, no turbo lasts forever, that's a good £800 down the drain at best, and on an exchange basis so they can refurb and resell your busted one.

Well there you go, eventually it will need a cambelt. however good luck selling a car that is due one in a year if it's an expensive job.

[MattDRX]

A few KGS in battery makes no difference to MPG, it's like saying well my battery is smaller than yours and I go well you weigh 10st more than me so your economy will be worse. A difference you will never ever see in real world terms.

The fact the engine is lighter than a non stop start say a 1.4 will more than make up for it also.

[StripeyMiata]

A few KGS in battery makes no difference to MPG, it's like saying well my battery is smaller than yours and I go well you weigh 10st more than me so your economy will be worse. A difference you will never ever see in real world terms.

The fact the engine is lighter than a non stop start say a 1.4 will more than make up for it also.

Sorry I have a bit of a battery obsession as my other car has a special lightweight gel battery that costs £130 and only lasts me a few years. And lives in the boot to get help 50/50 weight distribution.

[gillyallan]

The stop start feels great if you've timed it right and end up with a long stop. Nothing worse than letting it die and lights change after 5 secs

[panjuices]

If it helps the manual from memory says that start/stop should be used for everything above 3s.

[MattDRX]

^ because it's easy to tell how long you'll be sitting still for right? bit of a pain when sitting on the M25 etc in the evenings.

[gillyallan]

I never use in stop start traffic unless I can see for miles and know it's not moving