I find it pretty easy to estimate to be honest. If in doubt you don't have to use stop-start like if you're on the motorway - just keep the clutch dipped.

If you get caught on a red then knock it on.

Meh it's useful for sure it's just not a dealbreaker.

Regarding the Mpg tests they do my point is that the vehicles should be tested in the delivered state. Running at 400psi with no wing mirrors is not real world. The tests should make sense, they should not pretend to represent everyone's 'real world' because yeah, that's flawed. But FFS a step in the right direction.

It'll be a dealbreaker when you have to get a new starter ring fitted.

The starter pinion always seems to be harder than the ring.

Same as the thread on the brake slave cylinders always seems to be softer than the bleed nipples, hence new cylinders.

Are Ford seeing these starter ring gear and damaged wheel cylinders a lot then?

Sent from my iPad using Ford OC mobile app

Prolly too early to tell.

Just got back from yet another trip from Leeds to London and back, got 46.15 mpg :)

The trip computer was surprisingly accurate too, showing 46.8 mpg, and the average speed was 47 mph. Maybe it's better at working out how much fuel is being used when you spend most of the time cruising at a constant speed.

I'm quite happy with that, but it's just a little below the best I've had which was about 48 mpg.

I only picked mine up recently and took it out for a run at the weekend (as I still have a lease car for during the week). At the end of my trip the car had 50 miles on the clock but managed to get 52mpg which isn't bad for a new car so hoping I will get more out of it when it's run in a bit more.

Hi everybody,

We got our car about 6 months ago with 4000+ miles on the clock. To begin with we were averaging around 46 mpg, mostly on rural roads, our average mph was 27. I do not use super unleaded, after a brief trial this seemed not to make a difference to mpg although the performance was better. We began to notice the mpg coming up to around 50, but it dropped back to about 46 on a motorway trip (driving steadily, no fierce accelleration). Over the last four months we have been averaging between 48 and 51 mpg on the same back roads. We have just done a 523 mile round trip, mostly dual carriageway, some of the time we were caught in slow moving traffic due to roadworks but did not use stop start. For the first 210 miles we averaged 55 mph and 55 mpg, over the whole journey we got up to 56.5 mpg and the average mph dropped to 50. I think the this was pretty good considering that I wasn't always light-footed.

I have now put an extra 6000 miles or so on the car, it seems to show that the mpg goes up once the miles go on and, probably, the warmer weather helps.

LOL, not with mine. 37mpg, 1.0 125 (2k on the clock), and with V-power. Does 'no fierce acceleration' mean pootling around at 30mph (can't be ar_sed to observe and see speed cams)?

I can convince myself that the v-power gives a cleaner acceleration but if there's any difference it's prolly about the same. That engine tho, i'm hitting 80 before I know it, amazing.

... the motor industry needs to pull its finger out. There really is no excuse ...

The motor industry has no particular incentive to change the test. The technical flaws actually work for them and when customers complain, they only have to respond is that it is a just a comparison.

The test takes 20 minutes and covers just 6.8 miles. Even though a lot of journeys are fairly short, it does not account for longer journeys when stop/start is irrelevant, hybrids have to charge their batteries and aerodynamics have significant effect. If a typical car is reckoned to do 9000 miles a year, yes, most journeys made are probably short ones but most of the miles covered must be in longer journeys.

Does 'no fierce acceleration' mean pootling around at 30mph...

"Harsh" acceleration would mean mashing the clutch or spinning the tyres. (Or making a hash of the 1-2 upshift. Plenty of youtube videos from people showing off their cars to cringe making effect.)

"Brisk", smooth acceleration up to cruising speed doesn't harm fuel consumption. It might even be beneficial. Similarly, going uphill. The laws of physics tell us that the gain in kinetic energy needed to reach cruising speed is independant of acceleration and the potential energy gain in a climb is independant of speed of climb.

The main trick is avoid building up too much kinetic energy (ie, speed) for the conditions and having good anticipation about coming off the power. Some people mistakenly think that brief periods of high instaneous fuel consumption necessarily produces a poor average.

^ all relative to time, quicker journey in a way has to be somewhat better MPG wise over pottering along and going slow.

I've always thought it's best to get up the hills as quick as you can rather than labour your way to the top.

After thirty years of mainly driving small Fiat cars (with Ford, Rover & Citroen used along side them in the early years) we bought our last Fiat, a Panda Euro 6 1.2 petrol. All the cars liked to rev freely and, unless you were on dual carriageways, fifth was rarely used. We were happy with the cars and the service from the dealership until we got the Euro 6, which was a disaster and after six months I cut my losses and got a Ford. The 2014 Fiat was even lower geared than the 09 one it had replaced, if you let any of these engines turn at a low speed and labour they use more petrol, so they always need to rev to be economical. The Ecoboost Fiesta I bought to replace the hopeless Euro 6 1.2 Panda was a different ball game with masses of torque at almost idling speed, now we are used to this we use higher gears than we would have used in the Fiat. The petrol consumption has improved and since the mileage went past the 7,000 mark it returns better fuel consumption figures than we ever got from the Fiat together with a performance that may be in Fiat dreams.

The reasons we changed back to Ford:- The Fiat 1.2 engine's poor and erratic throttle response on a 2014 car that Fiat refused to admit was a problem and just said 'Learn how to drive it', although how you can learn to predict the unpredictable is a mystery to me, the car could say ‘Today you have called for full throttle and we have canceled this request for the moment, have a nice day'! The number of times we nearly got hit from behind when pulling out onto a fast, busy roundabout was frightening. The engine would just lose power and you had to keep it above 2,500 revs and slip the clutch to stop it from stalling. Independent engineer's reports and rolling road tests, all showing in black and white that the car was a lame duck, cost us money and got us nowhere. Fiat wouldn't do anything and the dealership response was driven by them so we were left high and dry. Now it is is a great relief to have a normal person to talk to who cares about how we are getting on with the Ford, especially after Fiat's 'We have got your money, hard luck and "***off" attitude.

It was interesting to see the difference between the 09 1.2 Panda’s output compared with the 14’s figures. The rolling road printout shows that the 14 car wasn’t very Green compared to the older 09 car and, unless you was doing 80 mph+, the old car would always be streets in front. I have attached the rolling road printout for anyone who is interested.

Rolling road results.PDF

Rolling road results.PDF

Interesting chart. I wonder if leaning down at low speed is the step too far. Since that is where the engine would be operating for most of the official CO2 test, it is presumably one of the common cheats.

09 plates power deliver is ****** beyond belief lol seems like there is something wrong with it.

Been doing some long journeys lately. Managed to get 67.3 mpg this 125ps has beaten my old 100ps even with my thule roof rack attached

On a tow truck? :D

Getting my Zetec (98bhp) in a few weeks so this thread has been informative. Currently doing 66miles a day in a Hyundai i10 (85bhp) and getting 49 MPG average (as per my fuel log).

Just curious as to how the two cars might drive and hence how fuel economy will differ? I do 80% on NSL dual carriageway/motorway at quiet times.

There are a lot of hills and some long, steep motorway sections which I struggle on with the i10, foot to the floor in 3rd/4th at 3k RPM type thing to get above 50MPH.

With more torque, am I likely to see much difference with the Ford (it does have lower bhp per kilo).

Finally, I'm working on the assumption I'll be able to get 40-45 MPG from it based on what I currently get from a lighter car with narrow tyres as compared to the heavier fiesta with wider tyres.

Do my assumptions seem reasonable?

Many thanks.

With more torque, am I likely to see much difference with the Ford (it does have lower bhp per kilo).

I just had a quick look at the specs of each car, and it looks like the 100PS Fiesta has about 125 lb/ft of torque compared to your i10 with 88. You'll feel the difference ;)

There are a lot of hills and some long, steep motorway sections which I struggle on with the i10, foot to the floor in 3rd/4th at 3k RPM type thing to get above 50MPH.

With more torque, am I likely to see much difference with the Ford (it does have lower bhp per kilo).

Bear in mind it is just a model in my spreadsheet but it suggests the 50-70 times of the two cars in the three top gears are:-

Fiesta 7, 10, 13 seconds

Hyundai 9, 13,15 seconds

15 seconds is usually considered the threshold of feeling underpowered. My car previous to the Fiesta did 10 seconds in top (my spreadsheet matches the number in a magazine) and motorway gradients felt non-existant to all intensive purposes. I can't compare my Fiesta directly because it is the 1.4 auto

Have driven 800 miles on my Focus 1.0 125bhp. Get 50.2 mpg on a commute to work and other light shopping runs. All the Runs are small town and inter town rural runs at non peak hours. So very few stopping or lights and usually get to high gears very quickly.

Very happy with this fuel figures. I do try and get up the gears quickly and that seems to help. Usually go to 5th when doing 35 mph. In my previous cars i waited till i was 40 mph before going to 5th.

I don't know the Focus gearing but if I went to 4th < 40mph in my Tit the valves would be denting the bonnet :)

Unless coasting. Ie not under load, accelerating. I really can't do 5th til 50 but mine is 100 bhp version.

Unless coasting. Ie not under load, accelerating. I really can't do 5th til 50 but mine is 100 bhp version.

The engine has a top gear of 27mph/1000rpm and is specced as having maximum torque at 1400rpm. So that occurs at 37mph. If it won't go that low you need to get it fixed.

The engine has a top gear of 27mph/1000rpm and is specced as having maximum torque at 1400rpm. So that occurs at 37mph. If it won't go that low you need to get it fixed.

That doesn't sound right to me about the torque, but I might have seen someone else say something similar. Here's a link to the Mountune page with has a graph showing the max torque is at around 3000 rpm: http://www.mountune.com/index.php/services/performance-upgrades/fiesta/fiesta-1-0t-2013

That doesn't sound right to me about the torque, but I might have seen someone else say something similar. Here's a link to the Mountune page with has a graph showing the max torque is at around 3000 rpm: http://www.mountune.com/index.php/services/performance-upgrades/fiesta/fiesta-1-0t-2013

I had a look at Ford's brochure and they don't quote it. Even Ford Germany, surprisingly. Like Mountune, Superchips also show it peaking at 3K http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/FiestaEcoBoost100PS.pdf

Instinctively these seem wrong for a modern turbo engine, particularly in relation to equivalents from other manufacturers.

But I found this in an Autobild review

http://www.autobild.de/artikel/vw-polo-ford-fiesta-nissan-note-test-5279147.html

which lends weight to the Wikipedia entry.

(BTW I love the german for double clutch - Doppelkupplung)