Hello,

I've returned to the Ford family after 6 years away, last Ford car was a very unusual Ford Racing Puma.

Bought a brand new Ford Fiesta Titanium X 125PS Ecoboost Start/Stop a few weeks ago, as a car I'm totally delighted with it, comfortable, well built, handles well and the engine is great.

But the MPG, well it's terrible. And I'm not using the computer, working it out myself with Fuelly.

Yes, I get the "well it depends on driving route/style" thing, but I'm the same driver doing the same commute I have been doing for the last 10 years.

Last car I had (1.4 Petrol) was officially rated at 42MPG, I averaged 37MPG.

Previous car was also rated at 42MPG coincidently , it was a 2,0 Diesel and it averaged 33MPG.

I'm currently getting 35MPG, which would be fine if the car was rated at 42MPG but as you probably know the car is rated at 65MPG, to me this seems very wrong. Especially if you take into picture none of previous cars had stop/start. Heck I used my 1991 Mazda MX5 for a week and did 29MPG.

Is something wrong or are the Ford figures a load of crap?

Jonathan

On ma last car was 1.25 fiesta zetec blue it ment to do (urban) 48 a was getting 29in winter and 32 in summer this car (same engine as yours) in urban ment to do 53 or something I'm getting 43 and mines is mostly usually town driving

A few weeks is not enough to be judging the fuel economy, it says this in the manual.

Give it a few months and a few thousand miles before you worry about MPG as the car is still bedding in.

65 MPG is no way near what you will get. I'd expect 40-50MPG out of that car depending on your journeys once run in

That's a fair point Alex, but what's worrying me is that from a quick look on the internet, 45MPG seems to be the average out there, very few people seem to get it past 50MPG. It was sold to us as a very economical engine to rival a small diesel, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Cracking engine through apart from that. Although I think it's a mistake not giving it 6 gears,

Jonathan

It is a very economical engine, my mum has just got a Focus 1.0 ecoboost to replace her diesel.

But it is more economical for town/city driving as the engine warms up quicker, you have no dpf, no soot exhaust to block things up, etc. So in terms of the life of the car it is more economical to maintain combined with the improved efficiency and cheaper fuel per litre.

If you are doing long journeys and lots of miles, you still can't beat a diesel for MPG...

Well seeing as its cheaper to buy and fill up than a diesel, it still works out cheaper. As said it will take a while for the engine to be run in and start working more efficiently if it's a new car.

Well as you say that diesel is more expensive and you have to deal with a dpf aswell so it is cheaper am matching same as my mates tdci fiesta and on long journeys my fuel is cheaper too! A just done a round trip to Blackpool and back home with my car (great drive ) around 420miles on a full tank and it only used 3/4 tank! Was very impressed I did it with cruise control on at 70mph all the way and managed 50mpg depending on roads if no hills I was getting 59mpg

OK guys, I'll give it a few months and report back.

Although it seems I'm not the only one unamused - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/caradvice/honestjohn/10849829/Poor-economy-from-Ford-EcoBoost.html

Jonathan

I do mainly extra urban driving and my old ecoboost never went over 49MPG after 6K at an average speed of 34MPH, if your average speed is lower than this you'll never get over it.

the 60odd figure is based on an average speed of around 45MPH which you can do if you reset it whilst cruising and up to temp but it's just the way they are allowed to publish these figures and test them that kills it.

That's interesting, has something changed in how they work out the tests? It seems with the cars I used to own Official MPG - 10MPG seemed to be a good rule of thumb. Now it seems Official MPG - 20MPG seems to be more accurate. I was just chatting to a friend with a Peugeot PureTech engine and he's in the same boat with poor MPG. Is it just a feature of these newer small turboed engines perhaps?

Jonathan

Silly question, but is it definitely the 125ps as mine is and I've got a six speed gear box?

Thought it was only a five speed in the 100ps.

Although I've got a Focus so there may be a difference between models.

I'm slowly creeping up to 40 mpg and mine has done 12000.

Cracking car to drive.

Focus has the 6 speed with the 125, Fiesta has 5 speed on both.

Saves on weight and cost for the smaller car.

Cross post, but thanks, you confirmed what I went back in to edit.

Focus has the 6 speed with the 125, Fiesta has 5 speed on both.

Saves on weight and cost for the smaller car.

I don't think it suits that engine though, the gear ratios feel wrong to me, especially 2nd gear were the engine bogs down unless you have a lot of revs. With my previous and other car you can coast along in second with no problem throttle off, do that in this car and it will stall.

Jonathan

I have a 1.0L EcoBoost Focus and it's taken up to now (5700 miles) to get 45MPG. You need to give it a few thousand miles really and give everything a chance to bed in and settle and you should start seeing better returns

Sent from my iPhone using Ford OC

Smaller engines have to work a lot harder to maintain themselves. hence why big petrol BMW's seem to always be on the mark of low 30's, Corvette advertised the C5's as capable of doing 22 and they actually did, nothing but a giant engine a bit of ally and firbeglass to push along, not like these.

Engine the size of an A4 piece of paper to move what 1300KG? was never going to produce anything like these figures in the real world, just turning on the AC you can feel how strained they are.

The test they can do stuff like remove the mirrors, tape up all the grills and remove the alternator, pump the tyres up rock solid so they have minimal resistance and conduct tests on a downhill slope ffs.

They are tested in lab conditions anyway, so I don't even know if the car is moving...

lol, chain the car to the ceiling and have it on a conveyor belt underneath to just move the wheels, probably has some funky fuel in it too, decatted with all mod cons inside stripped out to save weight and super lightweight wheels.

Mines done 4500 miles now and sits at 41mpg during everyday town driving. A run from Bham to Bournemouth recently I got 51mpg.

My dad has a 13 plate focus just before they started doing ecoboosts and rarely sees 30mpg so I'm pretty happy with mine. That said, take fords figures with a pinch of salt

All manufacturer's tests are done the same, so take them all with a pinch of salt.

They are only really any good for comparing between cars.

So if Car A is "rated" for 50MPG and Car B is "rated" for 54MPG, then Car B should be more efficient in the real world, even though neither will probably be able to attain those figures.

You need to give it a few thousand miles really and give everything a chance to bed in and settle and you should start seeing better returns

Is that something specific to these new breed of small turboed engines? The last 2 brand new cars I owned (VW PD Diesel engine and Focus ST 5Cly) started off at 34MPG and 25MPG when brand new and never really budged.

Smaller engines have to work a lot harder to maintain themselves

I noticed sitting with the Cruise Control on at 70MPH, when the car hits a hill on the Motorway on my way home you can hear the engine starting to struggle, something that doesn't happen with my 1.6 car with 120BHP. Didn't happen with my previous 1.4 car with 100BHP. Both naturally aspirated with 4 cylinders.

Edit: Both weighed about 1000KG which probably had more to do with it....

Jonathan

Bigger engines have more torque, more torque = less effort all round, for a 1 litres it's great but imo it's an engine they should have put in the KA and not a giant lump that the fiesta is in reality, cars have got a lot bigger over the last 10 years and tech hasn't really come far enough to make them more eco, look at the old 106's etc they all did 40 regardless and the only 1.4 NA Dervs did around 70mpg as they weighed nothing, weight difference on the 1.25 Fiestas over the past MK3s to present must be a few hundred kilos.

Bigger engines have more torque, more torque = less effort all round, for a 1 litres it's great but imo it's an engine they should have put in the KA and not a giant lump that the fiesta is in reality, cars have got a lot bigger over the last 10 years and tech hasn't really come far enough to make them more eco, look at the old 106's etc they all did 40 regardless and the only 1.4 NA Dervs did around 70mpg as they weighed nothing, weight difference on the 1.25 Fiestas over the past MK3s to present must be a few hundred kilos.

Have you driven a 1.0 ecoboost?

It has no trouble pulling a Focus along...

Here's the thing Alex, I had to test drive a Ford Focus EcoBoost with a 6 speed box as they didn't have a Fiesta demo car, I then drove a 1.25 Fiesta to compare the chassis. That engine is far better mated with the 6 speed.

Jonathan

I'd agree that the ecoboost is better suited to a 6 speed gearbox, but given the smaller size of the Fiesta you should have no problems with economy, and it is still faster 0-60 than the Focus.