Hang on. You are comparing a 1.8litre engine in a smaller and lighter body to a 1.6litre in a larger heavier car that has only done 7,000miles and you are complaining?? The newer car is barely run in.

I think you have to think logically and wait at least another 5,000miles driving the way you drive to make fair comparison.

As above really.

Firstly, no, you have no course of redress. There's a case in this month's What Car? magazine where an owner wanted to sue the manufacturer because he wasn't getting anywhere near the 64 MPG the EU combined tests suggested. He was told he has no claim.

Secondly, for the last few years, manufacturers have been doing all kinds of tinkering with engines in an attempt to get CO2 emissions down to the lowest value possible and the MPG figure up to the highest possible in the unrepresentative laboratory consumption tests (no wind resistance, engine warm, ambient temp 20C blah blah). So in real terms engines generally are only fractionally more economical than they were 6 or 7 years ago, despite EU figures which suggest they have improved drastically.

Finally, your new car will not reach optimum efficiency until it's covered at least 10,000 miles. Then you should calculate true consumption based on several brimmed tank to tank readings and not rely on the onboard computer which may be calibrated differently to the one in your older Mondeo.

If you are getting over 50 MPG in the newer car overall you are doing well; it's unlikely to better 55 MPG except on a very long run in the summer months.

You have one of the most economical engines available in your Mondeo (the same engine in a Volvo C30/S40/V50 was supposed to achieve 74 MPG), so just enjoy it. The Mondeo is a big heavy car too.

The EU figures are a comparitive guide only and do not relate to real world figures. If the salesman told you otherwise, it's hard luck I'm afraid. Never trust a car salesman.

Spiritmonitor is giving a mean of approx 52mpg on a sample size of 80 odd for your car. Distribution is tight around 48 to 54 ish, so what you're getting is normal real world. Are you really expecting 65mpg from 1.6 tonnes of car?!!!

You won't see a huge difference between any comparable cars when driving at motorway speeds because your battle is predominantly against air resistance which can't be significantly decreased.

The rising fuel economy numbers occur at low speeds with cold engines where the power required to keep the engine rotating is often greater than the power required to move the car down the road.

Anyone that believes that a step change in the efficiency of piston engines (petrol or diesel) has magically occured is living in cloud cuckoo land.

wheareas cars have got better in this respect but gained massively in weight and size.

I'm not sure that the aerodynamics have improved that much. Cars look sleeker than they did in the 90's but the top of the car doesn't contribute much to drag. Multi spoke alloys with wide tyres are an aero nightmare and sculpted mirrors and headlights can't fully compensate.

If you think of the narrow tyres and steel wheels with plastic trims that were standard yesteryear, there's quite a deficit to make up-even if the modern wheels do look a hell of a lot better.

You will see a little more mpg over 10k, but not a lot, on some cars it takes 20k before seeing 1 or 2mpg extra.

Cars are often lighter now to reduce emmsions and higher geared.

But the main difference between the two cars, is I'm assuming the DPF fitted to your new car, but absent on your old car?

I have the same engine in a 308 with a 6 speed gearbox and stop start. 80% of my driving is on dual carriageways and motorways & I am getting 58/59 mpg. Car has only covered 3500 miles so there may still be a small improvement to come as it loosens up and the warmer weather arrives.

You cannae change the laws of physics! It takes a certain amount of energy to move a cars mass against forces trying to resist that movement. So no huge step change in efficiency is that credible. Curse the E.U!