Fiesta 1.0T - Real MPG - Ron65

Having had some difficulty obtaining information regarding to real world MPG I've just com across this site. Questioning it's accuracy, I've been able to look up just about every car we've owned over the past 13 years and I have to say I'm mightly impressed how accurate these figures are.

If there's some bright spark in Government reading this, what about doing every motorist a favour and ditch the Official MPG figures produced by manufacturers and replace them with HonestJohn's Real MPG?

My old 2010 1.6 Zetec S offical figure was 48mpg, real world I'd see 44mpg at best. The 1.0T ecoboost I'm thinking of purchasing has an official figure of 65.7mpg but according to HJ I should expect little more than my 1.6

What is the point of producing offical mpg figures if they are so inaccurate?

Edited by Ron65 on 20/12/2014 at 10:37

Fiesta 1.0T - Real MPG - FP

"What is the point of producing offical mpg figures if they are so inaccurate?"

This topic has been much discussed. The figures are produced from a set of tests which is applied across the board to all new cars. The figures may not be accurate in the real world, but at least they enable you to compare Car A with Car B.

The distorted MPG figures that happen with engines like the Ecoboost is the result of manufacturers designing performance that is tailored to the tests.

The trouble with HJ's figures, useful though they are, is that they require time to be built up. People clearly need figures as soon as a new car is on sale.

There may well be a case for using a different set of tests, however, which more closely relate to the real world of day-to-day driving.

Edited by FP on 20/12/2014 at 11:03

Fiesta 1.0T - Real MPG - KenC

Hi Ron, my advice is DO NOT waste your hard earned cash buying any small Ford Vehicle with an Eco Boost Engine based on the assumption that you will save money because of the fuel efficency of the eco boost engine.

If you have set your heart on a Fiesta buy the 1.25 82BHP zeetec version with the tried & tested 4 cylinder engine.why ?

1.Cheaper to buy 2. cheaper to insure 3.cheaper to service 4.less likely to go wrong.

If you or anyone has any doubts read HJ,s Article from this website

www.honestjohn.co.uk/fuel-calculator

www.honestjohn.co.uk/fuel-calculator/fiesta-buyers...t

QUOTE FROM HJ

"Fiesta Zetec buyers who pick the 1.0 EcoBoost petrol engine over the cheaper, 1.25-litre petrol engine have to pay a premium of £1000. However, according to theFuel Cost Calculator, the fuel economy savings are slim, meaning it could take up to 52,857 miles to pay that premium off"

Furthermore I am NOT a fan of 3 cylinder engines,why because of inherrant problem of being out of "balance",meaning that two cylinders are acting together and the third is acting alone.

Do not bet that this type of 3 cylinder engine will prove to be as reliable in the LONG TERM as the 4 or 6 cylinder engines with the coventional firing order.

Edited by KenC on 20/12/2014 at 12:07

Fiesta 1.0T - Real MPG - 72 dudes

If there's some bright spark in Government reading this, what about doing every motorist a favour and ditch the Official MPG figures produced by manufacturers and replace them with HonestJohn's Real MPG?

It's not down to the government, they are EU figures.

The Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost is not very economical in real world driving. What Car? ran one as a long term test cat and IIRC they got about 37 MPG average.

FP is correct in saying that manufacturers are tweaking performance to enhance what they achieve in the EU figures. A good example:

My old shape Mercedes A Class A180 CDi auto (2.0 litre) went in for a warranty repair recently and I was given a new A180 CDi Sport auto (1.8 Litre) as a loan car, EU combined figure 70.4 MPG.

I drove a 30 mile round trip rural route, computer showed 60.1 MPG. The next day I had my own car back and had to repeat the exact journey, same time, same ambient temperature, same sort of traffic, and I tried to use the same driving style. 55.8 PMG on the computer.

The interesting point here being the the EU combined figure for my car is 53.3 MPG.

So while the EU figures suggest the new car should be 32% more frugal, my experience shows that less than 8% is the figure in the real world.

Edited by 72 dudes on 20/12/2014 at 11:53

Fiesta 1.0T - Real MPG - madf

So while the EU figures suggest the new car should be 32% more frugal, my experience shows that less than 8% is the figure in the real world.

It was a new car. Cars require bedding in before you get best mpg...

And a back to back comparison as you did is meaningless as you are quoting (presumably) fuel computer figures.

They are notoriously inaccurate.

So your comparison is meaningless.


Fiesta 1.0T - Real MPG - 72 dudes

I was wondering who would be the first to respond like this!

I agree this is not a scientific experiment as such, as:

  • the new car had 1100 miles on the clock and will need time to bed in and produce its best figures
  • the fuel computer on my car under-reads by about 5%
  • I also did a brim to brim check on the new car and I am satisfied that the fuel computer was accurate, or near as dammit.

So overall, I stand by my findings. To say that my figures are meaningless is nonsense. Of course one can deduce results when two cars are driven over the same route, in the same weather conditions by the same driver in the same traffic conditions.

What is meaningless is when someone pipes up that their new car costs £50 to fill up while their old one cost £60 and they do an extra 30 miles on a tankful. That's meaningless.

Fiesta 1.0T - Real MPG - RobJP

I'll agree with you, 72 dudes.

I'm strongly of the opinion that manufacturers are designing 'to the test' too.

The test has, unfortunately, become worthless, and is increasingly recognised as such.

Here's one of the 'tricks' in the test : if your car registers a certain result, you can actually say it was better than that, to (I believe) 5%. So Car A registers 120g C/km. The figures in the final result come out at 114g.

Furthermore, for battery/hybrid cars, you are allowed to fully charge the battery in between the tests, so the hybrids come out with ridiculous figures (134mpg for the Prius plug-in Hybrid, but RealMPG records 74mpg, so 55% of the claimed numbers)

Fiesta 1.0T - Real MPG - Bianconeri
I agree with most of what is said here. Without doubt the new generation of small EU6 triples are tuned to pass the exam and show unrealistic statutory consumption and CO2 figures.

My experience of a year with a 900cc C( r)apter is that the engine is pretty hopeless in the real world, very noisy and intrusive and, because of the lack of power at most revs, incredibly thirsty. I have seen 37mpg once or twice but over 8000 miles it's recorded a pitiful 33 mpg despite hardly ever seeing traffic. A rogue? Seemingly not, as the various loan cars have been just as thirsty. To put it I to perspective when I use my wife's (EU5) Fiat 500 1.2 I get 50+ mpg without trying.

In tuning these things to deliver good statutory figures they become pretty hopeless in normal running. The abysmal fuel consumption comes from having to drive the engine so hard to keep up with traffic and, especially, to climb the slightest gradient that emissions must be 10 times the published figures. The constant gear changing to keep the thing spinning is tiresome too.

One thing I do disagree with is the notion that two pistons work together against one, reality is that one piston changes direction every 120 degrees.
Fiesta 1.0T - Real MPG - GHSAUNDERS40
Anyway.
I actually own a Fiesta 1.0 T 100ps. The car is 18 months old and has covered 18k. Tank to tank calculations show the car averages 54.7 mpg. One week the car travels 3 miles per day and on the alternative week I do 100 miles per day. The car has been faultless.

You will not get a small petrolcar with that much engine flexibility and economy elsewhere.

Avoid the 1.25 zetec as it could not pull the skin off a rice pudding and you will use more fuel reving the engine to attempt to get it to go anywhere!

The ecoboost does not need to be driven hard to get performance out of it.

Others commenting need to drive/own an ecoboost long term before criticising one.
Fiesta 1.0T - Real MPG - dieselnut

" The ecoboost does not need to be driven hard to get performance out of it. "

Exactly, & that is where the economy will come from.

It has a small turbo which gives diesel like torque from low revs.

If you still rev it like an ordinary petrol engine it won't give any savings.

Keep the engine riding in the low rev high torque region & it will deliver better fuel economy than a normally aspirated engine.

Fiesta 1.0T - Real MPG - skidpan

" The ecoboost does not need to be driven hard to get performance out of it. "

Exactly, & that is where the economy will come from.

It has a small turbo which gives diesel like torque from low revs.

If you still rev it like an ordinary petrol engine it won't give any savings.

Keep the engine riding in the low rev high torque region & it will deliver better fuel economy than a normally aspirated engine.

I find that I drive my Seat Leon 1.4 TSi just like a diesel but in truth there is no turbo lag whatsoever and the car will pull from walking pace in 2nd nlike most diesels.

In normal driving it is easy to keep up with the flow of traffic without ever going above 2500 rpm, even brisk overtaking needs little more than 3500 rpm.

As I have said before I am getting 45 mpg out of the Leon in mixed use, that is way more than any other petrol I have owned and none have been anywhere near as powerful or as quick. But if I drove it using the revs like you would in a normal petrol I am sure the economy would plummet.

The Ford engines do seem to get bad press regarding the economy. Putting my details into the WhatCar True mpg page the Leon 1.4 TSi result was 42.9 mpg ( a bit less than the 45 mpg I get but close) but the Focus 1.0 Ecoboost 125 32.2 mpg and the Focus 1.6 Ecoboost 150 was 33.2 mpg.

Based on that I will stick to VAG turbo petrols.

Fiesta 1.0T - Real MPG - thirts
Avoid the 1.25 zetec as it could not pull the skin off a rice pudding and you will use more fuel reving the engine to attempt to get it to go anywhere! The ecoboost does not need to be driven hard to get performance out of it. Others commenting need to drive/own an ecoboost long term before criticising one.

Have to agree, I own a 63 plate 1.25 and whilst it's OK, it does need a lot of revs and gears changing to make it move. I feel the car is a tad to big for the engine. However I've no regrets buying it, it was a good deal, and it is OK for the driving I do. Also I tend to keep by cars quite a long time I have a few reservations about the eco-boost engines.

I understand the turbo is water cooled so I guess any slight problem with the cooling system will cook the turbo in a few seconds ?

Fiesta 1.0T - Real MPG - Bianconeri
Anyway. I actually own a Fiesta 1.0 T 100ps. The car is 18 months old and has covered 18k. Tank to tank calculations show the car averages 54.7 mpg. One week the car travels 3 miles per day and on the alternative week I do 100 miles per day. The car has been faultless. You will not get a small petrolcar with that much engine flexibility and economy elsewhere. Avoid the 1.25 zetec as it could not pull the skin off a rice pudding and you will use more fuel reving the engine to attempt to get it to go anywhere! The ecoboost does not need to be driven hard to get performance out of it. Others commenting need to drive/own an ecoboost long term before criticising one.

I was referring to Renault's 900cc turbocharged triple not Ford's. In my experience Renault's has almost zero torque at any revs.

 

Value my car