MPG Descrepency between Official and actual

patmac

Hi following on from this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057187247
I purchased a new Ford Fiesta Diesel in the hope of getting around 60-65 mpg. Official figures say 76.4 combined. I drive 100kms per day 60 @ 100 kph and 35 @ 120 kph with little or no urban driving. I am averaging 52 mpg, I know these figures are correct as I have recorded all of the fills etc since I bought the car.
I contacted my local dealer who ran tests on the car and say that nothing untoward is wrong with it and to contact Ford direct.
Any help as to who to contact and what I should say would be appreciated as 52 mpg is way below what was advertised and this is what moved me towards buying the car in the first place.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

JC01

Normally there is a fairly big difference in quoted and actual mpg alright and the small print will put Ford in the clear here.

I think your main problem is the kinda driving you do. A small diesel won't be at all near its most economical on long motorway cruises which is basically what your doing. That's the sorta driving a bigger engine is far more relaxed at.

mikeecho

The tests that the manufactuers do when determining mpg / L/100km, they have the car stripped of the spare wheel, and a lot of electronics, the car is in a controlled environment with no wind , no gradient and little or no rolling resistance, and only the bare amount of fuel necessary

The gaps in the doors are taped up, the grill is taped up, the tyres are over inflated and the lab is either at a high temp or high altitude.

Not real world conditions, and you will never achieve what they state is possible.

But having said that.. they are operating within the legal parameters of the EU

http://www.mumsnet.com/cars/info/news/the-truth-about-official-fuel-economy-figures

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/cJkmSMMknHxN0KBxtt4Jxl/misleading-mpg-claims

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/eu-cartesting-system-has-delusional-fueleconomy-figures-29135167.html

vandriver

Guess what mpg this motoring journalist got......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufacturers/ford/10328948/Driven-Ford-Fiesta-1.5-TDCi.html

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

..Brian..

mikeecho wrote: »

The tests that the manufactuers do when determining mpg / L/100km, they have the car stripped of the spare wheel, and a lot of electronics, the car is in a controlled environment with no wind , no gradient and little or no rolling resistance, and only the bare amount of fuel necessary

The gaps in the doors are taped up, the grill is taped up, the tyres are over inflated and the lab is either at a high temp or high altitude.

Not real world conditions, and you will never achieve what they state is possible.

But having said that.. they are operating within the legal parameters of the EU

http://www.mumsnet.com/cars/info/news/the-truth-about-official-fuel-economy-figures

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/cJkmSMMknHxN0KBxtt4Jxl/misleading-mpg-claims

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/eu-cartesting-system-has-delusional-fueleconomy-figures-29135167.html

Wow, that's unreal. Unbelievable that they can still get away with it.

A modern petrol fiesta would rival those figures I imagine. I run a 1.8 diesel Lancer and average over 50mpg, I do little motorway or urban driving, mostly 80km or 100km per hour rural road where I would not hit the speed limit too often.

Henry Ford III

My 115bhp Focus 1.6TDCI is averaging 57.3mpg. From new and over about 6000 miles.

Atlantic Dawn

The figures will never match up, they are done in test conditions with test cars of which you will never be able to replicate, here's some details on recent reports...

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuels-and-environment/official-fuel-consumption-figures.html

vandriver

Also,you mention doing 120 kph for part of your journey. This uses about 25% more fuel than doing 90 kph.

CiniO

patmac wrote: »

Hi following on from this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057187247
I purchased a new Ford Fiesta Diesel in the hope of getting around 60-65 mpg. Official figures say 76.4 combined. I drive 100kms per day 60 @ 100 kph and 35 @ 120 kph with little or no urban driving. I am averaging 52 mpg, I know these figures are correct as I have recorded all of the fills etc since I bought the car.
I contacted my local dealer who ran tests on the car and say that nothing untoward is wrong with it and to contact Ford direct.
Any help as to who to contact and what I should say would be appreciated as 52 mpg is way below what was advertised and this is what moved me towards buying the car in the first place.

Did you try driving slower?
At 70-80 km/h most likely you will be able to achieve your 70mpg.

jca

I think the 120 km/h section is where you are wasting fuel. If you dropped back to 100 km/h it would make a big difference.

patmac

Thanks for the replies

vandriver wrote: »

Also,you mention doing 120 kph for part of your journey. This uses about 25% more fuel than doing 90 kph.

I checked this out this evening it is only 28km in total@ between 115- 120 so 25% of 28% so should still be getting close to 70.

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The figures will never match up, they are done in test conditions with test cars of which you will never be able to replicate, here's some details on recent reports...

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuels-and-environment/official-fuel-consumption-figures.html

It seems like this is standard and that up to 35% discrepancy where as I am suffering almost 60% down on official figures.

Not much sympathy here, I think this is scandalous my old Swift was getting 44mpg and I was sold the car under the impression that I would make serious savings. The MPG charts are all over the Ford Showroom and they are deliberately misleading people by making outragous claims. I will go after Ford myself and try other media outlets.

patmac

jca wrote: »

I think the 120 km/h section is where you are wasting fuel. If you dropped back to 100 km/h it would make a big difference.

I will do this from tomorrow and see what difference it makes, but as I said it is only 14 Km's each way so only 28% of the journey.

CiniO

patmac wrote: »

Thanks for the replies
I checked this out this evening it is only 28km in total@ between 115- 120 so 25% of 28% so should still be getting close to 70.


It seems like this is standard and that up to 35% discrepancy where as I am suffering almost 60% down on official figures.

Not much sympathy here, I think this is scandalous my old Swift was getting 44mpg and I was sold the car under the impression that I would make serious savings. The MPG charts are all over the Ford Showroom and they are deliberately misleading people by making outragous claims. I will go after Ford myself and try other media outlets.

Did you try driving the same stretch of the road at 70-80 km/h.
I strongly believe, then you would achieve a good bit over 70mpg.

patmac

mikeecho wrote: »

The tests that the manufactuers do when determining mpg / L/100km, they have the car stripped of the spare wheel, and a lot of electronics, the car is in a controlled environment with no wind , no gradient and little or no rolling resistance, and only the bare amount of fuel necessary

The gaps in the doors are taped up, the grill is taped up, the tyres are over inflated and the lab is either at a high temp or high altitude.



http://www.mumsnet.com/cars/info/news/the-truth-about-official-fuel-economy-figures

Interestingly the MPG for the Fiesta on the Mumsnet survey is 62.1. I have had the car checked out so there are no faults on it.

jca

Honest john's site gives real life mpg for the tdci fiesta as 57, so you aren't too far off the realistic mark. The real life mpg figures they give for my car are spot on.

MuppetCheck

What sort of mileage is on it? In my experience MPG improves with miles. And with any modern diesel don't be afraid to drive it hard once in a while - it won't do any harm at all.

Is it your first diesel? You so need to adjust your driving habits slightly.

That's pretty poor all the same, I'm getting more than that from a heavier 2 litre diesel car. But it should improve over time.

patmac

MuppetCheck wrote: »

What sort of mileage is on it? In my experience MPG improves with miles. And with any modern diesel don't be afraid to drive it hard once in a while - it won't do any harm at all.

Is it your first diesel? You so need to adjust your driving habits slightly.

That's pretty poor all the same, I'm getting more than that from a heavier 2 litre diesel car. But it should improve over time.

6400kms my first diesel, what adjustments do I need to do? Not much gear changing involved at moment but maybe more when the schools come back.

patmac

CiniO wrote: »

Did you try driving the same stretch of the road at 70-80 km/h.
I strongly believe, then you would achieve a good bit over 70mpg.

Who wants to drive at 80 kph on a motorway? If car companies are going to advertise these figures then it should be compulsory for new car buyers to be informed that we will only obtain these figures if we crawl along duel carriageways and motorways at 70 kph, with the spare tyre removed all the windows and doors taped up, the tyres over inflated, the cool looking Aston Martin type grill filled in and it will only be achieved in high altitude countries. What a load of bollox. Buyer beware even in 2014 that you might be able to trust a car salesman even one from a supposedly reputable dealer.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

MuppetCheck

patmac wrote: »

6400kms my first diesel, what adjustments do I need to do? Not much gear changing involved at moment but maybe more when the schools come back.

It should get better. That's not run in. It really does take 10k at least before they start to improve.

Changes are there's no need really to rev above 3k, don't change up too early either. The engine struggling doesn't help. Being in the highest gear possible doesn't always equate to economy.

vandriver

Driving style can make a quite marked difference to mpg.On the same type of motorway,long journeys my wife gets 41 mpg (petrol car) and I can get 47!

R.O.R

It should improve as the mileage on the car goes up, but there's a big difference between stated and actual consumption, and for the OP's type of driving, I'd expect the difference to be a lot smaller.

I have a similar commute to the OP, and get to drive it fairly frequently in different cars. Usually I'll get close to the stated average consumption figures, but the furthest I've been out recently was a Ford as well.....

I'm getting 6 l/100km from my 5 Series that should do 5.6
Got 4.3 from a brand new S60 D2 recently, that should do 3.9
Got 4.3 from a 180,000km Passat 1.6Tdi, that should do 4.3!

Had to test the consumption on a Kuga 2.0Tdci a few weeks ago as the driver was complaining it was much higher than the stated 5.2 L/100km. Car had a new ECU 2 days after it was delivered (someone forgot to put the cover over the ECU, being Ireland it rained and fried it) so we weren't sure if that was causing an issue. Drove home very carefully and managed 6L/100km. Drove back the next morning as normal and got 6.1L/100km - not great, but much better than the 7.5 - 8 the driver has been experiencing, and just about within the tolerances I'd expect.

Turns out he's been using the radar cruise all the time, which obviously has a major negative impact on consumption (but a positive impact on taking some of the stress out of motorway driving), so he can either take higher fuel usage (well, his massive multinational company can), or he use manual throttle and save a bit at the pumps.

jimgoose

The ridiculous motor tax system encourages all kinds of messing when it comes to official fuel consumption figures, which increasingly have nothing to do with real-world usage. I'm afraid you'll have that, OP! :pac:

patmac

Started to drive the 28kms of motorway at 100 kph instead of 120 this morning (not impressed by the little old dear overtaking me) to see if that will make a difference, time wise despite seeming an age I calculate the time difference to be only about 1 minute 25 seconds each way.
I still think the whole MPG fabrication is a pure scam and will be contacting Ford direct and see how I get on.

CiniO

patmac wrote: »

Started to drive the 28kms of motorway at 100 kph instead of 120 this morning (not impressed by the little old dear overtaking me) to see if that will make a difference, time wise despite seeming an age I calculate the time difference to be only about 1 minute 25 seconds each way.
I still think the whole MPG fabrication is a pure scam and will be contacting Ford direct and see how I get on.

I'll repeat it again.
Official figures don't assume travelling at 120km/h or 100km/h.
Is most cars best fuel economy is achieved at steady speed at around 70-80km/h. And that's the style of driving you'd need to do, to achieve those manufacturers spec fuel economy figures.

jimgoose

patmac wrote: »

Started to drive the 28kms of motorway at 100 kph instead of 120 this morning (not impressed by the little old dear overtaking me) to see if that will make a difference, time wise despite seeming an age I calculate the time difference to be only about 1 minute 25 seconds each way.
I still think the whole MPG fabrication is a pure scam and will be contacting Ford direct and see how I get on.

You'll find that Ford are conducting their tests precisely as the regulations set out, and they're actually not the worst of them in this regard. I suggest you find a more productive use of your time, such as putting a vegetable-strainer on your head and attacking a lunatic asylum with a banana!

jca

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Did you actually realistically expect your car to do the quoted figures? I don't mean to sound rude but that`s quite gullible. Pretty much any performance figures that are quoted are always done in a lab environment that is tough to replicate in real life. Ford will just say they are following the rules just like everybody else and tell you to jog on.

Exactly.

Idbatterim

On the motorway put down window and put hand out for a secon you will see whsy the windresistance is like at 120kph and what the car is having to push through! When it comes to changing tyres, low rolling resistance tyres might save a bit...

patmac

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Did you actually realistically expect your car to do the quoted figures? I don't mean to sound rude but that`s quite gullible. Pretty much any performance figures that are quoted are always done in a lab environment that is tough to replicate in real life. Ford will just say they are following the rules just like everybody else and tell you to jog on.

Oh so I'm at fault for believing the figures that are on display as you walk in the door of the local show room, I never expected to get near the 76.4 mpg or even the 85.6 that is quoted under ideal conditions, but to say I'm gullible when I am only getting 52 mpg is rude, so I imagine you must work for a garage or something, it's mis-selling no matter what way you try and dress it up.

Squatman

Good morning PATMAC,
can you pull out the owners manual and check the combined mileage MPG or mixed mileage. This should be fairly accurate. (well my sample size is golf, passat, and avensis) but should be worth a look.

alias no.9

With a move to emissions based taxation across europe and the requirements for car manufacturers to push down the average emissions of their ranges, cars are being designed to perform in the standardised test rather than the standardised test providing a snap shot of how it performs.

All you can really use these numbers for is to compare the relative performance of two different models under the broad assumption that each manufacturer is equally adept at maximising their test performance.

makeorbrake

@patmac: Don't waste any energy contacting Ford. Your time would be better spent submitting your mpg rates to honest john. It's the place I check out for actual mpg data. It could just do with more reports to cover all cars.

jca

makeorbrake wrote: »

@patmac: Don't waste any energy contacting Ford. Your time would be better spent submitting your mpg rates to honest john. It's the place I check out for actual mpg data. It could just do with more reports to cover all cars.

The honest John site gives 57 mpg for his car which is what it will creep up to when the engine runs in a bit.

CiniO

Idbatterim wrote: »

On the motorway put down window and put hand out for a secon you will see whsy the windresistance is like at 120kph and what the car is having to push through! When it comes to changing tyres, low rolling resistance tyres might save a bit...

Exactly.
At 120km/h wind resistance is nearly 3 times greater than at 70km/h

patmac

Squatman wrote: »

Good morning PATMAC,
can you pull out the owners manual and check the combined mileage MPG or mixed mileage. This should be fairly accurate. (well my sample size is golf, passat, and avensis) but should be worth a look.

Will do when I get home.

makeorbrake wrote: »

@patmac: Don't waste any energy contacting Ford.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Pick anything that has official figures and try to get to them. Look at phone standby times for instance you never get the same as the what the manufacturer states. Yeah maybe if you disable every service, put the brightness to the lowest, turn of 3g and never use it perhaps.

The batteries I use in my R/C planes are supposed to last a number of charge cycles before they give up. Do they last that long? Nope. Long life efficient bulbs are supposed to last 10,000 hours but most don`t get anywhere near that.

I think you are living in a dream world where manufacturers are 100% truthful.

But why sit here and accept it? Miss-selling of mortgages is what has the country the way it is, if I went into the showroom and the salesman said the car will get 76.4 mpg if you live in Bolivia with the windows, grill and doors taped up, but realistically you are more likely to get between 50 and 60 I'd have been happy and reconsidered whether or not to purchase the new car.
The sad thing is I really all the other aspects about the car.

djimi

If they are advertising the MPG within legal regulations then there is absolutely no point in contacting them about it. If you want to pursue this then you would be better off looking to get the regulations tightened so that this kind of discrepancy is not acceptable.

When it comes to this sort of thing, manufacturer advertising is just about the last place that any attention should be paid to. Plenty of online reviews and guides that will give the real world MPG of the car, that would be closer to what you can expect to see. If you are spending that much money on a new car then I find it hard to believe in this day and age that you didnt take the time to research it fully online before you spent your money.

makeorbrake

patmac wrote: »

But why sit here and accept it?

What djimi said. I was equally disgusted when finding out the same thing - coincidentally with pretty much the same car (despite the discrepancy, it's still pretty economical by comparison with others). Change will have to come from the regulation end of things.

Bio Mech

patmac wrote: »

Will do when I get home.





But why sit here and accept it? Miss-selling of mortgages is what has the country the way it is, if I went into the showroom and the salesman said the car will get 76.4 mpg if you live in Bolivia with the windows, grill and doors taped up, but realistically you are more likely to get between 50 and 60 I'd have been happy and reconsidered whether or not to purchase the new car.
The sad thing is I really all the other aspects about the car.

I really think you are missing the point here. The figures quoted are not a guarantee of what you personally will get, they are an indication of the cars consumption in standardised conditions.

That is to say a car with a claimed MPG in ideal conditions of 70 mpg is likely to be more economical than a car with claimed 40 mpg. That's all it tells you really, relative economy in ideal conditions. Neither is a guarantee of what you will get anywhere in the world under very diverse road, weather and driving conditions.

I can understand its frustrating but you will get know joy winding your self up and going to Ford giving out. You now know how the figures work. Learn and move on I would say.

Also people don't "sit here and accept it" really. The system is what it is. Lots of people understand how it works here and how the standardization is supposed to function. You are, IMO, feeling annoyed because you didn't understand the system. Now you do so you will know next time.

patmac

Bio Mech wrote: »

I really think you are missing the point here. The figures quoted are not a guarantee of what you personally will get, they are an indication of the cars consumption in standardised conditions.

That is to say a car with a claimed MPG in ideal conditions of 70 mpg is likely to be more economical than a car with claimed 40 mpg. That's all it tells you really, relative economy in ideal conditions. Neither is a guarantee of what you will get anywhere in the world under very diverse road, weather and driving conditions.

I can understand its frustrating but you will get know joy winding your self up and going to Ford giving out. You now know how the figures work. Learn and move on I would say.

Also people don't "sit here and accept it" really. The system is what it is. Lots of people understand how it works here and how the standardization is supposed to function. You are, IMO, feeling annoyed because you didn't understand the system. Now you do so you will know next time.

The system is what it is, so that's ok so. Define lots of people 10, 100, 1000, 10 million? I really think that you are missing the point here, I understand that the figures are misleading but by 54%? That's kinda extracting the Michael especially as they were only out by 6-8 % in 2001.

jca

patmac wrote: »

The system is what it is, so that's ok so. Define lots of people 10, 100, 1000, 10 million? I understand that the figures are misleading but by 54%? That's kinda extracting the Michael especially as they were only out by 6-8 % in 2001.

Look, In the words of judge judy, build a bridge and get over it. When the Fiesta is paid for buy a Leaf.... No mpg worries.

John T Carroll

patmac wrote: »

Hi following on from this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057187247
I purchased a new Ford Fiesta Diesel in the hope of getting around 60-65 mpg. Official figures say 76.4 combined. I drive 100kms per day 60 @ 100 kph and 35 @ 120 kph with little or no urban driving. I am averaging 52 mpg, I know these figures are correct as I have recorded all of the fills etc since I bought the car.
I contacted my local dealer who ran tests on the car and say that nothing untoward is wrong with it and to contact Ford direct.
Any help as to who to contact and what I should say would be appreciated as 52 mpg is way below what was advertised and this is what moved me towards buying the car in the first place.

A car of that size should definitely be giving you around 60 to 65 MPG under those conditions. My son in laws consumption is 4.2 l/100 kms under very similar conditions to your driving, which is about 66 MPG in a 1.6, 110 BHP, Diesel Golf.

RandomAccess

This reminds me of the controversy in the US relating to the civic hybrid.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_Hybrid#Legal_actions_over_mileage_claims

https://autos.yahoo.com/news/woman-wins-small-claims-suit-over-honda-civic-hybrid.html

jca

John T Carroll wrote: »

A car of that size should definitely be giving you around 60 to 65 MPG under those conditions. My son in laws consumption is 4.2 l/100 kms under very similar conditions to your driving, which is about 66 MPG in a 1.6, 110 BHP, Diesel Golf.

Is that actual measured fuel consumption or is it just what the read-out tells him? I'd imagine the golf is well run in as well. I think the fiesta will improve as the engine frees up.

John T Carroll

jca wrote: »

Is that actual measured fuel consumption or is it just what the read-out tells him? I'd imagine the golf is well run in as well. I think the fiesta will improve as the engine frees up.

Its measured consumption done over a number of "one month" periods on numerous occasions. Yes, the Golf is certainly run in now, it has well over 100,000 Kms behind it in 3 years or so.
He did say that on Cork Dublin Cork runs, where he would be driving at 120 + Kms/hr where possible, that the consumption would rise (as per trip recordings only) to around 5.2 L/100 kms which is 54.3 MPG.

Bigcheeze

R.O.R wrote: »

Turns out he's been using the radar cruise all the time, which obviously has a major negative impact on consumption (but a positive impact on taking some of the stress out of motorway driving), so he can either take higher fuel usage (well, his massive multinational company can), or he use manual throttle and save a bit at the pumps.

Does cruise control generally impact mpg that much ?

ianobrien

OP, I know that the driver and the way s/he drives is key. For example, my father can get 4 to 6mpg more than me driving the same car over the same journeys.

Not being rude or anything OP but how do you drive? Do you mash the throttle and brake heavily or are you gentle on both?

guil

patmac wrote: »

The system is what it is, so that's ok so. Define lots of people 10, 100, 1000, 10 million? I really think that you are missing the point here, I understand that the figures are misleading but by 54%? That's kinda extracting the Michael especially as they were only out by 6-8 % in 2001.

Your calculations are way off. There's a difference of about 30% between quoted and actual figures.

Squatman

@ PATMAC, did you check the owners manual?