[yorkie1]

For a 1.6 tdci the figures state 70mpg, and i'm getting 55mpg with a feather foot, 70% out of town and the remainder in town.

Previous cards were
- WV touran 1.9 tdi officially 49.9mpg, personal experience was 50.5mpg.
- Peugeot Partner Teepee 1.6 HDI Outdoor - officially 49.5 mpg, still have car and currently averaging 49.5 mpg
- Ford c-max (2006) 1.6 tdci 90 lx - averaged 54.5mpg (replaced with bmax)


Are fords figures so far out that they are inflating them to look special ?


Having driven a 2ltr GT Golf for a week, this was looking much moreeconomicalin real world conditions - much better than the official figures.


Was a fan of the c-max (fantasticreliability, good mpg, ride etc) , and although the b-max titanium has lots of toys, it concerns me that Ford can get away with giving out misleading information as a way to gain sales.


What's anyone else seeing, or should I that all of a suddenmanufacturers figures bear noresemblanceto reality... ?


I'm thinking i'll be looking at amanufacturerwho is more honest with my next purchase....

 

[john51]

Yorkie,Ford have a legal obligation (as do all European manufacturers) to publish these figures, thay are EC figures, based on lab tests in a variety of driving scenarios but are skewed because of the CO2 figures. I think most will find the reality is 75% of quoted EC figures.
Have a look here:


http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ford/b-max-2011


These are figure submitted live by owners and averaged out, a very useful site.

 

[yorkie1]

John51,I appreciate actual MPG depends on driving style, weather and other factors, and have looked at honest johns site previously and added my own figures to help build up a better picture, but there seems to be an increasing difference between real world figures, and those claimed by manufacturers.


Based on my own driving style, the previous cars, and current Pug car/van have all shown real world MPG as very close to the combined from the manufacturers (VW, Peugeot and Ford from 7 years ago. A real world average shown on Honest John of 53 MPG against a claimed figure of 70 MPG is pretty poor. There have been recent reports that manufacturers finding ways to affect the published figures (i.e. taping over grilles, panel gaps), but from what I've seen, the B-Max is way of the published figures.

 

[rogerhume]

Yes a long way off. we get 57mpg from a 1.4 Fiesta Diesel and hoped the 100ps would get somewhere near that but 38mpg is no better than the Ford 1.7 Puma we had a few years ago

 

[john51]

Agreed... As he says, they skew the figures to arrive at the CO2 levels that Europe base taxation on, I think this also accounts for the gunge pump rather than a spare.Sorry to preach to the converted, others might find the site useful though.


John.

 

[Geriatricus]

Read a comment in one of the motoring columns recently that Manufacturers have to carry out one part of the test at 20-30°C, so they soak the engines in the test area for 24 hours at 30°C before testing! This gives an improvement, so they regard it as worthwhile.
These figures are a fiction as a result of legislation!

 

[micky b-max]

I have now done 2300 miles in my titanium 120ps 1.0ltr. Today I went on a long run to see how the fuel went. After 40 miles of single carriageway, mixed speed limits, and keeping to the limits with full antisipation, I achieved 48mpg as shown on the facia. From here was dual carriage way for another 50 miles and I drove at 70-80mph. At my destination it had dropped to 42mpg. All the way home I drove at no more than 60mph and observed all limits, again with full antisipation of conditions,traffic lights, roundabouts etc.When I got home I'd managed to get back up to 46mpg. My dealer told me that economy would go up as mileage increased. I was getting 36mpg before but was driving it without so much "granny driving".
I'm fairly happy, but I don't think I'll get anywhere near Fords theoretical figures.

 

[fossil01]

Mine's still in the build stage [apparently], butI have to say that being in "Europe", ain't all that it's cracked up to be

!

 

[billyf]

Sad to say my b max 1.4 petrol is only doing 36mpg . We changed from a 1.4 petrol fusion 2 2004, which on same driving was returning 40+. Very unhappy with efficiency as the engine is the same apart from slight upgrading ???, adding 5 bhp and knowing b max is designed far better than the fusion we were expecting more but we're not achieving the 'urban ' claimed mileage rate. Taking all into account, returning 8+ less mpg. Its sad after expecting so much and waiting so long, the high running costs is a big disappointment

 

[Robertdownie]

Yes I agree. I was getting 32 mpg with my cmax 2ltr automatic. I wonder if it is the weight of the doors. My cmax was only 4 geared auto.

 

[daverby99]

We are extremely disappointed with our 1.0 100ps Bmax. We can achieve about 46mpg on a long steady run, but struggle to get 40 day to day. How Ford can be allowed (EC rules should be changed) to call this an Eco engine is beyond me. I used to get 55 from my Cmax 2l diesel as a company car, travelling quickly. We got mid 60s from our Peugeot 1.6 diesel, and swapped that for the Bmax. As a result, our fuel costs have gone up considerably. The dealer check the car, and as we expected said all is as it should be, and would improve. It did, slightly, after about 5k miles, and have not done just under 8k miles.We wish we'd gone back to Peugeot, and are unlikely to buy Ford next time. I'll not trust manufacturers' figures; I know I can get good results with Peugeot.

 

[daverby99]

Apologies for the typos in previous post! We have now done just under 8k miles..

 

[philnicandamy]

Hmm least MPG is better than mine..1.6 powershift and best I get round town 28-29mpg and around 38mpg on a run

 

[Robertdownie]

I have a 1.6 auto and was getting 42mpg combined. It's now went down to 39mpg. Don't know if it's because it's winter and I'm using the heater more. I think you should be getting more than 30mpg.

 

[Specialk]

Hi daverby99,

Your post stated struggled to get 40mpg day to day, lucky you. I have a Titanium EcoBoost 120bhp and I bought it because of the mpg figures stated and most of my driving is short town journeys and I only get an average of 32mpg. Very disappointed.

The most on a long run about 48mpg but not happy when on short journeys.

 

[philnicandamy]

I have a 1.6 auto and was getting 42mpg combined. It's now went down to 39mpg. Don't know if it's because it's winter and I'm using the heater more. I think you should be getting more than 30mpg.

I wish...since delivery (June 2013) it's never gone higher that 29MPG

 

[Geriatricus]

I don't try to differentiate between town and motorway as I do not have a computer on this model(and when I had a car which had one the figures did not reflect real life).
However doing brim to brim and mixed running daily, with the petrol 1.4 I've done around 11k and currently average 36-38mpg. Not in the diesel league but seems acceptable for something which is fundamentally brick-shaped, but still quite a nice looker.



Geriatricus.

 

[norman]

Im getting 40To 42 mpg with 1.6 titanium auto just local trips ie15miles Had the car 2 months.My main gripe is it hasnt stopped raining since I got it.

 

[JOHNWALES]

No matter how eco a petrol engine is proclaimed, it is never going to match a diesel for economy. My 1.6 Titanium CRDI does at least 65 m.p.g., even incorporating daily short hops to the shops. I suggest anyone who needs economy and decides they are going to get it out of a petrol engine, should take any opportunity to drive a demonstrator with the same engine. before starting off check the average fuel consumption reading, then reset it to zero, and see what it builds up to after a 20 mile run. In my experience once the ascending figure starts to slow down you are reaching the economy figure you are likely to achieve on normal driving.

 

[daverby99]

The underlying complaint in my original post and in many of the responses, is the fact that published figures can not be trusted. I believe that one should be able to trust them within reason. Yes, it depends how one drives. I know if I consistently drive quickly, brake too fast, carry loads, roof racks etc etc, I will not get good economy. The fact remains that I don't drive that way. Figures being achieved, not just by me, are way way short of expectations, some as much as thirty to forty percent. If a builder presented a bill of such variance would you let him get away with it? Isn't it about time that motoring organisations put some pressure on to improve things? Perhaps they are, but I've not heard about it.