My 2.0litre 115bhp TDCi only returns approx 40 mpg. I am told it should be more and the local Ford garage has not been able to improve it. It regularly soots up the EGR valve and has had a replacement ECU with several attempts at ECU firmware upgrades. It also suffers the 1700rpm flatspot. Has anyone been able to improve the consumption and fix a similar problem? How did you manage to convince Ford that it could be fixed?
The onboard trip computer gives a very optimistic 47-50mpg readout, but the 40mpg is 'real' and found by a simple calculation of how many miles driven on a tankful of fuel. Anyone know how to re-calibrate the on board trip computer?
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 02/12/2008 at 13:02
|
Cant really help though it should do better, I have logged all my fuel purchases on a Excel spreadsheet and my 130 has averaged 47 mpg over 102,000 miles, it will do well over 50 on a 75 mpg m/way run and never drops below 44, the trip is perhaps only 1.5 mpg optimistic at worst.
Try premium diesel, BP Ultimate or similar and give it a good run regularly using the revs, that should clean out the EGR, you could also try some Millers Diesel Plus additive.
|
I'm afraid the anecdotal reports I often read on this and other forums about TDCi fuel consumption show considerable and, thus far, unexplained variation. In 60K miles, using the old brimming and spreadsheet method, I can make mine (estate 130) do 50mpg if I drive the thing so gently, I might just as well ride a bike. I have even managed a stretch of 60 on the fuel computer, downhill at 60 on the motorway... Generally, my fuel consumption has never been great - about 45 without aircon, more like 43 with. About 38 when towing a heavy trailer. But I decided fairly early on in my ownership that it is better to enjoy the other aspects of this great car, rather than worry about missing out on the fuel bonanza that some drivers seem to manage.
Splodgeface
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you may have a leak somewhere if the trip computer is that much out. Is there any smell of diesel ?, especially after being parked up and are there any damp patches on the road/drive or underneath of the car ?
|
|
|
The onboard trip computer gives a very optimistic 47-50mpg readout, but the 40mpg is 'real' and found by a simple calculation of how many miles driven on a tankful of fuel.
Try calculating it over several tankfuls, to reduce the effect of filling differences. Trip computers are usually optimistic, but not that much.
What kind of use is the car having - 40MPG around town/urban driving would be OK.
|
|
|
|
My 2.0 TDCi 130 returned 43mpg last time I worked it out. The computer said 45 or 46. That's a 2 year old car with 32000 miles.
|
|
|
I have no experience of Ford diesels, but can comment on recent improvements to my Pug HDi, which behaved similarly. As well as sooty exhaust and a strong smell of unburnt fuel, my consumption had worsened from 13 to 11~12 mpl (I have gone metric). Peugeot diagnostics reported no faults, and a local diesel specialist concluded without driving the car that "it must be the way I drive it", took it for a blast and said it would be OK.
Things didn't improve, so I took it to my preferred local indy for a cambelt change (6½ years, 49K) and asked him to check the timing. After playing with the adjusters on the camshaft, he has cleared the soot from the exhaust, and I can now get 13 mpl again. Maybe something is out of adjustment on your Mondeo (it wasn't a case of the cambelt being one tooth out).
|
|
mpl (I have gone metric). mpl as in MILES per litre ? How metric is that then ? ;-)
|
I was reading recently on a Saab forum, so different engine and different trip computer, but people were saying that the trip computer gave way too optimistic mpg readings when the air mass sensor was on the blink.
Maybe yours needs a clean or is faulty? I dont know whether cleaning/ replacing this will improve mpg on a Mondeo, but on Saabs people have reported a performance improvement, which could result in a mpg improvement?
The Saab independant garage I use clean the AMM at every service.
|
|
|
|
Don't pick nits, PU :-) I drive miles and I buy litres - why bother to convert to anything different?
|
Don't pick nits, PU :-) I drive miles and I buy litres - why bother to convert to anything different?
Because it's meaningless to *everbody* - UK people don't think in Litres, and people in mainland Europe who post here don't use miles.
Also, it seems hardly worth worrying about numbers like 1 or 2 (MPL) whereas 4.5-9 MPG is more worthwhile!
|
"UK people don't think in Litres" - so is that why they only ever fill to the brim?
Your statement may be true, but if so, it's time to accept change. It is pretty hard to find anywhere pricing fuel in gallons now, so there is no excuse to perpetuate MPG other than habit. As a scientist I am happy with both units - I just don't see the need for regular unnecessary calculations.
"people in mainland Europe who post here don't use miles" - so they won't use MPG either?
|
"people in mainland Europe who post here don't use miles" - so they won't use MPG either?
and neither will they use MPL! But C'est La Vie - if you want to think in MPL then that's fine. :-)
|
Is there a smell of diesel around the car anywhere?
I had a small leak around one of the injectors on mine, fixed under warranty.
|
|
|
|
|
unless the M stands for metres, in which case there is a serious issue with fuel consumption..... :)
|
First of all you need to calculate you real MPG figure by working it out over a good few tankfuls, because obviously the more tankfuls you take into consideration, the more acurate your average figure will be.
As for the dashboard MPG figure, I don't personally have any experience of how acurate these figures tend to be compared to the real world. I have driven vehicles with this capability, but never bothered to calculate their real accuracy.
With regard to the comments further on in this topic about miles per litre, I also think that quoting MPL figures are irrelevant to the majority of people because whether it is right or wrong, it is the standard form which 'everyone' uses, understands and makes comparisons with.
|
Sorry if this sounds really, really stupid... but my car allegedly has a 70l tank. However a big fill, when it feels as though the car is running on vapours, will rarely exceed 60l and I don't think I've ever put in more than 62l.
If you are dividing miles on the tank by tank capacity, and overlooking the residual amount in the tank, your car will appear to be less economical than it really is - by about the amount that you are suggesting (i.e., I would think that I was getting 38 mpg from 70l but am actually getting about 46mpg).
|
My 2002 TDCi 130 didn't have a trip computer and did 42-44mpg over a tank on normal runs which is mostly urban and B road driving with minimal motorway use. Used on the motorway it would do nearer 50mpg, best ever tank I got was 54mpg which was all 600 miles of 60-70mph running.
My new 2.2 TDCi has a trip computer than seems to be about 3mpg optimistic over manual calculations. The actual consumption is pretty much the same, if anything slightly better, than the 2.0 and it should get better as the engine is still a bit tight.
I wouldn't be too concerned about 40mpg. Driving style has a lot to do with it - my Dad always gets 5mpg less than I do when he borrows my car.
|
My 2002 TDCi 130 didn't have a trip computer
I thought they all had them! You live and learn...
Splodgeface
|
>> My 2002 TDCi 130 didn't have a trip computer I thought they all had them! You live and learn... Splodgeface
Only Ghia and Ghai X pre facelift.
|
My 2003 TDCi 130 consumption gets as low as 39mpg on very short local trips, but up to 53mpg on my commute to work in the summer (47mpg in the winter).
Bizzarly I have managed to get 61 litres into a 58.5 litre tank.
Can confirm that the 2003 Zetec does not hav a trip computer.
|
"Bizarrely I have managed to get 61 litres into a 58.5 litre tank"
Don't overlook the faint possibility that the filling station was selling short litres. Trading Standards monitor this, but it isn't a new scam, and it can't be impossible to arrange.
|
I thought the Mondeo tank capacity was 61.5 liters? I have managed to get 62 liters (when nearly dry) in my 1999 Mk.2 1.8.
~40 mpg sounds poor for a diesel, mine (petrol) has averaged just under 38 (over the last 18000 miles).
It would be good to check if some garages liters are smaller than others!
|
|
There is some history of this - check back for posts about two years ago, one of the reasons I have an Accord.
|
My 130 Estate is 18 months/40K, and I have kept brim-to-brim figures
since I got it at about 7K. I also use Millers Diesel Plus, which seems to provide a slight improvement in mpg, but enough to pay for the stuff in the first place. Tankfuls vary between 49 and 53 mpg, and the running average is currently 51.9. Fuel type seems to make a difference - Shell produces the best figures for mine.
|
There is some history of this - check back for posts about two years ago, one of the reasons I have an Accord.
An Accord, which is very well known for not meeting claimed economy figures.
|
|
|
|
just bought an 05 115 station wagon in uk, drove to Austria
delighted so far, andjust now reset the puter and ddi 50km(30mile) run along the danube at 50 mph , and got on puter 66mpg on cruise control
i expect thefuel usage is abt right, on the 1400 km trip over, it was frugal, I sat 70-80mph , although in the freezing air I slept with motor idling for 6 hours, so I can not estimate what it used,and then realised at 90mph was still doing 2750rpm, , now I know it has a cam chain I may sit on 95mph in Germany although I use light throttle whatever I drive
there is an annoying vibe at idle no load, so had to sleep with lights on , and heater going which nulled the vibe somewhat,
anyone have any idea what thsi vibe could be
cheers
Stu
|
|
For what it is worth, I have a 54 Reg 115 2.0ltr TDCi @ 82K miles. Having noted this thread I carried out two refuels up to the brim and did the usual calculations. Both refills gave a figure of 50.5mpg whilst the on board computer gave 51.5. Not too bad but then I do over 75% of my motoring on the M4 @ around 70mph.
|
The Vibe you refer to is apparently the alternator belt. I took my 06 TDCI to ford and they are doing it under warranty this week. Aparently its quite a common fault.
|
alternator belt? um do you mean pulleys, Idler?
sorry for huge delay I left eu came back to Aust. car was buried in that white stuff all winter, pick up next month
thansk for reply
does anyone know if these 84 gbp fuel chips(ebay) are any use
Stu
|
|
|
|
