I bought a 2.2 TDCi 155 Titanium x 5 Dr on a 06 plate about 2 weeks ago; everything else on the car, so far! is fine. However, i've noticed that i'm not getting as good mpg as my last 2.0 TDCi 52 plate Mondeo. The specs of the 2.2 show 46.3mpg (from Ford) yet on my car info display it averages around 39.1 mpg (i have seen a marked increase in fuel used, a trip to my parents would take 1/4 in my old mondeo in this one it is almost half).
Is this the price i pay for a 2.2 155bhp vehicle or is something wrong with it?!
|
Checked the tyre pressures?
I assume you´re using the same brand of fuel....
Maybe exploiting the performance increase? (I know I would)
|
|
Also, does the 2.2 have wider tyres than the 2.0 as this will increase economy to some degree.
|
Yes, when i initially purchased the car i did have a heavy right foot, the wife is now using the motor for work and says teh mpg read out is the same and when i did a trip at speed limits it stayed the same again, average 39.1.
As for the tyres, pressures are fine, no idea about the width, but will check later. However, as the manufacturer states average consumptiom 46.3, another site claims 44.8, is 39.1 more realistic?
|
|
Two things - check the real consumption, not the computer - ie tank brim to brim several times - that's far more accurate. Also remember that the official fuel figures are just a measurement in a test and are very hard to achieve in day to day driving.
|
|
Wider tyres will cause more drag;the consumption will increase.
|
I made the same move a while ago, although to an ST TDCi and if anything the ST is actually a bit more economical but theres nothing in it really. My trip computer over-reads by about 5MPG sometimes - at the moment its showing 51mpg but manual calculations suggest its about 46mpg. I do a fair bit of motorway work now but when I got the car I was blasting down A and B roads and it still returned above 40mpg on every tank of fuel I've put through it.
Your Tit X will have 225/40/18's on it - these need 36-38psi in the fronts or they will wear the edges and tramline like mad. I run 38 in the front and 36 in the rears, but Ford reccomend cars with sports suspension run the 100mph+ pressures all the time. I had a laser wheel alignment on mine that seems to have made the front tyres last much better, although part of that will be from switching to Michelin Pilot Sport PS2 tyres I suspect. The bigger tyres will tend to increase fuel consumption a bit.
Other factors that won't help are not using the gears correctly - the 2.2 will pull easily from low down and lets you get away with driving in the wrong gear. I use 3rd up to about 35, 4th upto 50, 5th above 50 and don't use 6th unless I'm crusing above 60, and I downchange to 5th if the speed drops towards 50. Going onto the motorway I generally block change 4th straight to 6th once I've hit 70. It is not compulsory to use every gear on every trip!
If your old car had manual aircon and you tended to turn it off, bear in mind the CC in Auto mode will run the aircon all the time. Switching to ECO mode will stop the compressor operating and will save you a couple of MPG.
I always run mine on Shell Diesel Extra and occasionally add a bit of Millers Diesel Power Plus.
|
Stop complaining - you can't have it both ways! A large heavy car like the Mondeo loaded with kit and big fat alloys is doing well to get such economy figures. A 2.2 diesel won't give the same economy as say a 1.8 or 1.5 as it's performance oriented. Just enjoy the performance and torque - it's a trade off. If you want 50 plus mpg then stick to a mid size Focus or less but obviously they are less rewarding to drive.
If you had a 2.5 V6 petrol or 2.0 petrol even it would be 25 - 30mpg so you are in a better position than those models with same spec and more useable performance.
If you have a small 1.2 hatchback then all you can look forward to is some decent economy as the reward for boredom. I imagine your car is a pleasure to drive so enjoy it for what it is.
|
|
|
|
Wider tyres will cause more drag;the consumption will increase.
Yeah, that's what I meant, my post meant to say will decrease economy!
|
|
Thank you for the replies (nice reply Qunniy, will try your pressures next time!)
|
|
Our 2.0 130 TDCi Mondeo has taken til 25,000 miles before it started returning the claimed combined figure on motorway/country driving.
|
|
I wouldn't worry too much - the trip MPG on these is notoriously optimistic when compared with brim-to-brim. Try adding Millers Diesel Power Sport 4 and see if that improves it - did with mine (2.0 TDCi 130) by 2-3 mpg and it seems more responsive, too. If nothing else, it'll help keep the injectors clean.
|
|
Sorry - in post above, for "optimistic" please read "just plain wrong". Apols for any confusion.
|
The MPG calculators on most cars are very bad at calculating the true fuel consumption. As mentioned by someone else it took 25k miles to getting the manufacturers reading.
Brand new or reset will give you 0 and as soon as you drive it away it attempts to calculate an average. However, town driving especially in a 2.2 diesel aint too pretty, if you reset it today you'll probably see 32mpg around the town and thats what you probably got coming out of the garage. When the trip computer thinks its average is around 32mpg it takes a very long time to get up to say 45mpg, it takes ages to weight it out correctly. Even if you do get 45mpg on A roads it greater weighting is to the 32mpg reading.
However if you reset it whilst driving on the motorway or A roads you'll get in the 40's and the same happens when you hit the town again, you'll get a funny reading. Therefore on new cars or after resets it really does take a long time to average out. Your best bet is to calculate it manually. Having said that 39.1mpg if you do 50/50 town and A roads is pretty good.
|
>Therefore on new cars or after resets it really does take a long time to average out.
Not sure that's true in all cases - I think the logic the computers in different cars use varies enormously. My Saabs used to calculate average consumption since the last manual reset (which I did when I filled up) and to give a distance to empty extrapolated from consumption over the previous 20 minutes. This sometimes gave entertaining results: I remember once filling up at the top of a big hill (in France) and watching the computer go nuts as I rolled gently down the hill and it tried to display values of over 1000 miles and 100 mpg.
The computer in our Fabia works on different logic but I've not bothered to look it up. The Volvo doesn't have one at all, and I really don't miss it.
|
|
I managed to get 22mpg showing over a 200-mile trip with my 130 TDCi last week. Admittedly I was towing a 1400Kg caravan with lots of uphill stretches.
|
Ivrytwr3
Another reason why you will get a slightly reduced fuel economy could be down to the fact that the engine is stage4 emissions and is therefore under slightly more load (to acheive this standard) than your previous engine.
I drive an 06 plate ST TDCI and 42MPG is displayed on the trip but as people have said here check brim to brim and the trip can be very inaccurate. Mine is reading approx 4MPG low.
Carse
|
the engine is stage4 emissions and is therefore under slightly more load (to acheive this standard) than your previous engine.
That's interesting - and certainly explains why my mate's ostensibly identical but Euro 3 Mondeo produces better trip mpg figures than mine, which is Euro 4.
|
|
|
