As mentioned above, on the new Mondeo forums, the 1.8 owners report consumption that's consistently lower than the 2.0 ... typically 45+ compared with around 40-45 for the 2.0.
I wouldn't thrash it, but again on the Ford forums, owners generally report better economy by keeping the revs between 2 and 3,000 rather than changing up too early.
Certainly the motor has got enough torque to pull the car along at sub-2000rpm, but it won't necessarily be at its most economical when doing that.
|
Have you got a link to that forum? Wouldn't mind taking a look.
Thrashed it this morning on the way to work...drove it like a petrol car, you could say. Over-taking (and under-taking...middle lane drivers), higher gear changes, left it in 4th in the 30 zones, only hit 6th above 70.
38mpg.
If it wasn't electronic, I'd think it was stuck.
Thanks again - particularly on the running new engines in advice and keeping it between 2 and 3000 revs. Very useful.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 26/11/2008 at 12:53
|
|
Are you taking the car's own MPG reading, or doing brim-to-brim divided by miles covered calcs?
|
|
Were you looking at the average reading. If it's not been reset lately then if you've say achieved 38mpg over 2000 miles then driving it differently for 30 miles probably would not change that average ;-)
|
:) I'm not totally daft.
I re-set it first thing to try out the economy in "thrashing it" mode.
And yes, I'm going off the computer's MPG - but I have done it the other way.
A re-fill took 64 litres when the car had done 550 miles, so 39mpg by my reckoning - but that was two huge journeys doing a solid 70 ish mph; as good as it's going to get economy wise. The computer read it correctly as well - so I was suprised to see the view above that it's not to be trusted - what's the story there?
|
|
|
|
It's www.fordmondeo.org, under the MkIV section there's a TDCI sub-forum.
Recent 1.8 versus 2.0TDCI thread here: www.fordmondeo.org/forum/showtopic.php?tid/781889/
|
>>Is anyone else having this problem? Is it a fault? Should I be contacting Ford?
IMO, you could try leaning quite hard on the leasing company suggesting (in writing every time you contact them) that something is definitely wrong with the car to be so wide of the official mpg and you're going to have to consider rejecting it unless it gets fixed. When your Ford dealer says everything is okay, assuming it hasn't changed, reject their findings and start discussing exchanging the car and keep up the pressure. You might not get anywhere but the earlier you make contact the better and if you shout long and loud enough you might be surprised.
FWIW my experience of several diesels from new is that after 20,000 miles they definitely run smoother, seem noticeably more powerful but the mpg efficiency improvement is marginal and certainly not the 25% you're hoping for. I get 40mpg out of my 5 speed, Legacy diesel at "quite different" motorway speeds than you.
|
but that was two huge journeys doing a solid 70 ish mph; as good as it's going to get economy wise.
You'll find at steady 60mph, your MPG should be approx. 15-20% better.
Average speed is hugely important to MPG.
My Forester 2.5 turbo does 27mpg in 70+mph motorway driving, with plenty of boost to overtake.
On a 240 mile motorway drive set at 64mph (60 by sat-nav) I get 34mpg. At 60 you can also stay in the inside lane and never be caught up by HGVs, and when you start to catch one up you have plenty of time to smoothly get past without brakes or phat throttle.
Nice to chill out and relax sometimes rather than join the ratrace in lanes 2 and 3 ;-)
|
I find almost the opposite on daytime motorways: lane 1 and 2 are constantly being baulked by trucks doing 57 / 58 mph, much smoother progress in lane 2 & 3 at a steady 75+ ....
|
|
Aye, very dependent upon which motorway, and the number of 65-70mph middle lane jockeys.
|
Quick update on this - I've done a couple of hundred miles driving it a bit harder - like I drove all the other cars, and it has had a bit of a difference on the mpg.
It's down to 35.
Which is about the same as a petrol Audi quattro.
Super.
It's going back.
|
|
Best of luck rejecting a company car - it will be more difficult than you think. Is it a lease car?
|
That is poor, and is certainly a lot lower than other 1.8 owners on the Ford forums get.
Have you experienced any driveability problems with it, such as excessive throttle lag, difficult pulling away from standstill, stalling or similar?
|
Ah, well, now you mention it Craig - all of the above. I'd not stalled a car since I turned 20, but I've stalled this three times now....and I daren't pull out on anyone, because it can take a few seconds (literally) before it seems to catch.
What does it mean?
When I say "it's going back" - I mean to the dealership to be checked out, because yes it is a lease car, and I'd be surprised if they'd allow me to throw a hissy fit and give it them back.
|
There are lots of threads on fordmondeo.org and smaxownersclub.co.uk from 1.8 TDCi owners about stalling / lag issues, and how owners have had these solved with an ECU reflash at the dealers.
I will find some links to threads about this to show your dealer.
The problem as I understand it is, Ford does NOT issue technical service bulletins about these ECU software updates / tweaks. Instead, they just put the new software code on their central service computer system, and it's automatically downloaded when the car is hooked up to the diagnostics.
So the dealers don't always know there is an update available ... unless they've already done software updates on similar cars.
|
Here's a useful thread -- one of the moderators on the SMax forum (same 1.8 TDCI engine) got his dealer to update the ECU software and reported good results.
Might be worth printing this, highlighting the relevant bits and taking it with you to show the service people.
www.smaxownersclub.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=13...5
|
|
That's fantastic thanks Craig - really appreciate you going to the time and effort.
|
my pleasure -- I found my Ford dealer to be willing and helpful, just not especially clued-in on the fine details of software updates etc
|
|
Have you tried using only main dealer diesel (Shell Diesel Extraespecially) instead of using supermarket diesel. I tried switching to Tesco from Shell (because of clubpoints) and I got a retuned of about 20mpg less. I have switched back to Shell and my mpg has returned to >52mpg (Honda Accord).
|
There is no way using Tesco or any other supermarket's diesel will result in 20mpg less.
It sounds like craig has found some useful info on an upgrade to the ECU that needs exploring.
|
I've tried Shell, BP and Tesco - no difference.
It's booked in for Wednesday anyway - helpful dealer has agreed to check out the computer mapping.
And it's down to 32mpg...I'm praying it's got a problem that can be fixed.
|
I'd get 32mpg in my 1.8T Passat back in 2001-2003 easily. Something is wrong.
My diesels could be better but often lots of short journey's only (work from home a lot on the current projects).
|
Good luck with it, and please do report back what the dealer finds.
As a minimum, the car should be hooked up to the Ford diagnostic computer and any new updates downloaded.
|
With this Mondeo, I've done mostly motorway miles, mostly around about 70-75mph, and the economy is 38mpg.
My petrol Volvo S60 2.0T does 50-70 miles a day, all bar about 5 of which are motorway. I am regularly seeing 34 mpg without trying at all, and if I stick rigidly to the limits, and get lucky with traffic, I can actually see 39 mpg over a tankful, believe it or not.
To get our Grand Scenic 1.9dCi below 40 mpg average on a "mostly motorway" tankful, you'd need to drive it consistently at 90+ mph, and even then you'd probably still scrape into the 40s. 30's returns are reserved for tankfuls where it's been stuck mostly in town.
Driven at 70-75, on a motorway, it's doing 62 mpg according to the computer, with a comfortable brim to brim measured average of 48-50 as long as there's not too much town work thrown into the mix.
Your engine is still tight, but even so I'd expect way better than 38 mpg. I also suggest you get it checked out. Aren't Ford notorious for their new diesel models needing endless software updates for the first year or so?
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 02/12/2008 at 10:26
|
My own Mark 4 (2.0TDCI) hasn't needed a software update, but I've posted before about going round its engine bay checking and (where necessary) finishing / correcting a poor job on the assembly line .... vacuum hoses and intercooler hoses not properly mounted on their spigots, engine breather hoses with the clip half on and half off, that sort of thing.
As a result I don't get any of the problems of stalling / hesitation / cutting out that a lot of Mark 4 TDCI owners have encountered, and I suspect a large proportion of these are caused by minor air leaks etc from assembly-line sloppiness.
All it takes is a slight inlet of air after the MAF and the engine will run a little lean, or a tiny vacuum leak so the VNT / EGR systems don't work smoothly.
|
Just found this on HJ's car-by-car breakdown for the Mondeo IV:
"Poor economy and sluggish performance from the 1.8TDCI can be cured by an ECU download. There is now a a new one. The previous one ended in "LG". There is now a new one ending "LH". That's the one you need."
How's it going Dave?
|
Awful!
They said the computer side of it checked out ok and there were no updates to be applied.
They took it for a test drive and got 36mpg and said that's good enough to prove there's no problem.
Not picked the car up yet, but I'm not expecting there to be any difference in light of that.
Might mention that LH rather than LG thing to them.
Gutted...I'll go down the shady ebay chipping route I reckon.
|
Shady chipping - don't do it. You'll be uninsured and in breach of contract. Not worth it for a difference of 2p a mile in running costs.
Try another dealer, or try and reject: someone on here successfully rejected a V50 for similar lack of efficiency.
|
Don't chip it - if there is something wrong with it and it gets worse then you'll find you've voided the warranty and you personally will have to pick up the repair costs. In our fleet, we are responsible for misfueling for example - so if we ruined an engine that way we would pay out not the company!
I'd definitely try somewhere else. What does the fleet/lease company's technical department say?
|
I've not told them yet - they already think I'm a moaning sod for complaining about two cars they gave me while I was waiting for the Mondeo. In my defence, neither were safe (one had fumes coming into the car, the other had 4 bald tyres on delivery), but still, I can tell they think I'm one of those customers who always complain. Maybe I am...
I'm off for a long run up north this weekend, I'll see what it returns - hopefully something approaching 40+. If it's still low 30s, then I will get in touch with the lease company.
|
>Hopefully something approaching 40+.
All I can say is, that if that is the best a new diesel can do, and you don't thrash it, there must be something wrong somewhere. I would complain at anything under 45.
|
Just to complete the saga:
100 miles one way going absolutely hell for leather (late for a party - which wouldn't have impressed any lurking plod, who fortunately weren't) and 38mpg.
100 miles back again on cruise control at 80 (are you allowed to say that here?) and delighted to see 45mpg.
So while they said they found nothing and did nothing, it seems to have changed something.
I'll be really happy with 45 from here on in.
Thanks all for your comments, helpful suggestions and shared experiences - I hope I'll be able to help someone else on here in the same way.
|
I always found that 80mph gave me far better economy than 70-75mpg. The car was an 56 Seat Toledo 2.0tdi with DSG.
However, for the first 2k of the cars life the MPG was at 27.... The car just ended its leasing life and could hit 42mpg on a run. Overall mileage 22k.
Average over 22k, 38mpg.
Not what I was expecting when I leased it, but then I was compairing it to the old PD engines, which you cant as the new euro 4 standards have killed MPG.
I've taken on an old 406 hdi now and get 46mpg on an average tankfull and its much quieter!
Edited by Downesi1 on 07/12/2008 at 22:31
|
|
|
|
|
