[raylec]

I have surrended my trustwothy Suzuki Wagon r plus for a 2016 Ecosport Titanium 1 ltr Ecoboost engine of 140 BHP. The car is spoilt by not having any grab handles,no parcel shelf,very poor storage for anything,soft seats,rear seats awkward to fold, and not very easy getting into and out due to the slope of the windscreen. With all this, comes a car that is quiet and smooth to drive and goes like a rocket. However,the MPG I get does not tally with what Ford reckon you should get.
I had a formula in the 60s of finding average MPG based on kerb weight this 660 divided by weight in CWT =MPG translated to KG its 33594 divided by weight in kg which for my Ecosport is 1338kg.
This works out at 25mpg. In fact I have found that I am getting 33mpg for mixed driving,perhaps the extra is due to this 3 pot marvel!
The car has only done 3000 miles, and not had its first service yet, so maybe a bit more MPG forthcoming!
What do other owners get on average. The instantaneous fuel consumption meter can show 47mpg when cruising.

 

[colinJYD]

Hi, and welcome to the forum

I should be getting 45 MPG from my 1.5 petrol (that's the combined urban figure)
You should be getting 53 MPG from your 1.0 petrol (that's the combined urban figure)

But we are never going to get that, as that's just Government test figures, based on ideal conditions.

The formula for real on the road conditions I use for cars, is combined urban figure less 6 MPG for a medium sized saloon car, and less 9 MPG for a SUV car.

So for me in a 1.5 petrol I should be getting 45 - 9 = 36 MPG, and I do get around that at best, usually under, never over. I am not a fast driver and tend not to put the foot to the floor, and do A and B roads, and some motorway driving. Find that hilly roads and head winds takes it out on the MPG a lot and get as low as 30 MPG, being an SUV shape and weight does that. I expected my car to be in the mid 30's MPG, so no surprise there. But I am happy with that, compared to my previous thirsty car.

For you in a 1.0 petrol it should be 53 - 9 = 46 MPG for real road driving, but you seem to be getting less, maybe hilly roads, heavy load?, and strong head winds affecting you?

Anyway, You will need to wait till a 1.0 owner confirms their average MPG figure, for a comparison.

 

[kjhazlehurst]

I have surrended my trustwothy Suzuki Wagon r plus for a 2016 Ecosport Titanium 1 ltr Ecoboost engine of 140 BHP. The car is spoilt by not having any grab handles,no parcel shelf,very poor storage for anything,soft seats,rear seats awkward to fold, and not very easy getting into and out due to the slope of the windscreen. With all this, comes a car that is quiet and smooth to drive and goes like a rocket. However,the MPG I get does not tally with what Ford reckon you should get.
I had a formula in the 60s of finding average MPG based on kerb weight this 660 divided by weight in CWT =MPG translated to KG its 33594 divided by weight in kg which for my Ecosport is 1338kg.
This works out at 25mpg. In fact I have found that I am getting 33mpg for mixed driving,perhaps the extra is due to this 3 pot marvel!
The car has only done 3000 miles, and not had its first service yet, so maybe a bit more MPG forthcoming!
What do other owners get on average. The instantaneous fuel consumption meter can show 47mpg when cruising.

Think your own comment 'goes like a rocket' may be to answer, you can't floor it and get great mpg.
Mine is tuned to just over 160bhp and will happily return average mpg of about 49-52 if driven normally (mixed roads) over a week or more on mixed roads. If i have a week where I floor it a few days though that will drop to high 30s. Also if I am very calm I can manage well into 50s for a weeks drive (this hardly happens though).
Main thing i can say is that how ever I drive, day to day, and what ever mpg is on dash I spend about the same on fuel each month.
You will struggle to get lab condition mpg test result figures in any car.

 

[kjhazlehurst]

oh and if you want a parcel shelf badly ask dealer or go on ebay they where in basic models as a solid item instead of the roller type.

 

[raylec]

You are using the manufactures test figure -9 to arrive at your MPG. I can never see that I will get 53MPG for a car of this weight, the last result was 33, before this 36,and 33. so looks like its going to average 34.
This car has climate control,which involves some air con, at times unknown operation. Shutting this down may improve fuel consumption. which I have now done.
I drive very gently,and use with respect at all times,there was no headwind,some motorway driving at around 40mph,but no more than 50. I realise that the electrical system is heavily loaded,like most cars these days,all this takes petrol. Another point I found that this car has low rolling resistance,release the brakes at 5mph and you can coast 30-50 yards before stopping!
I am quite happy with the MPG due to weight and size, but how on earth can Ford get away .with 53MPG?

 

[raylec]

parcel shelf

oh and if you want a parcel shelf badly ask dealer or go on ebay they where in basic models as a solid item instead of the roller type.

I dont think there is sufficient room,never designed for this!

 

[colinJYD]

I am quite happy with the MPG due to weight and size, but how on earth can Ford get away .with 53MPG?

As said it is not just Ford, it is figures set down to a common Government bench mark test procedure for all new cars, that does not give real road figures.

As said the nearest is 'combined urban' figure, but even that is inaccurate.

Mind you in your case with the 1.0 petrol, your accuracy is 34/53 = 64%, not very good. I can see why you are not to happy about the inaccuracy between official and on the road figures.

My 1.5 petrol is best at 36 worst 31, say around 34 MPG average, so is 34/45 = 75%, seems OK for real road driving.

My conclusion is that your figures are really down, even allowing for -9 MPG off for real road driving. Your car being a 1.0 should in theory give better MPG than my 1.5, but seems very similar results in 34 MPG average.

What you really need is more 1.0 owners to tell you their figures, to see if your figures are the same as theirs.

PS......Sometimes smaller more efficient engines have to compete with the weight of a car, and you do not get as good a return as expected, compared to a bigger thirstier engine pulling the same weight. But other 1.0 owners will give you the answer you need for a real comparison.

A good example of the above was that in the 1980's I owned a 1.3 Ford Capri and my brother had the 1.6 Ford Capri, yet he got better fuel figures than me, just due to the pulling power of the bigger engine with identical bodies/weight, seemed to give a better return.

 

[colinJYD]

Separate message for parcel shelf.

I had same problem with a previous Suzuki Vitara with no solid parcel shelf, answer was to go to a car scrapyard and find a car with similar sized parcel shelf. I took size required and a tape rule to scrappy and found a Honda aerodeck with a solid plastic removable parcel shelf, so took that and its supporting plastic brackets (either side) got the lot for a tenner and fitted it in my Vitara with just a bit of fine tweeking with a hacksaw

 

[kjhazlehurst]

I dont think there is sufficient room,never designed for this!

eBay item number:272763221959
As one example. it does exist, so if you want one you can get one. Don't be so pessimistic

 

[raylec]

MPG update

I have surrended my trustwothy Suzuki Wagon r plus for a 2016 Ecosport Titanium 1 ltr Ecoboost engine of 140 BHP. The car is spoilt by not having any grab handles,no parcel shelf,very poor storage for anything,soft seats,rear seats awkward to fold, and not very easy getting into and out due to the slope of the windscreen. With all this, comes a car that is quiet and smooth to drive and goes like a rocket. However,the MPG I get does not tally with what Ford reckon you should get.
I had a formula in the 60s of finding average MPG based on kerb weight this 660 divided by weight in CWT =MPG translated to KG its 33594 divided by weight in kg which for my Ecosport is 1338kg.
This works out at 25mpg. In fact I have found that I am getting 33mpg for mixed driving,perhaps the extra is due to this 3 pot marvel!
The car has only done 3000 miles, and not had its first service yet, so maybe a bit more MPG forthcoming!
What do other owners get on average. The instantaneous fuel consumption meter can show 47mpg when cruising.

After making sure that climate control is turned off, I now get 37mpg for urban and short dual carriageway runs,so its not too bad!

 

[colinJYD]

That's good Raylec, that's a far better MPG, must have been the climate control A/C running all the time to maintain selected cabin temerature, as one of the factors eating into your MPG.

Mine, being the basic trim Ecosport, has manual control A/C only, and tend not to use it much in Scotland, as there are very few really hot days a year, ha ha. Though it is very useful for demisting my windscreen.

 

[568]

My climate control seems to drop about 2mpg if I have it running.

 

[silverbackgt]

I have a new 1ltr titanium average between 38 and 40 mpg do all roads lowest was driving to Scotland from Lancaster yesterday with roof box on on the whole can manage with that

 

[bobtail]

Had the ES 1.0 ltr two years now, only done 12.000 miles but on all types of journey and struggled to break the average 40 mpg mark.

Average now 38.9 and it also goes like stink, not because I drive it fast just the engine is now run in and wants to go.

Been posted many times before re fuel consumption with the ES and most point to the same sort of average with the 1.0 ltr engine.

 

[raylec]

ecosport mpg

Had the ES 1.0 ltr two years now, only done 12.000 miles but on all types of journey and struggled to break the average 40 mpg mark.

Average now 38.9 and it also goes like stink, not because I drive it fast just the engine is now run in and wants to go.

Been posted many times before re fuel consumption with the ES and most point to the same sort of average with the 1.0 ltr engine.

This is a heavy car,cant expect much mpg. Just forget all the bull about more efficient engines.
I have driven many cars, and found that mpg is related to weight of vehical and engines are only slightly more efficient than 50 years ago.Add to this all the extra electrical items,and you sacifice any extra efficiency. I get an average of around 36 mpg and that is with very carefull driving, done 3500 miles on speedo.
36mpg is still fair for this type of car. One of the reasons for the purchase of this car is the amazing qualities of the engine and fuel consumption, and lower tax,however insurance works out higher,and how I miss the grab handles and parcel shelf!
All in all very pleased with vehical.

 

[Toot4902]

Hi all our 1.5 auto has now done 3700 miles since bought new in April. The fuel computer shows 34 mpg but is optimistic! Real mpg is a constant 30.5 mpg which is about right for a 10% allowance. We fill up at same garage same pump and stop fueling at first click and zero the odometer, I consider this about as accurate as I can be! Car is driven mainly round town with the odd blast on the motorway, we love the car and hope mpg may improve but it may not!