WS Fuel economy update

[Fi.ES.TA]

Ive had mine now just short of 5 week now doing 140klm a day ive just turned over 3,400klm and ive definatley noticed setting off in 1st gear a whole lot smoother than when i first got it.

Ive just filled up again today and reset ODO will see if my fuel economy is any better than 630klm on a full tank not that im bothered if its not as im quite happy with that.

[curik]

Originally Posted by greenfoam

Well our is using more fuel than ever :p but it's also being enjoyed a bit more also seems to have more power than when it was new also, it's gone past 20,000 ks now. I'm going to have to software updated at some stage

how do you get the software updated?

[Zetec Dave]

So far we've done only 1,100k's on the Fiesty and average fuel consumption is now siting at 6.6l/100km. Pretty happy with that with approx 590km dte when I just filled up a few hours ago. However we fill her up with 98 shell fuel since delivery though. Hmm. Maybe i should do an oil and filter change too as I've got a few bottle of the castrol edge sitting in my garage. Just need to buy the filter.

[Candyman2]

Originally Posted by curik

how do you get the software updated?

They (dealers) do it using the OBD/CAN BUS port in the little drop down compartment by your right knee. I haven't seen the unit that Ford use but it is probably the same as all the other ones that are used.

That is currently where my ScanGauge is hooked in.

As for resting the ECU and fuel maps etc, generally it is just a case of disconnecting the battery, discharging the electrical system by holding down the brake.

Hook everything back up and go for a spirited drive to set the fuel maps.

Easier to get the dealer to do it though so the ignition advance is optimally set etc

[dannyhilton]

Originally Posted by curik

lol yea repco had them on sale, so I couldn't say no

Just read the latest SuperCheap catalogue, $33.95!!! I can't control myself, another two bottles can't hurt!

[curik]

Haha, trust me once you changed the oil you would be as happy as a kid who has got a new toy. Digress, I tried running a full tank of 91 instead of 98 I regularly put in and guess what, I did not notice any smoothness or performance difference at all. A positive side of the non vvt 1.4 engine! That saves 15c every L, or about $6 a tank :

[dannyhilton]

I'm convinced that 98 fuel makes your car more fuel efficient, and more powerful. Work pays for all my fuel so meh! I too will run a few tanks next week when I head on a business trip, to compare milage and consumption.

Will update when I've completed this test!

[curik]

Originally Posted by RapidTyphoon

I'm convinced that 98 fuel makes your car more fuel efficient, and more powerful. Work pays for all my fuel so meh! I too will run a few tanks next week when I head on a business trip, to compare milage and consumption.

Will update when I've completed this test!

Agree, you will feel it more on an engine with vvt and not so in an old engine since there is nothing the ecu can do really (limited to advancing ignition only).

[greenfoam]

Originally Posted by RapidTyphoon

WOW! I've had mine just over a month and it only has 1500km on it, and that's mostly from driving all over the Sunshine Coast and then back to Toowoomba (about 500km!!!). Has the engine got more fizz about it yet greenfoam?

Yes it feels like it's picked up a few horses since it was new, just recently, my wife does a split shift so the car does 30 ks each way twice a day, I expect it will be out of warranty at about 2 years of age on the dot but I think she will keep it for at least 5 years so it will be a good test to see how long the engines last

[dannyhilton]

Far out! I think I put about 50km on my car every week!!! hahahahaha.

Good point Curik, I didn't read your post correctly *hits head*
I've driven a few Fiestas now, and using 98 seems to make my car feel more powerful. In saying that, I will run 91 in it to actually compare in my car and not two different Fiestas. Be interesting to see if the fuel consumption jumps any higher also...

[BruceT]

Hi doctamick

"I'm quite dissapointed at how inaccurate my trip computer calculations are. Here's my results, averaged over the last two tanks for mainly freeway driving conditions:
77 litres
1150 km travelled
Manual calc = 6.7 L/100km
Trip computer = 5.8 L/100km

That means my trip computer has about 15% error! It seems like no else is having this issue. I wonder if the Ford dealer would do anything about it?"

Yes I also have about a 15% error. I suspected I was putting in more fuel than the trip meter was trip meter was suggesting - eg did 300 km, trip says 6.0 L/100, put in about 21 litres.

Last time I calculated 6.9 L/100, when the trip said 6.1, also a 15% error.

The problem is either:
1) Car mileage is wrong - this is very rare, and I know how far I'm driving from trips in other cars.
2) Petrol station pumps are lying - highly unlikely - I'm using majors (Shell, Caltex) and this would bring these companies down.
3) The car computer can't do division - unlikely.
4) The CAR FUEL FLOW METER IS IN ERROR. This is probably the answer. The cheap flow meters in cars are notoriously inaccurate. Our Magna routinely gets 10% better economy than the trip meter says - so its really 11-14 L.100km, not 12-16 L/100km.

I'm not sure what Ford can do about it or if they are even obliged to. It would be helpful to know if the error is linear. That is if the trip says 5 L/100 km, does it means 5.75 in reality, then if it says 8, does that mean 9.2 in reality?

I would like some technical info on the consumption meter though.

[BruceT]

CSV8, do you have an auto or manual. Is it the WS or an older model? If it's an auto I would expect at least 15% worse consumption. If it's the older WQ Fiesta manual it will is rated at 6.6 L/100 km (combined) under ADR 81/01 and requires 95 RON fuel (at least where I looked it up). The WS is rated at 6.1 L/100km (combined) and requires only 91 RON.

Also even the manual is not well geared for good consumption at high speeds. I strongly suspect my best fuel consumption is at 50-60 km/h in 5th. At 100 it's probably 5.8-6.0 with A/C on - based on my trip computer, which is wrong.

Have you confirmed your consumption using km travelled against fuel measured at the bowser. Fuel flow meters are unreliable.

[dannyhilton]

On the Bruce Hiway, doing 110km/h my Fez was in the high 4's. That's the best I've ever seen it do, and it was 100km old then. I have gotten a 5.1 and then a 5.3 L/100km, the later in slightly hilly roads. I plan to get the oil changed in a month, whickh people say really helps consumption and general performance.

[BruceT]

RapidTyphoon,
To be honest I've not taken it out of town yet and the only 100-110 driving I've done is on the M2 in Sydney with other traffic around.

I'd be delighted with high 4's on the open road. I hope it's true, but it'll have to wait till Xmas before we do a trip.

[csv8]

Originally Posted by BruceT

CSV8, do you have an auto or manual. Is it the WS or an older model? If it's an auto I would expect at least 15% worse consumption. If it's the older WQ Fiesta manual it will is rated at 6.6 L/100 km (combined) under ADR 81/01 and requires 95 RON fuel (at least where I looked it up). The WS is rated at 6.1 L/100km (combined) and requires only 91 RON.

Also even the manual is not well geared for good consumption at high speeds. I strongly suspect my best fuel consumption is at 50-60 km/h in 5th. At 100 it's probably 5.8-6.0 with A/C on - based on my trip computer, which is wrong.

Have you confirmed your consumption using km travelled against fuel measured at the bowser. Fuel flow meters are unreliable.

I have the WQ auto Zetec, I check the mileage from distance travelled to how much I put in at bowser. It does about 5mpg less than the manual WP Fez I had. I know autos use more but modern autos are better than older autos. I wasn't expecting same fuel consumption as the manual but not as bad as I am getting. FORD reckons my Fez's fuel consumption is normal.

[dannyhilton]

You gotta remember though the WQ Fiesta auto/manual isn't fully comparable to the WS. The WQ at least had a a 1.6 Auto, the WS got shoved with a 1.4 with less power and torque than the old WQ, it does weigh a little less though. My average is sitting at 6.7 now, and while I thought the high fours I got while on hiway were great, it was perfect conditions, and I realise that how Ford achieve their fuel stats is far from realistic. You gotta remember these tests are based on both hiway and city driving, so my driving in the city only you will probs never achieve the claimed results. Take it for a spin one day, you'll be suprised at how good it gets! I don't use aircon though.

[greenfoam]

Our is sitting on 6.6 average too, in the real world that's about what you can expect long term, the difference between driving in the city and on a rough country highway is about the same too 6.6 ish in both cases. In ideal conditions on a smooth well made flat road, yes they can make 5 flat even 4.9 maybe. But the real world isn't often that perfect and Fords figures are..... optimistic to say the least . Other makers ie Honda do deliver on the quoted figures in real world conditions so if you are comparing cars it's worth noting that

[doctamick]

Originally Posted by BruceT

Yes I also have about a 15% error. I suspected I was putting in more fuel than the trip meter was trip meter was suggesting - eg did 300 km, trip says 6.0 L/100, put in about 21 litres.

Thanks for the info BruceT. It's good to know that someone else's trip computer is inaccurate as well. However, a few people have reported that their trip computer calculations are spot on, so it's a little dissapointing that mine (and yours) is inaccurate.

I have also been trying to assess whether it is a linear and constant error. But I don't think this is the case. Over the last coupleof weeks I checked the consumption over a longer distance (1715km, 110 litres of fuel). However, the trip computer showed 5.9 L/100km, versus the measured value of 6.4 L/100km. This is only an 8.9% error, which is much less than what I had been getting previously. I will keep checking, because I may have incorrectly totalled the amount of fuel over the three tank-fulls (I threw out the fuel receipts so I can't double-check).

[doctamick]

Originally Posted by RapidTyphoon

On the Bruce Hiway, doing 110km/h my Fez was in the high 4's.

That's freakin' amazing!! I drive from Melbourne to Geelong regularly, and do not get close to this. On the freeway, at 105km/h, the average on the trip computer will always be around 5.6 - 5.9 L/100km (but I know that it is at least about 10% worse than this, taking the fuel consumption well into the 6's).

Have you checked whether your trip computer is accurate? I am not complaining about fuel consumption in the 6.5 L/100km range, but high 4's or low 5's would be awesome. That would give around 800km per tank!

BTW, I've got a manual, 5 door Zetec, with 17's. What's yours?

[dannyhilton]

3-Door Zetec with 16" rims. It was like 100km old, was blown away. That was just hiway driving though. I'm not sure if my trip is correct I'll see when I do my big trip in a few weeks. I don't use air con, live on cruise control, and don't revv unnessesary.

[greenfoam]

I asked my wife how come her recent economy of 6.9l/100 had changed to 5.9l/100 this week and she just said she's been leaving for work earlier and didn't have to hurry so much :p. Ours was showing 5.3 on the Geelong-Melbourne freeway GPS @ 100 when it was near new, we are going to Melbourne again this weekend, so I'll see if it's changed. Those extra 5 km/h to 105 would cost alot extra in fuel tho

[dannyhilton]

Mine seems to get the best fuel economy at 110km/h which is strange as my old WP guzzled when above 100? Meh.

[BruceT]

Over 7 weeks (since the first refill) my new Zetec manual has done 2195 km using 158.6 litres, which gives 7.2 L/100km. Up until now I've been using 91RON

For the last refill I did 573.8 km and put in 41.26 litres (yes, almost drained it - the last 5 km was on 0 km to empty), also giving 7.2 L/100km. The trip meter said 6.4 L/100km. (Actual consumption is 12% higher than the meter - the meter reads 11% low.)

I refilled with Shell V-Power which is 98RON and 14 cents/litre more expensive. (And @%&! Shell don't take the 4c/litre discount with a Shell card, and charge $2 a week for the privelege of using it!)

[Vision Zetec]

Originally Posted by BruceT

Over 7 weeks (since the first refill) my new Zetec manual has done 2195 km using 158.6 litres, which gives 7.2 L/100km. Up until now I've been using 91RON

For the last refill I did 573.8 km and put in 41.26 litres (yes, almost drained it - the last 5 km was on 0 km to empty), also giving 7.2 L/100km. The trip meter said 6.4 L/100km. (Actual consumption is 12% higher than the meter - the meter reads 11% low.)

I refilled with Shell V-Power which is 98RON and 14 cents/litre more expensive. (And @%&! Shell don't take the 4c/litre discount with a Shell card, and charge $2 a week for the privelege of using it!)

Interesting. How does it feel with the V-Power?

[BruceT]

"How does it feel with the V-Power?"

To be honest the only change I think I've noticed is the exhaust note sounds more sporty. Maybe I'm deluding myself.

Today it was mostly heavy traffic to and from work and I've not had the chance to let 'er rip. :

Low rev pulling power does not appear to have changed. It's still smooth and steady at 1500 rpm in 5th and still accelerates smoothly - if slowly - from those revs. It labours around 1000 rpm, which I avoid.

[curik]

vision zetec, how is your car's consumption now?

[msnealo]

My Auto so far

1st tank 8.62l/100km (Indicated 8.4)
2nd tank 8.05l/100km (Indicated 8.2)

Both with just city driving. Weird one undercalculated and one over calculated (which could of been my fill error as well).

I'll be happy with anything under 8.5 but am expecting under 8's.

[BruceT]

Ok, now I've had chance to let 'er rip with the Shell V-power 98 RON.

First I tried to beat a brand new Nissan GTR at the lights. I was still in front at the other side of the intersection - due to faster reflexes no doubt! But to cut a short story short, I lost. Gee the new GTR looks good from behind!

At the next traffic lights - which the GTR easily got through - I tried again against a bog standard Falcon station wagon. Lost that one too.

Next I tried against a kid on a bicycle. Won that time! I've decide to quit while I'm ahead.

Yes these are absurd comparisons, but I honestly can't detect any performance difference with 98 RON - the stuff from Shell anyway. The 1.6/5-speed manual are a zippy and fun comparison, the engine revs willingly, and seem very happy at 4000-5000 RPM. It's a lot more fun and quicker than the old Excel, but this is not a performance car. I have not timed 0-100 km/h, but it's probably above 10 seconds even with "V-power".

I'm going to keep going with the 98RON - next time Caltex - for a while to see it it affects economy, but early signs are not good.

[Vision Zetec]

Ok after 5 fill ups now with shell v-power with my calculations the fuel consumption has been:
8.23, 8.45, 7.57, 8.07 and 8.34.

Mostly city driving and opening up the throttle every now and then. I think I'm pretty have with these figures at the moment.

[msnealo]

Originally Posted by RapidTyphoon

I bought a two bottles of Castrol Edge when Supercheap had it on sale for like $45.00, but $35.00! What a bargain!

Originally Posted by curik

lol yea repco had them on sale, so I couldn't say no

Repco have got it for $35 again at the moment.