Discussion
Funk said:
Yeah, the economy of the 2.5 is tragic, don't be lulled into thinking it can be made to be anywhere near what the poster above claimed.
I was on focusstoc.com from almost the beginning (joined late 2005, my car arrived Apr 06) and was site admin for three years so I know the cars pretty well up to the mk3. Once that engine was put out to pasture and replaced with the 2.0 it lost its USP I feel. However the economy is much better on the 2.0 than the 2.5.
It isn't beyond the realms of possibility at all and I wouldn't hold the STOC up as a beacon of accuracy on this front.I was on focusstoc.com from almost the beginning (joined late 2005, my car arrived Apr 06) and was site admin for three years so I know the cars pretty well up to the mk3. Once that engine was put out to pasture and replaced with the 2.0 it lost its USP I feel. However the economy is much better on the 2.0 than the 2.5.
Edited by Funk on Friday 2nd January 19:39
I've seen just under 40 at the end of a 100 mile or so trip from the NW to the Midlands, thanks to a combination of average speed roadworks and enough traffic (albeit moving throughout) to restrict speed to no more than 65-70 outside of the roadworks. Even a somewhat clearer and more spirited return only got the average down to 36.
Yes, I've checked the trip comp against reality (as far as is realistically possible) and it is within about 1mpg from memory.
Less than great consumption in a jam/urban crawl can't be avoided to a certain extent, but outside of that it is all about how you drive
. There was a good thread about this in the AD section a while back.http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
8cylinder said:
Pictures dont lie,i must have a good one,either that or i drive down a lot of hills.
If u buy one of these for fuel economy then your kidding yourself,u would be better buying a diesel with a horrendous engine note,however as in my instance fuel economy as above is very suprising,in a positive way.
I once got mine to read over 50mpg but it wasn't a common occurrence.If u buy one of these for fuel economy then your kidding yourself,u would be better buying a diesel with a horrendous engine note,however as in my instance fuel economy as above is very suprising,in a positive way.
I have years of experience with these cars and have seen hundreds. Innumerable posts on STOC about fuel economy, it's genuinely not great on the whole.
I appreciate some might see better, some might see worse but ON AVERAGE the ST's economy in 2.5l guise is poor. All its peers of the same era are better.
I got mine down to 8mpg average on a tank at the 'Ring but to say it only does that would be silly. On average I got around 20mpg out of it which wasn't actually hooning about - it was around town and some dual carriageway driving typically.
Latest mix of liquorice driving - slightly quieter than normal, so will drop a touch next week when the world returns to work. Some of it was reasonably jiggy though . However, as a rule, it isn't by any means exceptional.
Oddly, it has got a little better with age/miles - no idea why. It also dropped a tenth by the time I got home - a few miles of lead boot driving encapsulated by built up areas.
. However, as a rule, it isn't by any means exceptional.Oddly, it has got a little better with age/miles - no idea why. It also dropped a tenth by the time I got home - a few miles of lead boot driving encapsulated by built up areas.
Edited by DukeDickson on Saturday 3rd January 00:40
Funk said:
I once got mine to read over 50mpg but it wasn't a common occurrence.
I have years of experience with these cars and have seen hundreds. Innumerable posts on STOC about fuel economy, it's genuinely not great on the whole.
I appreciate some might see better, some might see worse but ON AVERAGE the ST's economy in 2.5l guise is poor. All its peers of the same era are better.
I got mine down to 8mpg average on a tank at the 'Ring but to say it only does that would be silly. On average I got around 20mpg out of it which wasn't actually hooning about - it was around town and some dual carriageway driving typically.
Sorry to be persistent or probably irritating/frustrating/other, but how (not the 'ring bit)? I have years of experience with these cars and have seen hundreds. Innumerable posts on STOC about fuel economy, it's genuinely not great on the whole.
I appreciate some might see better, some might see worse but ON AVERAGE the ST's economy in 2.5l guise is poor. All its peers of the same era are better.
I got mine down to 8mpg average on a tank at the 'Ring but to say it only does that would be silly. On average I got around 20mpg out of it which wasn't actually hooning about - it was around town and some dual carriageway driving typically.
I once got mine under 20mpg for a few miles as is the way if you hit a boat load of urban crap after filling up, but haven't been close to that over any appreciable distance, even with the crappy traffic I often have to deal with.
Sub 20 average is cross London commute, not quite constant full well driving, justified or not, or a combination of other things such as remap etc. Plus, elephant in the room, but driving style?
DukeDickson said:
Sorry to be persistent or probably irritating/frustrating/other, but how (not the 'ring bit)?
I once got mine under 20mpg for a few miles as is the way if you hit a boat load of urban crap after filling up, but haven't been close to that over any appreciable distance, even with the crappy traffic I often have to deal with.
Sub 20 average is cross London commute, not quite constant full well driving, justified or not, or a combination of other things such as remap etc. Plus, elephant in the room, but driving style?
Mainly urban driving, lots of stop-start. When the roads cleared up on DCs or motorways I would 'make progress'. Was yours a mk2.5 by any chance? I have a sneaking suspicion Ford tweaked the facelift a little as they seemed to get marginally better economy overall.I once got mine under 20mpg for a few miles as is the way if you hit a boat load of urban crap after filling up, but haven't been close to that over any appreciable distance, even with the crappy traffic I often have to deal with.
Sub 20 average is cross London commute, not quite constant full well driving, justified or not, or a combination of other things such as remap etc. Plus, elephant in the room, but driving style?
Would suggest not driving style as my 123d averaged nearly 40mpg with little difference in driving style and the same routes and type of driving.
Funk said:
DukeDickson said:
Sorry to be persistent or probably irritating/frustrating/other, but how (not the 'ring bit)?
I once got mine under 20mpg for a few miles as is the way if you hit a boat load of urban crap after filling up, but haven't been close to that over any appreciable distance, even with the crappy traffic I often have to deal with.
Sub 20 average is cross London commute, not quite constant full well driving, justified or not, or a combination of other things such as remap etc. Plus, elephant in the room, but driving style?
Mainly urban driving, lots of stop-start. When the roads cleared up on DCs or motorways I would 'make progress'. Was yours a mk2.5 by any chance? I have a sneaking suspicion Ford tweaked the facelift a little as they seemed to get marginally better economy overall.I once got mine under 20mpg for a few miles as is the way if you hit a boat load of urban crap after filling up, but haven't been close to that over any appreciable distance, even with the crappy traffic I often have to deal with.
Sub 20 average is cross London commute, not quite constant full well driving, justified or not, or a combination of other things such as remap etc. Plus, elephant in the room, but driving style?
Would suggest not driving style as my 123d averaged nearly 40mpg with little difference in driving style and the same routes and type of driving.
Driving style - You'd be amazed at the difference, I suspect (not painting myself as anything remotely like a driving god BTW, just did IAM young and the more thought driven aspects ring true with me, even if I have cock all time for the anal elements
).If you want humble, I'm total garbage in a go-kart & probably anything that requires a lid.
However, slow I am not, just choose my moments these days, for various reasons.
My old man is a decent driver & by the everyday norm (when not having the very occasional old moment) is better than that when in Meldrew racing colours. However, when he happens to drive my heap, he trashes the mpg. Can't drive it propely either, though same held with prior Civic (similar but different reasons, but at the same time, offered up a quality moment, as far as it goes in my old Honda, fun as it sometimes was).
You're probably not that dissimilar in some respects, hazarding a guess, age, size and some other bits aside. Just a different approach that needs some finesse (plus I know the Focus like an old friend - can't be that many around with appreciably higher miles than mine).
Then there's the other stuff - remaps & their impact, which in overall terms is more than most would credit, plus dare I say it, you posted a mug on that thread & you look as healthy as I was when I bought
People pay good money for a 40-50kg weight saving and it affects all things (sorry).I am indeed on the chunkier side but even that doesn't alter the fact that fuel economy on the Mk2 Focus ST is poor compared to other cars of the same sector. I actually went and found a poll of nearly 4000 owners on the STOC which I think is enough to give a representative and fair view:
17% achieving 19-21mpg
35% achieving 22-24mpg
26% achieving 25-27mpg
Just over half (2028) of the 3900 surveyed got between 19-24mpg. More people got the same mpg as me than as you (10% achieving 28-30mpg). Perhaps most Focus ST drivers are just fat buggers who mash the accelerator with their fleshy hooves? Or more likely that, on the whole, the ST just isn't that economical no matter how you try to spin it...
Link to thread: http://www.focusstoc.com/forums/topic/10812-mpg-po...
Yes, it can be made to be more economical; 56mph on a slight downhill incline with a following wind would be ideal for it!
17% achieving 19-21mpg
35% achieving 22-24mpg
26% achieving 25-27mpg
Just over half (2028) of the 3900 surveyed got between 19-24mpg. More people got the same mpg as me than as you (10% achieving 28-30mpg). Perhaps most Focus ST drivers are just fat buggers who mash the accelerator with their fleshy hooves? Or more likely that, on the whole, the ST just isn't that economical no matter how you try to spin it...
Link to thread: http://www.focusstoc.com/forums/topic/10812-mpg-po...
Yes, it can be made to be more economical; 56mph on a slight downhill incline with a following wind would be ideal for it!
I Had an St-2, for approx 60k miles
No matter what i did the MPG was poor. I generally drove it fast and the trip showed roughly 20/22mpg
I had a few punctures, and even when i ran round with the spacesaver on driving like a granny i got about 26mpg
So just drove it like an idiot knowing their wasnt a huge differance.
Im amazed when people get decent mpg out of that engine. It sounded great, and had reasonable shove.
But the mpg / performance ratio is very poor
No matter what i did the MPG was poor. I generally drove it fast and the trip showed roughly 20/22mpg
I had a few punctures, and even when i ran round with the spacesaver on driving like a granny i got about 26mpg
So just drove it like an idiot knowing their wasnt a huge differance.
Im amazed when people get decent mpg out of that engine. It sounded great, and had reasonable shove.
But the mpg / performance ratio is very poor
8cylinder said:
The mpg i get isnt just a one of,i get the 35-40 mpg everyday of the week.
Glad i do get this mpg,anything is better than a 4.0l supercharged v8,so its like driving a diesel to me.
I hate to be cynical but don't trust the OBC...Glad i do get this mpg,anything is better than a 4.0l supercharged v8,so its like driving a diesel to me.
Brim the tank, empty it and brim it again, noting the mileage you actually covered. Then work out the number of litres you put in, convert to gallons and divide that by the mileage. If it's even close to that I'll be very impressed - is it possible your car has a remap on it that you don't know about? My Dreamscience unit had 9 maps ranging from an 'economy' of sorts through to 'max power' stuff.
For those lamenting the decline of FocusSTOC I completely agree with you. I bailed out several years ago when I couldn't stand the chavvy idiots and the increasing amounts of text-speak. Also I noticed that the newer intake, broadly, were lacking on the intelligence side somewhat and as such took offence at what had previously-been good-natured banter. They were unable to discern what was said in jest and immediately got snarky and rude with people. A shame, as in the early days it was absolutely brilliant (when I was Admin
).Funk said:
I am indeed on the chunkier side but even that doesn't alter the fact that fuel economy on the Mk2 Focus ST is poor compared to other cars of the same sector. I actually went and found a poll of nearly 4000 owners on the STOC which I think is enough to give a representative and fair view:
17% achieving 19-21mpg
35% achieving 22-24mpg
26% achieving 25-27mpg
Just over half (2028) of the 3900 surveyed got between 19-24mpg. More people got the same mpg as me than as you (10% achieving 28-30mpg). Perhaps most Focus ST drivers are just fat buggers who mash the accelerator with their fleshy hooves? Or more likely that, on the whole, the ST just isn't that economical no matter how you try to spin it...
Link to thread: http://www.focusstoc.com/forums/topic/10812-mpg-po...
Yes, it can be made to be more economical; 56mph on a slight downhill incline with a following wind would be ideal for it!
More likely the masses have somewhere approaching bugger all idea about this driving stuff. See earlier link.17% achieving 19-21mpg
35% achieving 22-24mpg
26% achieving 25-27mpg
Just over half (2028) of the 3900 surveyed got between 19-24mpg. More people got the same mpg as me than as you (10% achieving 28-30mpg). Perhaps most Focus ST drivers are just fat buggers who mash the accelerator with their fleshy hooves? Or more likely that, on the whole, the ST just isn't that economical no matter how you try to spin it...
Link to thread: http://www.focusstoc.com/forums/topic/10812-mpg-po...
Yes, it can be made to be more economical; 56mph on a slight downhill incline with a following wind would be ideal for it!
Odd how some of us can make plenty of progress and some, without being upset about the fuel thing, can make clutches, brakes, tyres etc last without issues as well.
As for the heft comment, like it or not (and it wasn't that specific or targeted), it makes a difference, albeit one that's difficult to measure without being a touch too anal. Been on the other side of the fence, so not being arsey about it at all, just realistic
.
I have owned mine from new (2008)
I did from South Essex down to LeMans on a full tank, I can also do Basildon to Newquay and still have around 60 miles showing until empty.
Mind you I don't drive it hard, I had the rear tyres replaced at around 32k (after 6 years). I am on my second set of tyres on the front, replaced them around 16k-18k miles. Still plenty of life left in them at just under 34,000.
I think it is a lot down to driving style, if you keep the revs low and potter around using the low down torque, then it is not too bad. I think a lot of people thrash the nuts off theirs, or drive rather enthusiastically, then wonder why it drinks fuel and eats through front tyres.
I did from South Essex down to LeMans on a full tank, I can also do Basildon to Newquay and still have around 60 miles showing until empty.
Mind you I don't drive it hard, I had the rear tyres replaced at around 32k (after 6 years). I am on my second set of tyres on the front, replaced them around 16k-18k miles. Still plenty of life left in them at just under 34,000.
I think it is a lot down to driving style, if you keep the revs low and potter around using the low down torque, then it is not too bad. I think a lot of people thrash the nuts off theirs, or drive rather enthusiastically, then wonder why it drinks fuel and eats through front tyres.
Scottish Greg said:
Who told you that?
It is a matter of fact that the 2.0 Ecoboost is more fuel efficient than the 2.5 5 cylinder.As said it will always come down to driving style, but if the same person drives both cars in exactly the same way then the result will always favour the former.
I try to drive my Mk.3 reasonably gently and am a little disappointed at what i achieve, so i shudder to think what i would get with the 2.5.
Funk said:
8cylinder said:
The mpg i get isnt just a one of,i get the 35-40 mpg everyday of the week.
Glad i do get this mpg,anything is better than a 4.0l supercharged v8,so its like driving a diesel to me.
I hate to be cynical but don't trust the OBC...Glad i do get this mpg,anything is better than a 4.0l supercharged v8,so its like driving a diesel to me.
Brim the tank, empty it and brim it again, noting the mileage you actually covered. Then work out the number of litres you put in, convert to gallons and divide that by the mileage. If it's even close to that I'll be very impressed - is it possible your car has a remap on it that you don't know about? My Dreamscience unit had 9 maps ranging from an 'economy' of sorts through to 'max power' stuff.
For those lamenting the decline of FocusSTOC I completely agree with you. I bailed out several years ago when I couldn't stand the chavvy idiots and the increasing amounts of text-speak. Also I noticed that the newer intake, broadly, were lacking on the intelligence side somewhat and as such took offence at what had previously-been good-natured banter. They were unable to discern what was said in jest and immediately got snarky and rude with people. A shame, as in the early days it was absolutely brilliant (when I was Admin
).That one averaged 27MPG over its 4 years ownership.
2nd one was left std and only used at weekends in the summer or if the weather got bad in winter.
That one averaged 24MPG over its 2 years.
Current one owned 6 months, totally std, used everyday for work and pleasure.
Average so far 28MPG.
I bloody love them but economical they ain't, 8cyl you must be the luckiest owner on the planet.
And Funk you were ok as a mod I guess
Ron240 said:
Scottish Greg said:
Who told you that?
It is a matter of fact that the 2.0 Ecoboost is more fuel efficient than the 2.5 5 cylinder.As said it will always come down to driving style, but if the same person drives both cars in exactly the same way then the result will always favour the former.
I try to drive my Mk.3 reasonably gently and am a little disappointed at what i achieve, so i shudder to think what i would get with the 2.5.
Touch quicker, slightly more economical (probably) & better equipped, but short of a single something. Not that I'll be having another (good though current heap has been overall), but if I was, older over new any day.
Gassing Station | Ford | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff