Ford Kuga Owners Club Forums banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello everyone,

I am a recent owner of a 2014/15 MKII Ford Kuga 1.6 AWD A/T Trendline.

I am concerned about my fuel consumption, please see the picture attached.

Is this the correct consumption? not driving with a heavy foot, trying to maintain 80-100km/h.

I went to ford and spoke to them, the technical guy said it does seem a bit too heavy on fuel and they want to run a diagnostics test and maybe reset the computer.

I browsed on another forum and had mixed answers.

Also, I believe the tank is a 60Ltr, I ran the car almost empty and then filled up and only got 50Ltrs in.

Please advise if this is just a juice drinking tank, should i have gone for the 2.0Ltr? Just doesnt make sense that a 1.6 ecoboost engine can drink so much fuel.

The attached picture is my consumption after filling up the tank.

P.S im from South Africa

Thanks,

Rojas
3289
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
Type of driving ? City, highway, mixed (and percentage ?) ? I've got a 1.5EB and my City is pretty much the same as yours, while my Highway is about 1,5-2lt lower (around 10,5), and my Mixed is currently hovering around 11,6-11,7.

Please also note that mine is a manual FWD, while yours is an Auto 4WD, which has higher fuel consumption by definition
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Type of driving ? City, highway, mixed (and percentage ?) ? I've got a 1.5EB and my City is pretty much the same as yours, while my Highway is about 1,5-2lt lower (around 10,5), and my Mixed is currently hovering around 11,6-11,7.

Please also note that mine is a manual FWD, while yours is an Auto 4WD, which has higher fuel consumption by definition
On paper my driving should be 70/30 (Highway/City) but ive just come back from the holidays where i was doing town driving, so this is day 2 now on the highway, just reading from what you saying, kinda seems correct then? Thats hella heavy on fuel for a modern engine...

Are you aware of any ECU chips or tunings that can possibly help with consumption, some guys this side in S.A say the engine is too small for the body, not sure about the assumption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Ace is right. There is a difference between auto and manual drive and we don't know the driven altitude profile to say if it's good or bad. And I'm sure the awd adds to that. In my case I do 10 on perfectly flat highway and 16-17 in the city (check my signature for details on the engine)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
Yep, it's more or less the same for all F/I engines, they can fluctuate wildly when it comes to mpg, especially the smaller ones. It's a side effect of the whole downsizing trend, if you manage to keep the small engine off-boost, then it's pretty economical, otherwise if you really get on the go-pedal, consumption skyrockets.

I never really cared for fuel consumption figures and I've made up my mind that, whatever car and engine I get, taking into account my driving style, I'll always be about 50% above the factory claimed mpg, so that's that ;)

Most remaps claim a -small- gain in mpg, because they usually raise the TargetAFR of the closed-loop fuel maps (ever so slightly), so you do get a small increase in mpg, but not much, usually it's single digit percentage....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Yep, it's more or less the same for all F/I engines, they can fluctuate wildly when it comes to mpg, especially the smaller ones. It's a side effect of the whole downsizing trend, if you manage to keep the small engine off-boost, then it's pretty economical, otherwise if you really get on the go-pedal, consumption skyrockets.

I never really cared for fuel consumption figures and I've made up my mind that, whatever car and engine I get, taking into account my driving style, I'll always be about 50% above the factory claimed mpg, so that's that ;)

Most remaps claim a -small- gain in mpg, because they usually raise the TargetAFR of the closed-loop fuel maps (ever so slightly), so you do get a small increase in mpg, but not much, usually it's single digit percentage....
You right abotu the fuel consumption, should just enjoy the drive mate.

Just battling to accept considering my VW polo was giving me 720kms to a tank !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
My no.1 reason for getting the Kuga (over the other C-SUVs like Ateca, Tiguan, X1, GLA etc) was that it's a driver's-car, even more so than the X1. It's the only SUV that -to my knowledge- actually lifts-off the inner rear wheel when cornerning more than lively, in order to keep the front pointed in the right direction ;) Personally I'd take that over any and all lower consumption figures -and I did so.

And also I never look at the mpg figures of any car I buy, and didn't look at the Kuga's as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
Type of driving ? City, highway, mixed (and percentage ?) ? I've got a 1.5EB and my City is pretty much the same as yours, while my Highway is about 1,5-2lt lower (around 10,5), and my Mixed is currently hovering around 11,6-11,7.

Please also note that mine is a manual FWD, while yours is an Auto 4WD, which has higher fuel consumption by definition
Mine's identical to your figures Ace, with my 2019 1.5T.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,240 Posts
The 2.0l Ecoboost is definitely more economical on fuel.
Mine averages 10.2 L/100kms around town and goes to about 7.6 L/100kms on the highway, the average is around 9.6 L/100kms, and it's very lively.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,206 Posts
It’s not your fault, in an effort to show willing, Ford like others have jumped into trying to shy away from diesel and offered a cheaper model.
Unfortunately you are not alone with poor figures for the petrol model and I would say even worse with the auto.
It’s a big car for a small engine and when torque is needed to move the mass, petrol doesn’t have it unless it’s a huge CC, it’s good for instant power but nothing else. Diesel is good for bags of torque and used in an engine that is built more robust and keeps its inertia better due to its heavier components, it beats the pants of petrol.

There are some on here that will complain that there diesel is just as bad as a petrol but they are few and far between.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
It’s not your fault, in an effort to show willing, Ford like others have jumped into trying to shy away from diesel and offered a cheaper model.
Unfortunately you are not alone with poor figures for the petrol model and I would say even worse with the auto.
It’s a big car for a small engine and when torque is needed to move the mass, petrol doesn’t have it unless it’s a huge CC, it’s good for instant power but nothing else. Diesel is good for bags of torque and used in an engine that is built more robust and keeps its inertia better due to its heavier components, it beats the pants of petrol.

There are some on here that will complain that there diesel is just as bad as a petrol but they are few and far between.
I've been hearing this "argument" about small engines, not having torque to move the car... With all due respect, it's a nonsense, as the car is not moved by torque alone, but by POWER APPLIED TO THE WHEELS. Scientifically, that power is torque multipled by engine RPM, divided by 5252 constant. So, other things being equal, the car with higher HP always wins, regardless of nominal torque.

That is why 2.0l petrol Kuga with its modest 340Nm of torque accelerates 0-60mph in a mere 6.9s, while 2.0l diesel takes 9.7s despite having 400Nm of torque.

Torque alone means nothing. Take a John Deer tractor as an example, with its 3000Nm of torque, it's not known for great acceleration, as its engine's RPM is so low, it still moves very, very slowly.

If diesel cars were more agile / punchy / lively / jumpy / "rabbit like", then all the sport super cars like Ferrari, Bugatti, oh wait Formula 1, 2, 3, etc... would've been diesel powered. ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,240 Posts
I've been hearing this "argument" about small engines, not having torque to move the car... With all due respect, it's a nonsense, as the car is not moved by torque alone, but by POWER APPLIED TO THE WHEELS. Scientifically, that power is torque multipled by engine RPM, divided by 5252 constant. So, other things being equal, the car with higher HP always wins, regardless of nominal torque.

That is why 2.0l petrol Kuga with its modest 240Nm of torque accelerates 0-60mph in a mere 6.9s, while 2.0l diesel takes 9.7s despite having 400Nm of torque.

Torque alone means nothing. Take a John Deer tractor as an example, with its 3000Nm of torque, it's not known for great acceleration, as its engine's RPM is so low, it still moves very, very slowly.

If diesel cars were more agile / punchy / lively / jumpy / "rabbit like", then all the sport super cars like Ferrari, Bugatti, oh wait Formula 1, 2, 3, etc... would've been diesel powered. ?
The 2.0l petrol produces 345Nm of torque not 240Nm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
The 2.0l petrol produces 345Nm of torque not 240Nm.
Sorry, typo, still proves my point all the same, as diesel produces significantly more torque, yet it's nowhere near as powerful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,206 Posts
But you use more fuel to gain a quicker acceleration so less mpg. Can have it both ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
But you use more fuel to gain a quicker acceleration so less mpg. Can have it both ways.
No one said you can... and so what?? If I were concerned with MPG, I would've bought a PHEV or full electric.

The point of my response was to bust a myth (which you seem to support) that diesel is somehow more punchy, more agile. It's a completely baseless allegation.

Take any passenger car, equipped with the SAME SIZE engine and petrol one beats a diesel hands down every time... WTF is all the hot air talk about diesels being more powerful?? It's b/s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,201 Posts
So why did Audi use diesel instead of petrol in their endurance cars from 2006. Whilst I agree that a petrol 2 litre turbo car will be more powerful than a comparative diesel car the one thing the petrol will never have is the power at lower revs. The two engines produce their maximum power at a totally different part of the rev range but as we don't have a 2 litre petrol turbo in the Kuga in the UK, or a 2 litre petrol, the only comparisons we can make in the UK is to the small 1.5 litre petrol.

If buying new you can buy what ever you want in your budget but for those of us who buy our cars as second owner then the choice is limited. In the UK the choice of second hand petrol Kuga's is small in comparison to diesel and although I don't particularly like diesel, it was the only choice for me in the Kuga. Another thing is that our goverments vehicle road tax make it more desirable to buy a diesel car and has been this way since 2001.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
So why did Audi use diesel instead of petrol in their endurance cars from 2006. Whilst I agree that a petrol 2 litre turbo car will be more powerful than a comparative diesel car the one thing the petrol will never have is the power at lower revs. The two engines produce their maximum power at a totally different part of the rev range but as we don't have a 2 litre petrol turbo in the Kuga in the UK, or a 2 litre petrol, the only comparisons we can make in the UK is to the small 1.5 litre petrol.

If buying new you can buy what ever you want in your budget but for those of us who buy our cars as second owner then the choice is limited. In the UK the choice of second hand petrol Kuga's is small in comparison to diesel and although I don't particularly like diesel, it was the only choice for me in the Kuga. Another thing is that our goverments vehicle road tax make it more desirable to buy a diesel car and has been this way since 2001.
I'm not debating economics of a second hand car purchase, rather busting myths about power / agility of petrol vs diesel, that's all. It's physics, it's objective, not a matter of opinion or preference, it's a fact ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,201 Posts
So why did Audi decide to use diesel instead of petrol for their endurance cars. Surely they would have had a more powerful car if they went via the petrol route. More powerful should = faster
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
So why did Audi decide to use diesel instead of petrol for their endurance cars. Surely they would have had a more powerful car if they went via the petrol route. More powerful should = faster
You're mixing apples and oranges. Endurance is not the same as power or speed. Formula 1 is extremely fast, but their engines blow up all the time, so not very (en)durable.

All I'm saying is that cm3 for cm3 a turbo diesel will always be slower, weaker, less punchy than a turbo petrol fit in the same car.

And the reason that prompted me to weigh in was yet another stupid comment about "petrol Kuga being underpowered", compared to its diesel sister.

Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
I strongly suggest to stop using words like "stupid comment" or "which you seem to support". It gives the impression it's too personal and toxic and we all want a nice objective thread that does not need to go up in flames. Even if the stuff you're saying is right.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top