Scorpiorefugee

A last comment on this. The run flat tyres which I scrapped were Goodyears, a make I've always avoided based on experience many years ago although the old G800s in the late 60s were brilliant in snow. The overall ride is still much improved albeit still very firm and hoppy. I think this may be partly due to the increase to 225 from 215 on the MKII and 205 on the MKI. This could also be a factor in the fuel consumption as the MKI was by far the best and the ride was also better as was the tyre life. Strangely, the all round road holding and confident feel also seemed better in the MKI, especially in conditions other than dry and smooth. The final insult is that the tyres were about half the price but I suppose it's all in the name of progress. :5: :5:

Interesting looking forum which looks much more active on the MKIII. The fuel consumption figures look optimistic as usual but that's nothing new. A lot of familiar users and some recent topics. I'll have a longer browse later. Thank Chris.

At least it's reassuring that a lot of people are now in well paid jobs specialising in creating all of this confusion and paying taxes rather than sitting on their backsides being paid for doing nothing. On balance, I think we'd be better off if they went back to just sitting on their backsides.

Given that all of these figures depend on fuel quality, tyres and pressure, air temperature etc., I wonder just how much fiddling goes on behind the scenes

Try pressing and holding the lock on remote which should instigate a close command for all windows. That will separate the manual controls from the computer driven bit. If that works look at switch and wiring as Gregers suggested. If not, then it starts to get complicated. Worry about that later if necessary. :5:

Hi Phil, I think it turned up on Parkers Guide site but I found it through Google. I didn't check the others as I assumed that the 140 and 163 were rated as the same as claimed by Ford. I think that the link below should take you there. I'm having trouble with Windows 8 and my web browser since the last update. I think I'll go back to Win 2000. At least they've given up "Improving" that! http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/advice/road-tax-guide/ford/galaxy/estate-2006/46895/

After a bit of research one source tells... From 15 March 2010 152 - 159 gm/Km From 17 Oct 2011 143 gm/Km

Dave and chris, It seems that there has been a further update somewhere between March 2012 and 2013 Moving a bit sideways off topic. A 10gm/Km reduction is quite a big step for an engine which is already supposed to be pretty clean and if the conversion of fuel to energy and CO2 with minimum CO stays much the same It would suggest an improvement in MPG of much the same proportion so either someone at Ford is telling porkies or you should be getting more MPG. The manufacturer's figures for mine is 46 on mixed driving which seems to be a work of fiction but must have been based on something. I wonder what is specified for yours.

This all getting very confusing. I understood that the modifications to reduce the emissions was applied to models post 2011 and that the lower figure was 149. This is all getting a bit like the random speed restrictions and phantom road works appearing on many motorways, in particular the M42. There is either a feindish plot here or we really do have lunatics running the assylum.

I've just paid the tax on my 140 Galaxy and My wife's diesel 2004 Picasso and both were

It's good to know that Ford dealers are maintaining their old standards. :rolleyes: My local has said that they would do it as part of the standard service for

Hi Gregers, This didn't get much response. Did you manage to sort it? Ron.

I tried to find a Sharan but there didn't seem to be any for sale. That could be because they are too good to let go or just not seen to be as good as the Galaxy so nobody is buying them new All probably down to the lunatic motoring press. I suspect the first as the predecessors were more VW than Ford. What was the new MPV that you mentioned? It does seem that manufacturers in general have gone away from the true 7 seater and it seems that the Espace is no more.

I was going to suggest the same but I am unsure just what powershift actually means. When I was looking for mine the search for manual gears continually resulted in far more with powershift than manual. I think it's all a scam anyway. How can a car which regularly does 55 mpg have the same emissions rating and tax group as on which barely manages 40 mpg at the same speeds. Also how can a car with an emissions rating of 139 regularly use 20% more fuel than one with a rating in the high 170s. If it's using more fuel then it must be producing more CO2 or worse still more CO. It can't be down to fancy emission reduction technology because burnt fuel produces carbon/oxygen gasses and they have to come out somewhere and emission ratings are CO2/distance travelled based. :23: :23: Who's kidding who?

Thanks for the feedback Chris. Having reached an age where it doesn't matter much when I get anywhere I do tend to stick to limits these days but I can well understand you getting 37 mpg at higher speeds. In fact, since I only manage 42 with a feather touch on the throttle I reckon you are doing pretty well. It does improve dramatically at lower speeds so it's all probably down to windage. Do I take it from your last comment that you are running on run flats. If so then I can heartily recommend chucking them 'cos they're bl00dy lethal. This may be a misunderstanding 'cos I thought you had already indicated otherwise. I just get confused some days. :5: :5: :5:

Gregers, I forgot to say thanks. That's another beer I owe you if I ever get back to Eastbourne again. Chrispb, Thanks for that again. It does sound like there is a way forward with this problem which seems to be all to do with the "improved" lower emmission engine. Mine does seem to have learned a bit along the way as I no longer stall it and I'm convinced it's not me adapting but it still takes a lot of concentration to drive it smoothly at low speeds. I might just go in dumb and be persistent and I'll report back on my other topic. From what Acecard has been reporting between the distractions he is also having a bit of trouble with this an his seems to be a lot newer than mine. My problem with the awful suspension and nerve wracking behaviour on bends and rough surfaces does seem to have been mainly down to the run flat tyres so it now seems worth pushing for more improvements but it has to bring the credibility of Ford design into question when the faults are so obvious to so many drivers even or maybe especially from new. With the run flats I found it almost undriveable from a safety angle because it just bounced about all over the place, even when the pressure was reduced. I asked before if you noticed any change to fuel consumption or general power flow after the update. I'm still stuck at around 42 mpg.

Gregers, It couldn't get any worse so, now you've moved it, If we can't find it you can just make it disappear completely. Chrispb, I was hoping you'd turn up. You put some info in a while ago about software updates and I've been trying to get some sense out of my local Ford garage and they are not being over helpful. I did start a new topic but that seems to be descending to the same level as this If you have anything that may help I should be grateful if you could pop it in somewhere. Ta!

The salesman told me it was to plug the battery charger in if ever you got stuck with a flat battery. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ahh! Back on the Hate Ford warpath again. Just don't mention washing machines. :16:

The silly bit was where I gave away a perfectly serviceable MKII and spent the kids' inheritance on a MKIII. Although, thinking about it, that was on another topic. Before we go, where did the washing machines come in again? :5: :5:

I agree about them not knowing much about their cars. They all seem to wander about in rally driver type dress so what they do know is probably restricted to the racy hatches. I remember taking a Granada into our local ford dealer because it was hunting and stalling at tick-over and being told that the service manager had a 'Demon fix' for it as it was a common fault. I found out later that the fix was to bend the throttle stop on the carb to increase the tick-over as with emission controls the adjustment of earlier years was no longer available. In desperation, I straightened it out and then wiped the greasy gunge from the butterfly and fixed it properly. It was another 25 years before I went back and now only because of the warranty and the need to get the software upgrade. I did buy the MKII Gal from them but again never went back after they told me that the car had a timing chain which didn't need replacing. It really gives one faith in dealer service doesn't it.

No, but it might help him to find his way back to the club house when he gives up. :16: :16: " Maybe the manufacturers do use Ford advisors after all." At least we're beginning to get back on topic. :46: :46: How's the car by the way? :lol:

My 2 year old MKIII has the well documented turbo lag and a few other minor issues which have also been mentioned all of which are supposed to be fixed by updates. I've just been booking it in for it's 2 year service with less than 13K on the clock and told that I have to pay extra above the

Well, since we are on the subject of washing machines, (How did we get here?) we have a student let with 7 students and have had now settled for LG direct drive ones for them and home. So far they've been rock solid and unbelievably quiet. Motors Guaranteed for 10 years with no brushes to worry about and play a little tune when they've finished. I just hope I haven't spoken too soon 'cos they're damned near impossible to get into. Well, You have to look don't you? :19:

Whoa there! Acecard posted about his sad loss of a well designed car and we've progressed through to discussing Gregers's dirty washing. :24: :27: I think we've got to the point where we should be on another topic or even another site. Gregers! Do your duty man! :26: :26: :16: :16: