nickyt1973

At last I find someone with the same problem! (doesn't make you feel better though!) as it now backs up that it isnt just my vehicle as the garage states. Before now I struggled to find anyone with the same problem and therefore thought it must be the car. But are we the only ones???? Are we really to believe that it is all we should expect? This is only about 60/65% of the quoted mpg? Honest John reckons realistically we should get 89%!! My last galaxy was one of the first mark III and provided much better fuel economy yet these later engines we are lead to believe are much more economical! Hence why we upgraded to it. I really am so disappointed. Anyone else out there with the same findings or is there something wrong with our two's cars???

Sorry, forgot to also say it is a manual. Regards

Hi Thanks for replies. Mine is a 163 and has done a mere 6500 miles and is only 11 months old. I've only had it for 2 months. I can't believe the difference to my old one when I expected such better performance from the new one as it was advertised as such. Nicky

Hi. Had 2.0l tdci 163 manual 2011 galaxy for couple of months. Had a 2.0l tdci ghia before for three years. I used to get 37mpg around town and 45-47mpg on long journeys in my old one (better than quoted and impressive for such a large car). New one - well what a disappointment. Cant get above 37mpg even on a long journey in cruise (only two people in the car!) This best mpg is travelling in sixth gear at about 47mph with minimal breaking - only way to get it this high!! Get 460 miles out of the tank (quoted range is 764!). Even my old one gave me in excess of 520 miles from a tank. Garage reckons no fault codes showing and its all correct!! Its only producing about 60-65% of the expected MPG. Economy record shows 5/5 for all aspects! How can this be correct. Wish I'd kept my old one (56 plate)

Just taken delivery of a 11 month old Ford galaxy titanium x 2.0l tdci 163. Fuel economy is quoted as a range from a tank of 764miles, urban 42.2mpg, extra urban about 60mpg and combined about 52. Can get no more than about 35mpg even on long journeys! Last tank gave me a mere 460 miles! I had a 2.0l ghia for 3 years prior to this (a 56 plate) and got well in excess of these values out of that age car which is predicted to give much lower economy than this new one. Diagnostics show no fault codes. Appreciate you never get figures quoted but 300 miles less out of a tank and only about 60-65% mpg? Coupled with this my old one gave better fuel economy. Garage reckons this is correct and same across the board? Is it really?