Focus ST Vs BMW Z4 3.0 on Fuel

FishThrower

FishThrower

FishThrower

Associate
Joined
15 Jul 2005
Posts
1,230
Location
UK
Hi all,

At the end of the year, I am looking to purchase a new car, currently I have a Clio 172 MK2 which has been great for the past 5 years, but I think the time has come to upgrade it.

Are Focus STs as bad on petrol as people say? I have heard numerous people say you can get 32mpg if you drive normally, but a lot of people say that mid 20MPGs is more realistic. I know that the Focus ST is a bit of a "chav car" so it wouldnt suprised me if the mid 20MPG is when people are caining it down the motorway (I have never seen one driven slow before)

On my Clio I can get 37MPG driving above average speed, but I do mainly motorway driving, very cheap to run, and bundles of fun, I dont think the ST is any quicker than the 172 (when driven correctly), so extra petrol for no performance gain would be a bit annoying, but the Focus would be a much more comfy place to be.

How does the ST compare to the BMW Z4 3.0 on petrol wise? I know they are very different cars, but I am also very intrested in a Z4 towards the end of the year as you can pick up a good example for around 12K (and a awesome ST for that amount to)

Thanks for reading
 
The ST is more thirsty than the Z4 3.0i - the Z4 is actually pretty frugal for what it is, given its reasonably lightweight. High 30's on a sensible speed run.
 
Drove 700 miles in the ST in the last 2 weeks. Mainly motorway driving mixed with a few days of short trips around the new forest. I averaged 30MPG (29.8 if you want to be exact :P) and that was with a bit of spirited driving here and there. It was a surprisingly comfy place to be on those long trips as well :).

With my commute to work/some hooning/and a lot of short trips i normally get about 25 out of it on average.

If you stick at a constant 70 on the motorway you can get 33-34 out of it.

I don't know about the Z4 but thats what i get from the ST for reference.
 
Last edited:
I generally get about 28mpg from my 2.5Litre Z4 but this is mainly short trips to work and back and around town. If I do a long motorway trip or two the average soon creeps up. It's pretty good on fuel for the type of car it is :)
 
Are these not the wrong sort of cars to consider if you are worried about fuel economy?

I had a 172 and used to see over 40mpg combined most of the time with 70% motorway miles.
 
ST is thirstier than most cars If driven with enthusiasm :-)

Real World mpg is
Town driving 20mpg
A roads and Motorways 30mpg

You are right though the standard ST is probably no quicker than your 172, But it is a far nicer place to be :-).
I Dont really see the ST as a hot hatch its too heavy and comfy and well specced for that
 
widdyst said:
ST is thirstier than most cars If driven with enthusiasm :-)

Real World mpg is
Town driving 20mpg
A roads and Motorways 30mpg

You are right though the standard ST is probably no quicker than your 172, But it is a far nicer place to be :-).
I Dont really see the ST as a hot hatch its too heavy and comfy and well specced for that
Click to expand...

This, almost to the letter.

FWIW, while the ST and 1*2 have similar power to weight ratios, the extra BHPzz and t0rks really help it at higher speeds. Terminal speed on a short dual carriageway in the ST is 120mph, in the Clio it's 110. Simples.
 
mrk1@1 said:
Are these not the wrong sort of cars to consider if you are worried about fuel economy?

I had a 172 and used to see over 40mpg combined most of the time with 70% motorway miles.
Click to expand...

Sort of depends on your mileage really. If he is only doing 6000 miles a year the difference in fuel costs would be minimal.

If he is doing 30,000 miles a year then the difference might be a fair bit of money!
 
Petrol consumption does seem an odd thing to compare them on, as you say in your first post they are completely different cars and not the first criteria to pick on when choosing either car..

FWIW I used to get low to mid 20's on my ST500, mixed driving. I think you need to be very light footed to get up to around 30's.
 
Whilst fuel economy is always a consideration if 25mpg from an ST is so bad you'll write it off without even test driving it and instead buy a completely different car, I suspect that perhaps neither of them are really that suitable for somebody with your budget...
 
I know we're talking different engines here, but my Z3 3.0 doesn't use much more than our 2.4 N/A V50.

So the BMW will be more economical than an ST on boost. That Volvo 5 cyl is very thisty.
 
My MPG on the ST ranges anywhere between 21-26 depending on my proportion of town driving :( The noise makes it all worthwhile though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom