Ford KA fuel consumption
Of all Ford KA modifications produced from 1997 to 2021 real fuel consumption according to user ratings is approximately 18% higher compared to advertised consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 19% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 17% higher.
Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values
| Year | Gasoline cars | Diesel cars | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All carmakers | Ford KA | All carmakers | Ford KA | |
| 1997 | +3% | insignificant | +3% | - |
| Show all years | ||||
| 1998 | +3% | +6% | +4% | - |
| 1999 | +3% | +6% | +5% | - |
| 2000 | +4% | +6% | +5% | - |
| 2001 | +5% | +6% | +6% | - |
| 2002 | +6% | +6% | +7% | - |
| 2003 | +6% | +6% | +8% | - |
| 2004 | +7% | +5% | +9% | - |
| 2005 | +8% | +7% | +10% | - |
| 2006 | +9% | +7% | +11% | - |
| 2007 | +11% | +10% | +12% | - |
| 2008 | +12% | +17% | +13% | +17% |
| 2009 | +14% | +24% | +14% | +17% |
| 2010 | +16% | +24% | +16% | +17% |
| 2011 | +19% | +24% | +19% | +17% |
| 2012 | +21% | +24% | +23% | +17% |
| 2013 | +23% | +24% | +27% | +17% |
| 2014 | +26% | +24% | +30% | +17% |
| 2015 | +27% | +24% | +33% | +17% |
| 2016 | +28% | +26% | +36% | - |
| 2017 | +28% | +26% | +38% | - |
| 2018 | +28% | +26% | +39% | - |
See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Ford KA.
2016 - 2018
Ford KA 2016 fuel economy
| Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines | 47.0 MPG 5.0 l/100km |
| Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines | 37.3 MPG 6.3 l/100km |
| Average real gasoline consumption difference * | +26% |
The table below shows the real and claimed fuel consumption and the differences for specific versions.
| Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|
| 1.2 liter petrol engine | ||
| Ford Ka+ 2016 1.2 70 Hp 70 HP manual | 47.0 MPG 5.0 l/100km |
38.6 MPG 6.1 l/100km+22% |
| Ford Ka+ 2016 1.2 85 Hp 85 HP manual | 47.0 MPG 5.0 l/100km |
36.2 MPG 6.5 l/100km+30% |
2008 - 2015
Ford KA 2008 fuel economy
| Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines | 46.1 MPG 5.1 l/100km |
| Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines | 37.3 MPG 6.3 l/100km |
| Average real gasoline consumption difference * | +24% |
| Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines | 56.0 MPG 4.2 l/100km |
| Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines | 48.0 MPG 4.9 l/100km |
| Average real diesel consumption difference * | +17% |
The table below shows the real and claimed fuel consumption and the differences for specific versions.
| Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|
| 1.2 liter petrol engine | ||
| Ford Ka 2008 1.2 69 HP manual | 46.1 MPG 5.1 l/100km |
37.3 MPG 6.3 l/100km+24% |
| 1.3 liter diesel engine | ||
| Ford Ka 2008 1.2 1.3 TDCi 75 HP manual | 56.0 MPG 4.2 l/100km |
48.0 MPG 4.9 l/100km+17% |
1997 - 2008
Ford KA 1997 fuel economy
| Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines | 36.9 MPG 6.4 l/100km |
| Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines | 34.8 MPG 6.8 l/100km |
| Average real gasoline consumption difference * | +6% |
The table below shows the real and claimed fuel consumption and the differences for specific versions.
| Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|
| 1.3 liter petrol engine | ||
| Ford Ka 1998 1.3 50 Hp 50 HP manual | 39.9 MPG 5.9 l/100km |
36.2 MPG 6.5 l/100km+10% |
| Ford Ka 1997 1.3 60 Hp 60 HP manual | 35.1 MPG 6.7 l/100km |
34.6 MPG 6.8 l/100km+1% |
| Ford Ka 2004 1.3 60 Hp 60 HP manual | 35.1 MPG 6.7 l/100km |
34.1 MPG 6.9 l/100km+3% |
| Ford Ka 2002 1.3i 70 HP manual | 37.9 MPG 6.2 l/100km |
34.6 MPG 6.8 l/100km+10% |
* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.
User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.