Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Ford Focus 2008 fuel consumption

Ford Focus from 2008 to 2011 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 18% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 16% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 19% higher. Since 2008 the Ford Focus average difference between owner-reported real-world fuel consumption and declared fuel economy has been similar to average.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline carsDiesel cars
All carmakersFord FocusAll carmakersFord Focus
2008+12%+13% +13%+23%
Show all years
2009+14%+14% +14%+23%
2010+16%+14% +16%+23%
2011+19%+14% +19%+24%

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Ford Focus.

2008 - 2011

Ford Focus 2008 hatchback fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines30.4 MPG
7.7 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines26.5 MPG
8.9 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+15%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines46.3 MPG
5.1 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines38.7 MPG
6.1 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+21%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Ford Focus 2008 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.7 liters per 100 km or 11% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Ford Focus with automatic transmission consumes around 0.6 litres per 100 km or 8% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars from other manufacturers, the Ford Focus fuel economy is slightly better than average. The best fuel economy in its class of all the modifications has one with 2.0 petrol engine and manual transmission (Ford Focus 2008 2.0 16V 145 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.4 liter petrol engine
Ford Focus 2008 1.4 16V 80 HP manual 35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km
30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km+17%
1.6 liter petrol engine
Ford Focus 2008 1.6 16V 100 HP manual 35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km
30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km+15%
Ford Focus 2008 1.6 16V 100 HP automatic 30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km
27.0 MPG
8.7 l/100km+13%
1.6 liter diesel engine
Ford Focus 2008 1.6 TDCi 100 HP manual 52.3 MPG
4.5 l/100km
38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km+36%
Ford Focus 2008 1.6 TDCi 109 HP manual 52.3 MPG
4.5 l/100km
42.8 MPG
5.5 l/100km+22%
1.8 liter petrol engine
Ford Focus 2008 1.8 16V 125 HP manual 33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km
30.2 MPG
7.8 l/100km+11%
2.0 liter petrol engine
Ford Focus 2008 2.0 16V 145 HP manual 33.1 MPG
7.1 l/100km
29.0 MPG
8.1 l/100km+14%
Ford Focus 2008 2.0 16V 145 HP automatic 29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km
25.8 MPG
9.1 l/100km+14%
2.0 liter diesel engine
Ford Focus 2008 2.0 TDC 136 HP manual 42.8 MPG
5.5 l/100km
36.8 MPG
6.4 l/100km+16%
Ford Focus 2008 2.0 TDCi 136 HP automatic 40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km
37.3 MPG
6.3 l/100km+9%
2.5 liter petrol engine
Ford Focus 2008 2.5 20V Turbo ST 225 HP manual 25.3 MPG
9.3 l/100km
22.6 MPG
10.4 l/100km+12%
Ford Focus 2009 RS 2.5 305 HP manual 25.0 MPG
9.4 l/100km
20.6 MPG
11.4 l/100km+21%
2008 - 2011

Ford Focus 2008 wagon fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines32.7 MPG
7.2 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines28.7 MPG
8.2 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+14%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines46.1 MPG
5.1 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines37.0 MPG
6.4 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+26%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Ford Focus 2008 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.7 liters per 100 km or 11% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Ford Focus with automatic transmission consumes around 0.6 litres per 100 km or 8% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Ford Focus advertised fuel economy is slightly better than average, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is slightly worse than average.
The best fuel economy in its class of all the modifications has one with 2.0 petrol engine and manual transmission (Ford Focus 2008 Wagon 2.0 16V 145 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.4 liter petrol engine
Ford Focus 2008 Wagon 1.4 16V 80 HP manual 35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km
30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km+17%
1.6 liter petrol engine
Ford Focus 2008 Wagon 1.6 16V 100 HP manual 35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km
30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km+15%
Ford Focus 2008 Wagon 1.6 16V 100 HP automatic 30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km
27.0 MPG
8.7 l/100km+13%
1.6 liter diesel engine
Ford Focus 2008 Wagon 1.6 TDCi 100 HP manual 52.3 MPG
4.5 l/100km
38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km+36%
Ford Focus 2008 Wagon 1.6 TDCi 109 HP automatic 52.3 MPG
4.5 l/100km
35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km+47%
1.8 liter petrol engine
Ford Focus 2008 Wagon 1.8 16V 125 HP manual 33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km
30.2 MPG
7.8 l/100km+11%
2.0 liter petrol engine
Ford Focus 2008 Wagon 2.0 16V 145 HP manual 33.1 MPG
7.1 l/100km
29.0 MPG
8.1 l/100km+14%
Ford Focus 2008 Wagon 2.0 16V 145 HP automatic 29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km
25.8 MPG
9.1 l/100km+14%
2.0 liter diesel engine
Ford Focus 2008 Wagon 2.0 TDCi 136 HP manual 42.0 MPG
5.6 l/100km
36.8 MPG
6.4 l/100km+14%
Ford Focus 2008 Wagon 2.0 TDCi 136 HP automatic 40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km
37.3 MPG
6.3 l/100km+9%
2008 - 2010

Ford Focus 2008 sedan fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines32.1 MPG
7.3 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines28.7 MPG
8.2 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+12%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines46.1 MPG
5.1 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines38.7 MPG
6.1 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+20%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Ford Focus 2008 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.7 liters per 100 km or 11% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Ford Focus with automatic transmission consumes around 0.6 litres per 100 km or 8% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars from other manufacturers, the Ford Focus fuel economy is slightly better than average. The best fuel economy in its class of all the modifications has one with 2.0 petrol engine and manual transmission (Ford Focus 2008 2.0 16V 145 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.4 liter petrol engine
Ford Focus 2008 1.4 16V 80 HP manual 35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km
30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km+17%
1.6 liter petrol engine
Ford Focus 2008 1.6 16V 100 HP manual 35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km
30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km+15%
Ford Focus 2008 1.6 16V 100 HP automatic 30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km
27.4 MPG
8.6 l/100km+12%
1.6 liter diesel engine
Ford Focus 2008 1.6 TDCi 100 HP manual 52.3 MPG
4.5 l/100km
38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km+36%
Ford Focus 2008 1.6 TDCi 109 HP manual 52.3 MPG
4.5 l/100km
42.8 MPG
5.5 l/100km+22%
1.8 liter petrol engine
Ford Focus 2008 1.8 16V 125 HP manual 30.2 MPG
7.8 l/100km
29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km+3%
2.0 liter petrol engine
Ford Focus 2008 2.0 16V 145 HP manual 33.1 MPG
7.1 l/100km
29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km+13%
Ford Focus 2008 2.0 16V 145 HP automatic 29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km
25.8 MPG
9.1 l/100km+14%
2.0 liter diesel engine
Ford Focus 2008 2.0 TDCi 136 HP manual 42.0 MPG
5.6 l/100km
36.8 MPG
6.4 l/100km+14%
Ford Focus 2008 2.0 TDCi 136 HP automatic 40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km
37.3 MPG
6.3 l/100km+9%

* - 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.