Real Ford S-Max fuel consumption
Ford S-Max real fuel consumption by user reviews is approximately 24% higher compared to official consumption. Above consumption difference is the average for all Ford S-Max produced from 2006 to 2022. For Ford S-Max produced up to 2014 the difference in real fuel consumption by user reviews is on average +17%, while for those produced after 2014 it is on average +33%.
See below for the actual consumption of each generation and version.
Average difference between user reported and stated consumption
All carmakers average fuel economy difference between advertised and user reported
See below for the actual consumption of each generation and version.
2015
Ford S-Max 2015
Average real petrol consumption difference: +36% Average real diesel consumption difference: +38%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Ford S-Max versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5Ford S-MAX 2015 1.5 MT | Petrol | 6.5 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km+34% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2015 2.0 240 Hp AT | Petrol | 7.9 l/100km | 10.9 l/100km+38% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2015 2.0 150 Hp 150 HP MT | Diesel | 5.0 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km+42% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2015 2.0 150 Hp Automatic 150 HP AT | Diesel | 5.4 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km+35% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2015 2.0 4x4 150 Hp 150 HP MT | Diesel | 5.4 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km+31% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2015 2.0 180 Hp 180 HP MT | Diesel | 5.0 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km+42% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2015 2.0 180 Hp Automatic 180 HP AT | Diesel | 5.4 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km+39% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2015 2.0 4x4 180 Hp Automatic 180 HP AT | Diesel | 5.8 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km+29% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2015 2.0 210 Hp 210 HP AT | Diesel | 5.5 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km+44% |
2010
Ford S-Max 2010
Average real petrol consumption difference: +24% Average real diesel consumption difference: +24%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Ford S-Max versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.6Ford S-MAX 2010 1.6 EcoBoost MT | Petrol | 7.0 l/100km | 9.0 l/100km+29% |
| 1.6Ford S-MAX 2010 1.6 TDCi MT | Diesel | 5.2 l/100km | 6.8 l/100km+31% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2010 2.0 145 HP MT | Petrol | 8.2 l/100km | 9.5 l/100km+16% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2010 2.0 EcoBoost 203 Hp 203 HP AT | Petrol | 8.1 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km+25% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2010 2.0 EcoBoost 240 Hp 240 HP AT | Petrol | 8.3 l/100km | 10.4 l/100km+25% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2010 2.0 TDCi 140 Hp 140 HP MT | Diesel | 5.7 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km+21% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2010 2.0 TDCi 140 Hp Automatic 140 HP AT | Diesel | 6.0 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km+22% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2010 2.0 TDCi 163 Hp 163 HP MT | Diesel | 5.7 l/100km | 7.0 l/100km+23% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2010 2.0 TDCi 163 Hp Automatic 163 HP AT | Diesel | 6.0 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km+23% |
| 2.2Ford S-MAX 2010 2.2 TDCi MT | Diesel | 6.6 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km+23% |
2006
Ford S-Max 2006
Average real petrol consumption difference: +11% Average real diesel consumption difference: +10%
Real and specified fuel consumption and differences for specific Ford S-Max versions are shown in the table below.
| Modification | Fuel | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.8Ford S-Max 2006 1.8 TDCi 125 Hp MT | Diesel | 6.2 l/100km | |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2006 2.0 16v MT | Petrol | 8.1 l/100km | 9.4 l/100km+16% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2007 2.0 TDCi 130 Hp AT | Diesel | 7.3 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km+10% |
| 2.0Ford S-MAX 2006 2.0 TDCi 140 Hp MT | Diesel | 6.4 l/100km | 7.1 l/100km+11% |
| 2.2Ford S-Max 2006 2.2 TDCi MT | Diesel | 6.6 l/100km | |
| 2.3Ford S-Max 2006 2.3 T MT | Petrol | 9.7 l/100km | |
| 2.3Ford S-MAX 2007 2.3 16v AT | Petrol | 9.5 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km+6% |
| 2.5Ford S-MAX 2006 2.5 20v Turbo MT | Petrol | 9.4 l/100km | 10.5 l/100km+12% |
Real fuel consumption of other carmakers
The fuel consumption reported by users does not reflect the experience of all users, may be selective (depending on the driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the car and other circumstances) and should therefore not be taken as a representative indicator.