General TwinAir - real world consumption

Currently reading:
General TwinAir - real world consumption

Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Messages
1,382
Points
261
Location
Berkshire
I've spent a bit longer with a TwinAir now and I have some real world numbers. On the motorway (70mph where possible, dropping to 60mph in places) it averaged 50mpg when warm, and about 48mpg from cold. I managed to get 50mpg after the motorway for a while, but once I hit traffic it went down to about 45mpg. On a country road it went down to below 40mpg (with a fully warm engine).

On the way back on the motorway in my Panda 100HP I got 46mpg. I probably averaged a slightly lower speed, but also had the radio, heater, and lights on. So it only just beats my Panda 100HP.

Overall it's nothing special. What would a 1.2 do at 70mph? Similar?

In the past I thought the handling was amazing on the 500, but it isn't. It's fairly average. I think the Panda 100HP (and possibly the non-100HP models) is a much better car.

The engine is totally gutless at low revs. It pulls the car, but it makes a terrible sound. Even at 60mph in top gear it doesn't sound happy. In comparison, my 100HP is happy to accelerate at 50mph in 6th gear, it's not fast but it doesn't complain. You need to either completely murder the engine, or use high revs which gives you poor fuel consumption.

The gear shift indicator wasn't much help. I was finding that a lower gear could get better fuel consumption. I also found that eco mode was using more fuel. On the motorway eco mode could barely manage, it was just labouring almost all the time.

After a longer driver I was glad to leave it behind. The noise was terrible IMO! It's nice for a 10 minute test drive, but I couldn't live with it for longer journeys. Once I was back in my car it felt really nice. My engine is so much more responsive and reacts as I expect it. With the TwinAir you either have the engine labouring or you change down, floor it and have loads of power. Peak torque isn't bad, but you need to wait for the turbo and it doesn't last that long until you need to change up.

There's no way I would buy one. I would prefer the 1.2. The 1.4 will probably come very close to matching the fuel consumption though.

I suspect that the non-Turbo version could be good though. No-turbo lag, and I think it's supposed to get near 80mpg.
 
The Panda 100hp is a very good car and I miss mine, but I made that choice.
Fully loaded and on a long run, constantly pushing the car I always got around 40mpg. The 1.4 is a great little engine. Sounds like from your review the only thing the Twinair has going for it is no road tax and no congestion charge. A hit or a miss for Fiat. It will be interesting.
 
different experience for me - personally i loved the noise of the twinair...and thats going from an abarth ss! its not meant to be refined, and is all the better for it.

personally, with zero tax and cheapo insurance im not bothered about the fuel consumption - after my abarth it will be positively frugal, cheap to run and maintain and a fun little car.

still weighing things up, but if i swap my abarth for anything else in the fiat range it would be the twinair...and thats after having driven the 1.2, the 1.4, the multijet and the panda 100hp :)
 
It will be interesting to see a comparison with the deck a little less stacked against the twin air.
Not during extreme weather. Several thousand miles by someone who actually owns the car, As opposed to someone who actively dislikes it.
A "run in" engine being compared to another "run in" engine as opposed to a tight new engine, and being driven by someone who doesn't own the car and is comparing it to a loose engine that they know well.
 
Last edited:
It will be interesting to see a comparison with the deck a little less stacked against the twin air.
Not during extreme weather. Several thousand miles by someone who actually owns the car, As opposed to someone who actively dislikes it.
A "run in" engine being compared to another "run in" engine as opposed to a tight new engine, and being driven by someone who doesn't own the car and is comparing it to a loose engine that they know well.

Exactly. I'm not going to dignify this thread by responding with figures from my 1.2 500 in completely different conditions with an engine which is completely run in.

****s sake "Advanced" driver, listen to people when they say you can't compare a tight engined car being driven during a cold winter with what a run in 1.2 does whether it's hot or cold.....
 
I thought you said the engine was warm? :rolleyes:

It was. I was saying that it would be nice if it was a 10 minute drive, but it wasn't a 10 minute drive. I got three figures, and the last two were both done by resetting the computer when the engine had fully warmed up.

People can draw their own conclusions, but my mind is made up. The car has done 1000 miles now, and although it may not be fully run-in, I doubt that the fuel consumption will improve much more.

It's not just me saying this, I don't think I've seen a single review that has anything good to say about the fuel consumption.
 
I found with my last 2 new Fiats, the engines offer better consumption after 1000 miles, but peak figures were achieved at 8000 miles. I therefore consider this the "run in" benchmark now (at least for the past 2 cars I've had)

I have heard several car journo's complaining about the consumption. I put this down to the fact that the car is small, slow and underpowered and needs to be revved quite hard to get it going. My first 3 cars all had 850CC engines, a very similar size to the Twinair, but they only did 40 MPG average, so I'd expect the Twinair to be the same, slightly better as it's newer technology.

I'll stick with the Abarth though, 170 BHP and 40 MPG sounds better! ;)
 
I found with my last 2 new Fiats, the engines offer better consumption after 1000 miles, but peak figures were achieved at 8000 miles. I therefore consider this the "run in" benchmark now (at least for the past 2 cars I've had)

I have heard several car journo's complaining about the consumption. I put this down to the fact that the car is small, slow and underpowered and needs to be revved quite hard to get it going. My first 3 cars all had 850CC engines, a very similar size to the Twinair, but they only did 40 MPG average, so I'd expect the Twinair to be the same, slightly better as it's newer technology.

I'll stick with the Abarth though, 170 BHP and 40 MPG sounds better! ;)

Please stop posting complete sense or I'll be forced to agree with you :bang:

:p

I've always said with my car that if it gets written off (I've got gap insurance) that I'll sooooooo be getting a twinair to replace it.
 
if you're getting 40mpg from your abarth you're driving it wrong ;)

And if you want to buy a Twinair because your Abarth feels slow, there's something wrong with your car! ;) (j/k)


Please stop posting complete sense or I'll be forced to agree with you :bang:

:p

I've always said with my car that if it gets written off (I've got gap insurance) that I'll sooooooo be getting a twinair to replace it.

Not an Abarth then? ;)

& It's a refreshing change to talk sense once in a while :)
 
Its funny how the twinair seems to have divided opinion. To be honest, I am not going to re-enter any debate on mpg. There is nothing more that could be said that has not been on multiple threads through out this forum. People will really just need to believe what they want to believe and use their experience from previous cars.

I for one thought the twinair was great. And in case anyone missed it 1st (2nd or 3rd) time around, I ordered one.

I am looking forward to delivery and raise a glass to anyone who has also taken the plunge.
 
FYI ppl saying the twinair is underpowered- (draigflaig) its not. its simply small in capacity.

85bhp and 107ib ft torque would power a focus sized car well enough-

however- turbo charged small petrol engines have some history in many applications of not doing that well in fuel economy averages-

the fact that you need to be on boost with the turbo to get that power does seem to be kiiling the consumption of these engines.. VWs 1.2TSi in the golf/yeti has had similar issues...

i still really want to have a go in a twinair...
 
FYI ppl saying the twinair is underpowered- (draigflaig) its not. its simply small in capacity.

85bhp and 107ib ft torque would power a focus sized car well enough-

however- turbo charged small petrol engines have some history in many applications of not doing that well in fuel economy averages-

the fact that you need to be on boost with the turbo to get that power does seem to be kiiling the consumption of these engines.. VWs 1.2TSi in the golf/yeti has had similar issues...

i still really want to have a go in a twinair...

I think people are fundamentally missing the point of the twinair Keeforelli. The twinair is a car that's going to easily bang in 50's (mpg) all year long and when you want to go for a bit of a thrash you can wake the turbo up and compared to the 1.2 you've got 15 extra horsies and more torque. So basically you can have your cake and eat it as long as you're not always on the turbo.
 
I think people are fundamentally missing the point of the twinair Keeforelli. The twinair is a car that's going to easily bang in 50's (mpg) all year long and when you want to go for a bit of a thrash you can wake the turbo up and compared to the 1.2 you've got 15 extra horsies and more torque. So basically you can have your cake and eat it as long as you're not always on the turbo.

Agreed. I can't see it being any other way than what you've suggested.

With any luck I'll get a go in one on Monday when I take mine in for its service!
 
if you're getting 40mpg from your abarth you're driving it wrong ;)

I enjoy driving my non ss Abarth and on the mixed roads/motorway journeys I do achieve 40 or more MPG all the time. I don't need to drive it any faster/harder to enjoy it.

But that's me.
 
fair enough, but not much point owning a car like the abarth if you're really driving it in a style that returns that kind of mpg imo. put your foot down a lot and you wont get that any day of the week, but if you dont drive it that way then why have it - unless to be looked at, which isnt a reason in my book to own a car...though i know a lot of people do buy because they enjoy the attention it gets, rather than the enthusiastic drive it may provide so what do i know!

im off to the dealer on tuesday to hammer out a deal on the twinair, have already got £300 off the list price and with the abarth trade-in price looking good i hope to get it all finalised then - have made my mind up now. the abarth has had its day with me, glad to dispose of it while it still has a decent trade-in value :)
 
fair enough, but not much point owning a car like the abarth if you're really driving it in a style that returns that kind of mpg imo. put your foot down a lot and you wont get that any day of the week, but if you dont drive it that way then why have it - unless to be looked at, which isnt a reason in my book to own a car...though i know a lot of people do buy because they enjoy the attention it gets, rather than the enthusiastic drive it may provide so what do i know!

im off to the dealer on tuesday to hammer out a deal on the twinair, have already got £300 off the list price and with the abarth trade-in price looking good i hope to get it all finalised then - have made my mind up now. the abarth has had its day with me, glad to dispose of it while it still has a decent trade-in value :)

Trust me, you don't need to tell me how to drive the Abarth. I use it to it's full potential. But there is a time and a place for high speed driving and it's simply not responsible to drive fast 24/7. So on the "normal" days, it's nice to try and save a bit of fuel. And besides, you're trading yours in for a 900cc 2 cylinder with 85 HP so....;)

May i ask how long you've owned the A500 and what mileage you're on? :)
 
Back
Top