Sweetsixteen said:

It used to be the case that if ever a Diesel engine stopped, it was bound to be fuel. Nothing else ever stopped 'em! They just ran and reliably ran.

Different situation nowadays. Both good and bad. That's called progress.

Click to expand...

we were managing a ship that had 2 x 750 KW straight 6 HUGE diesel engines from 1992. Still was running well in 2011 when it was sold. Mind you, they were probably running at 500 rpm.

I'm beginning to regret selling a non turbo basic diesel that was quite slow and clunky with 60.000 on the clock. It had a 1.9 engine and once up to speed it was pleasant to drive on motorways though a pain when fighting for survival amongst traffic.

This was a version of the VW Lupo by the Spanish manufacturer with zero electronics and manual wind up windows, I sold it to a Chinese lad and couldn't understand why he was so excited. Now I understand.

Oh, and by the way. Thanks to everyone for making this an interesting thread. Nice not to have that big-mouth-mud-flap attacking all the time.

Anyone bought the diesel?

Are you happy with it? Is it as loud as some people claim (though not sure all of these people have actually driven one)?

What MPG do you achieve?

There are lots of nice small diesels now with even higher claimed MPG, eg the 1.5 90bhp clio is 88mpg combined claimed. But, are they really that much more efficient in the real world?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Next can of worms is Lounge vs S :what:

Ricard said:

I'm beginning to regret selling a non turbo basic diesel that was quite slow and clunky with 60.000 on the clock. It had a 1.9 engine and once up to speed it was pleasant to drive on motorways though a pain when fighting for survival amongst traffic.

This was a version of the VW Lupo by the Spanish manufacturer with zero electronics and manual wind up windows, I sold it to a Chinese lad and couldn't understand why he was so excited. Now I understand.

Click to expand...

That is probably the way to do it. Also see the 406 XUD diesels that were beloved of taxi drivers (when a friend sold his "back in the day" at c.4 years old in the local paper he had multiple taxi drivers offer cash without seeing the car). Apparently there's an older corsa with an Isuzu 1.7 diesel that's utterly bomb proof.

As an aside, petrol vans are making a comeback for stop start city work.

Interestingly, this thread actually lead me to disposing of my 1.3 Multijet. My brain was still in everlasting diesel land, not noticing that it had become an expensive time bomb.

And with 60000 on the clock, and 5 years old (the car, not me) I felt I was living on borrowed time.

Am now strangely enjoying a VW Up!, getting about 10mpg less, but still impressed by the quality, smoothness and economy.

I loved my diesels (started with a Visa diesel) but their rugged everlasting charm seems to have been engineered out of them. I sympathise with the owner above who sold his old clunker to the Chinese lad!

I agree Ricard, great thread!

This thread has lead me to working out the costings in a detailed spreadsheet and the petrol actually works out at £12/month less, the car payments actually £25/month less which is reduced by the poorer fuel economy. Not only that but there is far less to go wrong. Leaning towards a 1.2 petrol 500 S or Lounge with climate and metallic. Trying to keep off the options but the interscope is calling me. Very hard to decide between lounge and s.

500L said:

This thread has lead me to working out the costings in a detailed spreadsheet and the petrol actually works out at £12/month less, the car payments actually £25/month less which is reduced by the poorer fuel economy. Not only that but there is far less to go wrong.

Click to expand...

Bingo! If only more people did this rather than simply saying "but it does 10MPG more".

500L said:

which is reduced by the poorer fuel economy.

Click to expand...

The difference might be less than you'd think, especially if you are tempted to use the extra power of the 95HP engine.

I worked through the fuelly numbers a year or so back, and was slightly surprised to find my 1.2 petrol had the lowest fuel cost per mile of all the 500's, including all the diesel cars.

Ok, I know mine is an exception to the rule (there are not many 60mpg petrol cars on fuelly full stop), but there are more than a few 1.2 petrol 500's there that get well into the fifties.

jrkitching said:

The difference might be less than you'd think, especially if you are tempted to use the extra power of the 95HP engine.

I worked through the fuelly numbers a year or so back, and was slightly surprised to find my 1.2 petrol had the lowest fuel cost per mile of all the 500's, including all the diesel cars.

Ok, I know mine is an exception to the rule (there are not many 60mpg petrol cars on fuelly full stop), but there are more than a few 1.2 petrol 500's there that get well into the fifties.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. My spreadsheet assumes 50 vs 65 so you're probably right in that I'm being pessimistic with the petrol.

I have a red 500 1.2 lounge on loan at the moment. I'm driving it normally ie not economically (dropping down to overtake lorries and stuff) and getting spot on 50 indicated but it only has 275 miles on it.

70bhp sounds slow but it doesn't seem any slower than my 105 500l twinair because you can drop down and push on and the mpg doesn't collapse.

500L said:

Thanks for that. My spreadsheet assumes 50 vs 65 so you're probably right in that I'm being pessimistic with the petrol.

I have a red 500 1.2 lounge on loan at the moment. I'm driving it normally ie not economically (dropping down to overtake lorries and stuff) and getting spot on 50 indicated but it only has 275 miles on it.

70bhp sounds slow but it doesn't seem any slower than my 105 500l twinair because you can drop down and push on and the mpg doesn't collapse.

Click to expand...

If you're getting 50mpg indicated with 275 miles on the clock, you can expect that to creep up into the high 50's once the car has done a few thousand miles.

Knock about 3-4mpg off the indicated figures to get the true real-world mpg.

Another thought: As you're currently driving an almost new 1.2 500, I wonder if you have any input or comment on the throttle response issue that's sometimes reported here.

jrkitching said:

The difference might be less than you'd think, especially if you are tempted to use the extra power of the 95HP engine.

Click to expand...

Ours is the 95 HP, it does less MPG than our new 2 litre VW Beetle. At the risk of exadgerating I'll go for 10 MPG less on a motorway run though the Beetle is in sixth and doing around 1600 RPM at cruising.

Yes, we are firmly diesel heads because of the weekly commute and high annual milage of over 20.000 miles but haven't done any arithmetic on fuel.

Both our Fiats have cost more to maintain (Mostly through failures) than have our VW's. No engine problems though.

Because where I live, and it's farming community, most people travel a large geographic area and there are a lot of diesels knocking about.

Our 1.3 multi jet will be up for sale shortly. New battery going on today and I'm looking for a new back-box before that drops off. Otherwise I'm keeping up and always do a burn after a couple of local trips, then every other week it gets blasted up and down the M4 by my partner who fancies herself rallying.

Doesn't sound very good. What MPG is that then?

500L said:

This thread has lead me to working out the costings in a detailed spreadsheet and the petrol actually works out at £12/month less, the car payments actually £25/month less which is reduced by the poorer fuel economy. Not only that but there is far less to go wrong. Leaning towards a 1.2 petrol 500 S or Lounge with climate and metallic. Trying to keep off the options but the interscope is calling me. Very hard to decide between lounge and s.

Click to expand...

I would definitely advise a very thorough test drive before buying a new 1.2 petrol engined 500. They seem great on level ground but it is most important to test it out on a fairly steep hill start. I think you will be surprised how much of a struggle it is.

500L said:

Doesn't sound very good. What MPG is that then?

Click to expand...

Around 51 MPG combined, the VW is mostly 60 MPG though the Fiat is wound-up to 95 and as pointed out this could be a penalty if you drive it hard.

The 95 HP 1.3 multijet is a very quick little car with high torque between 60 and 80. it goes like **** of a shovel.

Ricard said:

Around 51 MPG combined, the VW is mostly 60 MPG though the Fiat is wound-up to 95 and as pointed out this could be a penalty if you drive it hard.

The 95 HP 1.3 multijet is a very quick little car with high torque between 60 and 80. it goes like **** of a shovel.

Click to expand...

In real life conditions i would assume that the 95 multijet is considerably quicker than the 1.4 100 hp with about 30% better economy.

Hi I have owned my 500 s 95hp for 5 months now, car is great apart from squeaky chairs ... But the best part is The fantastic 1.3 diesel , on my x2 125 mile journey a week I average between 67 to 71 mpg sitting at 75 on the motorway, Average overall with town driving is 60 mpg and I don't hang about
Good punchy engine and well refined at high speeds,

Previous car panda 100hp mpg 35-40 not so good lol

Somebody has to say it ........ Buy a twinair!!!!

We road-tested the twin-Air, I'm sure it's a good car though compared to the 1.3 multijet (For commuting) it was gutless.

Bizarre thing has happened, I fitted a new battery even though the existing one was holding 12.5 volts. Whereas the economy readout had always been around 50 plus, never 60, now the readout is showing 64 mpg on rural roads.

I'm not aware how a new battery can influence the economic performance of an engine even though a contributor to this thread has pointed out that a duff battery uses more fuel.

Bizarre ?

Ricard said:

Bizarre thing has happened, I fitted a new battery even though the existing one was holding 12.5 volts. Whereas the economy readout had always been around 50 plus, never 60, now the readout is showing 64 mpg on rural roads.

I'm not aware how a new battery can influence the economic performance of an engine even though a contributor to this thread has pointed out that a duff battery uses more fuel.

Click to expand...

I've posted this a few times before, but batteries self-discharge when left standing. The rate of self-discharge increases as the battery ages, so with an old battery, the alternator has to work that much harder each morning to put back what the battery has lost overnight.

Any extra load on the alternator has to be paid for in fuel.

jrkitching said:

Any extra load on the alternator has to be paid for in fuel.

Click to expand...

But 10 mpg ? I'm really surprised but thank you for illustrating the effect of a battery past it's prime. I can assure you that a lot of blokes making their living from the motor trade would regard my outgoing battery as fine, it was only when I got some technology advice dealing with the multiple batteries on a motorhome and marine applications that I realised a lot of people really do not understand nor keep up with the technology.

I'm now on silver batteries for all vehicles on the basis of efficiency claims and five year guarantees.