Technical Twin-Air MPG

Currently reading:
Technical Twin-Air MPG

I just got a Twinair Punto and get 48 mpg (500 miles on the odometer).
This corresponds to 54 mpg with a diesel engine, since diesel has a higher energy content per liter.
So, it's not that bad. However, I do wonder how they have achieved the NEDC mileage numbers and apparently car manufacturers can cheat to some extent.
Search for: "Mind the Gap! Why official car fuel economy figures don't match up to reality"

But things you can do is:
Look ahead and try to avoid braking.
When you lift the throttle put your gear in neutral.
Shift early.
Drive below the speed limit on the highway.
Increase tire pressure to 3.5 bar (51 psi)
Buy an ODB reader and try to avoid running boost (there are bluetooth readers which can connect to your smart phone (torque app) or you can buy somthing like ultragauge or scangauge).

I have a second car which is faster but actually do like driving this car a lot and I find trying to reduce my fuel consumption is fun.
 
Last edited:
Oooops - Never ever drive with a car in neutral. Think carefully before playing with the tyre pressures. And if you do drive below the speed limit you will hold people up, and they will hate you :D:D:D

As for aerodynamics. Well, my old Doblo had a CX rating of something like 3.2, which is very good indeed for a van. It had a blunt front and was quite close to the ground - this is important - and a Kamm tail ;) Flat backs are important for air management at speed too. My present Doblo has a huge frontal area, but I have no idea of its CX rating. It's a brick though, so asking for fantastic economy probably isn't fair. It does heat up quickly though, and is warm at night in these falling temperatures. It needs the A/C on al all times though to prevent misting.

The new Suzuki (sorry:eek:) also has a CX factor of I think 3.2, which is again very good indeed, and is also quite low for a crossover - important for air control - and has a relatively small frontal area. Plus, it is built with masses of high strength steel and is quite light - this matters too. It also has practically full plastic cladding underneath to smooth airflow - more help. So, it is light and aerodynamic and economical.

As for the interior, well, the pundits say it looks stark, cheap, etc., but they also mention that it is very well assembled. It is, and actually it feels pretty smart behind the wheel, with fantastically clear instruments, a perfect driving position and very well engineered controls. In fact I was very pleasantly surprised and it felt like a quality product.

And testers don't test other things that matter, like satnavs. Heaters are hugely important and so, for me, is connectivity. The Suzy has a Garmin (in the top versions) which includes the usual hands free features and a DAB radio. Useful.

Lots more cars are on the way, but I am not going to drive like a granny all the time to get good economy. I drove like me in the Suzuki (three up) and got 59mpg, and rising. In a brand new car don't forget! I am still in awe :worship:

And like the 500L it gets the very highest crash test rating - fantastic. I'm not trying to sell them, but I was hugely impressed, and the thing was great fun to drive, and the 120bhp Fiat Diesel makes it feel like family :), quick handling and responsive, like the little Panda TA, and like nearly all Fiats used to be.

PS. Which Suzuki? The new SX4 C Cross.
 
Last edited:
I just got a Twinair Punto and get 48 mpg (500 miles on the odometer).

When you lift the throttle put your gear in neutral.
Shift early.
Drive below the speed limit on the highway.
Increase tire pressure to 3.5 bar (51 psi)


I have a second car which is faster but actually do like driving this car a lot and I find trying to reduce my fuel consumption is fun.

Hi,
your MPG? figures will improve a lot as the engine free's off;)

not sure if 3.5 bar is great for the tyres..??



also I was told that de-clutching uses fuel - as the engine needs fuel to keep running , whereas lifting the throttle pedal effectively turns off the fuel supply, and the gearbox keeps the engine spinning with ZERO fuel..,
not sure there.., :confused:
Charlie 2013 Punto TA
 
Yes, stay in gear (where you have control) and then lift off, and the engine uses no fuel. Coast and you use fuel, and have no control in an emergency.

In fact all the info in that post was a bit, erm, wrong.
 
Last edited:
Cars on the slower lane usually drive below speed limit - just drive behind them instead of passing them.

You just don't exceed the maximum tire pressure rating (which is usually 3.5 bar). This doesn't harm the tire, it just reduces comfort.

It takes more energy to run the engine at 3000 rpm than at 900 rpm, this is why you end up using less fuel, despite needing a little fuel to idle the engine.
If you lift the throttle you don't use fuel but you engine brake at 3000 rpm, which means you need to step on the throttle earlier and end up using more fuel. This is just a simple fact.

Running the engine at idle neither shuts off the steering wheel nor the brakes. And if you look ahead you wouldn't run into emergencies in the first place.

Search for hypermiling if you want to learn about saving fuel.
 
Last edited:
Cars on the slower lane usually drive below speed limit - just drive behind them instead of passing them.

You just don't exceed the maximum tire pressure rating (which is usually 3.5 bar). This doesn't harm the tire, it just reduces comfort.

It takes more energy to run the engine at 3000 rpm than at 900 rpm, this is why you end up using less fuel, despite needing a little fuel to idle the engine.
If you lift the throttle you don't use fuel but you engine brake at 3000 rpm, which means you need to step on the throttle earlier and end up using more fuel. This is just a simple fact.

Running the engine at idle neither shuts off the steering wheel nor the brakes. And if you look ahead you wouldn't run into emergencies in the first place.

Search for hypermiling if you want to learn about saving fuel.

Like you I drive a Punto TA , and it has very little engine braking = good + FUN thing..,:D

driving in Neutral is actually a legal infringement here in the UK,
that is why tho old Volkswagen designed to "coast" was not accepeted here,(n)

I'm perfectly aware of the option of increasing tyre pressures, - just not sure 3.5 Bar is the optimal,

by the way my daily commute covers a long stretch of dual carriageway road covered in lorries doing 90KMH , so I sit in with them for an indicated average of 70MPG ;)
 
Hypermiling is all very well (it isn't ;)), but if all that overinflated tyre thing, plus crawling along behind lorries and being in neutral and therefore out of control still gets worse mileage than a better engineered car driven properly, and enjoyably :D, there has to be something very wrong.

And crawling along at low revs doesn't do an engine any good over the long term either.

I'll stick with my driving technique and get a car that is engineered to be economical under normal driving conditions - mine in other words (y)
 
Of course everybody can drive however they want. I just said that you can achieve high mileage with the TA if you choose to without actually having to drive behind lorries.

On my commute to work there's a straight incline which is approx. 2 kms long. When I put my car in neutral the speed stays steady at the speed limit of 80 km/h and board computer shows 2.0 l/100km when I leave it in gear I need to keep my foot on the throttle and it shows 3.x l/100 km.

This coasting option some older cars had was indeed unsafe, because they couldn't use engine braking anymore (which I still can anytime) and they had very bad brakes compared to a modern car.
Since I live in a mountainous region I still use engine braking on steep inclines or simply to reduce brake pad wear quite often and get the car up to high rpms this way.

Driving economically doesn't necessarily mean to drive slow - on the contrary: I'm constantly passing cars who have been racing to the next redlight.
 
I'll stick with my driving technique and get a car that is engineered to be economical under normal driving conditions - mine in other words (y)

Could you please confirm which vehicle you are ranking here, and the figures achieved by it,:confused:
I'm trying to scan through your recent posts, and have to choose between,
a doblo diesel,
fiat 500 l ( petrol?) ,
and a rice burner..!!,

thanks,
Charlie - Punto 875cc petrol
 
My driving philosophy applies to all cars, modified only by my requirement to have a car with easy access and a decent riding height. A fine drive is an added bonus, but one I'm definitely inclined towards even if it means compromising economy, a little.

I like the TA engine a lot, but from what I've read it doesn't give great mpg in any iteration, if driven the way I like to drive. I drove the Panda and it was a hoot, but for the short test I did the economy wasn't anything special at all, and why have a fun engine if fun driving brings the economy down?

But, it isn't a Diesel, so should my driving requirements change that might push it up the desirability scale, in 105 from in a 500L. Why? Because the Panda, although tempting, just isn't wide enough for two of us to sit side-by-side without rubbing shoulders and doors, especially in coats.

And the 500, although charming, is similarly far too cramped for my needs. Great if it suits, but it doesn't suit me.

Top of my current list if and when I change my stopgap Doblo next year is the new Suzuki S Cross. It drove magnificently, was very roomy, especially across the seats - more than the Doblo in fact - and had a simply designed and very clear dashboard, plus great connectivity. In fact it was very comfortable indeed - better than any Fiat I have driven I'm afraid, since the seating position was perfect, not just nearly perfect, and the controls fell easily to hand. It took no learning to drive, all the major controls were perfectly weighted with great feel, and the brakes were wonderful, without the grabiness the Doblo suffers. At the end of a twenty minute drive we were both very impressed, as I have said.

And it has a reversing camera, plus sensors. Useful when driving in all weathers at night as I do.

And since it has a Fiat 1.6 Diesel it still has some major Fiat DNA (y) Also, years ago I had two Suzukis, and they were both excellent cars. An added and essential bonus is that my local Suzuki dealer is very professional. But then I have no complaints with the Fiat dealer either.

Clear? ;)
 


perfectly - thanks (y)

I completely agree about interior space,

we've got a 1.1 panda, and I found the 500 even smaller,
hence the Punto - YES it's a long-running platform,but with a 21st century engine+ a 6 speed box

but I couldn't justify a diesel with my daily commute ( 12K annual mileage) - or get what I wanted in my £12K budget,
need climate + cruise..so it had to be an upper spec car.

FIAT dealers around here are poor, all the better ones have been pushed out,
but very little Suzuki coverage either..
however the Pug dealer I've had dealings with make FIAT look fantastic,
so I'm o.k. with my choice,

15 mins at dual-carriageway speeds + 25 minutes to cover the last 3 miles x 5 days a week makes a small petrol the obvious choice for me:worship:

a mk2 panda would've fitted the bill if I could still drive one..!!:eek:
 
You mention the Panda Diesel. I wouldn't look at the small Fiat Diesel, because it really doesn't seem to have a large enough displacement to be truly economical. The 1.5 Renault unit knocks spots off it, and the little Diesel seems not to be as reliable as other engines either. I can't see any justification for spending the increased money. Normally with a Diesel you pay more up front for a more torquey, relaxed and powerful drive, with the added bonus of great economy. Not so much with the Fiat 1.3 Diesel it seems, so save the initial cash.

I'd take the TA in preference in the Panda every time, whatever my mileage.
 
Last tankful, normal driving. Computer says 41mpg. Brim to brim 38 mpg. Not good enough. (n)
 
I've just stumbled across this thread. I joined the Fiat Forum because I was seriously considering a new Panda 4x4 to replace my Suzuki Swift. Now, with a little one on the way and the occasional need to carry three adults in the back I have ruled the Panda out and put the 500L on the shortlist. However, my Suzuki dealer from where I got the Swift from has been pestering me to look at the new S-Cross. I haven't driven one yet but I've now sat in one and the driving position/adjustability is spot on. It's a lovely height and, if my Swift is anything to go by, will return impressive mpg with 100% reliability. The biggest problem I see with the 500L is price. I need the economy of the 1.3 diesel or twin air and yet these start at £16500. This is only £500 off the price of the S-Cross 1.6 diesel and £1500 more than the 1.6 petrol. I'll take a fair look at the Fiat though because it has a bit of character, something about it that most other family cars lack these days.
 
I've just stumbled across this thread. I joined the Fiat Forum because I was seriously considering a new Panda 4x4 to replace my Suzuki Swift. Now, with a little one on the way and the occasional need to carry three adults in the back I have ruled the Panda out and put the 500L on the shortlist. However, my Suzuki dealer from where I got the Swift from has been pestering me to look at the new S-Cross. I haven't driven one yet but I've now sat in one and the driving position/adjustability is spot on. It's a lovely height and, if my Swift is anything to go by, will return impressive mpg with 100% reliability. The biggest problem I see with the 500L is price. I need the economy of the 1.3 diesel or twin air and yet these start at £16500. This is only £500 off the price of the S-Cross 1.6 diesel and £1500 more than the 1.6 petrol. I'll take a fair look at the Fiat though because it has a bit of character, something about it that most other family cars lack these days.

With the Suzuki they have a "good will" package, when the 3 year warranty is up some things are still covered even when the car is a year out of warranty. Also I am looking at a new swift how has your swift experience been like if you don't mind me asking, am I making the right choice?

Thanks

MJ
 
I've just stumbled across this thread. I joined the Fiat Forum because I was seriously considering a new Panda 4x4 to replace my Suzuki Swift. Now, with a little one on the way and the occasional need to carry three adults in the back I have ruled the Panda out and put the 500L on the shortlist. However, my Suzuki dealer from where I got the Swift from has been pestering me to look at the new S-Cross. I haven't driven one yet but I've now sat in one and the driving position/adjustability is spot on. It's a lovely height and, if my Swift is anything to go by, will return impressive mpg with 100% reliability. The biggest problem I see with the 500L is price. I need the economy of the 1.3 diesel or twin air and yet these start at £16500. This is only £500 off the price of the S-Cross 1.6 diesel and £1500 more than the 1.6 petrol. I'll take a fair look at the Fiat though because it has a bit of character, something about it that most other family cars lack these days.

Have a chat with your FIAT dealer - you should be able to shave a good lump off the list price as it appears these cars are not exactly selling like hot cakes and we were certainly able to get an excellent deal when we got ours on a 63 plate.
 
I got the wife's 500l with 2k miles on it for £4k below list...wouldn't of had one otherwise.
 
It is 1.4 petrol popstar
Launch edition with 17" wheels, front fogs, two tone paint, glass roof, rear electric windows. Configuration comes up at £17280...I paid £12210 a few months back.
 
Back
Top