Technical Twin-Air MPG

Currently reading:
Technical Twin-Air MPG

Pandabloke

Just call me Panda!
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
656
Points
238
Location
Deal, Kent
As promised in a previous post, here is an update of Elsie's MPG. As the title says, she's a twin-air.

The MPG has been steadily improving as I've put some miles on her. She's now done 2300 miles. Last tankful was mixed long motorway run, followed by two stop/start runs through Birmingham and a long motorway run most of the way home until I had to fill up. The 'Actual MPG' display showed 49 mpg exactly and my brim to brim calculations showed 48 mpg. Not unreasonable, but not wonderful. Adequate.:)

This is much of an improvement over the 37 mpg shown initially and it has been getting better, to be fair. I would love to average 50 mpg in general day to day driving. I'm not sure that is reasonably possible, but we shall see.

And I think, if you were terribly careful, drove like your grandad and had nerves of steel where the fuel gauge was concerned, it would be possible to get 500 miles from a tankful. :p

Useful tips for economy? Well, setting the cruise control at 70 rather than 75 on the motorway did make a significant difference in economy, not surprisingly, I suppose. Also I bunged her in to ECO to drive around town (I mean proper town stuff, stop/start, not b-roads or any sort of continuous run) and it seemed to make a difference on the 'Instant MPG' reading and you could definitely feel the reduction in power and ability to rev so maybe there is something in it?

These consumption figures are records of me driving the car relatively normally, not specifically styling my driving to economy runs, or tip toeing around. But also, I'm trying not to drive it like I stole it. So what you see from these figures should give a fair reflection of a low mileage twin-air's economy. :)
 
My problem is I usually drive at an indicated 80 on a motorway. I'd love to know what the consumption was like at that speed, and driving quickly around town.

My 1.6 Diesel Doblo can give 45+ in mixed fast road/motorway motoring driving at my idea of normal speeds, but solely around town, with short runs and crawling in morning traffic for forty minutes, as I had to do last week :yuck: I got an indicated 27!

If you were travelling at 80 on the motorway I'd say 49 was good. A fixed 70, not so sure. I suppose time and bedding in will tell.
 
I used to get about 45 out of my old JTD 1.9 and hoped for better out of the 1.6.

It can do better on a run, and it is more comfortable, but I guess I just drive too quickly. I have got 56 out of the new car driving very fast indeed for a few hours, and never going below fifty:D, but a few miles in city traffic brings the average down. I mean 40 minutes to go four miles by the way.

The fact that the TA runs on cheaper petrol is inclining me towards this engine for my next car, but I could never stick to 70 on a motorway and I do accelerate away from roundabouts and up hills to get past trucks etc. I'm afraid.
 
On my 500 TA, if I just drive normally and leave the trip computer alone for a thousand miles I average anywhere between 42-45mpg overall depending on how many longer m'way runs are included.
 
Just for comparison, I'm currently half way through the next tank of petrol and have just been bumbling around town and the five mies to work and the trip computer is showing 42mpg at the moment.
 
The fact that the TA runs on cheaper petrol is inclining me towards this engine for my next car, but I could never stick to 70 on a motorway and I do accelerate away from roundabouts and up hills to get past trucks etc. I'm afraid.


if you want to regularly go over 70 , then stick with diesel, the 875 cc motor is just working too hard to be economical at 70+,

Charlie
 
if you want to regularly go over 70 , then stick with diesel, the 875 cc motor is just working too hard to be economical at 70+,

Charlie

875cc engine is just fine over 70mph.
It's only doing 3000rpm at 70mph and will still return very good (maybe not as good as diesel) over 70mph.
 
Just been perusing Fiat's website and the comedy figures for Twin-Air mpg. It seems we should be getting 49.6mpg urban cycle, 65.7mpg extra-urban and combined 58.9mpg! :confused::eek:

If anyone is getting anywhere near these figures, do let me know! :eek:

I'm driving like I'm in a funeral and I am getting near that 49.6 (47.5 at the moment) mostly urban, but soon some commuter on my 5 mile journey is going to cycle (or probably jog, to be honest....) up along side me and punch my lights out as I try and coax Elsie along. I'm currently holding up milk floats, tractors and disability scooters as I try not to accelerate away from roundabouts and junctions, to increase my mpg. :sleep::doh:

I've hopped over to the 500 model forum and had a look and their twin-airs are even worse, some showing up ludicrously low figures when driven with a bit of gusto. :shrug:
 
it's all about revs...,
keep the revs down and the numbers will come good,

I filled with fuel yesterday morning in town, ( zero'd trip)
did the normal shunt for 10 mins into work, then from cold 20 mins shunt and 15 mins @ 55mph home,

on hitting 50 mph trip MPG said 24 , after 15 mins it was @ 52mpg = average.. so the high ( ahem) speed stuff was probably nearer 65 mpg,

this is the journey made 5 days a week and the reason for buying a TA..
my TA now has 6500 miles and an oil change last week,
I hope that gives you SOME hope,
Charlie
 
it's all about revs...,
keep the revs down and the numbers will come good....

Thanks for the reply, and I do know what you're saying, but if I keep the revs any lower, she won't move. Believe me, I simply can't drive any more economically. And I consider myself reasonably good at this stuff ..... I could beat the factory Multipla figures if I really tried.

Quite simply, I don't believe it's consistently possible to get anywhere near Fiats figures. But please, someone, prove me wrong! :(
 
I get 37.7 MPG out of my Punto TA :(

Yes, I've read elsewhere that the Punto TA is particularly bad. In fact it seems that all TA's cannot consistently achieve the factory figures, although from my brief observations, the Panda seems to be the best?
 
I'm guessing with the Punto being bigger than the 500 the engine will be less efficient
 
700mi I think, but it's not a daily driver yet so fingers crossed it will improve
 
Driving around town, with the A/C on most of the time (it mists quickly) I am now getting between 36 and 45 from the Doblo. Okay, I'm not a slow coach, but I stick to the limits unless I am on unrestricted roads, when I sometimes go over by accident ;)

I think this is rubbish mileage, even for a big brick of a car, and it is no better than my old car.

I recently tested the Suzuki C Cross 1.6 120 (Fiat) Diesel, and i drove like I stole it around town, and for a few miles on a country road, and for a short distance at 70. I got 59mpg!

And it was rising as I got back to the dealer...

Okay. A lighter car with good aerodynamics and a more powerful engine with a variable rate turbo. But it was a quick car and handled brilliantly, like most Suzukis. And the A/C was on too. Reviews state that it easily capable of 60++ at motorway speeds.

So.... Once more I conclude that Fiat under engines it's cars. I've always said it and nothing has happened to change my mind. I think they need to work hard on the TA too.

If they don't improve things soon my next car won't be a Fiat, sadly.
 
Driving around town, with the A/C on most of the time (it mists quickly) I am now getting between 36 and 45 from the Doblo. Okay, I'm not a slow coach, but I stick to the limits unless I am on unrestricted roads, when I sometimes go over by accident ;)

I think this is rubbish mileage, even for a big brick of a car, and it is no better than my old car.

I recently tested the Suzuki C Cross 1.6 120 (Fiat) Diesel, and i drove like I stole it around town, and for a few miles on a country road, and for a short distance at 70. I got 59mpg!

And it was rising as I got back to the dealer...

Okay. A lighter car with good aerodynamics and a more powerful engine with a variable rate turbo. But it was a quick car and handled brilliantly, like most Suzukis. And the A/C was on too. Reviews state that it easily capable of 60++ at motorway speeds.

So.... Once more I conclude that Fiat under engines it's cars. I've always said it and nothing has happened to change my mind. I think they need to work hard on the TA too.

If they don't improve things soon my next car won't be a Fiat, sadly.

I can pretty much confirm my next car will not be Fiat
 
Back
Top