General Just about to buy a 500X but this forum is putting me off.

[Kev1234]

I was about to pull the trigger and buy a 500X from a car supermarket this weekend.
But after reading this forum Im a bit put off. Are they really that bad?
One of the reasons for buying was the tech - such as uconnect and tom tom sat nav, but it seems that they dont really work that well.
Any body give me some positives ?

 

[butcha]

Don't be put off at all! I love mine! The uconnect isn't perfect by any means but you have to remember it's not a merc! It's not gonna be as good. I've had a couple of issues with mine powering off randomly but that's it. Could happen to any system. The Deezer app is pretty poor tbh, doesn't stream very quickly but I just Bluetooth my phone and stream that way.
The drive is great and does handle nicely. Quality of the build is very good and plenty of space in the front and back!
Take it for a test drive and you'll be pleased!

 

[Alanw47]

I was about to pull the trigger and buy a 500X from a car supermarket this weekend.
But after reading this forum Im a bit put off. Are they really that bad?
One of the reasons for buying was the tech - such as uconnect and tom tom sat nav, but it seems that they dont really work that well.
Any body give me some positives ?

I agree completely with butcha. I don't pretend I haven't had problems with mine but it probably qualifies as the best car I've ever owned (previously that was a 2 litre Focus). I had a 24 hour Test Drive before I bought mine, if that facility is still available take it, and put a lot of miles on it in 24 hours. There's nothing on the market at the moment that I would rather have, but I guess that depends which model you're considering.

 

[Garree001]

I don't know why here is putting you off. There's little to no outright negative stuff on these forums. Niggles, yes. Views about small systems like UConnect (which is completely rubbish, admittedly), yes. This happens with cars from Mercedes, to Bentley, to Kia. But there definitely is not a plethora of people saying don't buy one.

You should look in at the Ford Owners Club occasionally. You'd never look at a blue oval in the same way again! And rightfully so. Awful company selling awful cars that drive nicely but last as long as a chocolate bar in a desert.

 

[Alanw47]

The other thing to bear in mind is that when things have gone wrong the Fiat dealerships have generally been excellent at sorting them out

 

[TrevC]

I've had my 2015 Multiair Lounge for about 6 months now, and have got to really like it. I admit I am not a power user of the tech - mine just has the non-DAB 5 inch system with Nav. The Tom Tom works fine, I can make and receive phone calls and I play music from a usb stick. I've never tried to use any "live" features. The screen is a bit small by modern standards, but it does the job.
Nothing has fallen off or gone wrong. If I could tweak anything, I would like a slightly softer, quieter ride, but that's probably largely due to the 45 section tyres fitted to my model. The "Auto" engine mode could be a bit sharper, "Sport" mode less so, but I've got used to it.
Best to try one for a decent test drive, I certainly wouldn't say don't buy one. For me, the best alternative would be a Suzuki Vitara, which has a bit more space, but the Fiat's interior is much classier.

 

[NitramA]

I don't know why here is putting you off. There's little to no outright negative stuff on these forums. Niggles, yes. Views about small systems like UConnect (which is completely rubbish, admittedly), yes. This happens with cars from Mercedes, to Bentley, to Kia. But there definitely is not a plethora of people saying don't buy one.

You should look in at the Ford Owners Club occasionally. You'd never look at a blue oval in the same way again! And rightfully so. Awful company selling awful cars that drive nicely but last as long as a chocolate bar in a desert.

Totally agree with this.
Go to the BMW forum and its the same - only problems.
I think people only post when something is wrong.
You don't often get posts saying everything is good.

There were issues with the 500X but mainly around the tech. Don't expect the UConnect to be up to much, its just a glorified media player.
But then the BMW one was not much better, just has better graphics and improved usability.
Does mostly the same thing though.

I'd drive one and make up your won mind.

Remember to drive it on a mixture of roads - include bumpy surfaces and around town in stop/start traffic.
And not just for 5 minutes. Remember you will be living with it.
Just like any car really.

 

[Kev1234]

Cheers Guys,
Id almost been put off. I'm test driving a 16 plate Cross Plus 1.6 Diesel with 18" wheels
What sort of MPG should I be expecting? I mainly drive fairly fast A and B roads on my 30 mile commute each day.

 

[Eklipze3k]

Hard to say as there's not a lot of evidence out there yet, for example - http://www.fuelly.com/car/fiat/500x
Only one of those is listed as a diesel, and gets about 45 UK MPG but that seems low to me so I suspect it's mostly city driven. Whereas some of the US petrol models are showing 52+ UK MPG, I'd expect 50+ if you're not doing too much stop/start stuff.

 

[Alanw47]

Cheers Guys,

Id almost been put off. I'm test driving a 16 plate Cross Plus 1.6 Diesel with 18" wheels

What sort of MPG should I be expecting? I mainly drive fairly fast A and B roads on my 30 mile commute each day.

I have the 2.0 Diesel Auto Cross Plus and I would be very disappointed to see consumption of greater than 47mpg, except in traffic in town. Most of my motoring is A roads and Motorways and I can reliably return 48-52 mpg if that helps at all

 

[Starbucks Junkie]

I have a 2ltr Diesel Cross, had it for 3 months now, love my car...

Go and buy one, you won't regret it..

I took all the current crop of SUV's that were in my price range out for a Test Drive, none of them compared to the responsiveness of the 500X or the comfort.. yes the ride is a bit hard and the engine a bit noisy, but for me that all adds to the appeal..

Just if you can switch off the Speed Camera warning Beep's after the first few hundred times for the same camera it gets very annoying...

 

[Garree001]

Try driving the 1.4 petrol. Very thirsty. I haven't seen more than 25mpg around town. Even my old Astra 2.2 gave me 30mpg +/-2mpg in town.

On the motorway you get early to mid 40s from it. Can probably work that up to high 40s if you're gentle.

 

[Kev1234]

Try driving the 1.4 petrol. Very thirsty. I haven't seen more than 25mpg around town. Even my old Astra 2.2 gave me 30mpg +/-2mpg in town.

On the motorway you get early to mid 40s from it. Can probably work that up to high 40s if you're gentle.

Ouch. I was put off the petrol version because of the reported high consumption - thats even worse than I thought.

 

[butcha]

I have the 1.6 petrol, and get around 35-40mpg on average. Annually mileage is about 6k so there was no point paying loads extra for the diesel when I don't do enough miles to benefit. Not a bad engine, needs to be high in the rev range to really get much from it. Surprised it's got better mpg than the 1.4 though!

 

[s130]

Ouch. I was put off the petrol version because of the reported high consumption - thats even worse than I thought.

I think we have to stand back and think fact, talk fact, understand fact when it comes to MPG and reports of "I drove from Edinburgh to Brighton on x gallons of fuel.

ALL manufacturers play games with MPG etc. We know (FACT) that mpg figures for any given car are based on laboratory test conditions. These tests DO NOT take into account wind resistance, road variable surface materials, etc. etc. The manufacturer offers sample productions car for testing. The test criteria is known so manufacturers can deliver a production representative vehicle "MATCHED" to delivering best can do performance on the "known/standard test bed.

Put the tested car on a real road, with real wind resistance, real surface profiles, and "real life motoring" and you can toss the "official" figures into the bin.

Please note! I'm not suggesting people are telling fibs about their fuel economy. The poorer the performance the MORE I believe it.

Given a petrol engine then a 1.4 Turbo is roughly equivalent to a 1.8L/2.0L naturally aspirated petrol engine. Both deliver (when in good running order) around 30MPG over the lifetime driving cycle.

For every car I've owned since 1974 I've kept a detailed "lifetime" log of fuel put in, £s put in, Litres put in and all mileages.

Needless to say the ACTUAL figures fall far short of what was officially documented.

Last point. If you want to have a fun, lively, get up and go "drive" then MPG is a mute point. You have to balance dead duck feel against she/he does what I ask. The "ASK" is your driving style and pleasure.

IMHO the 500X is around the expected "level" for a car/engine/etc of this type.

I would prefer to pay some extra £s per year and have driving fun/pleasure than thoroughly hating a £17K+ purchase based on MPG disappointment.

Summary. Lifetime 1.4 Turbo, 1.8/2.0L petrol engines are going to weigh in at around 30 to 35 MPG. Also note that modern engine management systems keep the ideal fuel burn (etc) in the ideal Lambda ratio as best as they can.

IMHO the 500X is no worse or no better than the other make options out there. These manufacturers compete hard to be as good as they can. What one has to do is decide are your a "MPG", "Driveability", "Load carrying", "size", "shape", etc. driver.

Only the individual buyer can dictate/choose the parameters.

 

[robotdancer]

Cheers Guys,
Id almost been put off. I'm test driving a 16 plate Cross Plus 1.6 Diesel with 18" wheels
What sort of MPG should I be expecting? I mainly drive fairly fast A and B roads on my 30 mile commute each day.

My 1.6 cross plus (On 18s) has averaged 54 mpg over the past 3000 miles. Really like it.

 

[Garree001]

I think we have to stand back and think fact, talk fact, understand fact when it comes to MPG and reports of "I drove from Edinburgh to Brighton on x gallons of fuel.

ALL manufacturers play games with MPG etc. We know (FACT) that mpg figures for any given car are based on laboratory test conditions. These tests DO NOT take into account wind resistance, road variable surface materials, etc. etc. The manufacturer offers sample productions car for testing. The test criteria is known so manufacturers can deliver a production representative vehicle "MATCHED" to delivering best can do performance on the "known/standard test bed.

Put the tested car on a real road, with real wind resistance, real surface profiles, and "real life motoring" and you can toss the "official" figures into the bin.

Please note! I'm not suggesting people are telling fibs about their fuel economy. The poorer the performance the MORE I believe it.

Given a petrol engine then a 1.4 Turbo is roughly equivalent to a 1.8L/2.0L naturally aspirated petrol engine. Both deliver (when in good running order) around 30MPG over the lifetime driving cycle.

For every car I've owned since 1974 I've kept a detailed "lifetime" log of fuel put in, £s put in, Litres put in and all mileages.

Needless to say the ACTUAL figures fall far short of what was officially documented.

Last point. If you want to have a fun, lively, get up and go "drive" then MPG is a mute point. You have to balance dead duck feel against she/he does what I ask. The "ASK" is your driving style and pleasure.

IMHO the 500X is around the expected "level" for a car/engine/etc of this type.

I would prefer to pay some extra £s per year and have driving fun/pleasure than thoroughly hating a £17K+ purchase based on MPG disappointment.

Summary. Lifetime 1.4 Turbo, 1.8/2.0L petrol engines are going to weigh in at around 30 to 35 MPG. Also note that modern engine management systems keep the ideal fuel burn (etc) in the ideal Lambda ratio as best as they can.

IMHO the 500X is no worse or no better than the other make options out there. These manufacturers compete hard to be as good as they can. What one has to do is decide are your a "MPG", "Driveability", "Load carrying", "size", "shape", etc. driver.

Only the individual buyer can dictate/choose the parameters.

Have to disagree with you slightly. Small turbo engines are quite capable of delivering far worse fuel economy than their larger petrol equivalents.

The proliferation of small turbo charged engines is entirely down to fiddling the current European emissions tests. The tests themselves are actually fairly objective but they are also highly flawed. The acceleration element of the test is so gentle, a turbo will barely spool up. So what the manufacturers do is fit small turbocharged engines as these will be cleaner and more fuel efficient on the test. Almost as clean as the same sized engine but without a turbo in fact. But at the same time, the small turbocharged engine allows manufacturers to bang on about good headline figures... Sub 10s 0-60, good BHP, good supposed economy, low emissions.

However, when you consider the purpose of a turbo is to force air in and increase the amount of fuel used on the burn cycle to in turn increase power, it becomes obvious that a small engine will happily eat fuel in huge gulps. This is why around town, small turbo charged engines are so disappointing. The turbo is doing work it didn't do during the EU's test.

Compare this to larger normally aspirated engines. They don't have to work as hard whilst making marginally more leisurely progress. But the price for this is an engine you have to rev the nuts off to get in the 'proper' power band. The chances are, most people won't drive like this and will drive in the manner that suits the engine. Real world town conditions suit normally aspirated engines.

Contrast this to motorway cruising and this is where small turbocharged engines come into play. When cruising, the turbo is barely spooling in comparison to what you're doing in town. But the larger normally aspirated engines are in fact using more fuel by comparison. This is why my Astra 2.2 kicked the 500x's rear on town and the 500x kicked the Astra in the knackers on the motorway.

Mark my words. When the new EU 'real world' tests start, I'm certain that small turbo charged engines will die out a little. Not entirely though as lazy people have gotten used to the earlier power band that a turbo will bring. They won't like having to hit 5,000+ revs to make pace when you're used to the oomph coming in half that.

Sorry to say though. The 500x 1.4t in real world conditions is worse on fuel consumption than many equivalent cars. Having driven many, including a couple of 500x rivals, this is what I've found. Do I care about this poorer fuel economy? Yes, a bit. But enough to care a lot? Not at the moment.

And yes, I studied engineering out of school.

 

[Kev1234]

My 1.6 cross plus (On 18s) has averaged 54 mpg over the past 3000 miles. Really like it.

Thanks very much. Just what I was looking for.

 

[robotdancer]

Thanks very much. Just what I was looking for.

Would have sent you a pic of the display but it's p'ing down outside! ?. I try to leave one trip meter running for as long as possible to get a true picture of mpg.

Driving on that figure is for a real mix including: Heavy town and city, motorway, rural, with and without family and bike racks (On the tow bar) never use roof mounted stuff like roof box as they annihilate mpg!

Annual mileage is just over 10k a year, service intervals are 12k so works well.

Also, I used to drive very steady on motorways (My last car was a big permanent 4 wheel drive) however I actually find I get the same or better mpg cruising between 66 and 70 than at say 58 to 66. There seems to be a definite 'sweet spot' between 50 and 55 and another at about 66 to 70 for hitting good fuel figures.

It's done a total of 22k miles, just had it's second year service, no major problems at all. Happy with my local dealer... they make mistakes but are always polite and remedy anything.

The 1.6 is plenty powerful, very drivable and the sound insulation inside is first rate (sounds like the 2 litre might be less refined).

 

[s130]

Have to disagree with you slightly. Small turbo engines are quite capable of delivering far worse fuel economy than their larger petrol equivalents.

And yes, I studied engineering out of school.

Me to with 45 years under my belt and I'm not disagreeing with you. You have well explained the finer engineering points of turbo vs naturally aspirated vs operating cycles and types of driving (city vs long haul cruising etc).

Yes the 500X is not brilliant around town and short journeys. To support my general statement about average fuel performance when I look at all my fuel records for 500X 1.4L Turbo, Strada Abarth 2.0L, Tempra 1.8ie, Punto HGT 1.8, Barchetta 1.8, Tipo 1.6ie and Stilo Abarth 2.2L then the only one that is radically worse/deviant is the Stilo Abarth.

At the other end of the scale my Uno SX 1.3 carb (68BHP) when on the race track would ONLY deliver 14mpg. Classic case of a normally fairly fuel efficient engine being pushed into regions of operation outside of the envelope. Same tracks and faster speeds the Strada Abarth slaughtered the Uno MPG beating it by miles.

If you are after fuel economy then there are plenty of choices out there. If you are looking for a little more than fuel economy with a bit of fun, performance, practicality etc. then 500X come into game.

All engineering is a compromise and a cost and performance exercise. Sadly there is never a "perfect" solution to any engineering challenge. The more perfect the more expensive.