General Doblo fuel consumption follow up *please read*BEWARE

Currently reading:
General Doblo fuel consumption follow up *please read*BEWARE

kevingrove

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
11
Points
5
Location
Bicester
Hi,
I put 2 new posts on last year on this subject, I was very annoyed with Fiat they were as follows:
I came to this thread cos I have a new 1.3? (1248cc) turbo diesel family (7 seats) which I was sold by Fiat on the understanding that I would get approx 52mpg, well; full load or empty the trip gives me 42.3 to 42.6!! The car was bought new in July and has about 3K on the clock. The sales guy assured me, it should be doing at least 50mpg and to bring it back for investigation. Guess what? The service guy said nothing wrong with it, and I'm unlikely to get much more than 42mpg even when the engine has loosened up a bit. So I am going back to the sales guy Monday a bit cheesed off. I don't like having the wool pulled over. However, I'd be interested in anybody else's experience with this version. Do they invent these figures?

and,
On the 14th of July this year, I bought a 1.2 turbo diesel Fiat Doblo MPV, based on my wife's good impressions of the Fiat Brand, price, size, and an amazing fuel economy (or so I thought). Quoted as extra urban 58.9, combined 51.4, an urban of 42.2, in their literature, it seemed perfect.
Once bought imagine my disappointment when a trip to france gave me 42.6 over nearly 1000 miles.
Still, I thought once all the luggage is out and we are just doing the mixed driving around us locally things ought to improve, but no; the next test was 42.3!
Then I decided to report the matter to fiat (Perry's of Aylesbury), they had the car for the day and no fault was found.
Another test physical test was done and on a full tank to reserve I got 456 miles, achieved using 49.59 litres of fuel (10.92 gallons) giving me 41.8 mpg.
A later trip to Winchester saw me achieve just 38mpg (dual carriageway and motorway).
All the figures since France were achieved with no load, and single occupancy, unless you count my 6 year old daughter Molly.
Upon complaining to Fiat I was offered a fuel consumption test which I would have to pay for, and then if a fault was found, I would be reimbursed.
I was also told by Dale at Fiat customer care, that the quoted figures were produced in test conditions in a wind tunnel (presumably it was blowing from behind), no occupancy and with no gear changes. Also the mpg figures quoted were likely to vary from those stated (but he wasn't prepared to say by how much they might)

And that was that!

I was told when I bought the car that I could expect a 600 mile range, but I get 456. This is by anyone's measure a big difference.

Can it really be the case that, I have been sold something on the basis of what appears to be misleading information, and by law I do not have recourse to any support or compensation from the manufacturer.

............UPDATE............

Well, on the 2nd of february this year, the car was written off by some muppet in a VW, a total loss! But I could have a new car replacement as long as it was EXACTLY the same model and specification. So I went for it, abandoning all hope of any recourse to fiat now the evidence was gone for the misleading fuel consumption. New car duly arrives end of June (took Fiat that long to build it), and I take it down the road to Bicester and when I look at my average fuel consumption for the 6 miles, I do double take when I see 55.3 MPG!!! I repeated my trip to Winchester (from above) and got 46 mpg, some of that(..well quite a bit) at 80 mph. Going around town I get 50.5 MPG! Don't forget the local fiat dealer had my previous car for a whole day and found no fault. Both these cars are/were identical, carrying exactly the same load (OK I might have lost a couple of pounds since last year...but), both new and both having a thorough PDI. So how do you explain that, I can't.
Now the sting in the tail, having had the new car for a week I got a squealing from underneath, the breakdown chap arrived and removed a stone (we have a gravel drive) from the front disk brake guard ("it'll just be a one off mate"), 10 days later more squealing, took it to Perry's (my local dealer who were so helpful last time, right) and they removed 2 stones from said disk (again "it's a one off mate, but if it happens again we'll have to charge you as it's not covered by the warranty, and btw we could find any fault with the vehicle" (sound familiar folks?)
Well this morning I got a squeal again (only had this car 6 weeks) and not wanting to be charged, phoned fiat customer care (Really I'm not into SM!!) who advised me to take it to the nearest dealership (whoo!) and pay for a diagnostic check out of my own pocket to see if there was a problem. (sounding familiar again folks?)
I declined, phoned my breakdown people again, he arrives, removes another stone and THEN on inspection of the guards of both front wheels, found the gap between the disk and the guard, at the top of the guard, was bigger than the gap at the bottom. So stones were falling in from the top of the tyres and not coming out.
So I bent the guards so that the gap is smaller at the top and bigger at the bottom,so stones that get in, can get back out again and sod the b*&^%y warranty it seems pretty much worthless.
(and btw...Big applause please for Perry's technicians powers of observation who didn't spot in 2 hours what I spotted in 2 minutes... yes REALLY!)
I have vowed never to step foot again into Perry's of Aylesbury again, and my next car given the laughable level of care I have had from fiat customer care on the 2 occasions I needed them, will sadly not be a Fiat, since they use the premise that the customer is always wrong, unless he pays and can prove otherwise.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: TD5
wow...that's a heck of a post.

seriously though, fuel consumption figures are always optimistic from all manufacturers because of the way they test the car.
They don't do real world driving.
My 120 is supposed to do up to 50mpg and average in the mid to high 40's but I can only get a maximum of 40 mpg.
It's not just Fiat, look at the Toyota Prius. Even that only averages about 55mpg in the real world, no better than a small Diesel, or even worse in some cases.
Toyota claim it will do about 70mpg..it's just rubbish.
Don't blame Fiat alone, the whole industry needs a shake up when it comes to publishing mpg figures. They need to test the cars out on the road with real town and country driving.
 
Now I've mentioned the Prius I've often wondered if the whole idea of a hybrid is a sham.
When I was at school I remember learning about energy and that when we change one form of energy into another, you lose some of that energy.
For example, when you convert electrical energy into light energy (a light bulb) some of that original energy is lost as heat.
We were told that it's impossible to convert one form of energy into another without reducing the equivalent, final amount of energy that you produce. You can never have the same or more energy than you started with, always less.

So with that in mind, how can a hybrid car be more fuel efficient than a non-hybrid...it must be less fuel efficient, it's the law of physics.

What I mean is, it is converting the energy produced by the petrol engine into electrical energy and then back into motion energy again...some of that original energy must be lost somewhere.
The engine not only has to turn a much bigger generator than a normal car but it also has to carry much bigger batteries around with it.

If a Prius really can do 70mpg (it can't but let's pretend that it can) then if you put a normal size generator in it and a normal size battery it would be even more fuel efficient and therefore produce even less co2.

The only reason that the Prius is good on fuel is that it has a very good engine design that doesn't waste much fuel, an equivalent size Diesel should be, and is much more fuel efficient because the Diesel engine is a much better design.

The only possible advantage I can see is that if you are running on battery power alone in town you aren't giving off any co2. But you must give the engine a good run out of town first to store up that energy so you are just emitting the co2 somwhere else, and if you only drive in town, the petrol engine will be running anyway therefore defeating the object.

So if you own a 1.3 Diesel Doblo, or even a 1.9, it is almost certainly more fuel efficient than a Prius.

That was a heck of a post too, I'm glad I got that off my chest :)
 
I've noticed a couple of tests of the new 500c Diesel have commented on its improved fuel consumption over 500s tested a year ago.

This seems like an engine tweak on Fiat's part to me as the economy of this engine has always been reportedly poor up till now.

Sometime this year or next the Multiar2 will be released and this should improve matters even more for all Fiat Diesels.

And yes, no car I have ever read about has ever given real time economy anything like that quoted. Salesmen simply quote the stats given in the brochures, which are created by very artificial testing procedures.
 
It's always been my belief that MPG quoted is achieved in a warehouse on a rolling road - so as soon as the wheels turn it's straight to 5th gear & a computer governs the speed (like cruise control).
Real world figures are different.
However, I also believe that a larger engine will be more fuel efficient than a smaller engine (in the same car).

Whenever I fill up, I start out with good intentions to get best MPG - then some chav hacks me off & have to show him what a real turbo does :D
So, 1.9td, 105hp. Best I can get is 400 miles to the fill - always about 10 gallons (45 - 46 litres).
 
learning about energy and that when we change one form of energy into another, you lose some of that energy.
For example, when you convert electrical energy into light energy (a light bulb) some of that original energy is lost as heat.

So with that in mind, how can a hybrid car be more fuel efficient than a non-hybrid...it must be less fuel efficient, it's the law of physics.


Normal cars turn kinetic energy (forward momentum) into heat energy when you apply the brakes.
The hybrid uses generator/motors to convert this momentum back into electricity and recharge the batteries.
That's basically it.

The Prius has a groovy computerised diagram showing energy flow to and from the wheels.
Okay in theory but actual driving often requires heavier braking thus wastage. Plus of course usual losses in the generation and storage.
 
Normal cars turn kinetic energy (forward momentum) into heat energy when you apply the brakes.
The hybrid uses generator/motors to convert this momentum back into electricity and recharge the batteries.
That's basically it.

The Prius has a groovy computerised diagram showing energy flow to and from the wheels.
Okay in theory but actual driving often requires heavier braking thus wastage. Plus of course usual losses in the generation and storage.

I read this stuff about the Prius, it's basically the same as KERS on F1 cars, but the problem of changing one form of energy to another still exists and this is really obvious on F1 cars with KERS.

To collect the energy the car has to be moved forward first and you need an engine to do this, then you need a generator and a battery to collect and store the energy created by the forward motion. This adds weight to the car meaning that the engine has to work harder to create the forward motion in the first place, therefore using more fuel, creating more heat which is lost altogether.

F1 cars struggle with this problem. They get better acceleration on the straights when they are using the stored energy but when the battery is drained they are heavier, slower and are using extra fuel. the cars without KERS are faster overall.

When you create energy, you lose energy.

A Toyota Prius with the generator and the battery stripped out should, and must be, more economical than it is with this extra weight.
Adding the electric motor/generator and battery is making it less economical than it would have been in the first place.

The answer to reducing mpg and reducing emissions can only be to make engines more fuel efficient, minimising fuel loss and heat loss, which is what modern Diesel engines do very well.
 
If you are trying to drive around at the most economical speed e.g. 55 MPH etc using the speedo dont, use a GPS. In mine I found that GPS 55mph translates to 60 on my speedo This information improved my mpg slightly altho I havnt done a brim test to confirm
 
GPS is not a reliable method of checking your speed.
My bus has the usual speedo as well as a digital tacho. I am limited to 100kph but the GPS has never shown anything near that speed, usually 8 - 10 kph less.
As the tacho is regularly calibrated, I would trust this.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but they do have the aerodynamics of a brick these doblo,s, i have a 1.9Jtd stilo multiwagon and can see mid 50's mpg even pushing on i can get easy 40+ to the gallon.

And these little engines are not that great on long journeys or for high speed cruising, hence the reason why you can get the 1.9.

I would love to see a comparison between two identical doblo's a 1.3 and 1.9jtd and see which is more economical as my money would be the 1.9 winning.
 
Sorry but they do have the aerodynamics of a brick these doblo,s, i have a 1.9Jtd stilo multiwagon and can see mid 50's mpg even pushing on i can get easy 40+ to the gallon.

And these little engines are not that great on long journeys or for high speed cruising, hence the reason why you can get the 1.9.

I would love to see a comparison between two identical doblo's a 1.3 and 1.9jtd and see which is more economical as my money would be the 1.9 winning.

I reckon you might be right. A mid-size engine, about 2.0 litre, seems to be the best compromise to give you the best mpg. A small engine has to work too hard and a huge engine just drinks fuel.
 
Sorry but they do have the aerodynamics of a brick .


So does a Borg cube but they can still outrun anything Starfleet has to offer :D

I agree the 1.9 would have a better consumption than a 1.3. The 1.9 isn't working as hard to push the lump through the air.
That said, I used to (1980s) drive a Pug pickup with a 2.3 oil burner. At a steady 55 I'd get fantastic economy, start hitting 70 and you'd see the fuel tank empty. Mind you, if they put a 2.3 lump in the dobbin I reckon you'd get great economy with the modern, computer controlled, engine.
 
I noticed the same thing. I expected 50mpg+ but turns out between 41 and 50 based on miles and diesel used by briming the tank. The trip computer is optimistic by about 7 mpg so I thought I was doing ok until the fuel light came on.
Overall I'm pleased with my Doblo. Its a 1.9 (105) dynamic. Just a little disapointed with the mpg. Theres a big difference between 55 and 70ish mpg so I suppose its the aerodynamic shape. I used to have a MG diesel saloon That alway got 50mpg + and was much faster but I couldn't get my bike in it. Oddly the claimed mpg figures were not that different.

Is this mpg typical? Do 120s get more as the engine is less stressed?
 
I've just done 500 miles in my old 100, much of it at high speed, and forty or so miles in a miserable crawl. Plus a little bit around town. I got 48 on the dash calculator. I was two up most of the time.
 
I've just done 500 miles in my old 100, much of it at high speed, and forty or so miles in a miserable crawl. Plus a little bit around town. I got 48 on the dash calculator. I was two up most of the time.

:eek: that's pretty good

my mpg is the best it's ever been at the moment and I'm averaging 41mpg. Maybe the engine has finally "bedded in" after 18,000 miles.
 
That alway got 50mpg + and was much faster but I couldn't get my bike in it.

Faster? Mine is more than happy to spend all day in 5th gear trotting along the superslab at 70 & there's enough room under the pedal to get around the idlers - in fact, I struggle to keep the speed down to 70, touch the accelerator & it quickly pushes the motor to 80 for ease of overtaking but it is all too tempting to hold it there:devil:
 
:yeahthat:

the mpg is definitely worse on the 120

50 should be easy with the 1.3 :D - I am getting almost that with a dpf and a high roof :) - mind you I do have a very light foot and try to keep revs at max torque. On motorways though there is no chance - which is where the 1.9 would score better.
 
Back
Top