500 New 500S C TA 105hp

I doubt it is more economical at 50 than 40, you just might find that lower speed limits are full of more stops and things that affect economy

obviously will depend on your gearing. I notice in my TA you could be in 5th at say 35 or 40 thinking you're maxing your economy but in fact you get a better result economy wise by changing down to 4th. Yes all about peak torque I'd imagine.

babyferrari said:

Has anyone worked out the economy sweet spot? I think I read somewhere that it should be at the speed at peak torque. Would that be correct?

Click to expand...

In a word, no.

You may be getting confused between engine efficiency and vehicle efficiency. The best speed for economy has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with peak torque, and will likely be much lower than you think.

As a rule of thumb, it will likely be close to the lowest speed at which the car can be driven in top gear without unduly stressing the engine - on the 1.2, that corresponds to about 30mph in 5th.

At steady state on the motorway, the 1.2 is noticeably more fuel efficient at 40mph than at 50mph, but there are practical limits to the lowest sensible cruising speed.

But FWIW, I'd say this discussion is largely irrelevant to the 105HP TA since anyone choosing that engine and then driving for best economy needs therapy.

Hi. I thought there was some wonky logic but am sure I read it on here! I maintain though that it appears to be more fuel efficient at 50 than 40 in 6th gear. Interested to hear your comments about driving for efficiency, I bought the car for a number of reasons. Frankly any conversation about fuel economy in isolation is a nonsense because it is generally a marginal cost when looking at the whole life cost of a car. And discussing the topic comparing a 1.2 and a 105TA is irrelevant. I have said many times that I bought my car for the way it drives but I like the fact that it can deliver economy if driven without too much right foot. Each to his own and all that! Btw as a comparison my other car is a citroen c3 Picasso 1.6 diesel. That is driven in similar conditions and delivers 47mpg @ average 17mph compared to my 43/44mpg. Again, a completely irrelevant comparison but there is a lot of interest on here about the TA mpg. Personally I would rather talk about its performance! 105hp in a 500 is a hoot. I would have thought it will end up with a following similar to the Panda 100hp. Don't recall ever seeing a post about that car's economy!!!!!!! And fwiw my 1951 Sunbeam Talbot can get down into single figure mpgs when on a rally! But I love it!!!

The physics with a 1.2 and a twinair are the same, drag increases as speed increases.

I doubt the 105bhp twinair will end up with a similar following as it's far more expensive, doesn't handle any better than other models of 500 and doesn't look any different either.

babyferrari said:

...but there is a lot of interest on here about the TA mpg. Personally I would rather talk about its performance! 105hp in a 500 is a hoot.

Click to expand...

That would be a much more sensible discussion .

The only reason I even mention mpg and TA in the same sentence is because Fiat keep promoting the TA as an ecocar, which IMO it's not - the 1.2 will beat it hands down for outright economy, despite what Fiat's published mpg figures would have you believe. And if my ramblings save even one gullible person from spending extra £££ on a TA in the mistaken belief they'll use less fuel than if they'd bought a 1.2, then it's been worth it.

That's not to say a TA isn't worth the money - far from it, it's the most popular engine here by a long way, and for most folks the smile factor makes a bargain of the TA's extra fuel cost.

And as has been posted recently, fuel is only a small part of the total cost of motoring.

Just deleted my post as my maths was a little off. I still maintain that fuel economy isn't a small part of the cost.

If you're doing average mileage that is....

306maxi said:

I still maintain that fuel economy isn't a small part of the cost.

Click to expand...

The difference between a TA & a 1.2 won't be that much of a percentage of the total cost if you buy it on a pcp, use the main dealer for servicing & trade in after 3 yrs .

You're quite right if you do a decent mileage & keep the car; the Panda at 50000 miles has cost almost as much in fuel as I paid for it, and that's at 55mpg! But lifetime total ownership cost should come in under 20p/mile, and that is something to smile about .

A 105HP TA on a rolling 3yr pcp @ 8000mi/yr will likely cost you three times that.

Fuel economy is a small part of the cost. 8,000 mile = 200 gallons @ 40mpg and 178 gallons @ 45mpg. Cost of 22 gallons? Less £30 for road tax = a tiny amount.
And sorry but there is not a man on this earth that is going to persuade me that I should have bought a 1.2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How much extra did your car cost over a 1.2? How much does that work out to over nearly 67k miles (my current mileage).

Maxi, give it a rest. You are not going to persuade me. Funnily enough other people live their lives differently to you.

I know that, hence why I'm trying to point out that for some others fuel is a bigger cost than it is for you......

Oh and did I mention it is a convertible? And I was more than happy to pay the extra for that as well! Not every purchase is a mathematical calculation. And yes, I am a qualified accountant!!!!!!

babyferrari said:

Oh and did I mention it is a convertible? And I was more than happy to pay the extra for that as well! Not every purchase is a mathematical calculation. And yes, I am a qualified accountant!!!!!!

Click to expand...

There's much to be said for sometimes just chucking the calculations out of the window & buying what you want & can afford .

Maxi you are right. Lots of people make decisions not having done their research and working with incorrect information. Others apply their own logic and reasoning. Others just don't care. A car is a different thing to different people. Let's face it, people buy 500s for how it makes them feel.

babyferrari said:

Oh and did I mention it is a convertible? And I was more than happy to pay the extra for that as well! Not every purchase is a mathematical calculation. And yes, I am a qualified accountant!!!!!!

Click to expand...

You do realise that the economy will drop off when the roof is down? Have you factored that in to your cost of ownership over a 1.2 with a hard top?

Funnily enough........

Fun! Driving for fun. The 105 looks like it's real fun to drive, and the slight, if any, fuel consumption increase over the basic TA is more than compensated for by the, FUN!

If I was to get a 500 it would be the 105: why not!

Mercky said:

You do realise that the economy will drop off when the roof is down? Have you factored that in to your cost of ownership over a 1.2 with a hard top?

Click to expand...

But you'll save fuel by not needing to run the A/C in summer .