500X New fiat 500x not very economical

Currently reading:
500X New fiat 500x not very economical

Lynda123

New member
Joined
Aug 23, 2017
Messages
3
Points
1
Hi, I just bought a new fiat 500x. It's a 1.6 110 cv popstar.
I drove it on a long trip last week and it was drinking petrol. It was doing only about 28mpg. I had read before I bought the car that it should do 40mpg at least.
People have told me that this is normal for a new car and it will sort itself out, but I'm not sure how that will happen. Not sure if i should get it checked by fiat.
 
Ah, the 1.6 e-Torq engine. I have known people buy the Renegade with the same engine and regret it. Under powered and has a penchant for petrol. Can you change it for another model with the 1.4 engine and six speed manual gearbox?

Don't forget the 500X is a bit like my Renegade, not the most aerodynamic shape, so a high mpg isn't realistic. Saying that, mine will hit 50+ mpg on the motorway with cruise. Daily stop start in the low to mid 30s. In the past year I have done short of 7k and the total average for the 7k is 33.3 mpg.

Fiat also use the same engine in the Tipo and between you and me, the salesman recommended stay away from the 1.6 e-Torq models. Says it all honey.

If anyone knows different, please feel free to share.
 
Hi, I just bought a new fiat 500x. It's a 1.6 110 cv popstar.

I drove it on a long trip last week and it was drinking petrol. It was doing only about 28mpg. I had read before I bought the car that it should do 40mpg at least.

People have told me that this is normal for a new car and it will sort itself out, but I'm not sure how that will happen. Not sure if i should get it checked by fiat.



I'm afraid the 1.6 is not the best. It's the base engine and really old tech. Mpg will improve with a few miles though.
 
Thanks for your replies.
Strange that I did not read anything like this before buying the car. All of the reviews were saying that I would get about 44mpg. :-(
 
Thanks for your replies.
Strange that I did not read anything like this before buying the car. All of the reviews were saying that I would get about 44mpg. :-(

Please don't tell me that you took the Fiat mpg figures as gospel, as 44 mpg is the low figure Fiat claim for the 1.6 e-Torq.

Unfortunately with a new car the mpg is low and it does improve with getting some miles on the clock.

How long have you had it and is there a possibility that you can change it for the better 1.4 with a six speed manual?

Sorry I couldn't give you the answer you hoped for.
 
Well, according to the honestjohn website, the 1.4 doesn't do much better. It seems that that 1.6 multijet is the best option in this petrol thirsty range of cars. What I meant before is that I didn't read any review either on parkers, topgear, carriews or any of the review websites that this was a thirsty car. I didn't believe the 44, but I didn't expect 28.

I have 3000km on the clock now.
 
Last edited:
You won't unless people publish their mpg figures, which a lot don't.

When I first got my Renegade it was struggling to average 30 mpg and it passes that now easily. A lot better if I go to Cardiff where it is flatter than where I live.

Seriously, the mpg should improve, but if it is like my Renegade, then unless you live where it is flat, an average of 44 from yours looks a l-o-n-g way off. Take it on the motorway with cruise control at 65-70mph and see what mpg you get.

The Renegade is built on the next production line to the 500X at Melfi.

PS, you don't want to know what mpg my V8 7series BMW used to do in sport mode. It was in single figures. All of a sudden 28mpg is fantastic :D
 
It's just a very thirsty car. I am lucky to get 220 miles to a tank around town whilst doing my 6 mile commute to and from work. I am sure it'd be marginally better if the stop start ever worked.

A motorway run at 70 mph will see me up to about 40-45 mpg tops. If I want to sit at 60, I may just (with a tailwind, running on fumes, with no passengers or luggage, and a single piece of toast for breakfast) see 50 mpg. But I seriously doubt it.

Mine is a 1.4 by the way.

And for comparison, my old 1.3 (90) diesel Corsa would get me 280 miles to a tank on the same commute. My short lived stint of owning a crappy Fiesta 1.0 (125) EcoBoost would get me 250 miles to a tank. The fuel tanks on both of these cars though would hold just over a gallon less fuel than the 500x.

My Astra 2.2 would regularly get me to 300 miles on a tank for the commuting runs. I loved that car and its engine. There's a lot to be said for bigger normally aspirated engines. They can sometimes be noticeably more efficient than these small turbo engines. That being said, it was good for only high 30s mpg on the motorway. This is where small turbo engines usually have an edge.

My most fuel efficient car was my Grande Punto 1.9 Sporting. I once drove from Heathrow to Epping Forest and back again. Then from Heathrow to mid-Somerset (as well as driving around down there) and back again. Then did a over two weeks' commuting before I had to fill up. Not bad for a remapped car churning out a decent amount of power!
 
Lynda, as your car was bought new, please don't even consider changing it yet. The massive depreciation you will suffer will far outweigh any fuel saving.
The fuel consumption of my 1.4 Multiair ties with Garee's figures above. Not spectacular, but the performance of the car is what a good 2 litre model would have produced a few years ago.
Fiat don't "claim" the higher mpg figures, these are the results from the mandated test described here:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fuel-consumption-testing-scheme.asp
The test is flawed for real world conditions, and this is in the process of being addressed. At the moment, the best indication of real world figures I have found is the Honest John feedback.
Finally, out of interest, our other car is a Suzuki SX4 S-Cross, which is a little bigger than the 500X and is powered by a 120bhp normally aspirated 1.6 petrol engine. On local runs it returns a genuine 40mpg, and on a long run at motorway speeds, 50mpg.
 
Collected my brand new 1.6 500X yesterday. Average mpg on journey home is 34.5 over 150 miles. Mixed traffic, motorway,incl holdups, local traffic.
(the trade in car - a 1.4 90 bravo- did 55.6 on the outward journey.!!)
 
Last edited:
Had my 1.4 DCT a year now and almost 9,000 miles. At first the fuel consumption was not very good but as the car got a few more miles on the clock it improved. After about 4,000 there was a great improvement. On a run the car achieves 47 mpg and on a recent run to Worcester from Kent, including getting stuck on the M25 for 3 times longer than usual it came back as almost 45mpg. I don't use the stop/start facility and don't race the car but do travel at the legal limit when possible. I think you have to get used to the car and get a few miles on it.
 
I agree - mileage seems to improve as you "run in" the car.

Mine is steadily improving. From 30 mpg average when new to 40 mpg average now at almost 9k.
 
Finally, out of interest, our other car is a Suzuki SX4 S-Cross, which is a little bigger than the 500X and is powered by a 120bhp normally aspirated 1.6 petrol engine. On local runs it returns a genuine 40mpg, and on a long run at motorway speeds, 50mpg.

I'm glad you found what I was suggesting!

I am pretty certain that small turbo petrols have had their day. Once diesel has gone and the greenies need a new whipping boy, small turbos designed to deliver the lowest test figure but actually perform poorly in the real world will be the next campaign that everybody apparently supports but you never know anyone who does yourself. Some people are never happy unless they have a cause to campaign over!

The new emissions test will hopefully expose the small turbo petrol 'con'.
 
Yes, downsized turbo motors seem to be the way to acheive good test figures that don't necessarily translate to the real world. I blame the test, not the car makers, although it must be difficult to devise a repeatable test that replicates real world driving.
Some small turbos are better than others. Last year I had an Astra 1.0 as a hire car for a couple of days, and that returned 50mpg on A-road driving. Lots more mid-range torque than our Suzuki too.
Our Suzuki isn't available with the 1.6 any more, it's been replaced by a 1.0 turbo. I'd be very interested to compare them.
 
I still think manufacturers are partly responsible. They have hardly been vocal about the flawed test or fake emissions/economy results it gives. They don't care as long as cars shift off the forecourt!

A-road driving on the whole is where a small turbo can shine in terms of economy (as long as you aren't keeping it high in the rev range racing it!). It's stop start traffic where the turbo spools up constantly which is where their inadequacy shows. And given that most of us live in cities or large towns...
 
Our Suzuki isn't available with the 1.6 any more, it's been replaced by a 1.0 turbo. I'd be very interested to compare them.


Do they offer an extended Test Drive like Fiat's 24 hour one?
 
Don't know. Our local dealer is a small, friendly place so I'm sure they would accommodate us. However, we've no plans to change for at least another year, and I'd feel guilty about stringing them along at present.
 
34k our 1.6 multijet averages 52 though it's just done 3k miles through France and the Alps fully loaded with cycle carrier and 80 mph on autoroutes. Now back to normal duties and it's creeping back up to 54 where it usually sits. This average is currently over 20k miles of mixed driving so urban commutes and motorway.
 
Last edited:
I have the 1.6 etorq and I've got 5k on the clock and averaging 37mpg. This is mix of town and motorway. I find it's very sensitive to how it is driven to get good mpg. It's an ok engine and does the job I need from it. The extra money for the diesel or multi air is never see back due to the low mileage I do.

Yes people are going to slate it because it's old technology and not a small block turbo but these are the kind of engines which are giving fixed emission figures at the moment.
 
Back
Top