On the way to collect the New Selecta from Carl's my Selecta managed a gobsmacking 56.26 MPG, It was about 57MPG I think but had a slight misfuel at the station and got about 50p worth of fuel on the floor:bang:, so the chart read the 56 above.

I was just wondering what the offical MPG fig from Fiat are if anyone has an origional brochure.

and what the best MPG others have got? I normally return about 35-38MPG due to my driving style, and the types of roads. So you can imagine how surprise I was to get 51.90MPG a few months ago, but this 56.26 is amazing

Jon.

P.s, do anyother users use a brim to brim fill up and excel spread sheet system to work out their MPG?

Most Easterly Panda's said:

On the way to collect the New Selecta from Carl's my Selecta managed a gobsmacking 56.26 MPG, It was about 57MPG I think but had a slight misfuel at the station and got about 50p worth of fuel on the floor:bang:, so the chart read the 56 above.

I was just wondering what the offical MPG fig from Fiat are if anyone has an origional brochure.

and what the best MPG others have got? I normally return about 35-38MPG due to my driving style, and the types of roads. So you can imagine how surprise I was to get 51.90MPG a few months ago, but this 56.26 is amazing

Jon.

P.s, do anyother users use a brim to brim fill up and excel spread sheet system to work out their MPG?

Click to expand...

Well done, the Squirrile has given me an average of 56.5 mpg in the 5 odd weeks & 2000 miles I have had it.

I too use the excel technique, and take the mileage from the main clock, not the trip.


Trev

udtrev said:

Well done, the Squirrile has given me an average of 56.5 mpg in the 5 odd weeks & 2000 miles I have had it.

I too use the excel technique, and take the mileage from the main clock, not the trip.


Trev

Click to expand...

Out of interest Trev, what sort of roads and driving style are you using?

Only official info I've got is from the Panda Colour brochure which quotes 43.5MPG for the urban cycle, 60.1MPG at a constant 56MPH and 42.2MPG at a constant 75 MPH. Obviously for a 999cc, fuel injected FIRE unit with catalytic converter.

You could assume being a larger displacement unit the 1108 would return less miles per gallon, but the extra torque could well make it more efficient. As for the transmission...

I don't do enough miles in mine to measure MPG these days, though when I did I managed over 60MPG on a steady motorway run back from Scotland. I'll have a search and see if I can find the old thread.

Edit: Ooh there's a few!

https://www.fiatforum.com/panda-classic/21690-whats-you-mpg-5.html

https://www.fiatforum.com/panda-classic/47568-panda-mpg-3.html

https://www.fiatforum.com/panda-classic/56929-mpg-challenge.html

https://www.fiatforum.com/panda-classic/63153-fuel-consumption.html

https://www.fiatforum.com/panda-classic/72429-mpg-challenge-2-a.html

Plenty to keep you occupied through the night, Easterly. Sorry about random page links but I had 'em all open mid-read.

The excel technique? sounds kinky.....


Simple calculation is litres used devided by 4.454 = gallons = X

Then miles covered devided by X = MPG

Brim to Brim is the only way of taking out any variables

Of course Alan's maths are the way to go, coupled with the brim to brim approach. However, the milage shown on the odometer is quite optomistic with some in my experience being over 10% out. This has a big impact on your calculated MPG figure. I would suggest that this accounts for some of the varying spread of figures pulished here. I once had a 999cc Y10 that I fitted slightly smaller overall radius tyres to and it used to go to 115 MPH on the clock. That always gave me great MPG when I calculated it!

Funny enough the 4x4's speedo matched the sat-nav speed exactly when I fitted 155/80 tyres. The sat-nav was also 100% accurate with the BMW's speed sensor through the OBC and known to be extremely accurate

So in theiory because the car over reads 10%, my MPG figure is 10% higher than it should be?

Borrow a sat nav and find out the difference. My current Y10 is about 3% fast, most Pandas are nearer 7% in my experience. By law, it must not under-read, so everyone's home made MPG figures should be optimistic unless this is taken into consideration during the calculation. When I am doing a proper test, I take the percentage off the milage- it often leaves a depressing result :-(

lewey said:

Borrow a sat nav and find out the difference. My current Y10 is about 3% fast, most Pandas are nearer 7% in my experience. By law, it must not under-read, so everyone's home made MPG figures should be optimistic unless this is taken into consideration during the calculation. When I am doing a proper test, I take the percentage off the milage- it often leaves a depressing result :-(

Click to expand...

O I know the difference. And it is 10% (100 in car = 90 by GPS)

Jon.

these figures from panda handbook that came with lou printed in 1988

750 4sp; 46.6mpg simulated urban, 56.5mpg at constant 56mph and at constant 75mph has been left blank lol

750 5sp; 46.6mpg simulated urban, 61.4mpg at constant 56mph again constant 75mph left blank.

1000 4sp; 46.3mpg simulated urban, 57.6mpg at constant 56mph and 42.2mpg at constant 75mph.

1000 5sp; 44.8mpg simulated urban, 61.4mpg at constant 56mph and 43.5mpg at 75mph.

1000 4x4 40.4mpg simulated urban, 46.3mpg at constant 56mph and 34.4mpg at constant 75mph.

Used to average around 38mpg with my last 4x4 on country roads with plenty of light hills average speed 60mph

Mandapanda 1000clx 5 speed, returns 50mpg. A bit of London driving and Motorway (50/50 split). I could maybe eek out an extra mpg or 2 but I do drive like an italian with a heavy right foot !

Also, I guess the front and rear bullbars and roof rack don't help LOL

Most Easterly Panda's said:

Out of interest Trev, what sort of roads and driving style are you using?

Click to expand...

My usual week is 4 days of a 10 mile cross country lanes, then 30 mile of motorway, and finally a mile of town driving - then return

At the weekend you can add 10 mile of country lane/town driving visiting my parents.


Trev

mandapanda said:

I guess the front and rear bullbars and roof rack don't help LOL

Click to expand...

You trying to convert it into a 4x4 ?

I want to get my mitts on a latest model 4x4 when the second (or more) hand prices have come down.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Lift kit, BFGs, and a Snorkel - the Panda with attitude !!

Well mine does 34-7 MPG no matter how I drive her. and also no matter how much weight the car is carrying too. Rather odd, I also use the brim to brim method. I dont calculate it anymore as I have already got pages of records all saying the same numbers roughly!

It has done 23 before, but that was a carburettor problem...

The fire engine is far more efficient though, so I am not suprised most get more than me. Also, I have found she needs V-power or the car suffers badly with pinking and knocking. Does anyone else have this problem?

Si

Alan.D said:

The excel technique? sounds kinky.....


Simple calculation is litres used devided by 4.454 = gallons = X

Then miles covered devided by X = MPG

Brim to Brim is the only way of taking out any variables

Click to expand...

Despite Lewey stating it, Alan's maths are not the way to go, there are 4.5459 litres to an imperial gallon, not 4.454 litres, we do want things to be accurate don't we?

mightysisley said:

these figures from panda handbook that came with lou printed in 1988

750 4sp; 46.6mpg simulated urban, 56.5mpg at constant 56mph and at constant 75mph has been left blank lol

Click to expand...

Can't think why though, the 1985 45CL 4sp would do 85mph easily.

I should reveal that I've managed 61.9 mpg in the 1985 45CL 4sp, and that the wife regularly managed 50 mpg on business use.

She managed as high as 56.5 mpg after I changed the rocker cover gasket and set the valve clearances, about 2,000 miles before we traded it in for the C1.

Wireless said:

Despite Lewey stating it, Alan's maths are not the way to go, there are 4.5459 litres to an imperial gallon, not 4.454 litres, we do want things to be accurate don't we?

Click to expand...

The maths are sound; the figures are down to the user! But cheers for pointing it out nonetheless.

Glad to see some quite low figures here. Not because it's good for the drivers, but because it shows some good, realistic calculation where people often boast huge numbers that only vicars with a Godly wind up their arses can achieve.

Wireless said:

Despite Lewey stating it, Alan's maths are not the way to go, there are 4.5459 litres to an imperial gallon, not 4.454 litres, we do want things to be accurate don't we?

Click to expand...

Ooops yes sorry that was a typo whilst I was full of back pain drugs. To be honest I was lucky I even got anywhere near as close as that....