Yeah, I must admit I get quite irritated when people accuse manufacturers of cheating on their consumption figures when in fact they are the results of a mandatory independent test, completely out of the maker's hands. And if a particular model gets really good results, can you see the manufacturer protesting? I don't think so!I think a lot of people get very confused about the "official fuel consumption" figues that all manufacturers are obliged to published.
These are only useful in comparing one car against another, it wont relate to what you get in the real world. I think it actually says that in the "small print"
If you look at the Fuelly figures that deeyup has he is getting 47.4mpg on the 500 Twinair,,, I get an average of 50-55 mpg in my Fiat Doblo 2006 1.9 diesel thats over 6 months of use. Mind you I do drive for economy these days as I cant go faster than ANY speed limits. I'd reckon I'd get more than 50mpg in a twinair Panda its all downto driving technique. Incidentally when my wife drives the Doblo its consumption goes down by at least 5mpg, driving that square box over 80mph kills the mpg
It's actually in the maker's hands nowadays. With current advances in ECU technology, all they have to do is program ECU responses to recognize the "test driving" and optimize its profile for max. economy. Its a bit like fairly recent scandal with PC Graphics card manufacturers putting benchmark detection code in the drivers to get better reported benchmark numbers.
Obviously all manufacturers will optimise their engines for the best possible results, but the actual test is still independently conducted and the maker cannot be directly blamed if the test is unrealistic. It's a bit like the Driving Test: follow the rules and get the paperwork and you won't ever drive like that again!
No offence taken whatsoever - that sound has taken a few friends ( what! 875cc and only two cylinders!) completely by surprise, as has the push in the back when the turbo kicks in. Good things come in small packages.To be honest, I like it, too (so please don't feel "guilty" -- like I now do...).
I think the sound gives the car an awful lot of character -- and is therefore in line with the whole 'squircle' ethos, etc.. (We have a 500 TA that drives past the house regularly: and that distinctive burble always brings a smile to my face!)
If I used the term pejoratively, then I apologize -- it was only to try and persuade Geoff to go back and form his own opinion. (As I said in my earlier post, it's certainly a lot less 'dieselly' than some would suggest; and sounds very smooth, even compared to our 18-year-old Clio's petrol 1.4...!)
If I hadn't liked it, I wouldn't have ordered one...!
I agree that the TA is probably an acquired taste. I was very happy with my previous Panda MJ but decided not to get the diesel for three reasons:The TA is fun to drive. I know I would find it very difficut to rein it in all the time, it's just too easy to shoot away at the lights, so I would never get anywhere close to the quoted figures.
In fact, I believe that drivers who don't really enjoy driving waould be better off with the 1200. Horses for coures as always.
As for Diesels, they are intrinsically more economical and seem to give far closer to the quoted figures. My ten year old 1.9 JTD gives practically identical figures to those quoted, and offers 46mpg at a stedy 80-90, which I reckon is good. But the Doblo has a CX figure of 31, which is good by any standards. The reason: flat sides, a reasonably flat undercarriage and a cam tail -a big flat tailgate in other words.
I do drive rather quickly though, and hate pottering about anywhere. I think cars like this too, as long as they aren't flogged when they are cold
