I just got a new Panda Cross. For a 30-minute wibble on the process and my first impressions of the car, click no further...
General Panda Cross video blog
- Thread starter Mark Hurst
- Start date
Currently reading:
General Panda Cross video blog
Which option did you tick but not receive?
OP
OP
It was the 'seat folds down to table' option. I have since discovered that the folding seat is not compatible with side airbags, so is not actually an option on the Cross. Nevertheless, it is selectable in the Configurator on the web site.
Unless that's a UK market issue, I have a 4x4 with the table seat, and there's a distinct crease of fabric embossed with the "airbag" sign right where it should be as well.
Unless you're referring to the kind that come out from the side of the seat (rather than the side curtain variety that pop down from the pillars), which neither the 4x4 nor the mid-spec 1.2 of my father appears to possess.
To be completely honest, I've used the table for the intended purpose only once, and most of the time it's just a hindrance to the rear legroom.
Unless you're referring to the kind that come out from the side of the seat (rather than the side curtain variety that pop down from the pillars), which neither the 4x4 nor the mid-spec 1.2 of my father appears to possess.
To be completely honest, I've used the table for the intended purpose only once, and most of the time it's just a hindrance to the rear legroom.
OP
OP
Well I can only go by what the customer service rep told me on the phone. And no, the airbags aren't in the seat, or at least that's what she said when I asked that question. I too have 'airbag' embossed on the side pillars. I have posted the email response I received from Fiat below.
Regarding the folding seat, I had read that the folding seat meant you could sit in the back with your feet stretched out over the folded front seat. It wasn't clear to me whether this was a separate option to the 'table' one and a folding seat was standard, or what. It's just a pity the sales staff didn't know much about the Cross and its options either.
From what I can tell comparing the two Pandas in the family, the regular (cloth back) passenger seat is basically a driver side seat without height adjustment, so it only folds forwards to a certain degree. The "table" seat on my 4x4 has a plastic back and the actual pivot point for the folding mechanism is higher than the other seats, so the seat back is able to fold flat onto the seat cushion, thus creating the "table". I believe the only way to turn it into a "fold-down seat without table" would be to pry out the plastic seat back and hope there's regular cloth under there (though tugging mine indicates it is bolted down to the seat frame quite sturdily).
While it does allow the rear passenger to extend their legs, it really isn't all that comfortable because 1) the "table" height ends up being a bit higher than the rear seat cushion height and 2) the rear seat backs are so upright it ends up being a far cry from being comparable to a reclining lounge chair. The underside of your knees end up being in the empty space between the rear seat cushion and the front seat back, and without support it gets tiresome quite quickly (learned all this waiting for the wife in a hospital parking lot for about 5 hours, so I've thoroughly explored all avenues of comfort). The only way I would see that working out well is if it also had the sliding rear seat option, which would allow the back of the rear seat to sit at a more tolerable angle (and possibly bridge the gap between the rear seat cushion and "table").
All in all I suppose what I mean is you're not missing out on much without the folding passenger seat. The only time I really needed it was to carry a long piece of wood, and even then I could have probably gotten away with just folding it backwards as far as it would go.
I really look forward to updates on your car, especially if you get to have some snowy fun this winter.
While it does allow the rear passenger to extend their legs, it really isn't all that comfortable because 1) the "table" height ends up being a bit higher than the rear seat cushion height and 2) the rear seat backs are so upright it ends up being a far cry from being comparable to a reclining lounge chair. The underside of your knees end up being in the empty space between the rear seat cushion and the front seat back, and without support it gets tiresome quite quickly (learned all this waiting for the wife in a hospital parking lot for about 5 hours, so I've thoroughly explored all avenues of comfort). The only way I would see that working out well is if it also had the sliding rear seat option, which would allow the back of the rear seat to sit at a more tolerable angle (and possibly bridge the gap between the rear seat cushion and "table").
All in all I suppose what I mean is you're not missing out on much without the folding passenger seat. The only time I really needed it was to carry a long piece of wood, and even then I could have probably gotten away with just folding it backwards as far as it would go.
I really look forward to updates on your car, especially if you get to have some snowy fun this winter.
samol
New member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 105
- Points
- 39
Hi, With reference to your bike rack and height of fixing, if you buy a different rack like the thule proride591 the clamp to the down tube tightens from the bottom, near the level of the roof so much easier.
God choice of car though excellent for adventure sports.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=thule+proride+591&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=23269564969&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14726322922427955734&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046707&hvtargid=kwd-880780672&ref=pd_sl_4jitvn8qu6_b
God choice of car though excellent for adventure sports.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=thule+proride+591&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=23269564969&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14726322922427955734&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9046707&hvtargid=kwd-880780672&ref=pd_sl_4jitvn8qu6_b
OP
OP
Yeah, I had ProRide racks before but they are not good for either of my present bikes because of how the cables are routed. (The FreeRide grips the tube left-to-right, the ProRide grips it top-to-bottom.) You're right though, it would be a lot easier!
OP
OP
An update...
It's true that the twin-air engine is tight and needs a good 10,000 miles or so to loosen up, but 204 miles before the low fuel warning light comes on is a remarkably low mileage/poor consumption. On my Cross TA I regularly see 330 miles before the warning light comes on. At that point the range says something like 76 or 78 miles reserve. I've never tested this but have driven for more than 25 miles or so on the second to last bar before refuelling.
I have to disagree Mark I think - the TA delivers amazing torque at low revs and sure doesn't need driving like a "2-stroke motorbike" in any way. Use the low range torque effectively and you will make good progress without needing high revs - and those high revs are undoubtedly what is killing your fuel consumption. The TA engine, as others have said many times, becomes increasingly thirsty as the revs rise and although it delivers excellent performance, there's no such thing as a free lunch on a tiny 875cc engine that makes 85bhp and nearly 110ftlbs of torque.
Any small engine (and in the TA's case, micro) with a high boost setup will suffer lag when changing gear and I don't think the heavy flywheel helps here. I've joked about finding someone who could design an Anti-Lag kit for the TA, but in truth that's not what the car is about of course. Drive it to the strengths of the engine (low revs, using the ample torque and avoiding much about 3500rpm) and you'll get nearer the economy of others on here.
My car (4x4 TA) has averaged 40.85mpg (real, measured, not on the trip) over the past 21,000 miles and that's with me driving with enthusiasm, but making best use of the low-down pulling power. I rarely have to exceed 5000rpm, unless I'm in the mood, on a mission and willing to see my average MPG drop like a stone. Driving super gently on the flat (which is key here), I got 52mpg for a tank full. Thrash it like a 2-stroke though, and you'll be filling up as often as you are reporting. I live in the hills in Surrey and have to climb about 700ft on a stone cold engine whenever I go to work, and this destroys any chance of me seeing big economy figures.
Just my take on it, but I suspect not dissimilar to others on here maybe?!
Any small engine (and in the TA's case, micro) with a high boost setup will suffer lag when changing gear and I don't think the heavy flywheel helps here. I've joked about finding someone who could design an Anti-Lag kit for the TA, but in truth that's not what the car is about of course. Drive it to the strengths of the engine (low revs, using the ample torque and avoiding much about 3500rpm) and you'll get nearer the economy of others on here.
My car (4x4 TA) has averaged 40.85mpg (real, measured, not on the trip) over the past 21,000 miles and that's with me driving with enthusiasm, but making best use of the low-down pulling power. I rarely have to exceed 5000rpm, unless I'm in the mood, on a mission and willing to see my average MPG drop like a stone. Driving super gently on the flat (which is key here), I got 52mpg for a tank full. Thrash it like a 2-stroke though, and you'll be filling up as often as you are reporting. I live in the hills in Surrey and have to climb about 700ft on a stone cold engine whenever I go to work, and this destroys any chance of me seeing big economy figures.
Just my take on it, but I suspect not dissimilar to others on here maybe?!
I have to agree with R1NGA. The TA has very good torque at low revs for a petrol engine and if you use that delivery can achieve very good mpg. Also I agree with the point about hills and high revs. I'm on a plateau, at the top of a hill so every direction I take off in involves a gentle descent on a cold engine. Returning everything is nicely warmed up and the hit on mpg is not great.
I also think the fact that I rarely have a journey less than 25 miles helps. I notice that Mark has covered just 800 miles in 2 months. Does that involve a lot of short journeys. I've noticed the TA needs a good 10-15 miles after starting for optimum economy. I cover 800 miles in a little over two weeks!
I also think the fact that I rarely have a journey less than 25 miles helps. I notice that Mark has covered just 800 miles in 2 months. Does that involve a lot of short journeys. I've noticed the TA needs a good 10-15 miles after starting for optimum economy. I cover 800 miles in a little over two weeks!
:yeahthat:
Agreed R1nga, also my mpg increased about 10% once run-in fully although that took forever, I'm at 26K in my 500 TA now and finally I thinks it's cooked but only just! Mark you will also notice as the miles increase (10K+) it becomes much more flexible and you don't have to rev it as much.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Well, no. I wonder if I am not being clear enough about what I am saying. I am not advocating thrashing it, nor will you see any thrashing in my video. I never exceeded 4.5K in anything you see here*, and if you watched again and listened to both the commentary and the engine I hope you would agree there is no thrashing going on.
I thought I had made it clear the two-stroke analogy was about the extreme revvy quality of the engine, such that the revs plummet between gear changes if you are not fleet of hand and foot. And when I talk about there being no power 'low down', I mean below 2K. I have found that if I am relaxed with gear changes the revs can easily fall below 2K and the response when rolling back on in the higher gear is minimal until the engine speed picks up again.
If you watched my first video you may recall I noted 2.5K and 3K as markers for where the power seems to start. So if by 'low revs' you mean 2.5-3K, then it seems we don't disagree after all. As for my fuel consumption, the trip reported 35-ish MPG for all the driving I did in making this video (my fill-up was actually near the start), and that was a total of about 20 miles of driving. None of my 800 miles to date has been anything like as energetic as what you see here, but about half has been my daily trips to work and back (2 x 5 miles). I haven't been looking at the MPG but I suspect this is where it's going. If I remember to reset 'average consumption B' tomorrow morning and watch it for the rest of the week I guess that should tell me.
(*With the possible exception of when I was overtaking. That is a narrow road and I didn't want to change up to 5th while I was passing.)
Ah, therein lies the problem I think. Try a gentle and (much) longer journey and I think you'll see much better results.
Peak torque on the TA is at about 1900rpm from memory, but only when it's on boost of course, which will take a while to build if you introduce a heap more throttle at those low revs, which might give the initial impression of little 'power', but I very much remain of the view that it's quite the most torquey little engine I've come across. Try a sub-2000rpm 5th gear pull in the 1.2 and you'll soon realise that you have the pokiest petrol engine in the range....
Most folks who are new to the car typically over rev the engine until they get to realise that it sounds as though it's doing 1/2 the revs that it actually is, such are the harmonics of a parallel twin. My wife is constantly driving the thing between 4000-5000rpm, as it 'sounds' like it's only doing 2500rpm to her 4-cylinder ears (OK, so she's got a V8 too, but that doesn't help the discussion here really.....!).
But I suspect that given a few more 1000's of miles under your belt (and the engine's), you'll be as thrilled with the car as the rest of us
OP
OP
29.0 MPG over 41 miles.
OP
OP
Completing the trilogy with a three-year update! (This will probably annoy some people as I moan about some of the over-generalisations hereabouts )
)
