i am so sorry for all the questions now

the car i am buying has the steering wheel controls and blue tooth, so should it have the sat nav to go along side those?

when looking for a car most of the lounge models didn't have this - so its what swayed me - would a link to the car help? But if the sat nav is a big key to their functionality then its going to be an issue

http://www.central4cars.com/cars/fiat/panda/lounge/88965/40

Steering wheel controls are normal way of using Blue and Me features ie phone and USB storage by voice commands or using buttons to go through menu options. Sat Nav gives you a touch screen display so easier to use ?

lauryloo said:

i am so sorry for all the questions now

the car i am buying has the steering wheel controls and blue tooth, so should it have the sat nav to go along side those?

when looking for a car most of the lounge models didn't have this - so its what swayed me - would a link to the car help? But if the sat nav is a big key to their functionality then its going to be an issue

http://www.central4cars.com/cars/fiat/panda/lounge/88965/40

Click to expand...

I suspect the satnav and screen you could get on your phone would be superior to the FIAT one - in fact, with out 2017 Lounge you have to use your phone as the satnav (though it also streams music from there).

murphyv310 said:

Hi.
the long climbs on the M74 were fine so long as you were doing around 75 before hitting them, below 70 and the revs dropped, get into 4th and the car would then accelerate fine and you could then get back into 5th.
For rapid progress use the gears freely in the 1.2.

Click to expand...

Indeed. But in direct comparison I would always take a TA over the 1.2 on the motorway - there's no contest - it's far more relaxing especially with two of us. The TA also achieves its best MPG (we have managed 58 on a 400 mile trip to Wigan and back (M62) on the motorway. Low 50s with two of us and luggage to and from Aberystwyth. Locally it drops to 50 - 52 in mixed driving. We have a standard 2wd version.

Hi.
Given that the display isn't accurate, on my run to Cramlington it told me I was getting just over 62mpg on the run down and as I was running late on my return a figure of 54mpg, the average should have been 58 and on a tank to tank figure slightly above 54mpg average confirms it's inaccuracy.
My Fuelly figure of 46.3 compares to 50.1 on the display. So for accuracy I don't rely on the display.

It's each to their own between the two engines. You gain in overall consumption on the 1.2 and unless you drive the TA on a feather it wont equal it, then take into account the higher insurance and maintenance costs of the TA and also factor in the tried and tested technology and its robustness, the FIRE unit to me it has to come out tops.

JCarp16 said:

Having owned a 1.2 Panda and, now, a TA. I think the TA is great on the motorway and dual carriageway and faster roads. The 1.2 is much easier to drive around town and smoothly at lower speeds. My choice would be made based on where I do the majority of the driving. The TA does get people scratching their heads when you drive past though. It doesn't sound like any other modern car engine.

Click to expand...

My 4x4 TA is now in Umbria on its ninth trip between here and Devon. It's really competent in most situations, and good on long runs - 80-85 all day - cameras permitting - with useful acceleration if traffic conditions require it. It also does about 44 mpg in these conditions, which is the most I get from it. I do very little traffic-heavy driving but Switzerland is one big jam this year and the very slow stop/start of a 40-minute holdup probably sees the worst of the TA, though it still copes. The return journey loaded with wine and olive oil really exploits the TA's torque up long main road climbs in sixth - where the 1.2 could be struggling and even my 100HP was not so strong.

In general I treat it like any petrol engine - avoid revs below about 2000 - and am very rarely conscious that it's a two cylinder. The low first gear may not be ideal in some conditions but it's a boon on the very steep white roads in central Italy, including the one to our village.

AB100 said:

Just remember - if you're using Ryanair, it might not fit in the overhead locker.

Click to expand...

Or if flying easy jet check no scorpions have got into it during the flight.

murphyv310 said:

Hi.
Given that the display isn't accurate, on my run to Cramlington it told me I was getting just over 62mpg on the run down and as I was running late on my return a figure of 54mpg, the average should have been 58 and on a tank to tank figure slightly above 54mpg average confirms it's inaccuracy.
My Fuelly figure of 46.3 compares to 50.1 on the display. So for accuracy I don't rely on the display.

It's each to their own between the two engines. You gain in overall consumption on the 1.2 and unless you drive the TA on a feather it wont equal it, then take into account the higher insurance and maintenance costs of the TA and also factor in the tried and tested technology and its robustness, the FIRE unit to me it has to come out tops.

Click to expand...

I use fill to fill calculations. The trip computer usually shows 1 or 2 above my calculations. So it gives a 'feel' but I prefer to calculate using the actual volume used and the miles covered. I think you could beat these figures in the 1.2 - especially in town driving. I rarely got below 54mpg in my 169 1.2 and the CO2 rating was much higher (Lord knows how they work those numbers out!).

lauryloo said:

thanks again for all the replies

i am really looking foward to getting behind the wheel of a panda again

the car i have chosen appears to have 5 seatbelts fitted and i've attached a picture of something below, which i am not sure is?

Click to expand...

With TomTom i look like this.

murphyv310 said:

Hi.
Given that the display isn't accurate..

My Fuelly figure of 46.3 compares to 50.1 on the display. So for accuracy I don't rely on the display.

Click to expand...

Your display error is pretty much in line with what I've found with mine. It's at least consistent in its optimism, so useful for comparing the same journey on different days and finding out what works, and what doesn't in the economy quest.

It's not a particularly aerodynamic car and fuel consumption starts to rise quite steeply at higher speeds. If you keep below 55mph on the motorway, on longer journeys (>40 miles) you can get well into the '70s on the trip computer; my best ever was 80.1 mpg over 106 miles. Doing the same trip with the headlights on generally knocks 3-4mpg off the figures; with the A/C on all the way, that same journey will fall into the low '60's. Not many petrol cars can beat these figures.

The TA is a different animal for a different driving style; if you're trying to squeeze the last drop of economy out of one on a regular basis, you've probably bought the wrong car, but in spirited driving, it'll leave a 1.2 in the weeds. At a more typical 70-75mph motorway cruise, I'd be surprised if thre were any real noticeable difference in economy between the two engines; but the 1.2 definitely has the potential for great economy if you drive with an egg under the gas pedal.

jrkitching said:

You can, but you don't have to; on my 1.2 I don't normally go over 2000 rpm in the intermediate gears; it's never been driven over 3000 in the 80,000 miles I've owned it. It'll pull quite happily, albeit lazily, from about 28mph in 5th.

The reward is 55+ mpg over 80,000 miles, not bad for a petrol car.

Click to expand...

I feel guilty for redlining mine a few times so far, seeing you say that.

PandaMTB said:

I feel guilty for redlining mine a few times so far, seeing you say that.

Click to expand...

Its Italian, the red line is a target not a limit

lauryloo said:

i am so sorry for all the questions now

the car i am buying has the steering wheel controls and blue tooth, so should it have the sat nav to go along side those?

when looking for a car most of the lounge models didn't have this - so its what swayed me - would a link to the car help? But if the sat nav is a big key to their functionality then its going to be an issue

http://www.central4cars.com/cars/fiat/panda/lounge/88965/40

Click to expand...

That's a nice Panda you've got. Rare 2012 colour too. Around £11000 when new. Have seen the nav secondhand for not too much. Don't quote me on it fitting. New ones cheaper than replacement remote key so that's a bonus the car came with both keys.

Example nav listing. The book pack with the car may help answer any questions.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Blue-Me-S...h=item3aefa5d262:g:wr8AAOSwAQBZqYiQ:confused:

we made it home safe and sound after a long day travelling.

Used about half a tank of fuel getting home so not too bad

I absolutely love it and i am so glad to be back driving a panda again, my 4 year old is not convinced though and told me it's too small.

My TA 4x4 which am swapping for my 3rd 1.2 this month uses a lot of fuel getting me to work. Half a tank getting across Britain sounds like luxury to me.

These are all very interesting comments regarding the TA and the 1.2 engines. I am delighted with my TA. It has been completely reliable over 52,000 miles, and remarkably fuel efficient. Over the past 24,000 miles averaging 53.1 mpg according to the trip computer and, a true 51 mpg when measured filling brim to brim.

These are for the Cross so i consider the economy to be excellent, and on a par with the 1.2.

I use the car to commute 50 miles daily, and over the past year it has completed long drives from Norfolk to NW Scotland and the Inner Hebrides, Southern Brittany (with a bike on the back), Northumberland, the Peak District (several times), and used off road to access some sites.

Were such a package to be available, it would be interesting to know what a 1.2 engined 4x4 would achieve in terms of economy.

I don't think there is a more complete package in terms of capability, performance and economy, bar possibly the 1.3mJet engined version. I had one of these in my previous Cross and had marginally better economy.

I reckon that PaulD either has the lightest right foot in Christendom, or his Cross TA was sprinkled with magic super-economy fairy-dust at the factory!

I've driven mine like a nervous nun with a sore big toe for the last 1k, and have achieved the dizzy heights of 46 mpg. Currently at 42 mpg overall, over 25k miles.

Hi.
It could all be down to the number of cold starts. My Rover 75 2.5V6 auto only managed 19mpg round town which is my main usage. On a run from Tain to Kilmarnock it did 36mpg. The Panda is doing the mid forties in comparison to 19 in the Rover. For me it's wonderful so I don't mind giving it a bit of welly now and again.
I know I can do much much better if I wish. Years ago I did a Mobil economy run in a 1971 Skoda 100 and got 55.1Mpg, I will need to dig out the certificate if I can find it.
Perhaps on the next fill up I'll do what I did then.

I'm convinced, though have no empirical evidence for this other than the good economy I get from my TA, that virtually all my driving is on traffic free B and C-class roads is a major factor in generating good economy figures. There is no pressure to keep up with traffic flow, the nature of the roads, and the characteristics of the TA encourage driving at a near constant speed between 40 and 50mph. This is reflected in my long term average speed over the 24k miles of 31mph.

In addition I rarely make journeys less than 25 miles. When I have made a lot of journeys of 10 to 15 miles or less economy noticeably suffers.

Finally, any city driving kills the economy.