(G) multijet mpg

The thing is do you think most buyers actually cover enough miles per year to get their money back for the initial outlay compared to say a 1.2 Active? I do wonder.

Fuel consumption around town IME was an indicated 53-57mpg (I get 35.5 in the HP). It's a fair difference and I do notice that I have to fill up more often, but honestly it's a price i'm willing to pay.

I think a problem with smaller diesels is that you end up with a laggy and peaky power delivery which can make progress a tad frustrating at times because if the turbo isn't spinning it ain't going nowhere really. So all in all from my own experiences I'm not sure a 1.3 diesel makes much sense to me.

So, has anyone remapped or chipped for fuel economy reasons? Is it possible to make the thing more efficient, or is the interrogation (as inferred above) likely set for life? I see the people who adertise on here do a chip for 359 that puts it up to 100bhp with 20% greater mpg - I'd be happier with something with no more bhp but more intelligence!

The fact is though, even if you only got around 43 MPG in the diesel, that's still only 10p per mile in fuel (approx) not a lot of dosh. I would have to get 40 MPG in the Abarth to get the same pence per mile! Not a chance! So even at 55 MPG, it works out at just under 8p per mile in the MJ, depending on how much you buy your fuel for of course.

its not the cash though - its the thought that it could and should be doing better than it is! I'll post a separate thread about tuning boxes...

If you do cover enough miles to make back the difference why on earth would you buy a Panda?
When I first looked at a Panda least year before the Ecos came out I decided it would take about four years to get my money back on a diesel.
Now the Ecos have cheap tax and MPG figures much closer to the diesel it's a no-brainer to go for the petrol based on running costs especially as petrol is ~10p/litre cheaper.
Now I just need to see what my Active actually does. 270 miles and a quarter tank left so far. Still nowhere near run in yet.

As me being a buyer, I've tried 1.2 active and it felt very underpowered to me.
At least mjet 1.3 is alright if not spectacular. Torque is very good. Thats why I've decided to go with it. Never had probs with turbo lag either, because maybe I generally drive very smoothly.

I would agree it's not worth paying extra for the diesel if you don't cover the miles. I've got a 1.2 dynamic eco and am getting around 44 mpg on local runs without being too careful with the throttle. If you keep the revs up it's quite nippy.

A fair question to which the answer on fuel bills alone is generally "no", but remember that part of the extra purchase cost over a 1.2 is offset by the higher residual value of the multijet come resale. And if you plan to use the Panda a lot with a load or higher speed long hauls, the extra torque of the MJ makes for a more relaxed driving experience. Its not really suited to "sporty" driving and I'm sure that you are having a lot more fun in a 100HP. But against the smaller petrols, the overall package of longer legs, small size, clever packaging and smaller fuel bills can make a compelling argument.

MJs are not for everybody but they make a lot of sense for some, myself included. As to why on earth you would buy a Panda if you do enough miles, geddes, the answer is that if you want a genuinely small four door car for big mileages there really isn't much by way of an alternative! Horses for courses.....

Inspired by my last post to check part ex values for Panda dynamics on the What Car web site (which is always over-optimistic, but presumably that applies to all cars!):

After 2 years and 24k miles:

2007 07 1.2 £3235
2007 07 MJ £4010 MJ worth £775 more than 1.2

Delivery miles from Fiat Supasaver

2008 58 1.2 5195
2008 58 MJ 5994 MJ costs £794 more than 1.2

Doesn't take too long at 60mpg to get back the extra £19.... OK I know there are insurance and servicing differences too but these are hardly massive.
Check out this month's "Car" citing the MJ as a rare fuel sipping second hand bargain and you can see why MJs will fetch a lot more than 1.1/1.2s... and why its not really that hard to make a financial case for choosing the MJ.

good thinking that man. and no MJ cam belts to worry about, either.

I was starting to think that it is probably a good bet to buy cannily at two years old, then sell with its first MOT done a year on and find another two year old one. As they are comparatively cheap, it almost pays to find another first and then sell the old one - and the prospect of depreciation free motoring starts to become a possibility.

To add a bit more food for thought (or fuel to the fire ) this link is an interesting read...

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/petrol...75&deriv=41595

Chris

oh dear.

only to the moon and back then - I considered a diesel when I bought a C4, the price difference was 1000 but that link shows after 60,000 miles I'd be in credit, and the resale value would have been much higher. But is the MJ any quieter than the 1.2, most of the noise on our 1.2 seems to be road noise so I wonder if the MJ is really much quieter or perhaps it's a different noise.

Not a chance, mate. It's brash, noisy and unrefined. Diesel grunt and growl is par for the course.

On the other hand, the 1.2 sounds remarkably like a hair dryer, and hasn't got half the character of the multijet.

FWIW the 1.1 Eco has just done 50.5 MPG over it's first 300 miles.
On the same route the Vectra 2.0 diesel does 49 MPG and the Punto 1.9 JTD showed 59 MPG on the trip computer.