(G) multijet mpg

It is indeed. But the calculations do not appear to include relative depreciation. I know this is notional until you sell, but we all do sell eventually.....

Personally, the 1.2 wasn't really an option. My driving contains ~50% motorway, so I needed a relatively cheap car with reasonable motorway ability.

The 1.2 was out of the question for lack of grunt above 100km/h. The 100HP was way too expensive due to Danish taxes and such, leaving the Multijet. I've always been a dieselhead and I've never been bothered by driving a basic car, so for me, the decision was clear.

Add to this that I got 3 years insurance with full coverage for less than what 1 years basic insurance on a used car would cost me, and there really only was one option: a new Panda Multijet with no options added (apart from red paint) fit the bill quite nicely.

I intend to drive it until it falls to bits, and it will most definitely be the first, last and only new car I'll ever buy.

Yep that's an oversight and it also overlooks servicing, tax, insurance, etc. On a thread a while back, I took those into account and the biggest shock was that the MJ was significantly more to insure than the 1.2 petrol.

Chris

Try different insurer maybe?
Because they both group 2E

I dont exactly get the point of comparing sole "price/vs/fuel efficiency". Why don't you compare 1.2 eco with 100hp like that? You will find that its totally worthless to even consider buying 100hp, because 1.2 is cheaper and you will never get the costs back

Point is that Multijet is a) noticeably more powerful than 1.2 eco and b) has a lot more resale value. And that's why its price is justified.

I used confused.com with the same details to keep the quotes fair. I used the cheapest that came back for both....

But the Dynamic 1.2 and Dynamic MJ are identical, bar the engine - surely that's a good comparison?

I work out that there's a 5bhp per tonne difference between them which I'd hardly call noticeable. Maybe the MJ *feels* faster because it has a turbo and you're forever changing gear

Resale value is very dependent on the market and I'd wager that there's a much higher demand for small petrol engined Panda's than the diesel variants because for most people who want a Panda they don't do the mileage to justify the extra cost of a diesel.... it's only worth what someone is willing to pay, as they say

Chris

Have you actually test driven both?
Because they feel a lot more apart than that. Personally I think that its because Diesel version has also a lot more torque at low revs, which produces more "punch" when start/stop city driving (and with very good economy, too).
All prices are set by the market. If multijet costs more, there are people who more than willing to pay it.

Btw kits are not identical, at least in department of options. For example, I dont think you can buy 1.2 Dynamic with ESP, etc (at least according to fiat site).

will be interesting to see the effects of second hand ecos coming on to market. £35 tax vs £120 is a big push in favour of s/h MJs, but when its equal that may change things.
Interesting that the price differential with the MJ (now 6195) at Perrys has narrowed noticeably. 1.2 Eco (mandatory A/C) 5800...

1.2 Eco has 60hp @ 5000rpm.
1.3 MJ has 70hp @ 4000rpm.

This is not much of a difference, but:

1.2 Eco has 102nm @ 2500rpm.
1.3 MJ has 145nm @ 1500rpm.

I'd say a ~45% increase in torque is quite a difference. Add this to the fact that peak torque is available much sooner and just about all the way to 4000rpm in the Multijet (and the 1.2 gets its torque at very low revs for a petrol engine), and it becomes clear that the Multijet has slightly higher peak numbers, but loads more area "under the curve", as it were.

I've not driven the Eco, but I have driven the 1.2 Eleganza which I think is the same engine. Both felt very similar, except the 1.2 was smoother and more refined. Both were very very slow and so I bought a 100hp which is just slow

I'll take your word for that - when I spoke to the dealer they said the 1.2's were walking out of their showroom and they were not having a lot of interest in the MJ...

I was talking about the standard spec, but having a nose around the Fiat site, you're right. I also see that you can't get an electric sunroof and full automatic climate control on the MJ?!

Chris

You're talking about peak engine torque rather than the actual torque developed at the road wheels. The MJ has to develop torque lower down because it has such a small power band! Just looking at the Superchips site, it looks like the curve shows peak torque at almost 3k rpm for the MJ (http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/Fiat1.3Multijet.pdf) and the torque curve doesn't look that flat. I couldn't find a torque curve of the 1.2 to compare though....

Chris

I'm not sure I buy those curves. Every spec sheet for the 1.3 Multijet engines put peak torque at either 1500rpm or 1750rpm, and from driving one, I'm inclined to agree. Sure, the engine "hits its stride" just above 2000rpm, but there's no lack of torque at 1500rpm.

those graphs state an 81bhp original engine - so the 70bhp is surely going to be flatter?

My old MJ was far louder than my current 100hp. That was the first thing I noticed.

I was glad I specc'd air con in the MJ though as at least that way I could always have the windows closed. The noise it makes when you first start it up and it's idling is horrible. Think taxi.

You'll get the same road noise in the MJ as you do in the 1.2. Even the 100hp suffers from road noise and is perhaps noisier due to wider tyres and lower profiles.

I'd ignore the numbers on the graphs as the rolling road always seems to produce optimistic results. The shape of the curve should be correct though

Chris

I thought the MJ was fairly quiet for a diesel (once warmed up) but now it seems noisy, even compared to the Abarth! Sometimes i forget if I've started the Abarth, then a small rev and a wasp like rasp (and occasionally a backfire) combined with a turbo whine followed by a deep throaty burble confirms the engine is running!