(G) multijet mpg

just been browsing the Fiat 500 threads on the MJ mpg - and its interesting that after a long Cornwall run, I was agreeing with the chap who posted that the 1.3 diesel isnt a particularly fuel efficient car for its statistics. It is remarkably rev dependent, and although trip computer 62-64mpg was ok after a 60-75mph run of 500 miles, I keep reminding myself of the size of the car and the size of the engine. It 'aint spectacular!

What sort of mileage is the deemed loosening-up period for these? More than the 6000 mine is on?

The speed needs to be below 60 for anything like an impressive mpg.

held it at 47mph to get 76mpg for a few miles but usually get 62mpg in normal driving.

Move house to one on the fop of a big hill and roll down it in neutral for 141.2 mpg then that should give you more mpg

Provided the motor wasnt running at all and just free-wheeling (which is illegal). Now I know its just light-hearted banter but you would actually get better economy rolling downhill in gear, with the engine running as the computer shuts off fuel supply wunder those circumstances.

Why is 60 - 65 Mpg not very good? Its 10Mpg better than I get even with a few extra horses!

because a 1.9 tdi can do 56-58 doing the same sort of speeds.... thats 2/3 of a litre engine size more and with cars a third more in weight!

I go with the same train of thought - family members with Audi A4 1.9, Skoda Favorit (1.9?) and a Vauxhall Vectra 1.9, all bigger cars with bigger engines, yet all claiming 50+ mpg in normal use

At least I regain a bit with cheaper insurance and tax

I regularly get get 56+ mpg (actual) out of my 1.2 Petrol Panda, I normally have my mpg indicator over 60mpg whilst driving my usual weekly runs (@350 miles per week)


Trev

Damn, i miss high MPG's now, only getting around 29 MPG in the Abarth at the moment....still, i have to say it's 1000% more fun than the MJ was!

In my MJET I would also average around 62-63 mpg on a long run at a steady'ish 70 - so I think you're car is about right.

As one of the other posters said though, if you drop that to below 50 you would see a marked improvement - one steady journey I did at 50'ish saw an average of low/mid 70's.

The other thing to bear in mind is the weather - your mpg will improve as the weather warms up and as the engine loosens up as well.

Ian.

thats a good thought.
But what is loosening - 5k or 30k?
And should one be rollocking the revs off it regularly to help this process? (someone else said something about making sure the bores dont glaze or something)

Nothing wrong with using the revs. Basically what they are saying is that it's important to seat/bed in the Rings properly and there is some argument that driving a car hard early on actually helps this. I found it was the only way to get anywhere in the MJ. Sounds like your MPG is pretty good. I never acheived over 55mpg in my MJ. But I did thrash it everywhere as it was a bit too slow for my liking.

I do agree though, that the MPG figures for an MJ are not outstanding and you could have a bigger engined diesel that would deliver something similar with all the advantages of a car that is easier to drive and has a lot more power. So I do think there is a limit to how good such a small diesel engine as found in the MJ really is. From my experience of owning one, I learnt that maybe really small diesels may not be a very good idea.

I'm happier now having switched to the 100hp.

I think the Panda MJ needs a 6th gear for cruising. The same engine in the Grande Punto with a 6 speed does slightly more MPG on the extra urban cycle (claimed figures 80.6 MPG) and that's a bigger heavier car. The Panda is more suited to town and in this respect, it's quite economical for a town car. Just before i bought the Abarth, i went for a short trip round town, floored it everywhere and tried to use as much fuel as possible (to make me feel better about getting 30 MPG in the Abarth!) The trip computer in the MJ read 37 MPG, now that's bad!

Or, instead of 6th gear, it could just use more stepping between gears, they are too close. I often hardly bother to go thru 4th gear, straight to 5th from 3rd, or do town driving on 5th. Top gear is defenitely too low.

My daily MPG is about 64-65, which is pretty good. I defenitely dont want it around 30, because it will mean weekly trip to petrol station instead one trip in two weeks

Official extra-urban MPG figures for Panda are kind of misleading. Sure they all true, as long as you do all your "extra-urban" driving at whopping 50 mph. But try to go at the good speed on the motorway, and below 50 mpg you drop.

JTD engine is not a pinnacle of economy diesel anymore. BlueMotion taken the top seat from it recently.

Definately not impressed with the mj fuel consumption. Generally in the 57 59 range. I used to get 65mpg from a Citroen AX with 1.6 diesel, thats an old style indirect injection. I get 38-41 out of a Volkswagen Caravelle 2.5tdi which weighs more than twice the Panda, probably driven slightly slower to be fair.

Drive the Panda over 70 and it goes down to 53 or so. I reckon pretty poor. I would expect 70 plus easily on normal driving and 80+ with care. My sister can get 60+ fairly easily in her Skoda 1.9 non turbo direct injection.

My suspicion is the computer settings are poorly done. It seems to poll for something every 3 seconds - seems quite bizare on occasion. Lift you foot off consumption increases markedly - seems mad. Lift off for 3 seconds and then accelerate and consumption figure drops significantly. Give and take roads where you lift of regularly can give good consumption - frequently steady speeds give much poorer figures.

Seems bizare and poorly set up.

I was initially disappointed with my mjet's mpg. For a while it ran alongside an Audi A4 which, in spite of being far larger, heavier and faster, was only slightly less frugal on the open road. It seems like there are diminishing returns when downsizing diesels, BUT I don't think that means that the small oil burners are pointless. Fact is that they are very small cars and if you want a very small car the mjet is decisively more frugal than the petrol alternative. As long as your only reason for wanting a very small car isn't the idea that they use far less fuel than larger cars, and you cover the mileage to warrant it, the derv option still makes sense. And anyhow when roaming round town or travelling below 50 with only one or two onboard, the fuel advantage of say a Panda against an A4 will be very real. Not to mention the reduced stress that comes from being able to fit into tiny parking spaces....

would be interesting to see what the 1.1 and 1.2 eco mpg figures are as they start to get a few miles under their belts - i.e. if their computers have been better sorted as a result of the process of getting under 120g/C!