General 1.2 Eleganza MPG Comparison

Currently reading:
General 1.2 Eleganza MPG Comparison

SDCC

57 1.2 Eleganza
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
74
Points
22
Location
Portsmouth
Just curious really.

My weeks generally consist of a 22 mile round trip to work (half motorway half residential), and then smaller trips around town.

My 57 plate 1.2 says that it does an average of 44.5 MPG.

What do any of you guys get?
 
That doe not seem very good to me. My Skoda Octavia Scout diesel used to do 45mpg regularly, my diesel Panda does 70mpg brim to brim & not reading the computer.

I would have expected a small 1.2 car to be getting over 50mpg? One reason that put me off the 4x4, wish they did a standard 4x4 with the multijet engine for the UK.
 
Mrs b-u's 1.2 is averaging just under 50 mpg overall - that includes very little town/stop-start stuff, quite a bit of main road and a long trip to Europe - but about the same as you're getting in a spell of similar driving conditions - I'd say you're about right.
 
From the perspective of fuel economy, the 1.2 petrol Panda has two main weaknesses; the aerodynamics of a brick s**thouse & appalingly inefficient cold-running mapping*. This means that cruising over 55mph & doing frequent short journeys will significantly reduce mpg.

However, as others have said, on longer journeys at modest speed it can keep company with just about any petrol car you can buy, and with new cars obtainable for less than £6k, in overall cost terms it might just be the cheapest car you can run, period.

*Euro5 versions may be a little better in this regard
 
From the perspective of fuel economy, the 1.2 petrol Panda has two main weaknesses; the aerodynamics of a brick s**thouse & appalingly inefficient cold-running mapping*. This means that cruising over 55mph & doing frequent short journeys will significantly reduce mpg.

However, as others have said, on longer journeys at modest speed it can keep company with just about any petrol car you can buy, and with new cars obtainable for less than £6k, in overall cost terms it might just be the cheapest car you can run, period.

*Euro5 versions may be a little better in this regard

What makes it bad in the facts of aerodynamics in comparison to other similar cars - and regards to the cold start mapping - again what makes it different to other similar cars??
 
My Panda beat my Spark consistently by about 5mpg despite both having near identical official figures.

The 1.1 Panda's awesome (relatively) torque and taller gearing helping out there.
 
What makes it bad in the facts of aerodynamics in comparison to other similar cars

Probably not much - most city cars aren't as aerodynamic as typical motorway cruisers, so in percentage terms they suffer a significant mpg hit at typical motorway cruising speeds. The point I'm trying to make is that mpg drops off quite rapidly at speeds >55mph & I suspect the same is true for most comparable cars.

and regards to the cold start mapping - again what makes it different to other similar cars??

Well my Euro4 1.2 Panda is significantly worse than my Euro5 1.2 500. Resetting the trip & starting out from cold shows the 500 about 10mpg better at 3 miles, when driven identically over the same route. On comparable journeys >20 miles, there's no significant mpg difference between the two cars.
 
Not sure I agree about the consumption on motorways - we did thousands of miles on motorway/autoroute/autostrada/autobahn in Mrs b-u's Euro 4 1.2 recently, generally doing 80-85 mph for hours on end and I don't think the consumption was ever worse than the low 40s mpg. There were two of us plus a fair amount of luggage so the car wasn't too heavily loaded, but it wasn't completely run in at the start of the trip.
 
Not sure I agree about the consumption on motorways - we did thousands of miles on motorway/autoroute/autostrada/autobahn in Mrs b-u's Euro 4 1.2 recently, generally doing 80-85 mph for hours on end and I don't think the consumption was ever worse than the low 40s mpg. There were two of us plus a fair amount of luggage so the car wasn't too heavily loaded, but it wasn't completely run in at the start of the trip.

On long journeys, if I keep to a maximum of 55mph, I normally see around 70mpg on the trip. So 66% worse if you cruise 25-30mph faster - I rest my case.
 
Good to see what other people are getting. Thanks.

I thought mine was about right, and it's nice to be backed up! From Portsmouth to Cardiff, with a steady 80mph, I was still in the mid forties. The lowest the average has ever been is 41mpg. Never got it to 50 though. After the Celica, which I think maybe hit 30, it's awesome.

I just couldn't stand to do 50-55mph. I'm impatient. For me it's been weird to now settle into doing 70mph. Getting more sensible in my older years I guess!
 
On long journeys, if I keep to a maximum of 55mph, I normally see around 70mpg on the trip. So 66% worse if you cruise 25-30mph faster - I rest my case.

Don't follow your arithmetic - 42 versus 70 is either 40% worse or 66% better depending on whether you're using the higher or lower figure as your basis for comparison - 66% worse than 70 would give you 23 mpg. Drag is proportional to the square of the speed, so increasing speed by 50% - 55 mph versus 83 - increases drag by 2.25 times, so the surprise is that the Panda is as economical as it is - I rest my case.

On long journeys, if I kept to a maximum of 55mph I'd lose concentration and be a danger to all and sundry, to the extent that I'd probably fall asleep at the wheel.
 
Don't follow your arithmetic - 42 versus 70 is either 40% worse or 66% better depending on whether you're using the higher or lower figure as your basis for comparison - 66% worse than 70 would give you 23 mpg.

Well spotted, I was trying to think too fast - perhaps a better way of expressing what I meant to say is that driving at 80-85mph uses 2/3 as much fuel again as driving at 50-55mph.




 
Well my Euro4 1.2 Panda is significantly worse than my Euro5 1.2 500. Resetting the trip & starting out from cold shows the 500 about 10mpg better at 3 miles, when driven identically over the same route. On comparable journeys >20 miles, there's no significant mpg difference between the two cars.

Similar story with my 1.2 Panda EuroIV and 1.2 500 EuroV from cold. However, stop-start commuting driving with engine up to temperature, fuel economy favours the Panda slightly. It could be because the panda seems more willing to pull from low revs/road speed in second gear than my 500.
 
Similar story with my 1.2 Panda EuroIV and 1.2 500 EuroV from cold. However, stop-start commuting driving with engine up to temperature, fuel economy favours the Panda slightly. It could be because the panda seems more willing to pull from low revs/road speed in second gear than my 500.

Interesting. Nice to know there's another Panda + 500 owner on the forum(y).

Does your 500 have S/S? In some situations, I think it may actually hurt mpg (there's a small fuel overhead each time you start the engine). Makes the car more comfortable to drive in traffic, though.

Also the 155/13 ecoTyres on the Panda should give it a slight advantage, offset by a little bit less aerodynamic drag on the 500.
 
Interesting. Nice to know there's another Panda + 500 owner on the forum(y).

Does your 500 have S/S? In some situations, I think it may actually hurt mpg (there's a small fuel overhead each time you start the engine). Makes the car more comfortable to drive in traffic, though.

Also the 155/13 ecoTyres on the Panda should give it a slight advantage, offset by a little bit less aerodynamic drag on the 500.

I did wonder how many people had both cars! My 500 is a non S/S 1.2 Lounge on 185/55/R15 tyres and the panda is a 1.2 Dynamic on 165/65/R14 tyres, both on Conti Ecocontacts. The fuel savings using the Panda on a heavy traffic commute are about 3-4mpg and the 500 on a spirited motorway run benefits by about 4-5mpg. A run at 40-50mph and there's no difference in economy. The two cars are about 18 months apart in age so running in could also be contributing to the difference at the two extremes of use.
 
Back
Top