General Panda Multijet 100MPG Not BHP !!!

Currently reading:
General Panda Multijet 100MPG Not BHP !!!

Meh! 1.2 69 bhp vvti 4 LIFE

Having lived with both 1.2 engines for four years now, I'm in no doubt that the 1.2 is a better engine for everyday driving* in its non-vvt 60hp form; certainly below 3000 rpm the 60hp engine has more power and is more driveable.

The 1.1 engine lacks torque where it matters, leaving it unable to compete with the 1.2 in either performance or real world economy.

Sadly the 60hp 1.2 has never been available in the 500.

*unless you drive everyday like Ahmett :).
 
Last edited:
You must have had it just in the city and been stuck in massive jams or driven the guts out of it !I doubt if mine would average that at 85mph !
 
The trip computer on my MJ constantly under-reads by between 5 & 10%. I'm quite anal when it comes to noting my consumption everytime I fill up, however, I'm equally dilatory when it comes down to recording the details. I must dig them out.

Off the top of my head though, during an average month which involves two 13 mile commutes to work and home, and general knocking about I'm getting mid to high 50s, say 55 to 58 mpg. Someone else on here mentioned the fact that the MJ engine doesn't really warm up until about 5 or 6 minutes have passed and as I'm on the motorway in less than a mile that means, perhaps, 5 miles before the engine warms up. Over a third of the journey, although it does warm up slightly sooner in summer. Long motorway journeys don't necessarily give much of an improvement if I go east on the M62 towards Leeds then up the A1M then A19 to Middlesbrough, the return journey is around 240 miles and on a recent trip I got 59 mpg, only fractionally better than my short commutes with a cold engine.

However, if I instead go south on the M6 towards Brum, or west on the M56 and A55 to North Wales there is an improvement. The M56 and M6 in Cheshire is fairly flat as opposed to going to the North East where there are a lot of inclines. Wind also seems to play a part, no bodily function jokes please, if the instantaneous fuel read out is anything to go by.

I'll try and drag my own figures out tomorrow which will involve me grubbing about in the boot and under the seats.
 
Stops you from potentially loosing the rear end and over steering sideways into something and killing yourself.
I still don't get this best tyres on the back business. All FWD cars have 70%-ish of braking through the front tyres; 100% of the steering through the front tyres and 100% of the drive through the front tyres. All the back ones do is stop the a**e end from dragging along the ground.

In 40 years of driving I've never had a front wheel drive car go sideways unless I provoked it on snow or ice. Opel Kadett 1300S. Alfasud Sprint, several different Corsas, Astras, Cavaliers, Vectras, Metros/Rover 100s, Rover 200s, Fiestas, Focus, Puntos, Stilos, Panda, Lancia Y10 Turbo, Delta 1.6 GT, Delta 1.6 HF Turbo, Hyundai i30, Zafiras, Golfs, Alfa 156, Giulietta and many more.

The FWD bias of these cars is why the front tyres wear out quicker than the rears. It's also why you rotate the tyres of a RWD car but swap front to back on FWD.

If I go into a bend too quickly in the Panda I'll just go straight on and the less tread I have on the front tyres the more likely I am to go straight on, in which case the rear tyres can be made of polystyrene for all the good they'll do.
 
I still don't get this best tyres on the back business. All FWD cars have 70%-ish of braking through the front tyres; 100% of the steering through the front tyres and 100% of the drive through the front tyres. All the back ones do is stop the a**e end from dragging along the ground.



In 40 years of driving I've never had a front wheel drive car go sideways unless I provoked it on snow or ice. Opel Kadett 1300S. Alfasud Sprint, several different Corsas, Astras, Cavaliers, Vectras, Metros/Rover 100s, Rover 200s, Fiestas, Focus, Puntos, Stilos, Panda, Lancia Y10 Turbo, Delta 1.6 GT, Delta 1.6 HF Turbo, Hyundai i30, Zafiras, Golfs, Alfa 156, Giulietta and many more.



The FWD bias of these cars is why the front tyres wear out quicker than the rears. It's also why you rotate the tyres of a RWD car but swap front to back on FWD.



If I go into a bend too quickly in the Panda I'll just go straight on and the less tread I have on the front tyres the more likely I am to go straight on, in which case the rear tyres can be made of polystyrene for all the good they'll do.


[ame]http://youtu.be/__0DL8dE3Eo[/ame]
 

That's interesting - I never knew why, but always put new on the rear. (y)

This is particularly vital on the Coupe. When the rears start to wear it starts to lose the rear end coming off roundabouts & corners and you can feel it twitching even on good surfaces (wet is "interesting" :eek: ). If anyone doubts which is best, I recommend booting a Coupe with 3/4 (still perfectly legal) worn back tyres coming off a roundabout in greasy conditions - put new tyres on the back and try it again! (y)

To be fair I've never noticed the same issue on 127's/Panda's etc, but I'd rather not discover it cornering hard on a country lane. Of course new tyres all round are best. (y)
 
Impressive video, but a 'commercial' nevertheless.

It's obvious that the driver did nothing to correct the slide, but just sat there and let it develop. Driven at a steady speed and with no driver adjustments for ever-changing road conditions, this could be the inevitable result.

But add in any good driver's automatic input, and the result could be different. With the Panda, the rear end is prone to break away before the front under extreme conditions, and with equal tyres all round, but I bet most keen drivers have found this out already and make almost subconscious allowance as they drive.
 
I'll still stick with my policy of changing all 4 at the same time by changing front to rear to get even wear over all 4 tyres. I can't remember the last time I only changed two tyres on my car.
 
Impressive video, but a 'commercial' nevertheless.


Sorry I don't follow. They're not selling you something extra to have the new tyres fitted to the rear. It doesn't make them any more money.

Ultimately if the rear end isn't sliding about everywhere as I've swerved on a B road at 50-60mph to avoid wildlife then it's going to make it an easier and safer manovour than doing the same and the rear end loosing it.
 
Sorry I don't follow. They're not selling you something extra to have the new tyres fitted to the rear. It doesn't make them any more money.

Not knocking the video - it was good, and designed to get watchers to 'think tyres'. That's why the driver just let the slide develop. In normal driving, if the driver had felt the back end going light, he would correct it before the slide got out of control.

I'm with Wee Smurf - I like to change all four at the same time. What really gets under my skin is to see a variety of mismatched tyre patterns on one car - often with obvious pressure differences. That's not just asking for trouble, it's trouble that you or me could be on the receiving end of.
 
FWD DIESELS are very susceptible to snapping away at rear in the wet/rain as front end is weighed down by heavier engine .Aquaplaning from rear on a bend (in Panda diesel) is treacherous as I found out the hard way!:-( ( My only 'proper' accident and Panda was reassuringly solid - unless you count front left wheel flying off a 98 Punto Sporting on straight B road at about 40mph,hard to imagine a more benign , lucky outcome .20-30m Straight line gouged in road by brake disc ,couldnt have been straighter if you used a ruler and chalk .

Anyway back to mpg .OP here and whether due to loosening up the turbo actuator 'rod' or the mild calm weather lately I'm getting my best mpg ever .Over an indicated 90mpg ( both directions ie out and back 80 mile+ total commute) quite regularly as well as the near 100mpg day .
Now the moment of truth .I did the brim to brim and got 69.4 mpg .Was quite deflated to begin with and then realised I'd done two or more urban/city trips including high rise car parks , traffic jams ,the works .These sort of trips normally return indicated 58-65mpg .So I reckon the brim to brim might have been an indicated 80ish mpg and actual just under 70 .
Hard to imagine the latest gen diesels being any better eg Mini Cooper D even though book figures suggest they are .Whats the current 'competition' mpg champ? Last I read (ages ago ) it was Yaris Diesel having taken crown from Citroen AX D
Have driven many of the old mpg ( as well as mph !) faves over my 'career' ,couple of Charade diesels including 1985 van ,106D ,AX D but Panda is def the champ.All bar AX made keeping to motorway speed limit practically involuntary 106d struggled especially badly up motorway drags at40-45mpg .
Have very special affection for '89 Opel KADETT GSi16V a car that could easily return over 40mpg yet once displayed 149mph on speedo ( nerve then gave out) Official 0-100kmh for this car was 6.8/6.9 secs .Unlike the Vauxhall equivalents these cars were STRIPPED , even had steel 14"wheels .
All about the mpg nowadays alas ....Panda might do indicated 110mph but not worth risk these days . You'd probably end up on 9OClock news in jail .
 
Last edited:
Just did a bit of googling which confirms what I suspected that a MJ may be only a whisker slower at top end than a 100hp .Euro users have vids posted of the 200kmh(125mph)' limit 'on speedo almost being reached .
 
I'm with Wee Smurf - I like to change all four at the same time. What really gets under my skin is to see a variety of mismatched tyre patterns on one car - often with obvious pressure differences. That's not just asking for trouble, it's trouble that you or me could be on the receiving end of.

Good to know that my tyres are all the same and my TyrePal keeps an eye on the pressure for me... :cool:

DSC_07152.JPG
 
Just did a bit of googling which confirms what I suspected that a MJ may be only a whisker slower at top end than a 100hp .Euro users have vids posted of the 200kmh(125mph)' limit 'on speedo almost being reached .
That doesn't surprise me, the 100HP isn't a quick car in a straight line. It's faster than your average horrid little eco-box, but that's about it. Most modern 2.0 diesels, even in big, heavy cars, will smoke a 100HP in a straight line (both in acceleration and maximum speed). That said, the 100HP will sit in lane 3 of any UK motorway and only have to get out of the way of stuff that's doing "banned if caught" speeds. It'll happily keep up with your average Mr.Rep-Mobile in his 320d or A4 2.0TDi.

The 100HP probably isn't that much quicker than a MJ at the top end, it'll just get to its top speed quite a bit quicker. After all, 99BHP isn't a lot and at 115mph (the 100HP's claimed top speed) the Panda's awful aerodynamics must causing some serious drag; the front end of a Panda is pretty damn tall and square.

EDIT: The 70BHP MJ is good for 99MPH and the 75bhp MJ is good for 103MPH, according to AutoTrader's data. I have no reason to doubt this as the data they have for the 100HP is correct, stating a max. speed of 115MPH, and the data for various other car's I've checked over the years has tallied with the manufacturer's claimed figures.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top