Technical Twin-Air MPG
- Thread starter Pandabloke
- Start date
Currently reading:
Technical Twin-Air MPG
There is so much to like about Fiats, but there is no doubt that their mileage is no longer competitive, no matter how the statistics are jiggled for the figures. In the real world they simply aren't competitive.
My hope is that they are working on this now and the results will show very soon. The TA is great fun, but not frugal, and the small 1.3 Diesel is pretty hopeless too.
I hope for improvements next year, but economy matters a lot, and they had better wake up soon. I live in hope.
My hope is that they are working on this now and the results will show very soon. The TA is great fun, but not frugal, and the small 1.3 Diesel is pretty hopeless too.
I hope for improvements next year, but economy matters a lot, and they had better wake up soon. I live in hope.
twinairturbo
New member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Messages
- 121
- Points
- 25
after 700 miles of ownership??,
As my local, friendly and helpful fiat dealer terminated with fiat I am forced to do a 50mi round trip to a un-local, un-friendly, un-helpful and rude fiat dealer for warranty work, too many faults at so few miles and then putting up with that and the reward is... A fiat. The only grace is my opinion of the product and insurance. Maybe an Abarth as a next car but not standard fiat I'm afraid
FIAT UK 's policy regarding ditching good independent garages, and giving it to huge multi-frachise places isn't doing the Brands any good at all,
Charlie
OP
OP
Well. the last tank, mixed local and town work, driving as economically as possible - computer said 46mpg, brim to brim worked out at 43........
Car covered in excess of 3000 miles now. This time I'm gonna drive it normally and see what it shows at the end.
Interesting experiment, this one. I'll keep you informed.
Car covered in excess of 3000 miles now. This time I'm gonna drive it normally and see what it shows at the end.
Interesting experiment, this one. I'll keep you informed.
Hi all
Just as a comparison we have a 2009 fiat qubo 1.3 multijet, we only get about 45mpg around town and 50mpg on a run, so i think the twinair is pretty good, i also have a 2.0l petrol ulysse on a 2004 plate with 127600 miles on the clock and only manage about 22mpg around town loaded with kit and tools
Just as a comparison we have a 2009 fiat qubo 1.3 multijet, we only get about 45mpg around town and 50mpg on a run, so i think the twinair is pretty good, i also have a 2.0l petrol ulysse on a 2004 plate with 127600 miles on the clock and only manage about 22mpg around town loaded with kit and tools
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 687
- Points
- 170
Got 48mpg actual from my last tank and it is still improving. Very short journeys hurt that too; indicated was 10%+ higher when I did 2 x 75 mile trips instead of my regular usage which is only 5 miles (hence opting for petrol this time). Guess it will settle at around 52 mpg with a few more thousand miles up. You do have to keep the revs down on acceleration and using the lack of engine braking to ease off when approaching junctions much earlier than you would with your non TA doesn't hurt either.
It isn't that bad.. Eg..New Qashqai 115PS petrol gets 50 mpg claimed, new Yeti 105PS 46 mpg claimed.
As for 60+ from a 1.6 diesel Suzuki, no doubt the 500l would acheive this too or get within ~5%, I regularly acheived 60+ mpg actual from my Bravo which had the previous generation 1.6 multijet (ACTUALLY GOT CLAIMED MPG). The Suzuki petrol is 51.3 mpg claimed...
The other makes I note above are all higher tax (CO2) as well I think.
It isn't that bad.. Eg..New Qashqai 115PS petrol gets 50 mpg claimed, new Yeti 105PS 46 mpg claimed.
As for 60+ from a 1.6 diesel Suzuki, no doubt the 500l would acheive this too or get within ~5%, I regularly acheived 60+ mpg actual from my Bravo which had the previous generation 1.6 multijet (ACTUALLY GOT CLAIMED MPG
). The Suzuki petrol is 51.3 mpg claimed...The other makes I note above are all higher tax (CO2) as well I think.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Got 48mpg actual from my last tank and it is still improving. Very short journeys hurt that too; indicated was 10%+ higher when I did 2 x 75 mile trips instead of my regular usage which is only 5 miles (hence opting for petrol this time). Guess it will settle at around 52 mpg with a few more thousand miles up. You do have to keep the revs down on acceleration and using the lack of engine braking to ease off when approaching junctions much earlier than you would with your non TA doesn't hurt either.
It isn't that bad.. Eg..New Qashqai 115PS petrol gets 50 mpg claimed, new Yeti 105PS 46 mpg claimed.
As for 60+ from a 1.6 diesel Suzuki, no doubt the 500l would acheive this too or get within ~5%, I regularly acheived 60+ mpg actual from my Bravo which had the previous generation 1.6 multijet (ACTUALLY GOT CLAIMED MPG
The other makes I note above are all higher tax (CO2) as well I think.
Hi there!
It's not the actual mpg figure that I find bad in comparison to others, it's the huge difference between the quoted mpg figures and what actually seems achievable. But I do recognise I've only done 3000 miles and it has constantly improved. But as I say, the 500 TA's seem to be in a worse position than us. Some of them are returning 37 mpg on average, it seems, if driven even remotely enthusiastically! That's apalling by any standards.
Saying all this, however, I have decided to drive normally over this tankful and see what I achieve. And a quick glance at the actual mpg feature is showing 43, only 3 less than when I was driving like a loser..... Curious!:slayer:
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 687
- Points
- 170
I'm hoping it won't end up too far off claimed. If it picks up by another 10% I'll be getting 52 mpg on my short trips and 57 on longer journeys, 57 would be v close to claimed for a combined trip. Guess I'll be changing it after 4 years (might be another 500L though guess there will be another handful of choices then) and it'll have low mileage so won't have spent too much on fuel so not mega important to me. These claimed figures are annoying though I agree…
Interesting that you've found not too much deficit when driving a bit more enthusiastically.
Crazy that the L is turning out to be more economic than the 500 for some!
My mileage is close to yours so will be interesting to compare notes.. 3200 up IIRC.
Interesting that you've found not too much deficit when driving a bit more enthusiastically.
Crazy that the L is turning out to be more economic than the 500 for some!
My mileage is close to yours so will be interesting to compare notes.. 3200 up IIRC.
Last edited:
It's impossible to know what different people mean by normal driving, but not accelerating 'normally', by which I mean accelerating as quickly as legally possible, is a hard thing for some of us to do.
The new Suzuki that I drove was a quick whitted and very immediate and responsive car. We were both very impressed. The petrol version I don't have my own figures for, but one day I'll give it a go. All the reviewers have been very impressed indeed by the mileage, and all state that the actual mpg is very close to the claimed figures.
Getting 67.5 mpg on a long motorway run, in a new car, is a dream for me. Obviously the Suzy, which achieved this, is light and relatively aerodynamic, but it is also spacious and, importantly for me, FUN!
I'll give the petrol a go one day, but I don't intend to keep my stopgap Doblo for more than another year or so if I can help it and the Suzi was as much fun as the Panda TA I drove, and more economical. A bit dearer, but .....
Also, the new Cashcow is a bit big, two inches longer and one wider. Too much I think. Probably too expensive too. But it looks to be very economical and the 1.5 Diesel gives excellent mileage and zero tax. The new Yetis are not notably economical.
And certainly, there are lots of new cars on the way. Fuel consumption + driving fun and a comfortable driving position and ease of access are all up at the top for me. I love the 500L, but I'm not totally in love. Still on the list though.
The new Suzuki that I drove was a quick whitted and very immediate and responsive car. We were both very impressed. The petrol version I don't have my own figures for, but one day I'll give it a go. All the reviewers have been very impressed indeed by the mileage, and all state that the actual mpg is very close to the claimed figures.
Getting 67.5 mpg on a long motorway run, in a new car, is a dream for me. Obviously the Suzy, which achieved this, is light and relatively aerodynamic, but it is also spacious and, importantly for me, FUN!
I'll give the petrol a go one day, but I don't intend to keep my stopgap Doblo for more than another year or so if I can help it and the Suzi was as much fun as the Panda TA I drove, and more economical. A bit dearer, but .....
Also, the new Cashcow is a bit big, two inches longer and one wider. Too much I think. Probably too expensive too. But it looks to be very economical and the 1.5 Diesel gives excellent mileage and zero tax. The new Yetis are not notably economical.
And certainly, there are lots of new cars on the way. Fuel consumption + driving fun and a comfortable driving position and ease of access are all up at the top for me. I love the 500L, but I'm not totally in love. Still on the list though.
Last edited:
OP
OP
I know what you mean. If there had been a new, updated Multipla, I would have been in there like a shot ....
It was a brilliant car and I always admire the cleverness of it, fun to drive too, but not many people know that.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 687
- Points
- 170
The Suzuki does look smart and won't be too popular, I like having something different Might get non FIAT next time just for a change..doesnt hurt looking 3 years in advance .. but at the moment the 500L is excellent, does have very competitive economy (can't compare a diesel with the TA, compare their petrol with the TA..).. and I know which dealers are good/bad in a 50 mile radius which is important-ish. It also has allot of character, most cars look the same these days and 500L is very smart indeed.
The Mazda CX5 was one of the main competitors to the 500L for me but lost out for being a bit boring and too expensive (considering I wouldn't be getting anything extra that I'd value - paying more for it being an "SUV" and a Mazda - I'm not bothered about the badge or FIAT's image in the UK).
Fiat have a very good car on their hands with the 500L imo. They need to sort some of the rest of the range though, discontinue the Bravo, new Punto needed. It wouldn't hurt if they advertised their products a bit more either! 5 year+ warranty might help sell some cars too.
Might get non FIAT next time just for a change..doesnt hurt looking 3 years in advance .. but at the moment the 500L is excellent, does have very competitive economy (can't compare a diesel with the TA, compare their petrol with the TA..).. and I know which dealers are good/bad in a 50 mile radius which is important-ish. It also has allot of character, most cars look the same these days and 500L is very smart indeed.The Mazda CX5 was one of the main competitors to the 500L for me but lost out for being a bit boring and too expensive (considering I wouldn't be getting anything extra that I'd value - paying more for it being an "SUV" and a Mazda - I'm not bothered about the badge or FIAT's image in the UK).
Fiat have a very good car on their hands with the 500L imo. They need to sort some of the rest of the range though, discontinue the Bravo, new Punto needed. It wouldn't hurt if they advertised their products a bit more either! 5 year+ warranty might help sell some cars too.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 687
- Points
- 170
On the subject of Diesel vs. Petrol is there any fix on the horizon for DPF Diesels (or anything replacing current tech DPFs?) being able to cope with regular short journeys?
I would go back to Diesel for sure if that was fixed.
NB The diesel car would also need an electric heater like the 500L has (even fitted to the TA which warms up in around 1 mile!), don't want to be driving for 15 miles with the window open in -15C to stop the windscreen misting up waiting for the engine to warm up and the climate control to work properly like I was doing in the Bravo in the recent harsh winters! Heated screen alone might fix but the cabin would still be FREEZING; the 1.6 diesel Bravo took forever to warm up.
I would go back to Diesel for sure if that was fixed.
NB The diesel car would also need an electric heater like the 500L has (even fitted to the TA which warms up in around 1 mile!), don't want to be driving for 15 miles with the window open in -15C to stop the windscreen misting up waiting for the engine to warm up and the climate control to work properly like I was doing in the Bravo in the recent harsh winters! Heated screen alone might fix but the cabin would still be FREEZING; the 1.6 diesel Bravo took forever to warm up.
Last edited:
I agree about the heating. I had no idea that the 500L has a supplementary electric heater either, is that right? I have read no mention of it anywhere.
The 1.6 Diesel in my Doblo heats up much more quickly than the old 1.9, which never got warm and necessitated coats on in even a mild British winter. And the integrated DPFs seem to be far less of a problem than the old low-slung exhaust versions. One year on and no problem yet, with quite a bit of city driving... I hope I haven't talked anything up
I also like the Ford eco-boost three cylinder, which seems to combine an optimum performance/economy balance that other small petrols can't manage.
Next year I' going to look at a few new cars, including the C Cross petrol, just to see what the newest cars really are like. But if Suzuki can fit a Fiat Diesel with 118 bhp, giving brilliant driveability, plus a genuine 60++ mpg, what can't Fiat fit the same engine to the 500L? Why the 105 version, which offers worse performance and even worse economy?
The 1.6 Diesel in my Doblo heats up much more quickly than the old 1.9, which never got warm and necessitated coats on in even a mild British winter. And the integrated DPFs seem to be far less of a problem than the old low-slung exhaust versions. One year on and no problem yet, with quite a bit of city driving... I hope I haven't talked anything up
I also like the Ford eco-boost three cylinder, which seems to combine an optimum performance/economy balance that other small petrols can't manage.
Next year I' going to look at a few new cars, including the C Cross petrol, just to see what the newest cars really are like. But if Suzuki can fit a Fiat Diesel with 118 bhp, giving brilliant driveability, plus a genuine 60++ mpg, what can't Fiat fit the same engine to the 500L? Why the 105 version, which offers worse performance and even worse economy?
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 687
- Points
- 170
When you configure a 500L on the FIAT website it's listed as part of the spec at the end "PTC Heater" : http://www.epcos.com/web/generator/Web/Sections/Components/Page,locale=en,r=263282,a=372328.html
HTH
HTH
Thanks for that.
Nowhere has any tester or pundit mentioned it. Astonishing.
Nowhere has any tester or pundit mentioned it. Astonishing.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 687
- Points
- 170
Putting the world to rights :
I think the manufacturers should make things like that a little more visible, specification should be a bit more detailed e.g. it's often hard to know from the spec of a car if it has a 12V socket in the boot but for someone who likes camping it could be really important. FIAT say you get mats with Lounge 500L but not if they are the same as the ones in the accessories brochure. I had a live chat on the website when mine was on order and was told they were the same. Great, as I'd got a set thrown in I thought I'd have a second set to sell on eBay. Nope.. the free set are front only and nowhere near the same quality and without the logo embroidered in, just plain thin black mats to keep as spares. Shouldn't there have been a photo of what you get next to every item in the spec on the configurator?
As for the press.. I feel they really gloss over everything so much so that the reviews are not worth reading (maybe just skim them..) at all in most cases, often the inside and out photos of cars you've never seen are all they're worth looking at for (BTW the interior of the Suzuki looks like it may be nasty, same for the rear space, quite nice looking from the exterior - will have to go and have a look at one)... Every review seems to need to have some long winded spiel about how well a car handles around a race track... but they don't tell you whether or not it can keep you warm or whether or not it has a 12V point in the boot (500L has both ).
I guess the car launches including the websites are rushed and the websites are way too fluffy, not designed for engineers to research their future purchase. E.g. You mentioned the Ecoboost so I went to the Ford website and looked at the B - Max, I clicked on a link described as linking me to economy, and I was presented with another page of dirge telling me how economic it is but with no figures (I did find the numbers eventually...).
I suppose someone thinks that features such as the heater are as ubiquitous as the windscreen washer but the trouble is that they definitely aren't. Those of us who have suffered from a commute starting at 6 AM in winter using a diesel with no PTC heater nor heated windscreen see allot of value in it, a godsend!
It isn't very rare I don't think either, e.g. in retrieving the above description that I linked you to I stumbled upon some forum where the poster stated his Kia Cee'd had a PTC Heater too.
:I think the manufacturers should make things like that a little more visible, specification should be a bit more detailed e.g. it's often hard to know from the spec of a car if it has a 12V socket in the boot but for someone who likes camping it could be really important. FIAT say you get mats with Lounge 500L but not if they are the same as the ones in the accessories brochure. I had a live chat on the website when mine was on order and was told they were the same. Great, as I'd got a set thrown in I thought I'd have a second set to sell on eBay. Nope.. the free set are front only and nowhere near the same quality and without the logo embroidered in, just plain thin black mats to keep as spares. Shouldn't there have been a photo of what you get next to every item in the spec on the configurator?
As for the press.. I feel they really gloss over everything so much so that the reviews are not worth reading (maybe just skim them..) at all in most cases, often the inside and out photos of cars you've never seen are all they're worth looking at for (BTW the interior of the Suzuki looks like it may be nasty, same for the rear space, quite nice looking from the exterior - will have to go and have a look at one
)... Every review seems to need to have some long winded spiel about how well a car handles around a race track... but they don't tell you whether or not it can keep you warm or whether or not it has a 12V point in the boot (500L has both ).I guess the car launches including the websites are rushed and the websites are way too fluffy, not designed for engineers to research their future purchase. E.g. You mentioned the Ecoboost so I went to the Ford website and looked at the B - Max, I clicked on a link described as linking me to economy, and I was presented with another page of dirge telling me how economic it is but with no figures (I did find the numbers eventually...).
I suppose someone thinks that features such as the heater are as ubiquitous as the windscreen washer but the trouble is that they definitely aren't. Those of us who have suffered from a commute starting at 6 AM in winter using a diesel with no PTC heater nor heated windscreen see allot of value in it, a godsend!
It isn't very rare I don't think either, e.g. in retrieving the above description that I linked you to I stumbled upon some forum where the poster stated his Kia Cee'd had a PTC Heater too.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2005
- Messages
- 687
- Points
- 170
On topic..
I wonder if the 500L has an aerodynamics problem that hampers its economy? The windscreen is quite upright, the front of the car is upright and tall too. Can that be how it fools the lab tests more than, say, the Suzuki
I doubt that they can win on all fronts.. what they have gone for certainly gives you a very flexible interior with probably the best visibility. Has that hurt the economy compared to sleeker profile looking cars like the Suzuki (quite a rake on that windscreen..)?
I wonder if the 500L has an aerodynamics problem that hampers its economy? The windscreen is quite upright, the front of the car is upright and tall too. Can that be how it fools the lab tests more than, say, the Suzuki
I doubt that they can win on all fronts.. what they have gone for certainly gives you a very flexible interior with probably the best visibility. Has that hurt the economy compared to sleeker profile looking cars like the Suzuki (quite a rake on that windscreen..)?
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 833
- Points
- 191
Sorry if I've missed it but which Suzuki are talking about here, not that I'm fed up with the L just yet just curious as I didn't consider any Suzukis when we were looking.
just curious as I didn't consider any Suzukis when we were looking.
