I've spent a bit longer with a TwinAir now and I have some real world numbers. On the motorway (70mph where possible, dropping to 60mph in places) it averaged 50mpg when warm, and about 48mpg from cold. I managed to get 50mpg after the motorway for a while, but once I hit traffic it went down to about 45mpg. On a country road it went down to below 40mpg (with a fully warm engine).
On the way back on the motorway in my Panda 100HP I got 46mpg. I probably averaged a slightly lower speed, but also had the radio, heater, and lights on. So it only just beats my Panda 100HP.
Overall it's nothing special. What would a 1.2 do at 70mph? Similar?
In the past I thought the handling was amazing on the 500, but it isn't. It's fairly average. I think the Panda 100HP (and possibly the non-100HP models) is a much better car.
The engine is totally gutless at low revs. It pulls the car, but it makes a terrible sound. Even at 60mph in top gear it doesn't sound happy. In comparison, my 100HP is happy to accelerate at 50mph in 6th gear, it's not fast but it doesn't complain. You need to either completely murder the engine, or use high revs which gives you poor fuel consumption.
The gear shift indicator wasn't much help. I was finding that a lower gear could get better fuel consumption. I also found that eco mode was using more fuel. On the motorway eco mode could barely manage, it was just labouring almost all the time.
After a longer driver I was glad to leave it behind. The noise was terrible IMO! It's nice for a 10 minute test drive, but I couldn't live with it for longer journeys. Once I was back in my car it felt really nice. My engine is so much more responsive and reacts as I expect it. With the TwinAir you either have the engine labouring or you change down, floor it and have loads of power. Peak torque isn't bad, but you need to wait for the turbo and it doesn't last that long until you need to change up.
There's no way I would buy one. I would prefer the 1.2. The 1.4 will probably come very close to matching the fuel consumption though.
I suspect that the non-Turbo version could be good though. No-turbo lag, and I think it's supposed to get near 80mpg.
On the way back on the motorway in my Panda 100HP I got 46mpg. I probably averaged a slightly lower speed, but also had the radio, heater, and lights on. So it only just beats my Panda 100HP.
Overall it's nothing special. What would a 1.2 do at 70mph? Similar?
In the past I thought the handling was amazing on the 500, but it isn't. It's fairly average. I think the Panda 100HP (and possibly the non-100HP models) is a much better car.
The engine is totally gutless at low revs. It pulls the car, but it makes a terrible sound. Even at 60mph in top gear it doesn't sound happy. In comparison, my 100HP is happy to accelerate at 50mph in 6th gear, it's not fast but it doesn't complain. You need to either completely murder the engine, or use high revs which gives you poor fuel consumption.
The gear shift indicator wasn't much help. I was finding that a lower gear could get better fuel consumption. I also found that eco mode was using more fuel. On the motorway eco mode could barely manage, it was just labouring almost all the time.
After a longer driver I was glad to leave it behind. The noise was terrible IMO! It's nice for a 10 minute test drive, but I couldn't live with it for longer journeys. Once I was back in my car it felt really nice. My engine is so much more responsive and reacts as I expect it. With the TwinAir you either have the engine labouring or you change down, floor it and have loads of power. Peak torque isn't bad, but you need to wait for the turbo and it doesn't last that long until you need to change up.
There's no way I would buy one. I would prefer the 1.2. The 1.4 will probably come very close to matching the fuel consumption though.
I suspect that the non-Turbo version could be good though. No-turbo lag, and I think it's supposed to get near 80mpg.