im Axle Specialists

General Twinair - Rubbish mpg with City Driving

Currently reading:
General Twinair - Rubbish mpg with City Driving

RobinPJ said:
No, this is wrong.

Edit: To clarify, it is 100% wrong to say that fraudulent misrep is a crime. It is not. It is a tort (civil wrong). Triable in the High Court or county court depending on the amount claimed. Never the magistrates court.

As to the rest of what you say, I strongly disagree. A salesman should not be stupid enough to effectively guarantee a particular mpg, but if he did then if the customer relied on it then his employer will be liable.

Just to point out I am a practicing litigation solicitor qualified for 15 years, and I do know what I am talking about.
Click to expand...

I think we will have to agree to disagree. I have been involved in contracts for a long time and this would not constitute a guarantee as there are too many variables which are accepted under industry standards. A bit like wind farm and solar panel outputs, claims are made based on assumed output.

I should have been clearer on what I meant about fraudulant misrepresentation, outside of contract law this can form part of criminal law. Like the telecoms company that targetted a school and netted several million pound through fraudulant misrepresentation. There was also the timeshare people who were fined in a Magistrates court after admitting fraud through several counts of fraudulant misrepresentation.

But anyway we will just disagree.
 
RhubarbandCustard said:
I know there have been various comments about mpg on here - but would be interested to know what others have averaged driving in London, or similar city driving..
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Doesnt sound great. I do an inner London commute in mine. 11 miles from North West London to Canary Wharf and I'm getting high 20's without using stop start (dont like it). The journey takes about 40 minutes so the maths scholars amongst you will be able to work out I'd probably be quicker walking ... and the average speed is well under 20mph.

Getting mid 40's on a run with eco switched off. I only have another car to compare against and it context if I use a 3litre TDI Audi I get about 15mpg on the same run to work and about 40mpg on a run.
 
RhubarbandCustard said:
Hello there

Have had my Twinair for a fortnight. Driving around London (and using Stop Start) I'm only getting 22.3mpg. That's rubbish isn't it compared to all the advertised figures? And really rubbish against my old 1.2 which averaged about 37mpg driving in the same conditions.

Have tried in both Eco and normal mode - and the figures average the same.

I know there have been various comments about mpg on here - but would be interested to know what others have averaged driving in London, or similar city driving.

PS - the high pitch noise has disappeared...
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, where are you getting the 22mpg figure from? The figures displayed on the dash, or your own calculations?

I'm not saying this is the case, but I've known people to get it horribly wrong when working it out themselves.

Also, how many miles has the engine done? And how far is your average journey?
 
D4nny8oy said:
Just out of curiosity, where are you getting the 22mpg figure from? The figures displayed on the dash, or your own calculations?

I'm not saying this is the case, but I've known people to get it horribly wrong when working it out themselves.

Also, how many miles has the engine done? And how far is your average journey?
Click to expand...

Amen to that. I bet this is badly worked out mpg.
 
birmint said:
Hmmm. Doesnt sound great. I do an inner London commute in mine. 11 miles from North West London to Canary Wharf and I'm getting high 20's without using stop start (dont like it). The journey takes about 40 minutes so the maths scholars amongst you will be able to work out I'd probably be quicker walking ... and the average speed is well under 20mph.

Getting mid 40's on a run with eco switched off. I only have another car to compare against and it context if I use a 3litre TDI Audi I get about 15mpg on the same run to work and about 40mpg on a run.
Click to expand...

That's a good indication of the real world economy of your TA in heavy traffic. It's producing twice the economy of a big diesel engine and that's with the S/S turned off ! (y)

Looking at the officially quoted government figures are 68.9 mpg for Combined and 57.6mpg so there is still quite a variation.

Checking the TV advert that 'joe public' has seen there is no mention of the word economy. It's 'Fun' and 'Emissions' in the context of 'More Fun and Less Emissions'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8XDsoe1JRE&feature=player_embedded#at=19

When I lasted checked one of the key elements of ‘emissions’ i.e. Nitrogen Oxide for the range of engines in the 500 range the 1.4 come out best :confused:

The issue may lie with the criteria being used by the government in how they measure emissions for tax revenue. A review for a commerical featuring Fernando Alonso – this is no longer available and is marked ‘Private’ has an information follow up that reads ‘...this little insect truly is a fantastic car to drive around town. It’s not the most economical super mini out there, but boy is it fun.'

The TA is one of the most technologically-advanced automobile engines in the world so can we deduce from this that the tests that are currently in place are not as up to date as the engine => isn’t that great for anyone looking to avoid the Congestion charge.(y)

So Mr. Loveshandbags V Fiat has just been struck out. ;)

http://www.motorward.com/2011/05/fiat-500-twinair-fernando-alonso-commercial/
http://lowendmac.com/misc/11mr/fiat-500-icar.html
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_emissions_control"]Vehicle emissions control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:WisconsinDOTEmissionStationSheboygan.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/WisconsinDOTEmissionStationSheboygan.jpg/220px-WisconsinDOTEmissionStationSheboygan.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/d5/WisconsinDOTEmissionStationSheboygan.jpg/220px-WisconsinDOTEmissionStationSheboygan.jpg[/ame]
 
Last edited:
My wife and I had a Twin Air, bought in January and sold last month (we now have an Abarth 500 - another story)
On a city commute across Bristol we would get 30 to 32mpg at first (ecomode), on a long motorway run of 200 miles at 70mph we only got 33mpg (normal mode). Fiat discovered that the knock sensor was not working and replaced it.
We subsequently achieved 42mpg city driving (ecomode) and on a long trip to Norfolk 52mpg, mixture of fast motorway and country roads.
We had a string of problems with our twin air, which Fiat finally resolved, but I had no doubt at all that the car was economical, maybe not quite as good as a 1.2, but not far off. Other twin air owners on this forum are happily achieving similar figures.
 
I bought a TA duologic last month. Drive from NW London to Canary Wharf. (10miles)
I've found Eco on/off makes no difference to fuel economy, although it's a smoother ride with it off. I managed 34mpg on first couple of tanks. Third tankful is now doing 36mpg. Only done 700miles so far, but I hope the mpg performance improves.
 
I've had my TA for nearly 2 months now. Around town in standard mode I get around 35 but don't get much more in eco mode. I drove from Plymouth to manchester(600 mile round trip) and back last week in eco mode and got 48. Drove from Plymouth to Penzance (approx 180 mile round trip) using eco and standard mode and got 42. Not that great rerally.
 
I'm just so relieved that I bought a 1.2 and didn't wait for the Twinair. My first post on this site was about a year ago when the Twinair was known about but no published figures or prices - I wondered whether it would have been worth waiting for it for the economy.

The (correct) advice from members was that it was likely to be priced high so that you'd need to do a fair few miles to recoup the cost (assuming some improvement in mpg over the 1.2).

I didn't want to wait, and didn't think it would make sense financially. I was also worried about early reliability (which some - who might now be eating a slice of humble pie - thought was overly pessimistic of me).

As it turns out I would have paid the extra for probably worse economy. I know I would have got more "fun" and/or "character" and speed etc, but that was not the end game for me - and I suspect many others.

In my opinion the figures that people are getting are a disgrace. And now that the mantra of "it's cold weather - you wait and see once it warms up" can no longer apply, the only possible saving grace will be loosened up engines with greater mileages, but I cannot see that making anything like the necessary difference.
 
RobinPJ said:
I'm just so relieved that I bought a 1.2 and didn't wait for the Twinair. My first post on this site was about a year ago when the Twinair was known about but no published figures or prices - I wondered whether it would have been worth waiting for it for the economy.

The (correct) advice from members was that it was likely to be priced high so that you'd need to do a fair few miles to recoup the cost (assuming some improvement in mpg over the 1.2).

I didn't want to wait, and didn't think it would make sense financially. I was also worried about early reliability (which some - who might now be eating a slice of humble pie - thought was overly pessimistic of me).

As it turns out I would have paid the extra for probably worse economy. I know I would have got more "fun" and/or "character" and speed etc, but that was not the end game for me - and I suspect many others.

In my opinion the figures that people are getting are a disgrace. And now that the mantra of "it's cold weather - you wait and see once it warms up" can no longer apply, the only possible saving grace will be loosened up engines with greater mileages, but I cannot see that making anything like the necessary difference.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that I bought a 2 year old 100bhp 1.4 :) as opposed to a scrappage price Pop TA. I can drive my car without thinking about (high gear ? eco on eco off) and it can get 32-35mpg around the town (Euro 4 no S/S) and 40-45mpg on the open road. I can also nail it and still get the average back up being a bit sensible to 35mpg. And I know that it will continue to stay working into the 100,000 mile and beyond mark. If they bring a congestion charge into Dublin :eek: (I'm glad to see that Manchester one didn't come in) they I would re-consider providing the goal posts of C02 emission measurement doesn't change. For me I'm getting the 'performance' I want without the unknown factor.
 
Last edited:
I've said this before, but in my opinion FIAT have done a very clever 'smoke & mirrors' exercise with the official mpg figures in order to secure a fiscal advantage for TwinAir. As an engineer, I don't believe the philosophy behind this engine design is conducive to maximising economy - it has too many moving parts for one thing, and a turbo for another. A more realistic mpg comparison should perhaps be with other cars of similar size and performance but that doesn't alter the fact that many folks who bought the car for its supposed economy will have been seriously misled.

IMHO this sort of thing puts the whole official ecotesting & labelling process into disrepute when a manufacturer is able to sneak a car like this 'under the wire'. It's understandable that FIAT will try to keep one jump ahead of the system but if cars can be sold with such blatantly misleading official figures then I believe there are serious questions to be asked which go well beyond the TwinAir or even FIAT. For example, I believe the Toyota iQ is another car which seriously struggles to get anywhere near the figures on the card in the showroom.
 
This thread has been interesting to read! I'm going for the TA as I want the engine with some more oomph in it (I did think about the 1.4) - if I can get around 45mpg city driving then I'll be happy, but I will admit I'm still going to do a final test drive between the 1.2 and TA before I order.
 
Last edited:
FloJo said:
...if I can get around 45mpg city driving then I'll be happy...
Click to expand...

The gist of this thread is that you are most unlikely to get anywhere near that, even if you drive in eco mode. If your city driving is done with serious 'oomph', you might do well to see 30mpg.

To be in with a decent chance of seeing 45mpg round town you will need the 1.2, and you will have to drive it carefully at that.
 
Last edited:
22mpg does sound very low - 42 is the worst I've had from mine, but then I don't drive in cities.
I look on my TA as providing the best of both worlds - driven carefully I can get 54mpg on my work commute, which I couldn't have done with the 1.4, but if I'm in the mood I can have a blast down the lanes which the 1.2 wouldn't have provided (I did try one). Throw in free road tax and a great engine note, and I'm well pleased. I wouldn't disagree that the 1.2 is the all round cheapie though, and still a nice drive if you're not in a hurry.
 
jrkitching said:
The gist of this thread is that you are most unlikely to get anywhere near that, even if you drive in eco mode. If your city driving is done with serious 'oomph', you might do well to see 30mpg.

To be in with a decent chance of seeing 45mpg round town you will need the 1.2, and you will have to drive it carefully at that.
Click to expand...

I'm town I'm pretty careful to be honest, it's more for when I'm out of town that I want a bit more. I will say that I'm not a boy racer type of driver (for a start I'm not a boy!!), my idea of oomph is being able to pull away at a roundabout a little faster :D for example I change up the gears and don't just sit in 4th or so (unlike my OH who really thrashed it on the last test drive!!). I'm used to a 1.4 so just find the 1.2 a little bit "slow" if that makes sense.
 
RobinPJ said:
I'm just so relieved that I bought a 1.2 and didn't wait for the Twinair. My first post on this site was about a year ago when the Twinair was known about but no published figures or prices - I wondered whether it would have been worth waiting for it for the economy.

The (correct) advice from members was that it was likely to be priced high so that you'd need to do a fair few miles to recoup the cost (assuming some improvement in mpg over the 1.2).

I didn't want to wait, and didn't think it would make sense financially. I was also worried about early reliability (which some - who might now be eating a slice of humble pie - thought was overly pessimistic of me).

As it turns out I would have paid the extra for probably worse economy. I know I would have got more "fun" and/or "character" and speed etc, but that was not the end game for me - and I suspect many others.

In my opinion the figures that people are getting are a disgrace. And now that the mantra of "it's cold weather - you wait and see once it warms up" can no longer apply, the only possible saving grace will be loosened up engines with greater mileages, but I cannot see that making anything like the necessary difference.
Click to expand...

Well it was right to say that we needed to wait till things had warmed up and engines were run in.

It certainly doesn't seem that the Twinair will be as economical as the 1.2, but I would be interested to see what someone who has owned a 1.2 and is using fuelly, could get out of a twinair. The fact that some people are getting high 40's and there are people with 1.2's like blitz who are getting 39 says that driving conditions, mileage and driving style will have an effect on MPG.
 
FloJo said:
This thread has been interesting to read! I'm going for the TA as I want the engine with some more oomph in it (I did think about the 1.4) - if I can get around 45mpg city driving then I'll be happy, but I will admit I'm still going to do a final test drive between the 1.2 and TA before I order.
Click to expand...

Your choice between a TA & a 1.2 is still correct - I would not recommend the current form non multi-air 1.4 new even though I own one. Despite the questionable economy on a TA for 'fun' driving if you looking for a bit of oomph then the TA IMHO is still the only choice in the standard 500.
 
Last edited:
306maxi said:
...but I would be interested to see what someone who has owned a 1.2 and is using fuelly, could get out of a twinair.
Click to expand...

I'd be tempted to try this but on reflection it would be utterly pointless - anyone who buys a TwinAir to drive the way I drive Maybelline needs therapy.

It would seem to me more sensible for a 1.4 driver to do this, as you are then comparing two cars of similar performance.
 
loveshandbags said:
Your choice between a TA & a 1.2 is still correct - I would not recommend the current form non multi-air 1.4 new even though I own one. Despite the questionable economy on a TA for 'fun' driving if you looking for a bit of oomph then the TA IMHO is still the only choice in the standard 500.
Click to expand...

I'd agree - the 1.2 is reliable, capable and very economical but in all honesty can't be described as having 'oomph'. The best way to work out what's right for you is to drive them both & then decide if the TwinAir is worth the extra purchase price & running costs. I'd also suggest you get insurance quotes for both cars before finally committing yourself - the TwinAir can cost significantly more for some drivers.
 
jrkitching said:
I'd be tempted to try this but on reflection it would be utterly pointless - anyone who buys a TwinAir to drive the way I drive Maybelline needs therapy.

It would seem to me more sensible for a 1.4 driver to do this, as you are then comparing two cars of similar performance.
Click to expand...

As a 1.4 driver that has difficulty in showing restraint I would not do too well in a TA - it will be on boost whenever the open road is shown to me. I have to leave the Sport button off on the 1.4 to slow down. On the test drives & the reviews that I have read - I reckon I would average 38mpg so that would better a 1.4 by 3mpg. I'm making presumptions here - I hope that's OK :eek:.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

force999
  • Question
Technical Alternator removal TwinAir
Replies
0
Views
76
force999
force999
GettinBetter
General Twinair Question
Replies
6
Views
564
GettinBetter
GettinBetter
sammy19
  • Question
Technical Twinair 2011 Engine Oil
Replies
7
Views
133
steveras57
S
A
General Fiat 500 twinair
Replies
19
Views
1K
d4zzl3r
D
M
Technical 2011 twinair
Replies
2
Views
836
milko
M
Back
Top