lsgraham_uk
New member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
- Messages
- 150
- Points
- 30
Not a chance, a basic abarth is within spitting distance of a 105ta cost wise and is so much better to drive.
Technical Why Twinair never really worked
- Thread starter 306maxi
- Start date
Currently reading:
Technical Why Twinair never really worked
Not a chance, a basic abarth is within spitting distance of a 105ta cost wise and is so much better to drive.
Well I respect his opinion as he’s always fairly balanced and likes small fiats himself. I presume he means in terms of overall enjoyment of ownership and every day drivability & character as opposed to actual performance
AGH1965
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 649
- Points
- 106
We thought that these would be WLTP figures of the 1.2, but now I doubt. There is a behind the figures and an explanation at the bottom:
FIAT on fiat.co.uk said:
Very confusing to use both and (B). However, (C) would mean real WLTP figures. Therefore I think that these are not.
Last edited:
:Offtopic:
Agreed, the 1.6 naturally aspirated Suzuki engine is very smooth and I believe economy is directly related to the use of 0w20 oil which manufacturers are now turning to. Problem is, 0w20 oil is very expensive compared to 5w30/40 etc. Average price of 0w20 oil appears to be around £12 + per litre
Castrol Professional is the recommended oil for the Vitara but just as with the TwinAir and the (imo) high cost of Selenia, you have to decide whether to stick with the manufacturer recommend lubricant, or substitute it for something cheaper if you can find it. At the moment, I can only find one other 0w20 oil which meets the correct specifications, but as i'll be sticking the car into a Suzuki dealership for service next year, it'll get whatever they use, and I'm assuming it will be Castrol Professional.I too found that our former 1.2 and TA 500's returned about the same in fuel economy but I cannot deny that hte TA sounded better....
I can 100% testify that fiat give little thought to how they nail an engine in to many cars, the 1.9 hgt multijet engine in my old mk2b punto required major surgery just to do pretty much anything. And my 1.6multijet engine in the evo was literally shoe horned in without any thought or design work, an elderly Italian chap with a tape measure did some loose measurements and recon’d it would fit so went for it.
I’m still not sure you’re actually making any sense. DPFs in current diesel cars, require longer runs at higher temps to burn off the particulate matter in the filter, and regeneration cycles that burn extra fuel to heat up the filter.
A GPF is going to work in much the same way, so anyone buying a nice little petrol car to run back and fort to the shops once a week a couple of miles down the road is going to result in clogged filters and excessive regeneration attempts to clear it.
Stop start has nothing to do with GPF or DPF filters and everything to do with saving a few pennies of fuel and reducing tail pipe emissions for the few seconds that you’re stopped at a traffic light.
OP
OP
I’ve never driven an Abarth, but I wasn’t massively impressed with the 105 TA i took for a test drive.
lsgraham_uk
New member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
- Messages
- 150
- Points
- 30
Overall cost - little difference - better second hand values
Drivability - abarth has proper suspension, a better first gear length, Rev range and an engine capable of speed or economy.
Character - the sound of the car. Nothing this side of an rs3 sounds better, the twin air can grate.
:Offtopic:
Agreed, the 1.6 naturally aspirated Suzuki engine is very smooth and I believe economy is directly related to the use of 0w20 oil which manufacturers are now turning to. Problem is, 0w20 oil is very expensive compared to 5w30/40 etc. Average price of 0w20 oil appears to be around £12 + per litre
Not seen the current generation of Suzuki engine but the old 1.5 used 0w20, as does my 1.6 Mazda which has an engine with roots back in the late 80s.
They tend to use sewing machine oil because they have short intervals (so degradation is not as much of a factor) and they have a timing chain..which tend to eat themselves with thick oil..as BMW and VW found out when the tried to use long life servicing with them.
Most Japanese stuff from the last 20 years will use low viscosity, fully synthetic oil as standard. Oil is significantly cheaper than a timing chain if you plan to keep the car long term.
Last edited:
AGH1965
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 649
- Points
- 106
You forget that exhaust gases of petrol engines are much hotter than those of diesel engines, especially at low loads. Therefore GPF regeneration is much easier than DPF regeneration. Furthermore you forget that a diesel engine constantly produces a serious amount of particulate matter, where a petrol engine only does at cold start. Therefore a GPF doesn't take long to regenerate because normally there isn't much to be burned.
Short trips are not the problem, the cold engine is. That is why the amount of time between short trips is important. If the time is short enough to keep the engine reasonably warm, like in a S&S situation but also when someone drives multiple short trips on the same day, then there is no challenge for the GPF at all.
TrevC
Established member
The very same thoughts occurred to me when I heard about the impending GPFs. Of course, only time will tell if they are less problematic than DPFs for short runs, but I am hopeful.
So much complication, so much to go wrong. Won't be such a problem mechanically in a few years when more cars have a much simpler electric drivetrain. Still plenty of electronics to fail though.
So much complication, so much to go wrong. Won't be such a problem mechanically in a few years when more cars have a much simpler electric drivetrain. Still plenty of electronics to fail though.
That’s all lovely...... doesn’t means they won’t cause problems in the future, DPFs where supposed to be problem free and looked how that turned out.
It’s yet another thing to go wrong in the small petrol engine which is now slapped with a turbo variable valve timing and all mannor of other gadgets to try and reduce emissions.
Makes petrol engines no less complex than any diesel.
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,669
- Points
- 797
I seem to think the major issues with DPF's are due with packaging, most are fitted too far away to actively regenerate properly with a post injection system alone.
If they are too far away from combustion they tend to suffer problems with active regeneration as they just can't get hot enough within a lot of our normal drive cycles to complete a full burn.
Particulate matter burns naturally at 550c, the larger combustible soot particles burn and produce much smaller incombustible ash particales that get trapped in the DPF, trouble is trying to raise a temp like this so remote from the engine with post injection expansion.
Post injection alone will only up the temp by 200-250c, so the system is reliant on a high and steady operational temp of the gases leaving the engine.
The trick, though it costs which is why some manufacturers didn't bother, is to lower the required temp in the DPF to cause the soot to burn.
By introducing a fuel borne catalyst, like Eolys or PAT to reduce the point soot burns to around 450c is much more workable over differing conditions.
This gives much more leeway in the exhaust gas temps and engine operational duration before active regeneration starts and more importantly completes, as it reduces the time needed (it's easier, quicker and more efficient to reach 450c than 550c) so it copes much better to actively regenerate in a wider spread of drive cycles.
Trouble is the costs, everyone whats to do 60 or 70 mpg everywhere they go, but the effects of this come at a cost.
Particulate treatment and NOx reduction not only cost to fit, but there's also certain running and maintenance costs that no one wants to pay for, this will likely kill off the diesel passenger car.
If they are too far away from combustion they tend to suffer problems with active regeneration as they just can't get hot enough within a lot of our normal drive cycles to complete a full burn.
Particulate matter burns naturally at 550c, the larger combustible soot particles burn and produce much smaller incombustible ash particales that get trapped in the DPF, trouble is trying to raise a temp like this so remote from the engine with post injection expansion.
Post injection alone will only up the temp by 200-250c, so the system is reliant on a high and steady operational temp of the gases leaving the engine.
The trick, though it costs which is why some manufacturers didn't bother, is to lower the required temp in the DPF to cause the soot to burn.
By introducing a fuel borne catalyst, like Eolys or PAT to reduce the point soot burns to around 450c is much more workable over differing conditions.
This gives much more leeway in the exhaust gas temps and engine operational duration before active regeneration starts and more importantly completes, as it reduces the time needed (it's easier, quicker and more efficient to reach 450c than 550c) so it copes much better to actively regenerate in a wider spread of drive cycles.
Trouble is the costs, everyone whats to do 60 or 70 mpg everywhere they go, but the effects of this come at a cost.
Particulate treatment and NOx reduction not only cost to fit, but there's also certain running and maintenance costs that no one wants to pay for, this will likely kill off the diesel passenger car.
I chopped my TA in for a Suzuki. I got the Ignis 1.2.
I did just short of 100k in my TA, never had an engine problem, thrashed it regularly and still averaged over 50mpg.
It was, however, serviced on schedule and the levels checked every week. This meant regular adjustments to tyre pressures to allow for the changing temperature.
My Ignis is averaging 62.7 mpg at the moment, goes down a bit with the winter tyres on.
D
I did just short of 100k in my TA, never had an engine problem, thrashed it regularly and still averaged over 50mpg.
It was, however, serviced on schedule and the levels checked every week. This meant regular adjustments to tyre pressures to allow for the changing temperature.
My Ignis is averaging 62.7 mpg at the moment, goes down a bit with the winter tyres on.
D
AGH1965
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 649
- Points
- 106
Right from the start FIAT must have realised that TA critics like 306maxi and AndyRKett would complain about the Euro 5 TA having low air/fuel ratios at high engine loads. Therefore FIAT implemented a very simple way to avoid these: the eco mode.
So stop complaining guys. The Euro 5 TA was already a great little engine and the Euro 6 is even greater!
So stop complaining guys. The Euro 5 TA was already a great little engine and the Euro 6 is even greater!
Love your enthusiasm, but you don’t make any sense.
This is literally a whole thread about the pitfalls of small turbo petrol engines and how they don’t and can’t achieve the claimed MPG figures in real world use, you’ve even proved this yourself with data you posted yourself, expanding on your data to include all TA engined cars up till 2018 and there was no discernible improvement in fuel economy.... fiat are claiming 50% better economy than is achieved in the real world, this point has now been proven to death, I’m not sure what else of value you can add to this to make the situation seem any better.
So if you want a small engined turbo, petrol car that achieves its claimed MPG figures buy a large engined turbo diesel, like a nice BMW 3-Series.
Alternatively looking above other people have posted very good results from other car brands, people who have ditched their TA engined fiat 500s and you’ve even clicked like on their posts.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,579
- Points
- 828
a nice BMW 3-Series.
Such a car exists, lol? [emoji6]
If such a thing did exist it would totally be on the shopping list of someone who was also looking at a Fiat 500...with them being similarly sized and priced. I'm surprised anyone can tell the difference to be honest.
OP
OP
The day I bought my 3 series estate I also went and test drove a 105 twinair 500, yes, really!
Just because it doesent achieve the claimed mpg, and small turbos generally don’t apparently, does not mean the TA is not a good engine. It’s pretty damm economical in the grand scheme of things and also a hoot to drive which is good enough for me, if I’d wanted an uber economical car I would have bought something else. Would I prefer the 1.2 500? Good as it is, definitely not. I also don’t buy the ‘catastrophic failure’ crap either, if the Uniair fails I’ll have it replaced and put it down to an unfortunate failure which besets most cars at some stage. I guess you’d actually have to own a TA long term to decide whether it ‘works’ or not, for me it certainly does. Not achieving claimed mpg of 69 or whatever it was is slightly academic.
Last edited:
I share very much the same sentiment with the above comment. I recently bought a used 7-seater 500L MPW with TA engine (a rare species) and so far I'm really impressed with it (early days, though). I'd like to share some of my thoughts.
I've always been on the lookout for an 'ideal' family car, mostly in terms of reliability and fuel economy. Previously we've had 1.8L Mazda 5 (tons of space but dismal 28-30 mpg mixed) and 1.4L Vauxhall Meriva (the newer model non-turbo version, nice car but woefully under powered and disappointing 35-37 mpg). All petrol engines due to our driving profile and with my technical background, I've never bought into notion that diesels are better environmentally (and feel vindicated when it was proven quite the opposite). But let's not turn this into petrol vs diesel issues.
I watched the vid the OP posted on why small turbo petrol engines are inefficient but I feel that was too generalised and theoretical. The previous post which I partly quoted addressed this point quite nicely. I feel the only 'sin' that Fiat had made is to claim a far too high MPG for TA, and this has developed to become (what I feel) is the main criticism of TA, i.e. miss the MPG mark by a long shot. I don't think power is an issue, if you think it is, you haven't driven a TA.
Talking about real life MPG, so far I've managed to get around 42 mpg with the car, mixed use. I have yet to find a petrol family car (let alone a 7-seater) which is more fuel efficient than this (I'd be really interested to hear otherwise). Sure there's some quirkiness about TA, but they're mostly positives (at least for me). In conclusion, I think TA is a great engine for those looking for efficient petrol engines.
