306maxi said:

Just to build on what you said, the twinair was sold as an eco engine, it isn’t an eco engine.

Click to expand...

I agree mostly, though there was the ad campaign with Fernando Alonso promoting the TwinAir version (with the indigo shade paint?).

So it wasn't always advertised as an eco warrior's best friend, there was a fun element to it. But certainly agree there was a lot of emphasis on zero tax, MPG etc.

Arguably you could say Alonso is maybe the F1 MPG king these days, seeing as he rarely has the chance to set the pace

AndyRKett said:

If you follow the link I left you can do your own research

Click to expand...

Why should I do research? It is absolutely clear to me that advertised mpg are unrealistic. Already many years every car brochure (in my country) contains a disclaimer saying that the advertised mpg might not be representative for what you will reach. If you ignore such messages and still want to believe that advertised mpg are realistic, then you are nuts. So why bother about a discrepancy between advertised mpg and real mpg? Advertised mpg is just some number that influences taxes. The higher this number, the better, regardles if it's realistic or not.

AGH1965 said:

If you ignore such messages and still want to believe that advertised mpg are realistic, then you are nuts. So why bother about a discrepancy between advertised mpg and real mpg? Advertised mpg is just some number that influences taxes. The higher this number, the better, regardles if it's realistic or not.

Click to expand...

As usual, totally missed the point MPG figures are supposed to be representative, that’s not to say you’ll get exactly that figure no matter where you live but you could expect results in the region of.

People will buy their car on the basis that the car is economical or more environmentally friendly than another car, the cost of running the car goes down with the increase in MPG figures, so the MPG figure is not a measure of the the tax band for the car, it certainly isn’t in the UK where until recently the CO2 per KM was used to decide on the tax band, the MPG figures tell a customer the likely running cost of the car.

If there is a small difference 10% or so then that’s one thing but when there is a 30+% difference then it’s a clear case of misrepresentation.

This whole thread is about exactly that, small turbo engines are made to get the best possible result when put through standardised testing tuned specifically for that test, but in the real world the average customer couldn’t even dream of getting MPG figures anywhere near what is quoted.
This is the whole point in this discussion, which you don’t seem to understand.

This is why I suggested you do your own research into real world testing (as you believed this data was all made up) then once you’ve educated yourself a bit then you could have someone worthwhile to say.

If however you’re happy with your car and only want to believe what you can immediately see around you, not interested in science or data gathered by scientific method or listening to other people’s findings or experience, then I have the perfect club for you —-> https://www.tfes.org

AndyRKett said:

MPG figures are supposed to be representative

Click to expand...

That is just your opinion, but you are not the only one who thinks that way. Therefore legislation has been changed. Next month we'll see the WLTP results of all cars. These are supposed to be more representative than the NEDC results we are discussing about right now.

AndyRKett said:

so the MPG figure is not a measure of the the tax band for the car, it certainly isn’t in the UK where until recently the CO2 per KM was used to decide on the tax band

Click to expand...

The mpg figure is a direct result of the CO2 emission in g/km. (If you multiply the combined cycle mpg figure with the CO2 emission in g/km, then you will get the same result for all cars with petrol engines.) So if the CO2 emission is used for determination of taxes, then the mpg figure is indirectly used as well.

AGH1965 said:

Why should I do research? It is absolutely clear to me that advertised mpg are unrealistic. Already many years every car brochure (in my country) contains a disclaimer saying that the advertised mpg might not be representative for what you will reach. If you ignore such messages and still want to believe that advertised mpg are realistic, then you are nuts. So why bother about a discrepancy between advertised mpg and real mpg? Advertised mpg is just some number that influences taxes. The higher this number, the better, regardles if it's realistic or not.

Click to expand...

Why should they not represent real life though? VW do about 10% better in their car in he same class. That’s a massive difference...

AGH1965 said:

That is just your opinion, but you are not the only one who thinks that way. Therefore legislation has been changed. Next month we'll see the WLTP results of all cars. These are supposed to be more representative than the NEDC results we are discussing about right now.

The mpg figure is a direct result of the CO2 emission in g/km. (If you multiply the combined cycle mpg figure with the CO2 emission in g/km, then you will get the same result for all cars with petrol engines.) So if the CO2 emission is used for determination of taxes, then the mpg figure is indirectly used as well.

Click to expand...

So let’s get this straight, you prefer cars which would appear to have had their emissions fiddled to look good on paper so you save a relatively small amount on road tax, but then be stung for a large amount for extra fuel. You would appear to be the only customer who is happy about emissions fiddling.

306maxi said:

So let’s get this straight, you prefer cars which would appear to have had their emissions fiddled to look good on paper so you save a relatively small amount on road tax, but then be stung for a large amount for extra fuel.

Click to expand...

OK, maybe this is different in the UK, but in my country we have to pay thousands of euros CO2 tax when we buy a new car. Therefore CO2 emissions don't have to be realistic, they have to be low!

306maxi said:

Why should they not represent real life though? VW do about 10% better in their car in he same class. That’s a massive difference...

Click to expand...

1) I didn't say that they don't represent real life. I only asked where the data comes from. Maybe it's possible to find on that website, but I couldn't find any raw data. For example how many cars (and drivers) determine the 45.8 mpg of the Up 1.0 115 listed here? If the number is small, then I find the published average hardly interesting. You need a large population for representative averages. Any scientific website would not only publish averages, but also standard deviations. Averages alone don't say much.

2) That VW has less difference between official mpg and real mpg can also mean that VW puts less effort in getting the CO2 emission as low as possible than FIAT. That would be an explanation for VWs being rather expensive in my country. High CO2 emissions, which means low official mpg, means high price due to CO2 tax in my country. However, low official mpg are easier to be realised in reality. You may find that an advantage, but I find it a disadvantage if it makes the car thousands of euros more expensive.

Conclusion: I'm very pleased that FIAT put maximum effort in realising the lowest possible CO2 emissions even when these are not representative. This approach results in unrealistically high official mpg, but saves customers in my country lots of money when buying the car.

306maxi said:

Why should they not represent real life though? VW do about 10% better in their car in he same class. That’s a massive difference...

Click to expand...

We own a car with the 60bhp 3 cylinder VW engine and one with the Twin Air. I can assure you there's little to choose between the two in economy but the Twin Air blows the 60 into the weeds when it comes to performance. As for the turbocharged version on the VW there seems little to choose between them on that table you've displayed. We get around 53mpg on the Panda Twin Air and 56mpg on the Skoda. I haven't tried the 85 bhp turbocharged version but I doubt, looking at your table, we would achieve the same economy as the 60 bhp version. In real world terms 10% really isn't a huge difference - unless you're doing a really big mileage per annum.

'Why should they not represent real life though? VW do about 10% better in their car in he same class. That’s a massive difference...'


Except in the new tests where for example the up gti goes from >110.to 127gm

lsgraham_uk said:

'Why should they not represent real life though? VW do about 10% better in their car in he same class. That’s a massive difference...'


Except in the new tests where for example the up gti goes from >110.to 127gm

Click to expand...

And what happens to the Fiat’s?

To quote one without the other is comparing apples to errrr nothing?

AGH1965 said:

That is just your opinion, but you are not the only one who thinks that way. Therefore legislation has been changed. Next month we'll see the WLTP results of all cars. These are supposed to be more representative than the NEDC results we are discussing about right now.

Click to expand...

I literally have no idea what you’re actually talking about.

It is not ‘my opinion’ that the tests are supposed to be representative, there would be absolutely no point in doing the tests if it wasn’t to get an idea of what the likely fuel economy of the car would be even if the goal is to decide on tax banding, the need an idea of the likely figures on the car. It seems somewhere up above I pointed out that your opinion about something is not a fact or data and you seem to be trying to turn that around on me, and in the process you’re not making any logical sense.

There was some data, the data comes from some sort of scientific process, but your opinion was the data wasn’t right, but with little understanding of how the data was gathered, I suggested you go and do your own research if you wanted to know how real world mpg figures are gathered a 1. I could not be bother to explain it, to (2) someone who clearly wouldn’t listen as you’re sticking to your opinion and no amount of reasoned argument would change that.

So just to make it absolutely clear. The whole point in mpg and Co2 figures is to get a general idea of the expected figures that you would get, it is not my opinion that is literally their only purpose.

You might be super happy that fiat fiddled the tests so you didn’t have to pay as much in tax when the car was brand new, however for many people this isn’t a consideration because most people don’t buy new cars. You might not car that the fuel cost is a lot higher than it should have been as per the quoted figures, but for a lot of people the cost of buying the car and paying the initial tax gets swallowed up in their monthly PCP payments, were as having to pay £100 a month in fuel when they only budgeted for £60 a month is a big difference and could very easily make the difference between someone can afford the car or not.

If someone buys a TA sold to them as the more efficient car, but their budget can’t stretch to the unanticipated fuel costs, suddenly they can’t afford to service it or pay for repairs, the 1.2 can probably tolerate longer service intervals without too much bother, as it’s a very simple and robust engine, the TA on the other hand does not like being neglected and could well fail prematurely as a result. Not because the owner was tight or absent minded, but because Fiat promised something that simply wasn’t achievable.

VW are the last of the big manufacturers not ready for new tests reportedly.

https://www.abarthcars.co.uk/certification-wltp

Is actually quite a good read

306maxi said:

And what happens to the Fiat’s?

To quote one without the other is comparing apples to errrr nothing?

Click to expand...

Blanket statement mode on, don't worry just add on %10 apparently....

I loved our TwinAir, but Fiat missed a trick with the marketing. Yes it had low CO2 in the tests and that probably got them a fair few sales from people wishing to avoid the Congestion Charge in London. However they might've not got so much bad press about it if they'd not made such a lot of noise about the MPG.

We got late 40's to early 50's MPG out of our 500 TwinAir (85bhp) over 30-35k miles, which given the turn of pace vs the 1.2 8v is perfectly acceptable in my book. The trouble is Fiat claimed it'd do 67.3mpg. We all know (or we should) that modern engines rarely reach their claimed MPG, but the TwinAir fell particularly short. If Fiat had made more of the other benefits vs the cheaper 1.2 (pace, character etc) instead of focussing so much on MPG & CO2, it might've sold more, long-term. Granted they mentioned 'fun' but I remember the 'lowest CO2 petrol car engine, in the World' being the original TV advert wording. Of course that'd be based on the official mpg being met, which it wasn't by the majority of owners. The bad press that followed would only serve to harm sales and push people towards another car, or the cheaper 1.2 if they had to have a 500.

We don't know that it's stopped being offered, but given the new 1.0 engine's are coming online in the facelifted Jeep Renegade, and a facelifted 500X is coming, I could see why Fiat might offer the 1.0 in the regular 500 too. The 1.2 8v is pretty miserable compared to what it was. They still seem the engine of choice in the new 500's i've seen, but I'd not buy one over a TwinAir now, they feel strangled.

AGH1965 said:

That is just your opinion, but you are not the only one who thinks that way. Therefore legislation has been changed. Next month we'll see the WLTP results of all cars. These are supposed to be more representative than the NEDC results we are discussing about right now.

Click to expand...

AndyRKett said:

I literally have no idea what you’re actually talking about.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe you should do some research then, because the way how CO2 emissions and official mpg figures have to be determined is described in European legislation. FIAT can't ignore that. FIAT has to obey the European laws.

AndyRKett said:

It is not ‘my opinion’ that the tests are supposed to be representative, there would be absolutely no point in doing the tests if it wasn’t to get an idea of what the likely fuel economy of the car would be even if the goal is to decide on tax banding, the need an idea of the likely figures on the car.

Click to expand...

The official mpg figures published up to now are not representative because legislation demanded that. If you want to blame someone, then don't blame FIAT, but blame the politicians in Brussels. FIAT was just obeying the law.

I just downloaded a British FIAT 500 brochure and it contains a similar disclaimer as the brochures in my country:

Fuel Consumption and CO2 emissions figures are based on standard EU tests for comparative purposes and may not reflect real driving results.

Click to expand...

This way FIAT UK politely apologises for unrealistic official mpg figures that are the result of ridiculous legislation.

However, legislation has been changed. Next month FIAT may no longer use these old CO2 and mpg values, but has to publish values that were determined by means of the new WLTP cycle. For sure this means higher CO2 emissions and lower official mpg figures. That means that these will be more representative. I guess that will make you happy.

AGH1965 said:

Well, maybe you should do some research then, because the way how CO2 emissions and official mpg figures have to be determined is described in European legislation. FIAT can't ignore that. FIAT has to obey the European laws.



The official mpg figures published up to now are not representative because legislation demanded that. If you want to blame someone, then don't blame FIAT, but blame the politicians in Brussels. FIAT was just obeying the law.

I just downloaded a British FIAT 500 brochure and it contains a similar disclaimer as the brochures in my country:



This way FIAT UK politely apologises for unrealistic official mpg figures that are the result of ridiculous legislation.

However, legislation has been changed. Next month FIAT may no longer use these old CO2 and mpg values, but has to publish values that were determined by means of the new WLTP cycle. For sure this means higher CO2 emissions and lower official mpg figures. That means that these will be more representative. I guess that will make you happy.

Click to expand...

You’re missing the point though, others are able to make cars which are more economical in real life whilst still appearing economical under the NEDC tests...

AGH1965 said:

Well, maybe you should do some research then, because the way how CO2 emissions and official mpg figures have to be determined is described in European legislation. FIAT can't ignore that. FIAT has to obey the European laws.

Click to expand...

You have completely missed the point of this thread.

The point is and the whole discussion IS that fiat are catering to the legal requirements, but in doing so are ripping off their own customers to do so. Which from what you’ve said previously, you’re ok with.

Please go back to the beginning of the thread and start again.

FIAT optimised the TA more extremely for the NEDC than others. There is nothing wrong with that. Most customers don't care about real fuel economy at all.

However, I think that if the WLTP would have been introduced 10 years earlier, then there wouldn't have been a TA. In my opinion the TA is the result of ridiculous legislation. As if FIAT thought: "If you want me to play a foolish game, then I play it to the max."