OP
OP
What? Most customers DO care about fuel economy because it costs them money. I think you need to step out of your dream world and get into the real world...
Technical Why Twinair never really worked
- Thread starter 306maxi
- Start date
Currently reading:
Technical Why Twinair never really worked
AGH1965
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 649
- Points
- 106
Yes, fuel costs money, but most people don't drive a lot. A 10 percent difference in fuel econoly makes a difference of only a few euros each month. That is neglectible.
Besides, most people can easily save more than 10 percent by (slightly) modifying their driving style. If these few euros a month would be that important for them, then they would surely do so.
Besides, most people can easily save more than 10 percent by (slightly) modifying their driving style. If these few euros a month would be that important for them, then they would surely do so.
OP
OP
Quite frankly you’re talking crap. The average person in the U.K. drives 12k miles a year, so a 10% deficit in economy so it does make a difference.
lsgraham_uk
New member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
- Messages
- 150
- Points
- 30
And yet you are holding vw upto a magical 10% better than everyone else. I would be more concerned personally with a company having to detune their engines to improve economy and emissions. But I am lucky in only have to do around 5k miles per year.( I also think annual mileage average is 8k)
https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...9-vehicle-mileage-and-occupancy#table-nts0901
Last edited:
OP
OP
Maybe I got that slightly wrong
There’s nothing wrong with detuning for efficiency. My 320d has 22bhp and 20Nm less than the standard one, but it gives a massive improvement in fuel economy for a barely noticeable change in acceleration (7.7 vs 7.3s to 60mph).
lsgraham_uk
New member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
- Messages
- 150
- Points
- 30
Maybe I got that slightly wrong
There’s nothing wrong with detuning for efficiency. My 320d has 22bhp and 20Nm less than the standard one, but it gives a massive improvement in fuel economy for a barely noticeable change in acceleration (7.7 vs 7.3s to 60mph).
If their is one company who seem to make magical engines it is definitely BMW. I could never get on with the floor hinged accelerator though.
My main issue with Vw is that they cheated and yet only America got compensation automatically. I would still be annoyed if I was buying a gti (or cupra r) and they started to reduce the power.
OP
OP
Personally I don’t see why anyone deserves any compensation?
My BMW is greener than most 500s purely on fuel, but I’d be lying through my teeth if I said I’d done it for the environment. If I really wanted to be environmentally friendly I’d have bought a BEV. Anyone driving an ICE vehicle and claiming to be environmentally friendly needs a slap across the face.
I bought my BMW because I’m cheap, I started my new job driving my Subaru and it was doing less than 20mpg, the BMW does an average over work and local miles of 68mpg indicated, with my yearly fuel bill for the BMW being about 3,000 the Subaru would have been costing ~10 just to fuel it, not taking into consideration services twice as often and it just generally costing more to run.
One thing I’m not considering is the environment...
lsgraham_uk
New member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
- Messages
- 150
- Points
- 30
Drop in resale values, dishonesty and for too many stupid names!
It was more the fact that people who bought the same product were treated differently depending on market location. Either give no compensation or to everyone seems fairer.
I am lucky in that my fuel costs have dropped since I first started driving - mostly due to reduced mileage - so I don't really care about fuel consumption. I would say though that my first car a 1.1 fiesta lx mk3 gave me comparable fuel economy to my current abarth - that is decent progress.
AGH1965
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 649
- Points
- 106
The average TA will probably not even make 5k miles a year.
But there's wasn't really any drop in value only in America
And I still stand bythe fact that if it was a us auto maker they wouldn't have attend an eyelid
Looking on eBay here in the Uk using the search term fiat 500 twin air, only 2015 cars (can’t be arsed to sort through 8 years woth of cars) and sorting by mileage, there are 28 cars, and 20 of them had done more than 15,000 miles in 3 years
The average mileage for the 28 cars 7361 miles per year across the 28 cars.
The lowest mileage was 7k on a 3 year old car and the highest was 39k miles.
So, although it’s a small sample, the average ta does do more than 5k per year..
Ironically your guess is about as far out as fiats data on the mpg and CO2 figures of the twinair.
lsgraham_uk
New member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
- Messages
- 150
- Points
- 30
The average for a petrol car is 6500 miles according to 2017 stats
AGH1965
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 649
- Points
- 106
FIAT's data on the mpg and CO2 figures of the TA isn't wrong. The procedure how these figures have to be determined is/was wrong, but that is legislation. Unfortunately you prefer bashing FIAT above blaming lousy politicians.
Why you looked at 2015 cars only? Private owners tend to have their car longer than 3 years before selling. Company cars may make more milage, but the people who drive these don't care about fuel economy at all, since the company they work for pays all fuel.
Besides, my 5k was only a reponse on the 12k estimation of 306maxi. My 5k guess was closer. So why don't you respond on the way off 12k of 306maxi then?
OP
OP
If it’s the test’s fault, why is it that VW (just for one) are able to do 10% better in the real world then Fiat?
lsgraham_uk
New member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
- Messages
- 150
- Points
- 30
Because Italian cars ask to be driven 10% faster whereas a german car insists you stay at the speed limit.
OP
OP
We’d be happier if the actual figures were closer to the published figures...
Has to be one of the stupidest questions, would I rather that fiat published a more realistic mpg figure? Errrrr let’s put a different spin on it.
I go to the petrol station and I pay # 1.50 for a litre of petrol. Actually what I get is only 700ml of petrol, and therefore I can only do 70% of the distance I thought I would on that “litre” of petrol.
What you’re asking is, would I rather the garage told me that I was only getting 700ml of fuel, although the,pm telling me wouldn’t actually change what I got.... errrr of course I bloody would, because if I was only going to get 70% of what was advertised I’d be furious, and armed with all the information I would go somewhere else, buy a different litre of fuel, or in the case of the twinair, go and buy a different car.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 2,669
- Points
- 797
This isn't an uncommon occurrence.
I've lost track of the all the news regarding companies "dodging" tax, when all they are doing is what's totally legal and legit, it's just the legislation is wrong but everyone jumps up and down and the media make us believe it's the fault of these companies involved. They do what they are allowed to do.
Manufacturers will design, make and supply products under whatever legislation is current, they get the rule book and follow it (mostly), they don't write it.
As far as the manufacturers are all concerned, they didn't vote these legislators in, we did, they were as much stuck with it as we are, the proof of this is in the disclaimers they all put in their brochures against these test figures.
If there's anyone really to blame, it's these legislators we voted in (in essence, us), as it is these not the manufacturers that didn't give a f*ck about consumers, it wasn't a manufacturers devised test that may have mislead some of us either.
To add insult to the injury and to further prove these legislators don't give a toss for the consumer, the consumers will now have to pay for the legislators mistakes.
Manufacturers will pass their costs on to us and the legislators will spend more of our taxes devising and implementing more tests.
To debate how mislead some consumers were or how much each vehicle failed to meet the results misses the point completely, they all achieved what they did in the tests (most we believe did it fairly) and all the choices were tested under the same conditions, no manufacturer was offering anything tested differently.
If were were lied to, does it really matter by how much?
The only choice we have is who is making these useless rules and is wasting our money.
Last edited:
OP
OP
So what you’re saying is that VW wasn’t to blame for dieselgate, it was people legislating?
