Save up to 15% with Adrian Flux insurance!

Technical Why Twinair never really worked

Currently reading:
Technical Why Twinair never really worked

306maxi said:
My point is that the whole point of these tests is to give customers more economical cars, the further you are out from your test results the worse of a job you’re doing for your customers.
Click to expand...
I get that, but what if a car manufacturer would make a car that performs lousy in the official test but very well in reality? (I know that is what you prefer.) No car manufacterer isn't allowed to publish any other figures than the useless ones from the official test. How is the car manufacturer going to convince potential buyers that this car is really good in reality, even though the official figures suggest the opposite? That is close to impossible. That would make developing such a car a true gamble. Most car manufacturers don't like to gamble, or even can't afford to.
 
When/if the Panda TA 4x4 tested I'd like to think they'd get the 27.7 mpg urban mpg figure and 48.5 mpg extra urban figures I've had. Which gives a combined figure of 38.1mpg. They'll claim way better of course. And I don't believe the claimed 114g/km of C02.

Guess just a matter of waiting for the results. But a new one with rfl cost of £200 really wouldn't surprise me. But if I wanted a new Fiat badly enough I'd still buy one.
 
Goudrons said:
Maybe it should be compared to a contemporary of similar configuration, if anyone knows of one?

About the closest I can think of is the three pot 900cc Renault engine or the Ford 1.0 Unecoboost.
Without looking I would hazard a guess they are no more reliable than the TA, cheekily I was put my last fiver on both being a lot worse and I probably wouldn't be alone.
Click to expand...

Quote snipped as mahoosive.

The PSA puretech is very similar in goal and output. Comes in 3 power outputs, 67bhp, 82bhp and 108bhp.

We have the 108bhp and it easily does 45-55 mpg in a C3 which is larger and heavier. Also only the 108 has a turbo as the base engine is sensibly sized at 1.2 litres so the 82bhp has less to go wrong than 85bhp TA.

The small size of TA works against it in a few ways, it needs to be heavily boosted to achieve reasonable performance so unless you like to go slowly everywhere you must use the turbo with the associated reduction in economy. The larger puretech can move the car without boosting heavily, or at all given it is available without a turbo. Second the twin air lacks torque due to its pint sized cylinders, so needs short gears which mean you spend more time boosting and knackering your economy. The 108bhp puretech has the best part of 50lb/ft of torque on the 103bhp TA and so can pull huge gears for a small city car (2700 rpm @ 70mph).

Obviously it still doesn't get the claimed figures..but it happy outperforms the 1.6 engine it replaced by a margin of about 10-15%.

Basically they'd have been better off going for a less "novelty" layout and having a 1.3 triple with the same tech applied.
 
Our TA has always achieved better than 50mpg - the best we managed was 58mpg - but that was mostly motorway. But it's 2WD unlike the majority on here. I disagree that it's lacking torque - if you use the gearbox correctly you can make decent progress without a lot of boost. But it's taken me at least 12 months to learn how to drive it properly.
 
StevenRB45 said:
Quote snipped as mahoosive.

The PSA puretech is very similar in goal and output. Comes in 3 power outputs, 67bhp, 82bhp and 108bhp.

We have the 108bhp and it easily does 45-55 mpg in a C3 which is larger and heavier. Also only the 108 has a turbo as the base engine is sensibly sized at 1.2 litres so the 82bhp has less to go wrong than 85bhp TA.

The small size of TA works against it in a few ways, it needs to be heavily boosted to achieve reasonable performance so unless you like to go slowly everywhere you must use the turbo with the associated reduction in economy. The larger puretech can move the car without boosting heavily, or at all given it is available without a turbo. Second the twin air lacks torque due to its pint sized cylinders, so needs short gears which mean you spend more time boosting and knackering your economy. The 108bhp puretech has the best part of 50lb/ft of torque on the 103bhp TA and so can pull huge gears for a small city car (2700 rpm @ 70mph).

Obviously it still doesn't get the claimed figures..but it happy outperforms the 1.6 engine it replaced by a margin of about 10-15%.

Basically they'd have been better off going for a less "novelty" layout and having a 1.3 triple with the same tech applied.
Click to expand...


I was thinking more of the Renault 0.9 tce.
That's around 90hp with a turbo and 135 Nm of torque.


A Twingo isn't far of the size of a 500 and that seems to achieve 75% of official mpg, same again when it's in the Sandero.


I think it compares similarly with the TA.
 
Last edited:
OK, interesting...

https://www.fiat.co.uk/Configurator/fiat-500-range/#/version

Seeing as you can't configure a 500 TA at the moment, I thought I'd have a look at the configurator.

The 1.2 is currently advertised as 124g/km emissions and 53.3 mpg on a combined cycle. That's worse than a pre-S/S model like my old 59 plate (which was 119g/km and 55.3mpg).

Also, that's a big drop from last year's 1.2s, I don't have anything more official than the figures on AutoTrader, but they are widely for sale advertised as 110g/km emissions and 60.1mpg on a combined cycle.

The 1.2 has always been pretty damn good at getting close to the claimed combined figures, but if the new tests are that strict then I can't help but think the TA is going to end up with some pretty embarrassing figures? Or am I being overly pessimistic?
 
Super Uwe said:
OK, interesting...

https://www.fiat.co.uk/Configurator/fiat-500-range/#/version

Seeing as you can't configure a 500 TA at the moment, I thought I'd have a look at the configurator.

The 1.2 is currently advertised as 124g/km emissions and 53.3 mpg on a combined cycle. That's worse than a pre-S/S model like my old 59 plate (which was 119g/km and 55.3mpg).

Also, that's a big drop from last year's 1.2s, I don't have anything more official than the figures on AutoTrader, but they are widely for sale advertised as 110g/km emissions and 60.1mpg on a combined cycle.

The 1.2 has always been pretty damn good at getting close to the claimed combined figures, but if the new tests are that strict then I can't help but think the TA is going to end up with some pretty embarrassing figures? Or am I being overly pessimistic?
Click to expand...


Well the test will be run on 14" wheels, no aircon or extras and not in sport mode. It all depends largely on the rate of accelleration (the drawback of the previous tests).
 
Goudrons said:
I was thinking more of the Renault 0.9 tce.
That's around 90hp with a turbo and 135 Nm of torque.


A Twingo isn't far of the size of a 500 and that seems to achieve 75% of official mpg, same again when it's in the Sandero.


I think it compares similarly with the TA.
Click to expand...

I had a Renault Clio 0.9 tce previously, and it was like driving a milk float. The TA (105) has masses more power, available almost immediately, in comparison. Plus The 0.9 tce also drank loads more fuel sitting at 70moh on a 3hr motorway trip from London to Shropshire than the TA does, by far.
 
Super Uwe said:
The 1.2 is currently advertised as 124g/km emissions and 53.3 mpg on a combined cycle.
Click to expand...
It seems FIAT is busy putting the figures from the new test in the configurator. The POP and S have 124 g/km, but the Lounge has 116 g/km. I expected the POP to have the lowest value. However, in the German configurator I see something similar. There the POP and Lounge have 124 g/km and 116 g/km as well, but the S has 129 g/km. In the German configurator the TA85 is present too. In the Lounge it has 108 g/km and in the S it has 109 g/km.

lsgraham_uk said:
Well the test will be run on 14" wheels, no aircon or extras and not in sport mode.
Click to expand...
That will be different with the new test, which results in each trim level having its own CO2 and mpg values.
 
I think the new test involves testing with things like the air con on.
I guess that and the wheel sizes will alter the results slightly between trim levels.


The Pop in the UK has no air, but I think it might in other markets, the ones I hire in Greece all seem to be Pops with air.
 
Considering all car makers aiming for average C02 of 130, is it blind luck that the 500 has just crept under this. Didn't think it would, at all.
 
AGH1965 said:
It seems FIAT is busy putting the figures from the new test in the configurator. The POP and S have 124 g/km, but the Lounge has 116 g/km. I expected the POP to have the lowest value. However, in the German configurator I see something similar. There the POP and Lounge have 124 g/km and 116 g/km as well, but the S has 129 g/km. In the German configurator the TA85 is present too. In the Lounge it has 108 g/km and in the S it has 109 g/km.

That will be different with the new test, which results in each trim level having its own CO2 and mpg values.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. So just looked at the other trim levels on the UK site, the figures are as follows:

1.2 Pop - 124g/km, 53.3mpg combined
1.2 Lounge - 116 g/km, 55.4mpg combined
1.2 Collezione - 122g/km, 53.3mpg combined
1.2 S - 124g/km, 53.3mpg combined

In real world driving, the Lounge isn't going to be any better than the other three, is it?:eek:
 
The French configurator shows the following:

FIAT 500 with 1.2 69 hp:
POP = 123 g/km
POPSTAR = 115 g/km
LOUNGE = 115 g/km
CLUB = 122 g/km
S = 123 g/km
S PLUS = 123 g/km
COLLEZIONE = 122 g/km

FIAT 500 with TA 85 hp S&S:
POP = n/a
POPSTAR = n/a
LOUNGE = 108 g/km
CLUB = 108 g/km
S = 108 g/km
S PLUS = 108 g/km
COLLEZIONE = 109 g/km

Explicitly mentioning S&S for the TA suggests that the 1.2 doesn't have S&S. :confused:
 
Last edited:
AGH1965 said:
The French configurator shows the following:

FIAT 500 with 1.2 69 hp:
POP = 123 g/km
POPSTAR = 115 g/km
LOUNGE = 115 g/km
CLUB = 122 g/km
S = 123 g/km
S PLUS = 123 g/km
COLLEZIONE = 122 g/km

FIAT 500 with TA 85 hp S&S:
POP = n/a
POPSTAR = n/a
LOUNGE = 108 g/km
CLUB = 108 g/km
S = 108 g/km
S PLUS = 108 g/km
COLLEZIONE = 109 g/km

Explicitly mentioning S&S for the TA suggests that the 1.2 doesn't have S&S. :confused:
Click to expand...


And good riddance, too easily confused to be useful.
 
lsgraham_uk said:
And good riddance, too easily confused to be useful.
Click to expand...

S&S works perfectly fine? Have driven 500s with it, Puntos, a Jeep and my BMW has it to. All works fine as long as you know how it works. In my BMW I purposely move the gear level almost into 1st gear, but not in 1st gear so I can roll down hills in traffic at low speed and not have the engine cut in.
 
I suspect the one thing that could have been done better is the way it’s integrated on the 500. On my 3 series if it doesn’t work you get s little icon with a slash through it and the car doesn’t stop the engine, in the 500 it seems to alarm people a lot more.
 
306maxi said:
S&S works perfectly fine? Have driven 500s with it, Puntos, a Jeep and my BMW has it to. All works fine as long as you know how it works. In my BMW I purposely move the gear level almost into 1st gear, but not in 1st gear so I can roll down hills in traffic at low speed and not have the engine cut in.
Click to expand...

I've driven a multitude of cars from Mercedes, VW, Mini and so on, it has to be said the SS system in fiats has to be the worst, far too temperamental and twitchy.

But you don't even have to turn it off if its a problem, pull up to the lights, clutch down and sit ready in gear, having tried to measure the time the stop-start on my punto will work for before cutting back in, I've found more often than not I'm not stationary for more than 10 seconds the majority of the time even if its to crawl forward a couple of car lengths.

The Stop-start in my punto is very temperamental, if its been raining for example and you've had the wipers on, you might only get 7 seconds before it restarts the car, on another occasion, I get two and a half minutes. On the other hand, every mini we've had, ever VW I've been loaned and a dozen other brands, it just works and does its job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

force999
  • Question
Technical Alternator removal TwinAir
Replies
0
Views
91
force999
force999
GettinBetter
General Twinair Question
Replies
6
Views
569
GettinBetter
GettinBetter
D
Technical Work carried out so far on my twinair
Replies
1
Views
281
John202020
John202020
sammy19
  • Question
Technical Twinair 2011 Engine Oil
Replies
7
Views
165
steveras57
S
A
General Fiat 500 twinair
Replies
19
Views
1K
d4zzl3r
D
Back
Top