Hi, newbie to the forum here!
I've had my 2016 Fiat 500 lounge for about 6 weeks now and I'm not convinced I'm getting the mpg I should.
I'm not overly heavy on the acceleration and today I did a 100 mile motorway journey, stuck to a steady 70mph and only got 50mpg. The car only has less than 12k on the clock so low miles on the engine.
Does this sound right?
I also noticed I was steaming up easily inside the car. Heater on full blast and still had to open the window to clear it? Any tips would be great.
TIA x

50mpg at a steady 70 doesn't sound too bad and dropping just a few mph can help consumption. Don't expect to achieve manufacturers claimed figures as they are achieved in ideal simulated conditions. To clear the mist turn on the air conditioning, it dries the air (yes, the heating will still work).

Assuming it's a petrol, that's about what we get from my wife's 1.2 500C. I used to get a similar figure from my Twinair.

As said above, use the aircon if it's got it. Best to leave it on all the time to keep the seals good and reduce bacteria. Despite popular economy advice, I've never noticed an increase in fuel consumption from using aircon in several cars I've owned.

Have you checked your tyre pressures - as the weather has just turned cold these may have dropped impacting your mpg. Also 12k miles is still pretty young and should continue to improve.

Thank you for replying so quickly. I'm really enjoying the car. Will now make sure the air con is on!

Another point on the misting up. Make sure the air is not on recirculation, it's the top right knob and should be turned to the right.
As others have said 50mpg at 70mph is pretty good for the 1.2, colder weather doesn't help good MPG either.

Spike

Puds said:

Hi, newbie to the forum here!

Click to expand...

Hello and welcome to the forum

Puds said:

I'm not overly heavy on the acceleration and today I did a 100 mile motorway journey, stuck to a steady 70mph and only got 50mpg. The car only has less than 12k on the clock so low miles on the engine.
Does this sound right?

Click to expand...

Yes - that's what I'd expect of the 1.2. The trip figure is slightly optimistic; real world mpg will be somewhere in the high 40's at a steady 70mph. A quick visit to fuelly.com will show you that most folks average a real world figure in the mid '40's overall in normal driving.

The 500 is not aerodynamic and your chosen cruising speed will affect fuel economy significantly. Try the same 100 mile motorway journey at a steady 50mph with the A/C off and you should see the trip figure nudge past 70mpg.

However, to keep the car from misting up on damp days, you may need to use the A/C, which will also lower mpg somewhat.

Colder days and short journeys will make the manufacturer's figures look like a flight of fantasy, but that's true of most other cars in its class.

TrevC said:

Despite popular economy advice, I've never noticed an increase in fuel consumption from using aircon in several cars I've owned.

Click to expand...

The difference is deceptively hard to measure, but it's there. The engineers who've done the research and actually know what they're talking about generally agree that A/C reduces economy by about 12% over a typical commute in a small city car.

Depending on the ambient temperature, and the engine speed the AC compressor will be on for varying amounts of time to build up pressure in the system. It generally draws a few kW of power! And so it will have an effect on the fuel economy!..

Legislative testing is always started at about 22 degrees celcius(this is the number in my head) and deviations from this will effect gearbox efficiency and a few other things.

Testing is also done in whatever mode your vehicle starts in as default (sport, comfort, eco) where such modes exist

Also, testing is currently done on chassis rolls, and although they match the external forces on the vehicle VERY WELL there is no energy loss accounted for tyre scrub around turns (all the testing is straight line) or plowing through a few mm of water while on the motorway.

There are lots of reasons for the differences from testing to real driving but since the testing is quite consistent it gives good vehicle to vehicle comparison

Google NEDC or WLTP cycles and have a look at the actual speed profile of the drive cycle.. you will soon why why there are some diffferences..

JasonPap said:

There are lots of reasons for the differences from testing to real driving but since the testing is quite consistent it gives good vehicle to vehicle comparison

Click to expand...

You'd think so (and it was part of the idea behind the testing), but manufacturers will use every trick in the book to get the figures they want and the comparison isn't as reliable as it should be. The TA vs 1.2 figures for the 500/Panda are a very good example of this, and have been the subject of much discussion here, with several folks being seriously miffed when they found the TA couldn't beat the 1.2 in real world driving, despite having official figures which (at the time) showed it to apparantly be 10mpg better.

How things have changed with WLTP remains to be seen.

Anyone who is seriously concerned about real world economy might consider hiring a car for a day before committing to a purchase.

Our 09 1.2 averages 42-45mpg its all short trips round the doors mostly.

If your interior is misting up then check for damp carpets in the foot wells. If they are then check the two plastic drain holes under the windscreen scuttle panel are not blocked. You can see if there is any sitting water easily by looking under the wiper motor.

Puds said:

I'm not overly heavy on the acceleration and today I did a 100 mile motorway journey, stuck to a steady 70mph and only got 50mpg. The car only has less than 12k on the clock so low miles on the engine.
Does this sound right?
I also noticed I was steaming up easily inside the car. Heater on full blast and still had to open the window to clear it? Any tips would be great.
TIA x

Click to expand...

Sounds perfectly normal. I get 46mpg average on a 1.2 500c with 18k miles and 51mpg on a TwinAir only when it is driven in eco mode - 46mpg when not (46k miles)!
I have never seen anything near the manufacturers claim.
I believe you can get 60mpg on the diesel 500!

For their size there just not the most economical cars!
I have a friend with a Seat Alteca 1.5 and he gets 44mpg on this petrol suv!

Also find that reducing motorway cruising speed to 60-65 mph gains you over 5 mpg as its asking quite a bit more from a small engine to go 70 -75 mph.

Thanks guys. Sounds like I should be quite chuffed at achieving 50mpg!
Where the heck does Fiat get 60mpg from?! Like you have suggested, it's fairy tale lol!

Simulated driving.
I have to admit I was surprised at an indicated average of 51 mpg on my car but in reality after a few cold starts and short trips it dived to a still respectable 42 mpg. On a run I would expect late 40's.

It's everyone, not just Fiat. Have a browse here:
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/real-mpg/
In general, cars with normally aspirated engines get closer to their "official" mpg than those with turbos, because the testing regime used doesn't make much use of the turbo.
As said above, it will be interesting to see if the new WLTP test improves things.

our 1.2 has managed 46.7 mpg over 13k miles - mixed use, but not often stuck in town OBC suggests this is 51mpg