I was wondering if anyone on this forum owned a tiny 0.9 engine from 500 can help me?

I am currently own a 500 1.4 non turbo which is £165 road tax and I do average on real calculator most between 37 to 41 mpg never reach the real mpg what it advert and now I find is get thirsty for me to run I want cheaper to run, I saw a 0.9 at Fiat dealer which I did not know there was a tiny engine exist on Fiat.

I took out a test driver to pretend that I was interested in buying this. The car runs nice than I thought and it feels lighter over my 1.4.


The salesman explained about the car specifically and told me that the car can go 70mpg on steady and this is not diesel.

I can't really trust any car dealer about the fuel consumption because they want my money, I have been watching on Youtube. Fifth gear took the test. The car to be said is thirsty than the 1.2 which the old Top Gear Jezza said the same thing both are petrolheads can't drive steady I was not sure if this is real thirsty.


Can the real owner of 0.9 confirm is good on fuel or bad consumption over my 1.4 or 1.2

Thanks

This has been debated lots of times here.

Nobody has ever got 70mpg from a TA, nor have they even come close. You can do it in a 1.2 if you drive on a motorway at 50mph for 100 miles or so on a nice day, but that doesn't make the 1.2 a 70mpg car.

The general consensus is that the TA will get nowhere near its published mpg figures, and the shortfall is greater than for any other engine type. Most normal folks see figures in the low to mid 40's; if driven reasonably hard, you'll probably get much the same as you're getting now from your 1.4. If you think moving from a 1.4 to a TA will save you fuel without sacrificing performance, you're going to be disappointed.

Most of the test drive reviews I've seen (where they generally push cars quite hard) record average mpg figures in the 30's.

If saving money is your priority, buy a 1.2. If driven for best economy (keeping below 2500 rpm/55mph, whichever is the lower), you'll be seeing real world figures in the mid 50's.

If you really want to save money, I'd keep your 1.4. They are generally pretty reliable (we get far more reported issues here from older TA's than 1.4's), and your car is already pretty much depreciated by now, so it's only going to cost you servicing, maintenance & fuel. The depreciation on a newish TA (I'd never recommend an older one as I've seen too many problems reported here) will dwarf any saving you might make in road tax.

Theflyingpostman said:

I was wondering if anyone on this forum owned a tiny 0.9 engine from 500 can help me?

I am currently own a 500 1.4 non turbo which is £165 road tax and I do average on real calculator most between 37 to 41 mpg never reach the real mpg what it advert and now I find is get thirsty for me to run I want cheaper to run, I saw a 0.9 at Fiat dealer which I did not know there was a tiny engine exist on Fiat.

I took out a test driver to pretend that I was interested in buying this. The car runs nice than I thought and it feels lighter over my 1.4.


The salesman explained about the car specifically and told me that the car can go 70mpg on steady and this is not diesel.

I can't really trust any car dealer about the fuel consumption because they want my money, I have been watching on Youtube. Fifth gear took the test. The car to be said is thirsty than the 1.2 which the old Top Gear Jezza said the same thing both are petrolheads can't drive steady I was not sure if this is real thirsty.


Can the real owner of 0.9 confirm is good on fuel or bad consumption over my 1.4 or 1.2

Thanks

Click to expand...

875cc motor

2 cylinders

An optional turbo.. which did you drive?

I drove the 89bhp not the 105bhp.

Having said all that, you wouldn't be able to buy my 500 ( 0.9, twinair , turbo ) from me. I brought it when I retired...because I always wanted a 500 back in the day. It has been used and abused and tows my Eriba Puck wonderfully. I wouldn't change it if you offered me all the money in the World.

I feel much the same as werdna about my TA 0.9 Turbo which I've owned for seven years now. It's a delightful engine to drive and to listen to and, perhaps partly because of that, it ain't as frugal as FIAT would have you believe. I don't make any effort to drive for economy and my consumption generally hovers around 35mpg; lower in fact than my wife's 1.2 Pop!

Theflyingpostman said:

I drove the 89bhp not the 105bhp.

Click to expand...

Model with a turbo.. they are fine

My 85hp motors are good.. no oil consumption concerns and 50mpg achieved without issue

What price are they asking nowadays..?

When the TA Was a new model.. you paid extra.. .. I wouldnt pay more now.. the used prices dont support it

I have a 105 Twin Air. It has £0 road tax and in sport mode with aircon off is pretty nippy. I rarely drive it outside of my local area in SE London so haven't got any fuel figures worth knowing. But I believe performance wise it is quicker than the 1.4.

My 500S twinair is a 105bhp too. I generally get around 50mpg, though most of my driving is on nice A roads and country lanes in Sussex.

Tis nippy enough and and happy when I do hit a motorway.
Mine is a 2018 and therefore the tax is £145 a year!

Oddly enough, my 2011 panda which has the 1.1 engine also returns the same mpg, but with £30 tax.

I have just (end September) replaced my 105 twin air sport C with a 500C launch edition hybrid.
I have (ever since owning my first car 1988) always kept a book with mileage fuel usage I have had both 85 and 105hp twin air 500s both for over 2 years so will find the notebook out and give you the average mpg on both variants

marcusgillies said:

I have just (end September) replaced my 105 twin air sport C with a 500C launch edition hybrid.
I have (ever since owning my first car 1988) always kept a book with mileage fuel usage I have had both 85 and 105hp twin air 500s both for over 2 years so will find the notebook out and give you the average mpg on both variants

Click to expand...

Hi.
Please take your time..

We want to see comparisons with the new 'heavy one' too

I love my Twinair Plus.

It's a town car and I get 39mpg as a mix of traffic jams, slow moving traffic, and quite a bit of urban motorway.

I'm fastidious about changing the oil every year (not every two, as instructed), using the recommended Selenia brand (even my local dealership uses some aftermarket oil)

However, I had a mixture of bad luck and a failed oil cooler on my car and it ended up costing a fortune.

It's a plastic part on the rear of the engine which cracked and dumped most of the coolant.

My local mechanics proved themselves to be useless, and made three attempts to stop the replacement part weeping oil.

Then it started running rough and my local independent Fiat diagnostician couldn't trace the problem.

It had probably run rough for a while, but an issue with this engine (for me, anyway) is that I didn't really now what it should sound like.

Luckily another mechanic, ten miles away did locate the problem to the oil temperature sensor on the back of the Twinair module on top of the engine.

These cost a hundred quid and I'd already had one fitted the year before (??)

So I had some success with this mechanic, but he couldn't stop the oil leaking from the back of the engine.

A year or so later, I tried another mechanic, and bought another oil cooler for another 250 quid, in case it needed it.

It did need it as the previous replacement was gunged up with something containing copper (not copper slip, but I don't know what it was).

Unbelievably, it still leaked oil, and at this point I took it to the dealership.

It turned out it wasn't the oil cooler that was leaking, but the rocker cover gasket, and, unbelievably the oil temperature sensor again.

This has turned out to be a long story but the moral is that if I'd gone to the dealership to begin with it would have been about a grand to sort out.

Eighteen months later, I must have spent at least double that.

So what I've learned is to take any engine faults to the dealership, as local jobbing mechanics aren't familiar with the design, and access to the engine is very tight.

I've put it all down to bad luck, and a lesson learned, but remember to keep the oil changed with the right spec, and use the dealership if the engine misbehaves.

Otherwise, I'm still really happy with it.

It's not a hot hatch, but it's nippier than most cars it's size, especially with zero annual tax.

I bought my 500C Sport twin air 105hp new on 17/05/18 with 6 miles on the clock I sold it on 30/09/20 with 21,848 miles

I used 484.3 gallons of petrol giving an average of 44.3 mpg
Serviced by the Main Dealer at 9,000 mile intervals with fuel treatment as an extra.
Having driven a mixture of country, urban and motorway with sport on and off, having being driven carefully and booted from time to time. I have always used the air conditioning and driven with the roof down when weather permitted.

I now have the 500C Mild Hybrid Launch Edition which is poor and gutless by comparison having driven just over 1000 miles it returns only a mildly better 47mpg.

JRK's summary at the top is a pretty fair one. I ran an 89bhp Lounge for 6 years, a lot of the time commuting to work, a 50 mile round trip on various roads. Driven with restraint I could get 50mpg, I did get over 60 a couple of times trying really hard. Low to mid 40s is a realistic normal figure.

I ran it from new to 46000 miles and the only fault was a minor, easily fixed leak from the coolant tank. Due to the valve mechanism used, it is vital that the correct oil is used, and that it's changed every 9000 miles. A plus point is that there is no cambelt to change.

Until recently my wife ran a 1.2 and loved it, and it was easier to get good fuel economy. The twinair is much livelier though, and I loved the sound it made.

I've never driven a 1.4 so I don't know how it compares. Hope everyone's feedback here helps.

quote

The salesman explained about the car specifically and told me that the car can go 70mpg on steady and this is not diesel.

I'd love to ask this dealer to put that in writing. Mindboggling stupidity.

At least now the mpg in the brochure is realistic.

I have a Panda Waze 4x4 0.9 and it delivers 44-45mpg on the short runs it is currently allowed. This includes its mandatory 30 minute runs at 2500- 3000rpm on the drive each week.

The Panda Nut said:

quote

I have a Panda Waze 4x4 0.9 and it delivers 44-45mpg on the short runs it is currently allowed. This includes its mandatory 30 minute runs at 2500- 3000rpm on the drive each week.

Click to expand...

For the PPF.. ?

varesecrazy said:

For the PPF.. ?

Click to expand...

Nah that's far to high tech. The car is just stood on the driver battery charging.... It probably knocks the actual mpg figure quite hard. Heavens, we don't actually go anywhere. Sadly. Driving the car is such fun and we are reduced to drive drives.