PS I want to keep my warranty intact too, but it strikes me that "running in" (in inverted commas) on MINERAL OIL actually makes sense, as full synthetic at 0/30 is probably too slippery to "bed in" But what do I know I am so ancient that all the engines I ever messed with required " gradually increase the load on the engine over the first 2000 miles" and " do not let the engine labour or exceed 2500 rpm " and like dire warnings
This is obviously a very different sort of beast

Motorcyclist Colin said:

PS I want to keep my warranty intact too, but it strikes me that "running in" (in inverted commas) on MINERAL OIL actually makes sense, as full synthetic at 0/30 is probably too slippery to "bed in" But what do I know I am so ancient that all the engines I ever messed with required " gradually increase the load on the engine over the first 2000 miles" and " do not let the engine labour or exceed 2500 rpm " and like dire warnings
This is obviously a very different sort of beast

Click to expand...

Mmm; I'd check out some of the public domain information on the uni-air module and its very specific oil requirements (there is a link on here that perhaps the moderators can point you at since I don't recall where), Its a .pdf document and I think originated from INA, the designers. This unit controls the inlet valve timing and is the heart & soul of the engine and likes, it seems, the right oil.

I've had a 4x4 TA for two years now (63 plate - second owner) it has just turned 60k miles and has shown no indication of oil consumption but has needed a new Uni-air unit (GBP 900.00) and duel mass flywheel and clutch the latter which was probably exacerbated by much clutch slipping to try and drive he thing on one cylinder (product of failing uni-air module) at the time of a miss diagnosis.


Moral of story; don't skimp on oil grade/spec. I didn't but I bought the thing with bit of a vague service life (at a suitaby reduced price). I did talk to FIAT about the (my) percieved early service failure of this part but they weren't having it so maybe there are a few more out there?


Enjoy the fun but don't cheat on the oil!

Stick to the specified oil. Like several others, I had the oil changed at 5,000 miles and have it changed at each annual (12-14,000 mile) service, rather than going by mileage. The dipstick was the work of an Italian clothes designer who decided it would be a good idea to match the colour of the oil - dipstick indeed. Having written that, my TA has negligible oil consumption (and very low tyre wear). I'd be interested to hear if diesel 4x4s eat their front tyres - Mrs b_u had a 2wd MJ some years back and went through them very quickly.

Hi.
I'd agree about the hard break in. A mate of mine bought a brand new Skoda 120LS in 1980 and its second run was to Brighton from Greenock, not at 40 mph but at 80-90 mph on the motorway. On return it went for its first service at around 400 miles, he still drove it hard afterwards and did another oil change around 2000 miles. That 120 was the quickest standard Skoda I've ever driven, it would pick revs so fast and still pull like a train at 6500rpm. I bought it off him when it was two years old and it was fabulous. So yes hard running in can be beneficial so long as the oil is changed a few times more often.

Hi Colin, expect oil to be more visible after 2000 miles on fresh oil. Suspect mine will go brown before I've done 9000 in this car as not ideal conditions some of the time. To our friend in Devon/Umbria, little confused why all 4 tyres on my 4x4 roughly same depth despite not being permanent 4wd. Yet they last better than FWD Panda 169. My Dad got 24k on a set of fronts. And I know someone who got less but tracking was out.

babbo_umbro said:

The dipstick was the work of an Italian clothes designer who decided it would be a good idea to match the colour of the oil.

Click to expand...

This made me laugh a lot!

My fronts still have at least 3mm all round, after 34k miles. The rears have at least 5mm. At this rate, I reckon the tyres may outlive the car!

babbo_umbro said:

... I'd be interested to hear if diesel 4x4s eat their front tyres

Click to expand...

Short answer: no. My fronts (on previous 4x4 MJ, recently sold) easily did 30k miles before I changed them (at 3mm tread). Rears went further but the wear is pretty well balanced front to back. (Why? Don't know - maybe the added rear weight from the 4x4 system compared to FWD ?). Was also very light on brake pad wear - 50k miles on fronts when changed and still not to the 'tell tale'.

Just posted a long reply to all the above and it finished up in outer space AGAIN. Must be me, hope I don't jinx the car the same way!!!!!:bang:

Are you being logged out? Tick the "Remember me" box when logging in to stop that happening

Or, type it into notepad first, then paste it into the forum

Al D said:

Hi Colin, expect oil to be more visible after 2000 miles on fresh oil. Suspect mine will go brown before I've done 9000 in this car as not ideal conditions some of the time. To our friend in Devon/Umbria, little confused why all 4 tyres on my 4x4 roughly same depth despite not being permanent 4wd. Yet they last better than FWD Panda 169. My Dad got 24k on a set of fronts. And I know someone who got less but tracking was out.

Click to expand...

I agree - wear is low and unusually balanced between front and back - I just wonder why. I suspect the geometry is slightly different from the 2wd models, despite the deletion of the unique all-independent rear end that the earlier model 4x4 had.

On another topic - my neighbours here in Italy have MJ-engined Fiats - a nearly new Panda Cross, a previous-model Panda Cross (much better looking than the current one), a previous model 2wd, and a 500. They do have a nice purposeful air about them and - despite the trend away from diesel - I'm just beginning to be tempted, influenced also by fuel consumption and the lower cost of diesel on the continent, where I do well over half my annual mileage. Does anyone have experience of the TA and the MJ in 4x4 guise? How do they compare?

babbo_umbro the easiest comparison of TA v MJ is a ride in your neighbour's. Then back to yours. The TA will either illustrate why you bought it, or in comparison noisy and inflexible (at least briefly) until you readjust to it. Journalist Jonathan Crouch reckoned in 2012 the diesel quieter. I find my TA lot nicer than my Panda MJ 169 I owned good few years ago. Wouldn't swap the performance of the TA for 50mpg in the 75bhp 2012 model anyway.

Al D said:

babbo_umbro the easiest comparison of TA v MJ is a ride in your neighbour's. Then back to yours. The TA will either illustrate why you bought it, or in comparison noisy and inflexible (at least briefly) until you readjust to it. Journalist Jonathan Crouch reckoned in 2012 the diesel quieter. I find my TA lot nicer than my Panda MJ 169 I owned good few years ago. Wouldn't swap the performance of the TA for 50mpg in the 75bhp 2012 model anyway.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that input. I'll obviously have a test spin but it's the day in/day out owning experience I'm after. Given my annual mileage I doubt that the diesel would save me much, if anything, despite the miles I do abroad. My previous diesel expereince was with a Tipo 1.9 Tds - just went on for ever but it was pre-electronic diesel days - coming back from Italy the alternator packed up so I just kept it running at fuelling stops and so on. Bought a replacemnt battery at Calais and that gave in about three miles from home in Devon at two in the morning - dash instruments had been dead for some time, then lights gave out, but the engine kept on running. Wonder how DPFs and so on affect the practicality and maintenance costs.

My previous 4x4 was a late 2013 MJ. That was quite a noisy diesel at low speed although by 70+ mph more noise came from the wind and the road. In the 60,000 miles I drove it, no issues at any time with the engine, and never really 'aware' of the DPF. Only needed three oil changes in that time (by changing when the 'change due now' warning came on), and only other expense was to relace a damaged suspension arm. Averaged over 58mpg (on dash) through all that time. One set of replacement brake pads and front discs, and two sets of tyres. I say thats cheap motoring.

My 'new' 4x4 is the later Euro 6 MJ, and seems much quieter and smoother at all speeds. I haven't been in a TA to compare with, but know that at 70mph the diesel is on 2800 rpm in top (fifth) gear. I believe the TA is revving around 3200rpm at that speed in it sixth gear.


The press has hammered diesel cars recently, but overlook the fact that things like London's new Ultra Low Emissions Zone and proposed tax changes will also apply to petrol cars (Diesels sold after 2016, which are Euro 6 standard, will not be penalised. It is – for now – only older diesels that are being affected, but the press has failed to make this clear)

My one week old TA 4x4 happily does 70mph at just over (as far as you can see the rev counter) 3000 rpm. Currently doing 42.3 mpg according to the computer on board. Love the engine/exhaust noise and the car (SO FAR) is exactly what I want. Time and the dimming of rose tinted specs may prove different. I had a new 500X 4x4 Cross Plus 9 speed auto diesel 2 ltr a couple or so years ago and it did not suit me nearly as well as this little Panda. But chacune a son gout!

babbo_umbro said:

Wonder how DPFs and so on affect the practicality and maintenance costs.

Click to expand...

Injectors, EGR, DPF are three potentially expensive replacements on a higher mileage engine; the cost of refurbishing the engine after 100,000 miles might well be greater than the value of the car at that point (IIRC someone here was quoted almost €4000 to replace the injectors at 78k). OTOH a carefully driven and well maintained NA petrol should be good for at least 200k with no more than routine oil and filter replacements.

But right now, I'd say the biggest worry if buying a new diesel today would be the depreciation risk. Public sentiment generally is moving away from diesel cars and if local and central governments go ahead with some of the schemes that have been mooted in the press recently regarding tax rises and restrictions on urban use, then it might be practically worthless when the time comes to sell it.

I can understand how some might prefer a modern diesel for its performance and power delivery, but my own opinion is that anyone who thinks the total ownership cost will be lower than a petrol is delusional and living on past memories.

Motorcyclist Colin said:

Just posted a long reply to all the above and it finished up in outer space AGAIN. Must be me, hope I don't jinx the car the same way!!!!!:bang:

Click to expand...

Type it in WORD.ETC.

Then paste it onto the forum..

You obviously type like me...

Lost many a post over time

The panda diesel engine is normally a long lived thing, it is shared across a number of other vehicles and was designed for a working life in excess of 200,000 miles. Most will not require the expensive items that you list at less than 100K unless the car has been subject to nothing but short journeys in which case it will probably never get to that mileage.

If all of the schemes that are mooted come about and there are many fewer or no diesel cars then there will be no money collected from them so the petrol owners will have to pay (more) instead. Public opinion may change again, not that it has much effect on Government policy nationally or locally.

jrkitching said:

Injectors, EGR, DPF are three potentially expensive replacements on a higher mileage engine; the cost of refurbishing the engine after 100,000 miles might well be greater than the value of the car at that point (IIRC someone here was quoted almost €4000 to replace the injectors at 78k). OTOH a carefully driven and well maintained NA petrol should be good for at least 200k with no more than routine oil and filter replacements.

But right now, I'd say the biggest worry if buying a new diesel today would be the depreciation risk. Public sentiment generally is moving away from diesel cars and if local and central governments go ahead with some of the schemes that have been mooted in the press recently regarding tax rises and restrictions on urban use, then it might be practically worthless when the time comes to sell it.

I can understand how some might prefer a modern diesel for its performance and power delivery, but my own opinion is that anyone who thinks the total ownership cost will be lower than a petrol is delusional and living on past memories.

Click to expand...

Very useful input - thank you. Beginning to think I'll wait for the new petrol motors.

Veresecrazy. Thanks for that, unfortunately I am a complete computer moron, and "word" to me is a verbal noise, and "paste" is something I hang wallpaper with. (Unless it is fishy or crabby in which case it goes on my toast!)
Off to a motorbike rally in the Pyrenees for a month in July, so no more nonsense from me for a while!
A bientot MC