I,m on 1/2 day hol so went to get soft drinks at Tesco my temp gauge was at 35 but then went up to 35.5 ,on the way back I opened both front windows which cooled the car quickly after few minutes so I then closed the windows and used max A/C ,it seemed to cool the car more quickly than with the A/c on because the big gap of windows lets the air flow better ,Only On 5 mins journeys
General Panda 4x4 twin-air mpg
- Thread starter Bix67
- Start date
Currently reading:
General Panda 4x4 twin-air mpg
babbo_umbro
Established member
And then you could put a couple of psi in the tyres to cut rolling resistance - might affect the roadholding adversely but it would save a couple of quid...
And coast down all the hills...
Park half a mile from home and walk to the car...
babbo_umbro
Established member
Ok, so just got home.
Here's the result
Outside temp according to car 25°c and I set the air con at max cool, max fan speed.
This route as I said I would normally get over 50mpg. My best is 62mpg from what I remember but that was near perfect conditions.
This is the second time then that I've taken an approx 10% hit when using air con
I'm with the others in that its there to be used and yes it costs me money, but that's fine. I'd rather be cool and spend an extra 20p.
For me though I don't think my results will change.
Air con at full cooling costs me approx 10%
It may be that "full cooling max fan speed" is the important message here - the climate control on my 100HP rarely ran at anything like full chat, even in 100 degree (F) heat in Italy. In Pudding Island, after a short initial blast, the fan always ran at the equivalent of number 1 on the manual aircon settings.
Yes, could be running the system at full speed.
I don't use air con that much, I find we mostly don't get high enough temps
in the UK.
Didn't 100hp panda come with dark rear tints? That may help.
My dad has a ford focus mk2 facelift model. 1.8 TDCi diesel with 115 hp. When the car is idleing it shows the current fuel consumption. When the AC is off the car uses between 0.6-0.7 l/h, but when the AC is on the car uses 1.0-1.1 l/h
I'd expect the power used by the a/c to depend on how much work it is actually doing - so if it were always doing the same work, then the impact on mpg should be a fixed mpg amount not a fixed percentage of mpg. In my old German car, if you lift the lid you can see the clutch for the a/c compressor cutting in or releasing as and when the thermostat in the car decides it needs more cooling effort. I imagine the FIAT system is similar (?), so if you set the car at 'Low' it should be doing more work than if set at say 20c as it will be doing work more of the time, and so hit the mpg a bit harder.
I tend to leave the a/c on >95% of the time as even in winter it prevents misting up and generally makes the cabin a more pleasant place to be in.
As to the mpg, it varies so much depending on whether the journey is on the flat or hilly, driving style, short vs long et etc. Also, even leaving a window down or roof bars on can punish the mpg...
Thus far, I'm just pleased that the Mk4 is more economical than the Mk3 - less markedly so on short journeys which (unfortunately) I have to do every day on the station run - however it is actually a viable and decent proposition for long journeys (which with the best will in the world, the Mk3 was not). I'm finding that on these it is decently economical as well - probably close to a 330d BMW which will also do low to mid 40's if driven sensibly.
TBH, I think there are so many reasons to love the little Panda 4x4 that I've not really worried about the mpg at all. Lastly, I have tried to run the car on V-Power (or is it V-Thrust Max or some such daft name Shell give their fuels), as I found the old Mk3 was much better for it and so I'm assuming the Mk4 will be as well.
Sorry, a bit of a ramble and not really contributing to this thread; just a few thoughts from a fellow Panda fan
I tend to leave the a/c on >95% of the time as even in winter it prevents misting up and generally makes the cabin a more pleasant place to be in.
As to the mpg, it varies so much depending on whether the journey is on the flat or hilly, driving style, short vs long et etc. Also, even leaving a window down or roof bars on can punish the mpg...
Thus far, I'm just pleased that the Mk4 is more economical than the Mk3 - less markedly so on short journeys which (unfortunately) I have to do every day on the station run - however it is actually a viable and decent proposition for long journeys (which with the best will in the world, the Mk3 was not). I'm finding that on these it is decently economical as well - probably close to a 330d BMW which will also do low to mid 40's if driven sensibly.
TBH, I think there are so many reasons to love the little Panda 4x4 that I've not really worried about the mpg at all. Lastly, I have tried to run the car on V-Power (or is it V-Thrust Max or some such daft name Shell give their fuels), as I found the old Mk3 was much better for it and so I'm assuming the Mk4 will be as well.
Sorry, a bit of a ramble and not really contributing to this thread; just a few thoughts from a fellow Panda fan
Last edited:
How did the shell fuel work out?
I tried tesco momentum 99 for a month and found no improvement.
Although both our cars are still at the stage where economy is improving as mileage climbs up. Is the running in sweet spot around 8-10k miles?
I tried tesco momentum 99 for a month and found no improvement.
Although both our cars are still at the stage where economy is improving as mileage climbs up. Is the running in sweet spot around 8-10k miles?
That makes total sense to me. Fiats show mpg so the gauge will only show instant consumption whilst moving.
Park your car at you work place, then walk to work....
Sell the car and walk everywhere.
babbo_umbro
Established member
Yes it did - but then, from previous posts, the colour of the car would make a significant difference - white car versus black or electroclash.
I have to agree with you here. Our old 500 was the bog standard white colour with grey/black interior, whereas our Panda is blue with beige interior.
The Panda cabin definitely seems to heat up more; that has been the case earlier on this summer when the air temps weren't all that great but the sun was out.
Just got home and drove with the car at coldest setting fan on 2 of 4.
Result was 47.4 mpg
So this says to me
No air con 50 mpg
Air con 1/2 47.5 mpg
Air con full 45 mpg
It's by no means scientific, just my observation over a few days.
Result was 47.4 mpg
So this says to me
No air con 50 mpg
Air con 1/2 47.5 mpg
Air con full 45 mpg
It's by no means scientific, just my observation over a few days.
Just got home and drove with the car at coldest setting fan on 2 of 4.
Result was 47.4 mpg
So this says to me
No air con 50 mpg
Air con 1/2 47.5 mpg
Air con full 45 mpg
It's by no means scientific, just my observation over a few days.
Hey, it's scientific enough for me!
babbo_umbro
Established member
I'd expect the power used by the a/c to depend on how much work it is actually doing - so if it were always doing the same work, then the impact on mpg should be a fixed mpg amount not a fixed percentage of mpg. In my old German car, if you lift the lid you can see the clutch for the a/c compressor cutting in or releasing as and when the thermostat in the car decides it needs more cooling effort. I imagine the FIAT system is similar (?), so if you set the car at 'Low' it should be doing more work than if set at say 20c as it will be doing work more of the time, and so hit the mpg a bit harder.
I tend to leave the a/c on >95% of the time as even in winter it prevents misting up and generally makes the cabin a more pleasant place to be in.
As to the mpg, it varies so much depending on whether the journey is on the flat or hilly, driving style, short vs long et etc. Also, even leaving a window down or roof bars on can punish the mpg...
Thus far, I'm just pleased that the Mk4 is more economical than the Mk3 - less markedly so on short journeys which (unfortunately) I have to do every day on the station run - however it is actually a viable and decent proposition for long journeys (which with the best will in the world, the Mk3 was not). I'm finding that on these it is decently economical as well - probably close to a 330d BMW which will also do low to mid 40's if driven sensibly.
TBH, I think there are so many reasons to love the little Panda 4x4 that I've not really worried about the mpg at all. Lastly, I have tried to run the car on V-Power (or is it V-Thrust Max or some such daft name Shell give their fuels), as I found the old Mk3 was much better for it and so I'm assuming the Mk4 will be as well.
Sorry, a bit of a ramble and not really contributing to this thread; just a few thoughts from a fellow Panda fan
Early days for mine but I agree with you absolutely - so far on my first fill-up I'm getting about 34 mpg.
babbo_umbro
Established member
Taking a trip down to Falmouth on Friday - 75 miles each way with half on dual carriageway - so we'll see what transpires.
Moultoneer
Member
That's a useful feature, kudos to Ford
Looks like Fiat have missed a trick, maybe it could be added
during a firmware update?
For now, I'm happy paying about 6% extra fuel for the comfort
of air conditioning
Chris
Pilot Ralph
New member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
- Messages
- 44
- Points
- 19
Been doing the same run over the past few days and had the 4x4 TA setup differently to see what effect it had on mpg.
The route is a 60 mile round trip on a mix of A,B and town roads. All done at the same time of day so traffic was the same and the weather has been the same. There are a few things that could have made a difference but then this was a real life test.
Eco ON. Climate ON. 50.8 mpg
Eco ON. Climate OFF 53.9 mpg
Eco OFF. Climate ON. 51.4 mpg
Eco OFF. Climate OFF 53.3 mpg
Finally a mix of on off for both. Using eco only when engine warmed up and in cruising at a steady speed. Climate on once engine warmed up. Switched off in town when I could open windows and switched off 10mins from end of journey.
53.1 mpg
The route is a 60 mile round trip on a mix of A,B and town roads. All done at the same time of day so traffic was the same and the weather has been the same. There are a few things that could have made a difference but then this was a real life test.
Eco ON. Climate ON. 50.8 mpg
Eco ON. Climate OFF 53.9 mpg
Eco OFF. Climate ON. 51.4 mpg
Eco OFF. Climate OFF 53.3 mpg
Finally a mix of on off for both. Using eco only when engine warmed up and in cruising at a steady speed. Climate on once engine warmed up. Switched off in town when I could open windows and switched off 10mins from end of journey.
53.1 mpg
Same results as me, also shows for your kind of driving style, Eco button doesn't work. It only helps heavier footed drivers.
Pilot Ralph
New member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
- Messages
- 44
- Points
- 19
I came to the same conclusion that eco doesn't effect the mpg. Probable a mix of my driving style and the road / traffic on my daily drive. ( fairly flat and quiet) I don't get near the same mpg on a day off . I think the main use of eco is to keep the wife from realising how much fun it can be
. I think the main use of eco is to keep the wife from realising how much fun it can be 