Save up to 15% with Adrian Flux insurance!

Fuel consumption

Currently reading:
Fuel consumption

"Someone's dad" was, I'm afraid, an idiot. It does a car no good at all to be run to empty. Certainly not a modern one. It can mess up injectors and pumps, and any small particles in the fuel system can be ingested into the engine. :eek:

Just go by the readout, and over time you'll get a very good idea of the fuel consumption and how far you can safely go on a tankful. Always fill up when it gets to a quarter full and don't always try and stretch out the fill-ups to the last drop.
 
Last edited:
deeyup said:
I think the furthest I've managed when the display shows zero bars is 17 miles?
That was at around 48mpg showing on the comp which I reset once the last bar disappeared. Put in just under 37 litres. This happened last Friday.

So there is fuel in there once the display shows none. Exactly how much further I could have gone is unknown.

I read a thread once where someone's dad said always run a new car to empty with some fuel in a can just so you'll know in future exactly how far you can try your luck. Maybe I'll try that?
Click to expand...
I usually make round 15-20 miles after computer display shows -------. The best I managed to put in was 33.93 litres.:confused:
 
Ulpian said:
"

Just go by the readout, and over time you'll get a very good idea of the fuel consumption and how far you can safely go on a tankful. Always fill up when it gets to a quarter full and don't always try and stretch out the fill-ups to the last drop.
Click to expand...

Nah, I hate filling up, so go as far as I can on each tank. Filling up at 1/4 shown would mean another three or four filling station stops a month. Not for me.
alamar , I was meaning when the fuel gauge shows no blocks, not the range. I've been finding I can go maybe 60 miles from when the range shows ------
However, don't take my word for it, go only as far as you think is safe whilst your gauge shows zero.

I remember flashyphotos from the 500 section bought one of those obdII wifi/Bluetooth adapters and when she used it, it showed the exact amount of fuel in the tank. I should maybe get one of those. :idea:
 
deeyup said:
Nah, I hate filling up, so go as far as I can on each tank. Filling up at 1/4 shown would mean another three or four filling station stops a month. Not for me.
Click to expand...

Me too re. filling up, though at least Fiat's 'Smart Fuel' filler makes the
process simple and error-free :) (Unlike my Mito's awkward locking cap...)

But I agree with Ulpian about not running too low, so I've never managed
to fit in more than 33 litres at the pumps.

I did consider buying a plastic 'can' for the boot, but space is limited and
I've now got adequate confidence in the dashboard's display accuracy!



Chris
 
Took my car out for a spin last night. I'd not driven it for around 8 days.
My wife used it all last week to get back and forth to work which is approx 3 miles each way, city driving peak time lots of traffic.
I'd filled the car before she had it and reset the trip.

As I drove along i scrolled through the computer, got to average mpg, 26.2 :eek: over 40 miles.

Now my wife will always have the heated seat on and has been using the heated screen in the morn to demist, but 26.2! That's stuffed my fuelly up.

Mrs Deeyup usually uses drives a VW Caravelle which weighs 2500kg and has a 2 litre diesel. That usually shows around 29mpg doing mostly the same driving.
I'm quite surprised at how low she got the Panda, and also surprised the Caravelle does better over the same route.
 
Well I certainly did NOT buy the 4x4 TA for economy!

I bought it as a compact and tactile fun-to-drive little car with decent 4x4 ability, cheap road tax and cheap servicing costs and am perfectly happy with 35-40mpg. It is, after all, well documented in the motoring press and on forums like this that the TA is NOWHERE near as economical as the ridiculously over-optimistic official figures suggest.

I ran around in a 500C TA last summer and that would dip into the low-30s is driven 'enthusiastically', 38-42 average driving and 50 if I really REALLY tried! That said, it is hilly where I live and most of my runs are 4-10 miles with longer runs at least once per week. I did get one motorway run of 56 or so but nice and steady and no headwind!

I just bought the misses an ex-demo Panda TA Lounge and travelling back from Manchester to Whitby (with a helpful SW wind behind me) at 70-80mph saw me get 55mpg.

I was going to get a Trekking at £12,450 but Arnold Clark quoted me just £12,688 for a 4x4 TA so I went for that on a no-brainer basis as I'm used to 4 wheel drive having owned 3dr RAVs as daily drivers for the last 20 years (probably would have bought a new one if they hadn't stopped making the 3 door in 2005…). Turns out Arnold Clark had ballsed up on the price - but they did honour/stand by it) and it should have been £13,688 not £12,688!!!
 
Last edited:
mwcf said:
Well I certainly did NOT buy the 4x4 TA for economy!

I bought it as a compact and tactile fun-to-drive little car with decent 4x4 ability, cheap road tax and cheap servicing costs and am perfectly happy with 35-40mpg. It is, after all, well documented in the motoring press and on forums like this that the TA is NOWHERE near as economical as the ridiculously over-optimistic official figures suggest.

I ran around in a 500C TA last summer and that would dip into the low-30s is driven 'enthusiastically', 38-42 average driving and 50 if I really REALLY tried! That said, it is hilly where I live and most of my runs are 4-10 miles with longer runs at least once per week. I did get one motorway run of 56 or so but nice and steady and no headwind!

I just bought the misses an ex-demo Panda TA Lounge and travelling back from Manchester to Whitby (with a helpful SW wind behind me) at 70-80mph saw me get 55mpg.

I was going to get a Trekking at £12,450 but Arnold Clark quoted me just £12,688 for a 4x4 TA so I went for that on a no-brainer basis as I'm used to 4 wheel drive having owned 3dr RAVs as daily drivers for the last 20 years (probably would have bought a new one if they hadn't stopped making the 3 door in 2005…). Turns out Arnold Clark had ballsed up on the price - but they did honour/stand by it) and it should have been £13,688 not £12,688!!!
Click to expand...

Result!!
 
On the question of 4x4 TA fuel consumption.... Up to now I've been using tesco or shell premium grade and average 42 mpg. Last 2 fills using std grade tesco and Morrison, ave 38..,. Driving style & routes unchanged. Coincidence???
 
We've been driving round some flooded roads of late and travelling round the locale is not good for fuel consumption.

Currently it's around 36 mpg.







 
triumph7 said:
On the question of 4x4 TA fuel consumption.... Up to now I've been using tesco or shell premium grade and average 42 mpg. Last 2 fills using std grade tesco and Morrison, ave 38..,. Driving style & routes unchanged. Coincidence???
Click to expand...

Triumph7,

I don't think so. The 500C I had last summer definitely gave better mpg on premium grade - by circa 5-10%. For that reason I'll be sticking to premium with the 4x4 TA too.

Yes the 4x4 TA for £12,688 was a result! (And I'll clarify it's not a pre-reg, its brand new with me as first owner.)

Cheers,

Mike
 
mwcf said:
Triumph7,

I don't think so. The 500C I had last summer definitely gave better mpg on premium grade - by circa 5-10%. For that reason I'll be sticking to premium with the 4x4 TA too.

Yes the 4x4 TA for £12,688 was a result! (And I'll clarify it's not a pre-reg, its brand new with me as first owner.)

Cheers,

Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks, just as I suspected.... Its back to premium grade then!
You're gonna love the 4x4, its just brilliant!
 
Great pictures TwinAir Newbie do we have any sort of consensus on the wading depth yet? You seem to have plenty of experience in this area!!! :eek:
triumph7 I'd tend to agree on standard unleaded i've been averaging about 42 (onboard trip computer) but premium for the first time today and on a run from Leeds to Malton averaged 45 so although a noticeable difference I doubt big enough to justify the extra cost. Still, I've only done 1,400 miles since new so the engine has some time before it's really run in. :)
 
Re the wading depth, I'm not out to discover the limits of the car! :p

I heard, maybe on this site, that the air intake is at a height of 27" but there is no way I'd be looking to enter water anywhere near that height.
 
LOL - I think it would float away before I got to 27" having said that I'm very, very impressed so far with how capable it's been in the mud, water and on muddy slopes.
 
Last edited:
deeyup said:
On the higher octane v standard fuel, I found no difference in using either when I tried the momentum 99 for a month. I think a high performance car would see the benefit, but for me there was none.
Click to expand...

When we fill up the jtdm alfa GT with shell high grade diesel, we get at least another 5mpg.....
 
TwinAir Newbie said:
Re the wading depth, I'm not out to discover the limits of the car! :p

I heard, maybe on this site, that the air intake is at a height of 27" but there is no way I'd be looking to enter water anywhere near that height.
Click to expand...

Yes - I measured the intake on my 4x4 TA and it was 27" up. I wouldn't risk that either but I went through a flooded underpass under a railway bridge the other day and I reckon it was a foot or so deep briefly. There were several cars that had drowned out but the Panda was fine.
 
Our 4x4 T/A has been run almost exclusively on Shell V-Power. We recently had no choice but to fill up on regular fuel to be sure of actually getting home and the Panda was noticeably less smooth and eager to drive. We found the same on our old Mk3 4x4 and we certainly notice the premium vs regular difference with our diesel X3. I've not really looked into the mpg side - for me its about which fuel makes the car run better / more fun to drive.:)
 
4x4Panda said:
Our 4x4 T/A has been run almost exclusively on Shell V-Power. We recently had no choice but to fill up on regular fuel to be sure of actually getting home and the Panda was noticeably less smooth and eager to drive. We found the same on our old Mk3 4x4 and we certainly notice the premium vs regular difference with our diesel X3. I've not really looked into the mpg side - for me its about which fuel makes the car run better / more fun to drive.:)
Click to expand...

Yes. Agree. Mine does seem more eager on better fuel. I'm going back to using it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

michaelelsewhere
General Panda 2012+ 1.2, fuel consumption.
Replies
3
Views
763
JayW4x4
J
Steveetee55
General Fuel meter accuracy
Replies
7
Views
297
Steveetee55
Steveetee55
S
Technical No fuel range or instantaneous fuel consumption showing
Replies
13
Views
1K
varesecrazy
V
FiatMatt94
Technical Panda Airbag light & Fuel Cut off unavailable
Replies
10
Views
469
FiatMatt94
FiatMatt94
S
Technical Does Fiat Panda have Electronic Fuel Injection ?
Replies
5
Views
636
AndyRKett
AndyRKett
Back
Top