triumph7 said:

Yes. Agree. Mine does seem more eager on better fuel. I'm going back to using it

Click to expand...

For me, the jury's still out

I once filled my TA Trekking with high-spec. petrol when I inadvertently
stopped at a pump without the normal grade. I noticed the extra cost,
but couldn't distinguish any performance or fuel economy difference...

I guess a scientific test ought to show benefits though.



Chris

Yesterday I tried Esso 97 again which I last used on my previous 63 plate TA 4x4 last summer. Not expecting any mpg difference but it seemed a little perkier. More so than when put V Power in anyway. And definitely more flexible at low speed in 2nd gear and in standing starts. Seems perkier from start off with the ELD on too on the flat. Glad I got another anyway.

Remember your comparing a near 90hp engine to a less powerful diesel.

I too think the consumption is unacceptable in light of Fiat claimed mpg and I have had a lot to say about it.

There is a way of getting better mpg but I cannot find it consistently but agree with many comments on here regarding how.

Moderate driving with a little attention to finesse gets the best and is fun once you get it. My 4x4 is still struggling around the 40mpg average. No one seems to know exactly how the eco button is supposed to affect things and its difficult to get the best in absence of understanding its workings.

Driving the twin air is very very different to anything else and you will have to learn to relax and feel whats going on through the seat of your pants, Once you have its measure you will find its more fun. faster and more economical. I drive mibe infrequently and often fight it . This doesnt work well and it takes a while to get the rhythm back.

Complain like hell to Fiat via dealers or directly in the mean time. I dislike the corporate dishonesty in the disgraceful unrealistic super inflated economy claims for this car. I have another similar sized and powered petrol car which gives almost exactly the same mpg but its a 1.3 4 cylinder engine. Overall I suppose its par for a petrol engine.

Some of the claims manufacturers make are way wrong. How often do we drive at steady speeds? Motoring is full of junctions, bends, lights, hills, dozy pedestrians and other hazards that mean you are using the gearbox and brakes all the time. No wonder fuel consumption never reaches the figures thrown at us.
The best fuel figures I ever had was in the 70's in three cars an Imp (875cc) and two Skoda's a 1000MB & S100 (988cc).
The reason was they were light (under 800kg) roads were quieter, less traffic lights, no dozy folk with MP3 players and phones, so much more free flowing, I rarely dropped below 50mpg in any of these cars.
To produce the torque and BHP of the TA you still need fuel, and the TA produces more than double the power of the Imp for the same CC its also 300+ kg heavier so no matter if its more efficient and the imp was very efficient it will use more fuel, especially if you use the right foot, so perhaps think its impossible to get something for nothing. To get an average 50mpg you'd need to drive slower with less acceleration than I did in my Imp etc.

It took me a while to get used to the TA engine in my Panda Cross. However, I've very rarely seen average economy dip below 50mpg and is often more than 55mpg. The past 1500 miles have been covered at an indicated 57.6mpg. Most of my driving is on B- and C-class country roads. I average nearly 20k miles a year.

I don't use the eco button and the air conditioning/climate control is always on and set at 19C.

The major factor is I do very little driving in traffic of any kind. I make sure I can commute out of rush hour at either end of the day. I don't need to constantly slow down and accelerate away, or accelerate hard to match traffic speed on entering dual carriageways etc. Having said that I've completed many long motorway and A-road journeys to the northern Highlands, North Wales, Peak District, Devon, France from my home and not seen less than 50mpg. When in queues at traffic lights etc. I use the stop-start which has always worked in 70k miles.

Similarly I've not seen any difference in economy with the fuel I use. I fill up when needed (usually 350-400 miles on a tank) from the nearest convenient garage. Always 95ron but a mixture of major brands BP, Shell and supermarket (Tesco, Sainsbury's).

For me the TA does what it says on the tin.

Hi.
There are other factors too. Many people say they get better fuel consumption driving at the speed maximum torque co-insides with road speed. Well maximum torque is measured with full throttle, you'd never be able to drive at maximum torque speed a full throttle as the engine would be accelerating hard. At smaller throttle levels, the spark will advance, not just in an ECU controlled engine but even older units with a distributor as the vacuum advance will do its job. This and other parameters mean that on part throttle the maximum available torque will be at a different rev range. Living with a car for a long time you'll get the feel for when an engine doesn't need full throttle for going up a hill or part throttle acceleration, this should give you an idea when the engine is more efficient at small throttle opening.

On my Panda from careful notes of fuel use and mileage my 18 month average is 46.7 mpg with the trip reporting 49.8 mpg, it also has told me 64mpg on a long run so it is a bit optimistic.
One thing to bear in mind is small turbo engines on part throttle are less efficient than say the 1242cc FIRE engine which runs a compression ratio over 11:1 as they have a lower compression and on low throttle openings there is virtually no boost or even none. So the normally aspirated engine can in fact be more economical at low speeds, even though it may have a bigger capacity.