Fuel consumption

[Jacobs89]

Hi
I recently bought a Panda lounge twin air 12 months old with 22,500 miles on the clock and am finding the petrol horrendously poor although when I had a minor bodywork problem the reception said on return of the car they had installed the latest update ro relieve this problem
I am returning less than forty to the gallon on mainly short journeys which compares with a return of 45plus on the same journeys on my 53 plate Ford fusion 1 diesel
Does any body else find this problem
I also find the I cannot get the rear lights to come on without switching on the side lights is this normal as I would have thought both front and rear lights on at the same time would be more sensible
Best
Jacobs89

 

[MN500]

I think you have answered your own question when you say your car is used for short journeys. You aren't likely to have good fuel consumption on short journeys - cold engine, lots of idling at junctions/lights then accelerating in low gears.

You also compare a diesel car against a petrol. Unfortunately you are unlikely to beat a diesel with a petrol in most occasions, even with a twin air. Have a search on this forum for twin air fuel consumption and see what others are saying, it will at least reassure you that there isn't anything wrong with your car.

 

[MN500]

Oh, forgot about the lights. I think you refer to the daylight running lights that are always on at the front but not at the back. Nothing wrong with your car, you need to switch the lights on to get lights at the back.

 

[triumph7]

Oh, forgot about the lights. I think you refer to the daylight running lights that are always on at the front but not at the back. Nothing wrong with your car, you need to switch the lights on to get lights at the back.

Yes, can't quite understand the logic of only having DRL's at the front only.

 

[MN500]

Neither can I, two words that I can think may explain it - European Union. There will probably be some crazy law out there detailing that you cannot have rear lights with DRL.

 

[triumph7]

Neither can I, two words that I can think may explain it - European Union. There will probably be some crazy law out there detailing that you cannot have rear lights with DRL.

Yes. EU's fingerprint are all over the nonsensical rule.... In fact, if you think about it logically surely DRL's should be at the back only to help stop people driving too close?

 

[doggydoctor]

Drl are there so you can spot cars coming towards you sooner. Either when pulling away from junctions or when overtaking. There isn't much danger in a car moving away from you, so no need for lights on at the rear all the time. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[MN500]

Yes, it does make sense when you put it like that. Good thinking.

 

[triumph7]

Drl are there so you can spot cars coming towards you sooner. Either when pulling away from junctions or when overtaking. There isn't much danger in a car moving away from you, so no need for lights on at the rear all the time. Makes perfect sense to me.

Hmmm. Guess u right

 

[doggydoctor]

I know we all like to complain about the EU, but sometimes they do make sense.
It does irritate me I still have to switch on the lights in heavy run to ensure I have lights at the back too.

 

[doggydoctor]

And to get back to the mpg: I am getting an average of 41mpg in the panda 4x4 and that's on a combination of short trips in and around town and some longer motorway and dual carriage journeys. With our 500 we are now getting an average of 53mpg on the same type of journeys. I think we'll be getting close to 10mpg less than what fiat claims eventually. Both are twinair engines. Short trips really kill your mpg, even though the engine is very economical at a steady 30 mph. It's all the start stop traffic that ruins it.

 

[deeyup]

I've found over the time I've been using twin air motors that they can give great economy, but only in certain situations.
Constant speeds on A roads, motorways etc can give excellent results. My return home from work route which is 14 miles of mostly A road, some country lanes, then about 3 miles of urban has seen me get a best of 72mpg in my old 500, and 62mpg in my panda 4x4.
Just running around town though I'm the same as everyone else, lucky to get 40mpg. As doggy doctor says, it's the stop start that kills it. The TA motor seems to gulp a hell of a lot of juice to get the car moving from standstill.

There's nothing wrong with your car jacobs89 , the problem is with your expectations. The way the manufacturer does the tests to get the figures is nothing like real world driving, and the gap between the test mpg and real world mpg is huge with twin air cars I'm sorry to say. The test figures are misleading to say the least.

 

[Super Uwe]

Exactly, deeyup's last paragraph is the key point here. I don't think Fiat have done any wrong necessarily, it's just the rules allow them to quote a figure which isn't really representative of anything like standard driving.

Take the 1.2 in the Panda for example. Because it doesn't have Start/Stop or Eco mode functions, that automatically means it can't ever achieve such a high official combined figure, and so it's quoted at 54.3mpg. The 1.2 500 on the other hand has a combined figure of nearly 59mpg; however my old 1.2 500 which didn't have S/S was only 55.3mpg. As far as I am aware, Fiat hasn't altered that engine so much that it achieve nearly 4mpg more, so it has to be down to the new technology and the way the car is tested using that technology.

But as many of you who drive a 1.2 will agree, that figure is actually perfectly achievable (or near enough achievable) if you do a mixed cycle. Stick to short journeys around town and yeah, you will be lucky to get near 40-45mpg. But even then that is pretty much in line with the official urban consumption figure for the 1.2.

I think the problem with the TA is that you have to have so many variables in place in order to hit that official figure. What I would be interested to see is how the non-turbo 65bhp TA engine would perform compared to its official consumption figures. This engine is currently sold in some European countries (not sure which ones though).

 

[babbo_umbro]

I notice that the non-turbo version is also slightly larger.

 

[Oli 1]

All interesting figures & opinions.
Here's mine. Just returned from a 350 mile each way trip to relatives near Oban in Scotland in our 5 month old Panda TA Trekking. Fuel consumption averaged out at 53mpg (thats what the trip figure said and also accurate to working it out on paper) Eco button activated throughout entire time. This was with 250 miles of motorway each way so not much gear work although the little motor did struggle on some gradients and the temptation was to depress the Eco setting. I'm quite happy with this performance which in other terms means I traveled 700 miles with a fuel cost total of £74. Not at all possible with public transport prices and for 2 persons! Oh, and zero road tax. That's what I call low cost of ownership.

 

[Moultoneer]

All interesting figures & opinions.
Here's mine. Just returned from a 350 mile each way trip to relatives near Oban in Scotland in our 5 month old Panda TA Trekking. Fuel consumption averaged out at 53mpg (thats what the trip figure said and also accurate to working it out on paper) Eco button activated throughout entire time. This was with 250 miles of motorway each way so not much gear work although the little motor did struggle on some gradients and the temptation was to depress the Eco setting. I'm quite happy with this performance which in other terms means I traveled 700 miles with a fuel cost total of £74. Not at all possible with public transport prices and for 2 persons! Oh, and zero road tax. That's what I call low cost of ownership.

Your experience mirrors mine- my Trekking's just passed 5000 miles and has
averaged 55 MPG overall. I've hardly used the ECO button as I like having
all the 'oomph' available, but this is offset by hardly doing any short trips
(I use a selection of bicycles for those )

The Twinair's economy is incredibly sensitive to driving style, so it's not
surprising that many report much worse figures. When I ordered mine it
was a 'leap in the dark' but I'm very happy with my results so far!



Chris

 

[triumph7]

Your experience mirrors mine- my Trekking's just passed 5000 miles and has
averaged 55 MPG overall. I've hardly used the ECO button as I like having
all the 'oomph' available, but this is offset by hardly doing any short trips
(I use a selection of bicycles for those )

The Twinair's economy is incredibly sensitive to driving style, so it's not
surprising that many report much worse figures. When I ordered mine it
was a 'leap in the dark' but I'm very happy with my results so far!



Chris

What is the driving technique for best economy cos I'm obviously not too good at it! My ave is barely 40 mpg in my 4x4. Mind you, only done 2000 miles so far

 

[Moultoneer]

What is the driving technique for best economy cos I'm obviously not too good at it! My ave is barely 40 mpg in my 4x4. Mind you, only done 2000 miles so far

I basically obey the gear-change indicators on the dashboard display!
This generally keeps the engine below 3000 RPM, the turbo gives just
about enough torque to keep up with normal traffic, but there's a
fair amount of vibration (particularly around peak torque at 1900 RPM)
which I've learned to tolerate :bang:

It helps to have driven turbo-diesels for years (since 1996 for me) but
one has to resist the temptations of the Twinair's lovely thrum above
3000 RPM, unless rapid acceleration is vital (e.g. overtaking )

Beware, as some find its higher rev. band addictive :devil:



Chris

 

[babbo_umbro]

I've recounted my experiences of a 4x4 TA on a very long trip in another thread but I have a little updating to do. A recent fill-up saw the first 50-odd miles achieving 22.something to the gallon, which was a bit of a shocker, but it did consist entirely of very short local journeys, some of which I'd normally walk but we had over an inch and a quarter of rain in one day last week (!). A 110 mile main road jaunt yesterday (to look at sun roofs) saw 40mpg (most of the time not exactly on or below the 70 limit). The colder weather doesn't help.

 

[triumph7]

I basically obey the gear-change indicators on the dashboard display!
This generally keeps the engine below 3000 RPM, the turbo gives just
about enough torque to keep up with normal traffic, but there's a
fair amount of vibration (particularly around peak torque at 1900 RPM)
which I've learned to tolerate :bang:

It helps to have driven turbo-diesels for years (since 1996 for me) but
one has to resist the temptations of the Twinair's lovely thrum above
3000 RPM, unless rapid acceleration is vital (e.g. overtaking )

Beware, as some find its higher rev. band addictive :devil:



Chrisquirky nessI must be addicted then! Lol
I do try to use the change indicator but must admit I avoid the eco button - life's too short....
I don't mind the 1900rpm vibration its a part of its quirkiness but I think passengers think something is wrong!
I guess 40-odd mpg isn't bad, my defender barely managed 30 and cost £460 in road tax!
I've had loads of td's over the years, so I should get on OK with this ta.....
My fave engine ever was the 2.5L Subaru flat 4 in my old legacy