A well know motoring magazine. Apparently the 500 more reliable despite design being lot older. And a used review of the Panda. All of it news to me.

The ride's unsettled. How come I've owned 4 then?! The TA chunters at idle. I found it near silent. Expect to sacrifice performance and economy if have the 1.2 instead. Very simlar to my departed 4x4 with a few revs. And economy 40% better on the 1.2. The new Tipo page has covered them in more detail so won't say much more. How anyone expected to afford new superminis they do rate am not qute sure.

Al D said:

A well know motoring magazine. Apparently the 500 more reliable despite design being lot older. And a used review of the Panda. All of it news to me.

The ride's unsettled. How come I've owned 4 then?! The TA chunters at idle. I found it near silent. Expect to sacrifice performance and economy if have the 1.2 instead. Very simlar to my departed 4x4 with a few revs. And economy 40% better on the 1.2. The new Tipo page has covered them in more detail so won't say much more. How anyone expected to afford new superminis they do rate am not qute sure.

Click to expand...

Is this from another thread? [emoji50]

No, but said magazine have given the new Tipo a bashing mentioned on that page. For the money, who cares how flawed Fiats are or not? They never appear in Honest John's columns so in my eyes they're perfect. In case Frupi is wondering, the I10 doesn't either.

Al D said:

A well know motoring magazine. Apparently the 500 more reliable despite design being lot older. And a used review of the Panda. All of it news to me.

The ride's unsettled. How come I've owned 4 then?! The TA chunters at idle. I found it near silent. Expect to sacrifice performance and economy if have the 1.2 instead. Very simlar to my departed 4x4 with a few revs. And economy 40% better on the 1.2. The new Tipo page has covered them in more detail so won't say much more. How anyone expected to afford new superminis they do rate am not qute sure.

Click to expand...

That's what happens when you review products based on marketing literature instead of real world ownership experiences.

40% better fuel economy from the TA over the 1.2? Someone's having a laugh.

Admittedly weather conditions aren't the same. But I had 30mpg out of the 4x4 and the 1.2 doing in the 40's. Though when it's run in and weather colder it'll do less with my right foot.

jrkitching said:

That's what happens when you review products based on marketing literature instead of real world ownership experiences.

40% better fuel economy from the TA over the 1.2? Someone's having a laugh.

Click to expand...

In my experience of my 169 1.2 and my current car a 319 TA the average economy figure is pretty much identical. The 1.2 was better around town and slower roads the TA better on the open road. The 1.2 average over the 9 years I had it was around 52mpg. The TA is averaging around that too - admittedly it's improving - currently on 8,500 miles and I've seen the average mpg rise from 45 to low 50s since it's been running in. The only difference is the 1.2 is more refined and the TA is quicker - oh and the TA is zero tax. That appears to be it.

JCarp16 said:

In my experience of my 169 1.2 and my current car a 319 TA the average economy figure is pretty much identical. The 1.2 was better around town and slower roads the TA better on the open road. The 1.2 average over the 9 years I had it was around 52mpg. The TA is averaging around that too - admittedly it's improving - currently on 8,500 miles and I've seen the average mpg rise from 45 to low 50s since it's been running in. The only difference is the 1.2 is more refined and the TA is quicker - oh and the TA is zero tax. That appears to be it.

Click to expand...

I have the same experience, fuel consumption wise with my old 169 with 1.2 and my 85 TA's.
But i'm more around the 30s.

I get the same mpg figures for the exact same trip from my 4x4 TA and 1.2 Pop (Euro 5).

And they are both the same as our departed 1.2 Lounge (Euro 6).

All three hit 34 mpg on my 3 mile crawl to work and back through sh*t London traffic.

The Lounge replacement, our new 1.6 Vitara's returning 43 mpg on the same trip, it'll also easily hit 50 mpg on a steady cruise without any effort.

Due to some issues with changes to working hours and congestion charging, I'm now having to consider swapping either the 4x4 or the Pop for a Yaris Hybrid to qualify for the 100% CC discount.

I'm not thrilled by the prospect, but the more I use my head instead of my heart, the more sense it makes, seamlessly smooth auto box, 55-60 mpg easily around town and bullet proof reliability, just a shame it looks totally boring!

The Pretender said:

I have the same experience, fuel consumption wise with my old 169 with 1.2 and my 85 TA's.
But i'm more around the 30s.

Click to expand...

How do you manage that? Do you have to drive high speed up a mountain? Even my old Punto 16V managed to average 47mpg that was 17 years ago before manufacturers supposedly made such an effort to reduce their CO2 emissions. It's not like I hang about or anything either!

JCarp16 said:

How do you manage that? Do you have to drive high speed up a mountain? Even my old Punto 16V managed to average 47mpg that was 17 years ago before manufacturers supposedly made such an effort to reduce their CO2 emissions. It's not like I hang about or anything either!

Click to expand...

I don't know, this 85 TA is worse then my previous blue 85 TA.

The Pretender said:

I don't know, this 85 TA is worse then my previous blue 85 TA.

Click to expand...

Yes - and wasn't your previous one tuned for over 100bhp? I seem to remember you had upgraded the chip and the turbo? Maybe it's because your current car has the older engine? Euro 5?

JCarp16 said:

Yes - and wasn't your previous one tuned for over 100bhp? I seem to remember you had upgraded the chip and the turbo? Maybe it's because your current car has the older engine? Euro 5?

Click to expand...

I still hope it has something to do with the engine problems i have with it.

The Pretender said:

I still hope it has something to do with the engine problems i have with it.

Click to expand...

Well fingers crossed they get to the bottom of that. It does seem odd. If it's an electronic issue though they should find something while running a diagnostic.

JCarp16 said:

Well fingers crossed they get to the bottom of that. It does seem odd. If it's an electronic issue though they should find something while running a diagnostic.

Click to expand...

Oil Temp Sensor has broke dow again, and it's mounted in the UNIAir module.
Second time in a row, with just 11 days between them.

Do you have "lemon laws" in the Netherlands, where if a car seems to have a fundamental flaw, you can exchange it for a replacement of identical or greater value? Because it seems something is causing a repeating failure that the dealer is failing to diagnose, and you're paying the bill (even if under warranty in the time and fuel spent to go back and forth).

I wouldn't dismiss the Yaris Hybrid so quickly. Happened to drive one for the local municipality recently, and it has very little of the "hybridiness" of the Prius, it's pretty much a Yaris, but quieter and uses less fuel.

So, dismissing the fact that the Yaris in and of itself is quite boring, it's a quieter and more efficient boring car, but damn if it didn't just simply get the job done with the least amount of fuss and cost.

I was still worried I'd either get a gun and shoot the centre stack for the design and complexity, or fall asleep and crash because it's as quiet as it is boring (it's a lot of both).

oyumurtaci said:

Do you have "lemon laws" in the Netherlands, where if a car seems to have a fundamental flaw, you can exchange it for a replacement of identical or greater value? Because it seems something is causing a repeating failure that the dealer is failing to diagnose, and you're paying the bill (even if under warranty in the time and fuel spent to go back and forth).

Click to expand...

nope.