(T) Cross 4x4 (2017) 1.3 Diesel consumption issues.

My first post here, from a new Fiat owner, so hello everyone!

At first I was excited with my 2017 Panda Cross 1.3 Diesel Multijet. However I realise that even from the first kilometers and until now (4500km) the comsumption is much higher than the claimed from the company numbers. I have to note that I pay attention on driving with a non-high consumption style.

Fiat gives around 4.5l/100km and although we all know that it is never the claimed numbers that are true, my Cross is CONSTANTLY over 7l/100km as the computer shows. However, when I calculated myself with the full-to-empty tank test many times (not just once), found out that the 35lt tank of the Cross takes me as far as 400-430 km. This equals to 8.2l/100km!!!

Any thoughts, ideas, experiences on it?

Thank you all in advance!

Id expect better than that.
A 2012 Doblo van I had at my previous job did 50mpg on average and that was carrying tools and often heavy commercial pressure washers. It rarely was lightly loaded.
It was a 1.3 multijet 90 diesel.

8.2l/100km is 34.6mpg - not good. Do your brakes get hot at the end of even a gentle drive perhaps? Definitely needs investigation I think.

Did not notice something like this. I arranged an appointment with the local official service department soon, I hope it is something that can be fixed. Or else I will demand a new engine!

Hi there..., i own a standard 4x4 diesel Panda 2017 model. On 11.000km since June i count 6.2lt/100km.Yours has slightly more weight and a bit worse aerodynamics. I would expect something about 6.5lt/100km at max.

So yes i believe that something wrong with your car!

Yes, this is a normal consumption. Do you use the off-road mode a lot? My numbers do not even include that mode because I have not used it yet off the tarmac (just tried it a couple of times on dirt).

No i dont do much off road. However my average consuption doesnt vary much. It was a real pain to see on trip computer before refilling 5.6lt/100km. Tank by tank i see 6.1-6.3 whatever i do. My worst consuption was in August at a 750km journey. 3 passangers, fully loaded with luggages and a speed constantly between 140-160km/h, our average consuption was 7.3lt/100km.

My 2013 model 4x4 diesel has, over the past 20,000 or so miles, averaged 59 miles per gallon - according to the display, which is I believe 4.8 litres per 100km. This a mix of 70mph motorway (110km/hr), in town traffic jams, quiet back roads at 50mph (80km/hr), and some off road too.

So yes, I think you have an issue.

That sounds more like the desired consumption of a panda 4x4 diesel. Unfortunately, by all your answers I realize that I really have a problem, 100%. I only hope it is something easily fixed. Thank you very much Herts!

I went to the local official Fiat department where I bought the car from and the head of the service department told me to contact them for arranging a check up date AFTER i reach 5000km, because "he had his reasons for saying this". Any ideas why? I hope it is not some legal loophole.

They probably want to let the break-in period end before poking around, though I doubt much improvement could be expected after 3-4k (they do tend to start off worse and get better after a few thousand kilometers). Other things I've noticed that tend to do this: poor fuel quality and extreme temperatures (below freezing or above 35C).

I can only report on a test drive of some 30 miles or so but giving the car a pretty hard time still saw the dash read out showing 65mpg so this is disappointing economy. At last we have found something Fiat do better than all the others. Shall we politely say wishful fuel consumption prediction in the brochures? Bring back the 100HP it used to do 43mpg which was at least exactly what it said on the box. For some obscure reason it cost £185 in road tax.

I though that burning a given quantity of fuel had to result in a pretty constant output of oxides of carbon and water along with some dirty stuff. It seems the fuel used by the EU testing body defies physics and they are too B stupid to use first principles and question some of the utterly preposterous claims made these days!

I would suggest that if you do not receive proper consideration you should reject the car on the grounds that it is not as advertised, and not fit for purpose. I suspect you would find most courts would take a dim view of the situation if it has not been reasonably addressed.

It will take a lot of miles to loosen up the engine. I recon a 1600cc diesel does not run at its best for 60000 miles. Drive it a bit harder for a few miles and see if that changes things.

Crikey, our 100HP never exceeded 37mpg, though to be fair it didn't do many long runs.

Wishful fuel consumption? I've just spent a week and 500 miles in a new Nissan Micra (basically an uglier Clio) with the 900cc turbo triple at 90bhp.

Book says 65mpg. Dash says 39mpg.....and that WAS a good mix of driving.

That said, I preferred that engine to the Twinair, though it's almost impossible to drive smoothly in traffic with the huge torque kick once you've figured there's nothing below 1500rpm. It also had the unfortunate habit of barbequeing its clutch when we took the twisty road 2 miles uphill in 2nd gear, which suggests they maybe fitted a Yamaha FS1E clutch rather than one that can handle all that torque.

I bet that Twingo GT 110bhp is a hoot, though probably tiring after a while.

It makes me hopeful for the Firefly triple though, after my indigestion of the Twinair last year.

I would assume because it's a shiny new engine. I would guess they want you to break the engine in a bit more before it's worth looking at. You will have warranty and all that so it shouldn't be a legal loop hole. I get 75 - 85mpg with my panda lounge (1.3multijet diesel) **smug**
Good luck

So I will give some time up to 10000km but just to be covered legaly, I took it for a check where I asked their findings (which were "your car is fine, nothing wrong with it") written on a paper and signed by the branch manager.
All i know is that they react to my problem by not giving a dime.
However I do not expect much to change...
Sadly, I almost believe it was a mistake for choosing to buy this vehicle..