I've seen mpg figures for the Panda multijet diesel discussed in a few threads.
I've owned mine from new, and it now has 9000 miles on in 8 months.

Main reason for buying it was a: price and b: expected fuel economy. Our old Pug 106 1.5 diesel (from new to 200,000 miles in ten years) always averaged +60mpg tank to tank, even in its later years.
Exactly the same driving style and routes, the Panda manages just over 50mpg which seems very poor for a modern high-tech motor. Performance is better than the old 106, but taking advantage of it sees consumption dip below 50.
Engine-wise it seems to have a very audible low speed diesel clatter, and can be lurchy at low speeds when cold, but the dealers aren't interested and say it doesn't show any error codes.

I suspect possibly an injector isn't working properly - perhaps not shutting off completely - but would welcome any suggestions or ideas?

I cane my MJ and get no less than 55mpg over a tankfull, the best I get is on a Friday afternoon run on the south coast doing courier work, 68-72mpg often seen, due to the volume of traffic limiting speed. Just over 50mpg is suspicious. I have noticed that the fuel can make a difference, Sainsburys seems too foamy and gives poorer economy, but jet seems to have a good anti-foam additive and I to get another 3-4mpg out of it. Also, have you actually measured the MPG by briming the tank and measuring it that way, as you may noticed if you sit in traffic the mpg indicator on the trip computer will creep down whilst stationary.

On a long run at 70mph on the speedo our will return 65mpg. Normal running around by the girlfriend was about 58mpg which is a 15mile commute and a few 10mile journeys a week.

If it is noisy when warm (especially compared to the 106) there is something wrong, either something to do with the timing or an injector. If the dealer has another it would be worth trying it.

Thanks for the fast responses.

I calculate the mpg from brimmed tank to brimmed tank - the onboard computer is rather optimistic to the tune of about 4mpg. It's usually refilled at the same place place, which coincidentally is a Jet station. Most tankfuls average 52-53mpg. I could work out the overall figure if anyone was interested.

It's not noisier when warm, the most obvious point for me is at low revs/low speed, a few seconds heavy diesel clatter will interrupt the normal tone, without any extra input from the right foot. At higher speeds I suspect it wouldn't be heard anyway.

As I mentioned earlier, the supplying dealer and another that I tried just said that basically if it wasn't showing error codes, they couldn't do anything. I had thought about trying to find a diesel specialist to have a look at it (for an independent opinion) but apparently not many are yet geared up for fully electronic systems like this yet.

Anything below 50mpg is suspicious (unless you are taking it to a track day or something..), but you will have seen that owners broadly fall into 2 camps: those who seem to get mpg in the 60s most of the time and sometimes into the low 70s on a run, and those who get figures in the mid-high 50s with over 60 on a run.

I'm in the second group. I got 62 on a run to Scotland, the only time in 8000 miles of largely rural motoring (rarely is any trip less than 20 miles) that I have broke the 60 barrier. In warmer weather I get 58mpg. Currently, in the colder weather, I'm getting 54. These figures are OK , but hardly match the hype about the multijet being the most advanced small diesel on the block: neither are the noise levels anything to write home about. You never forget, as you can in the far bigger and better insulated Bravo mjet I've been driving of late, that you are in a diesel. The far heavier, bigger, and faster Bravo seems to deliver about 48 with the mix of routes that sees the Panda returning 54. Our even bigger, heavier and faster Audi A4 delivered about 50mpg in the same situation.

Before I bought the car I read somewhere (wish I could remember where, but might have been What Car) that economy reports were variable with some Pandas really very good but many others fairly average. Don't forget the AutoExpress test with a 52mpg overall economy.... perhaps they were using one from the same batch as your car?

I've had mine since the end of november, am up to about 2400miles.

Around town, driving around the council estate all day i seem to get between 57-61mpg (on hte computer). This is all done on the average trip.

On motorways i tend to find that i average around 50mpg if i'm cruising at 80mph or so. It doesn't seem to improve much at 70mph really.

If i'm honest its a little less than i was expecting, though i don't particularly pootle around in it. Mind you i'm happy enough with it anything over 50mpg is fine for me really.

I have the small engine panda diesel multijet and have done 30000 miles in 14 months It averages 55mpg and the computor says the average speed is 50mph. It has never averaged more mpg than this even when running in

notsmartcar said:

I have the small engine panda diesel multijet and have done 30000 miles in 14 months It averages 55mpg and the computor says the average speed is 50mph. It has never averaged more mpg than this even when running in

Click to expand...

Our average speed - trying to make the diesel stretch further - is usually 25mph or less...... Not laboured, just being driven infuriatingly sedately :bang:

If it keeps up like this it'll get it's first and only Main Dealer service at 12,000 miles and get part-exed for something else. Shame really, as the rest of the car fits the bill perfectly, but it's definitely not living up to the fuel economy hype.
-

I've had mine since March '05 when I bought it new. I must admit, although I'm very pleased with the car, the fuel consumption has been a little disappointing. In response to a thread posted in September concerning whether supermarket fuel was better than premium diesel, I made a few notes comparing Sainsbury's City Diesel with BP derv which I think is called Ultimate. I had a theory that the kind of terrain you drove over was as, if not more important than driving style. During the periods I compared, the kind of driving varied from fairly brisk cross country to 70/80 mph motorways to commuting which consists of 15 miles motorway and 2 miles of urban roads. The other consideration is that on the commutes the engine is below its normal operating temperature for about 20% of its journey. Figures as follows: Sainsbury's 61.5 - trip meter. Peak District.
Sainsbury's 59.3 - trip meter. 68.4 - actual X-country & M-way.
BP 52.5 - actual Commuting.
Sainsbury's 53.3 - trip meter. 64.8 - actual Commuting.
BP 53.3 - trip meter. 56.4 - actual Commuting.

I thought it was also odd that the disparity between what the trip computer read and what I worked out with a calculator varied so much.

Last year on a programme called Mythbusters, on Discovery Channel, they carried out an experiment using 2 Ford 4X4s, big uns, 7-litre V8s I think. What they were trying to do was work out whether the cars used more fuel driving with the windows open to provide cooling or using the air-con. The trip computers on both cars showed that they were more economical using the A/C. When they then did it again and worked the consumption out manually, they were more economical with the windows open. The reason given was that the trip computer used an air flow meter which didn't give an accurate reading and in fact estimated how much fuel should have been used rather than how much it actually was using. Sorry about the length of this eply. Just hope you never get stuck in a lift with me as I talk more than I type.

My trip computer has been + or - 2mpg so far. I was impressed that it was pessimistic as much as it was optimistic.

On saturday evening I drove from Essex to Dorset, trying to keep to a more or less steady 60 mph, just to see what the consumption was. On the first part of the journey as far as Fleet services the trip computer said exactly 70mpg, but after that it started raining and the roads are a little bit hillier it seems and the average fell to 67mpg - I didn't reset the trip for the second half so I guess if I had then the figure would have been around 64.

Though perhaps the reason was that I ate at Burger King so the weight in the car must have increased as well

Just as a comparison, I use a Fiesta 1.4 Tdci at work. It spends 90% of its time in a built up area and only gives approx. 40-42 mpg. On top of this, it will only just pull 30 in 4th and 20 in 3rd. This might seem unimportant, but if you are in a built up area doing 30, the last thing you want to do is have to drop a gear every time you slow down to 28 because of the unpleasant low frequency vibes. The same goes for 3rd. if you drop below 19 mph. The Panda may not be perfect, but for me, the engine is quiet, flexible, gives good performance and is pretty ecomomical. I don't know for sure, but even though the Fiesta is being phased out and will have some good deals on it, I think the Panda will still be cheaper. Talking of cost, another comparison could be the Micra I've just had as a courtesy car while the wife's Stilo was in the bodyshop. Although a 1.2 (I think) petrol it would probably be a similar price to the Panda. It was slower accelerating (in every gear) than the FIAT, gave only 42-44 mpg, in fact on a trip to the North East cost about £5 more than the 1.4 Stilo, and although better damped than the Panda had a harder ride.

Anyone tried these guys?

http://www.econotune.com/default.aspx

Tuning for economy rather than performance.

Thank you all for your replies.

I waited until another tankful had gone - at 52.7mpg - before replying again.
Judging by what most have said, it seems realistic mpg figures are somewhat lower than what should be expected from this model. Flexibilty and performance are fine, though my cars' coarse diesel clatter sounds very un-high tech to me, and main dealers seem less than interested since it still actually runs.

I only wish I'd browsed such as this forum before deciding to buy, as I'd honestly expected a few mpg better than our geriatric Pug 106. Maybe I'm being too fussy, but I don't want to drive eco-style every journey just to get 50mpg, so it looks like I'll have to either grin and bear it, or pick an opportune time to part-ex for something better without blowing my brains out moneywise

Trimdoner said:

Flexibilty and performance are fine, though my cars' coarse diesel clatter sounds very un-high tech to me

Click to expand...

Quite. My feelings exactly. And they aren't all like this. I test drove a 24000 mile example for about 20 miles before I ordered one and the car I test drove was so smooth I had to do a double take that it wasn't petrol!!! Imagine my disappointment to find that my car sounded like a tractor....

However, it has got quieter over time. Particularly after a 6000 mile oil and filter change. Some of the noise was coming from a badly fitted oil filter which had begun to leak!! But it's still pretty raucous. Be interesting to know if FF members who are regularly getting 60mpg plus think their cars are quiet, and the rest of us stuck in the 50s think our cars are noisy...........???

alfabarry said:

Be interesting to know if FF members who are regularly getting 60mpg plus think their cars are quiet, and the rest of us stuck in the 50s think our cars are noisy...........???

Click to expand...

Interesting thought, which made me wonder if all the engines are from one source, or is there more than one manufacturing point?
Regarding noise (non-Fiat but same JTD) a neighbour has a 57 reg Corsa diesel which sounds clattery same as mine, but a 56 reg gas board Corsa van nearby -JTD once again - sounds quite smooth. Probably lots more miles on

I've just replaced a 2003 Skoda Fabia 1.4TDI Comfort with a 2005 Panda Sporting and these are my observations.

1.) Skoda more economical 55 mpg regularly without effort (Panda 50mpg 55 if I'm really gentle)

2.) Skoda felt quicker (see point 3)

3.) Panda much much quieter and I think that this combined with the high seating position might explain why the Skoda felt quicker.

My Fabia and I did 123,000 miles together but a quote of £1200 for the 120,000 service and a few little jobs encouraged me to change.


JON

GringoSporting said:

I've just replaced a 2003 Skoda Fabia 1.4TDI Comfort with a 2005 Panda Sporting and these are my observations.

1.) Skoda more economical 55 mpg regularly without effort (Panda 50mpg 55 if I'm really gentle)

Click to expand...

thats weird, town driving I get 58mpg, i'd have to thrash it about to get anything below 55...

Just started to use the millers treatment for euro 4 engines, smoking under hard acceleration and gearchange eliminated and economy slowly creaping up - I'll pas judgement when the whole bottles used up.

Just a thought, when comparing older engines like the Pug 106 or my own Uno 60DS, is that now all diesels need catalysts, exhaust gas recirculation and the like which, despite turbos, must take a toll on fuel consumption. My old Uno as a 1.7 used to put out 58 bhp and give 50-55 mpg. My Panda MJT is a 1.3, puts out 75 bhp and gives 55-60 mpg. So, more power, better economy from a smaller engine, something's got to give.

To compare the '07 Fiesta 1.4 Tdci, I use at work, which spends 90% of its time in built up areas, it's noisier than the Panda, only returns 40-42 mpg, is geared too highly so you are constantly changing gear in town, has uncomfortable seats and really isn't that much bigger inside than the Panda. The only part of the car that is better than the FIAT is the steering and roadholding. But then it does have 195/50R15 tyres and has an inferior ride.

My Panda by comparison is always in the low 50's