Technical Is your Panda too thirsty?

[Batfalcon]

Hi everyone,

Just got a Panda 4X4 petrol. I got it used with 25.000 km. So far I have only fill it up twice and the fuel consumption is a bit too much (IMHO).
Average 8,7 l/100 km within the city limits.
Sorry for the units, I'm not good in conversion in MPG, (I live in Athens Greece).
Is this normal? What do you think?

 

[doctorchris]

The petrol-engined Panda 4x4 is not very economical.
The engine has to work very hard to keep this heavy little car going.
The gearing is very low so the engine runs at high revs.
There are additional power losses in the4x4 drive-train that the front wheel drive models do not experience.

 

[babbo_umbro]

Hi everyone,

Just got a Panda 4X4 petrol. I got it used with 25.000 km. So far I have only fill it up twice and the fuel consumption is a bit too much (IMHO).
Average 8,7 l/100 km within the city limits.
Sorry for the units, I'm not good in conversion in MPG, (I live in Athens Greece).
Is this normal? What do you think?

That's about 35 miles per gallon, I reckon - which doesn't sound too bad for that car in those conditions.

 

[panda4x4x4x4]

I'm getting 42 mpg over the last 17000 miles

 

[trackdayqueen]

Around 33 in my 100hp.

 

[jimbo118]

We get around 33mpg average on our 100hp.

Strangely we only managed 32mpg over the last 2000 miles on the companies 1.1 Eco Active (which is very disappointing the be honest).

 

[ThisBitterPill]

Used to get around 38mpg in the 100hp....

Getting around 48mpg over the same journey in the Eleganza....

 

[maccauk1]

My 1.1 returns 52 mpg with great reliability. No runs shorter than about 20 miles.

And I thrash it.

 

[trevorwat]

I have just googled the conversion which says:
(8.7 litre) per (100 km) = 27.036159 miles per gallon

If that is correct it is very low. My petrol 4x4 averaged around 40 mpg (5.6 l per 100 km) if I kept below 60 miles per hour or 37 mpg (6.36 l per 100 km) if I drove 'normally'.

I thought this was not good enough so converted to lpg!

 

[BigAl54]

Around 33 in my 100hp.

That's what I get around the doors. I can get about 10 more on a decent run.

 

[Dan Friel]

We get around 33mpg average on our 100hp.

Strangely we only managed 32mpg over the last 2000 miles on the companies 1.1 Eco Active (which is very disappointing the be honest).

Yes, on certain roads (putting it through the gears..) the consumption of the 100HP is very low. Even on motorways at higher speeds it really dives below what you'd expect. Small engine, I guess that's going to happen.

 

[lanciaman]

I get around 43 mpg out of my Panda petrol 4x4. That is with very little town driving and rarely over 60mph. Beats the 12mpg I got from the 3.5 auto Isuzu Trooper which the Panda replaced!

Coming into its own at the moment as well.

 

[JD82]

I get exactly 40mpg over just under 1800 miles on my 1.1 eco. I am a bit disappointed with that but it is all city driving with lots of journeys under two miles and I trash it. I got 32mpg out of my old 1.2 16v Corsa and 33mpg out of my 1.3 OHV Fiesta so I guess 40mpg is good.

I would say the 30mpg 1.1 above must be faulty.

 

[jrkitching]

50.9 mpg actual over the first 2,306 miles on a new 1.2 dynamic. That's about 4pmg less than my new 1.2 500 over the same mileage. Careful observation of the trip computers on the two cars suggests the Panda uses significantly more fuel when the engine is cold, but the difference is less noticeable on a longer run.

 

[trevorwat]

The other thing I noticed on my Panda 4x4 petrol is that the dashboard mpg figures were about 10% higher than the 'actual' consumption measured by noting miles travelled and amount of fuel put in the tank...

 

[jrkitching]

The other thing I noticed on my Panda 4x4 petrol is that the dashboard mpg figures were about 10% higher than the 'actual' consumption measured by noting miles travelled and amount of fuel put in the tank...

Mine is exactly the same. On average, the actual consumption is about 5mpg less that the dashboard mpg figures.

The 50.9mpg I quoted is based on the actual fuel consumed, not the dashboard figures.

 

[Herts Hillhopper]

If I read it right, the original question related to the fuel consumption of a 1.2 4x4 version. This will be different to the 2WD 1.2s, 100HPs and diesels... the 4x4 1.2 uses a lot more petrol.

My 4x4 at this (cold) time of year shows a dashboard average (over past 1000 or so miles) of 38.7 mpg, which equates to 7.3 litre/100km. Over the warmer months the average (again, on the computer) rises to a little over 40mpg (7 litre/100km), and has on the odd light-footed long run shown 45mpg (6.3 litre/100km). The actual values are I suspect, close the computer - currently seeing about 250 miles per tank (which holds 30 litres on the 4x4, so that's about 37 mpg, or 7.6 litre/100km), with a mix of flat out motorway (pedal to metal on A1 hills in Hertfordshire gives 70mph, just!), country lanes and in-town traffic.

It seems that Batfalcon is getting worse fuel economy than this (8.7 l/100km is only 32 miles per gallon), and to answer the original question, yes, I think your 4x4 is being too thirsty. Check the rear brake calipers.

 

[Herts Hillhopper]

Meant to add:
convert mpg to litres per 100km (or the other way round) here:
http://mpg.webix.co.uk/

 

[KozmoNaut]

Meant to add:
convert mpg to litres per 100km (or the other way round) here:
http://mpg.webix.co.uk/

Or Google for "50 miles per imperial gallon in litres per 100 kilometres"

 

[Batfalcon]

.....
It seems that Batfalcon is getting worse fuel economy than this (8.7 l/100km is only 32 miles per gallon), and to answer the original question, yes, I think your 4x4 is being too thirsty. Check the rear brake calipers.

It's getting trickier...
Asking at the near authorized service center, I was told that "Your consumption is ok, don't try to find something better... All the 4X4s have a similar MPG"
Strangely, you claim a lot lower than mine, which drives me to the clue that:
1. Either you have a lot better roads and much more free way on your routes, or
2. We have a lot worse fuel in Greece.
Can't find any other reason why this differences occur.
Also bear in mind that my measurements are NOT what the computer says. They are made the old fashion way. Fill her up, travel and fill her up again at the same gas station. At the same time the computer says a little lower consumption 8,4 l/ 100 km (35 mpg).

BTW, what are the rear brake calipers????