yes weight plus small engine isn't a Good combination for MPH

Some small 16V engines are even worse with very little low end torque. But they go in s lower tax band ?

On the drive home, it never gets above 3rd gear really. That's probably why it suffers!

The trip computer is probably 10% optimistic anyway, all of my cars with them have been

koalar said:

yes weight plus small engine isn't a Good combination

Click to expand...

Ere! Watch what you say about my sister

Do wonder about the favourable conditions used to get official mpg & CO2 figures compared to real world driving...

Just going off the fuel gauge, it has done 121 miles and is two small chunks above half a tank. So probably 150 miles to half a tank again? That puts it on track to doing 41mpg-ish again. Which is fine by me, given our driving conditions.

rmjbn1 said:

Hmm my 1.2's computer thinks I'm getting 52mpg

I wonder whether the 1.3 MJ diesel would be better in this kind of terrain? I suspect with its greater torque it could drag itself up a hill at 2000 revs where the petrol wouldn't.

Any MJ owners able to comment please?

Click to expand...

Ive not owned an mj panda..

But in the grande..
Petrols 1242 and 1400 are thirsty and gutless..
The 75hp diesel is livelier..
and gives 60 mpg as a min

Thank you Charlie

I noticed AndyRKett and Kronkron were singing the MJ's praises recently.

My parents are looking to reduce their motoring costs and I've been banging on rather tediously to them how good the Panda is - and I can't imagine there's a cheaper form of motoring to be had.

In hilly parts of the world I can't help wondering if the MJ would be the better car.

If the car were mine to drive all the time and was our only car, I'd definitely rather have the diesel I think. The petrol engine is nice as a runaround, but I can't imagine it's any good for longer runs. Plus the fuel economy is better on the diesel

Hi Gman

Ok high wycombe to bagshot via marlow/maidenhead/bracknell. 2 mile downhill at the start and hence 2 miles of up hill at the end of the return trip. same altitude at the end of the trip from starting point, please see two photos

[/ATTACH]

sorry for the turning of heads.

I have developed economical driving techniques whilst driving a peugeot Boxer 3.5 tonne diesel loloader and average around 25mpg, the guys who delivered it were getting 14mpg unladen.(that tells a story).

the 1.1 engines are not as economical as the 1.2 due to torque delivery so i wouldnt stress over your numbers, you could work out what percentage loss you have from manufacturers figures on this panda and previous cars.

Or just enjoy the fact that the car is losing you next to no money in its value compared to buying on a PCP monthly payment. we have had our car since it had 4 miles on the clock and we bought it as a pre registered car in 2005 at £6000 its still worth £1000 so £5000 in 15 years is about £333 per year.

Tim

Wow that is really good mpg from yours!

Yeah the cost overall for us is substantially cheaper running the Panda than any of our previous cars. It is dirt cheap to run, 40mpg isn't really an issue, I had hoped for 35+ really.

Plus, I do find I can get better mpg than my partner does when she drives it.

Taking it on a slightly longer trip next weekend, so that'll be interesting

I find the 1.2 fine for long journeys, it's comfortable enough, ok there's a bit of wind noise, but that doesn't bother me. I guess it depends what you're used to.

I tend to turn the wick down for long motorway slogs anyway, and keep it pegged around 3k revs, which gives me 'adequate' progress, and pretty good economy.

Life in the slow lane It's pretty relaxed there. Or am I just getting old...

One major annoyance of mine is that our Panda doesn't have a rev counter.

O yes, sorry Not sure if the 1.1 is the same, but 3000rpm in top equates to an indicated 66ish mph, so probably closer to 60 real mph... Steady as she goes

H Gman

I guess if your partner is not interested in economy then its never going to intergalactic MPG. but if 40 ish is 15% better than you hoped then great news.

OK no rev counter. driving our 1.2 with egg shells under my feet to get those figures i change gear at approx
1-2 at 5mph
2-3 at 10mph
3-4 at 15mph
4-5 at 25mph
i think this is changing gear at 1700 ish revs. This relies on the torque of the 1.2 and early planning at junctions means i hardly use the brakes.

i takes some practice though and major difference is you must not have a timetable as less time kills economy.

Tim

timmycm850 said:

H Gman

I guess if your partner is not interested in economy then its never going to intergalactic MPG. but if 40 ish is 15% better than you hoped then great news.

OK no rev counter. driving our 1.2 with egg shells under my feet to get those figures i change gear at approx
1-2 at 5mph
2-3 at 10mph
3-4 at 15mph
4-5 at 25mph
i think this is changing gear at 1700 ish revs. This relies on the torque of the 1.2 and early planning at junctions means i hardly use the brakes.

i takes some practice though and major difference is you must not have a timetable as less time kills economy.

Tim

Click to expand...

That short shifting seems a bit excessive to me, a happy engine is one that is revving.
I must admit that getting good mpg used to be a priority to me, but nowadays I don't bother too much, I am very happy with 40ish mpg out of the panda, in comparison to my cl500 which I have put off the road for the winter, was getting 16 mpg.

I have to admit, I'm an absolout advocate of the 1.3MJ in the panda.

As long as it's kept above 1800rpm it goes great guns and will surprise many cars and drivers that assume they have more power. The torque is great for a little car only weighing 900kg. Apart from the rollypolly handling I'm confidant it would give a 100hp a run for its money point to point on a run.

Mine is the lower powered diesel at 69 or 70bhp as opposed to tje 75bhp versions, but I also have no DPF to contend with.

I've covered over 100k in my motor without any issues and have recorded all of the tank to tank fill ups and think, from memory, my average is 64+mpg over the mileage.

Gman88667733 said:

. The petrol engine is nice as a runaround, but I can't imagine it's any good for longer runs.

Click to expand...

Depends what you call a longer run, I commute 110 miles each way in my 1.1!
On occasion do a fully loaded 200 mile each way trip.
It doesn't have big legs but will sit at sat nav indicated 70-75mph all day, keep the momentum up and even the steeper hills are dispatched without to much fuss.

Interesting... I have found so far that it takes a lot of down shifting to keep the speed up. Maybe I'm just not used to keeping it's speed up. Most of our trips top out at 60ish mph. Taking it away for the weekend next weekend, so it'll get a good run then.

I suppose I am used to driving small engine vehicles long distance, I spent 2 years commuting Plymouth to Glasgow, about 450 miles in a Reliant Robin. 850cc 40bhp. and achieved 75mpg

Wow, good effort..!

We seem to be getting 250ish miles before the fuel light comes on in ours