endrop - for all your online needs

General Twinair - Rubbish mpg with City Driving

Currently reading:
General Twinair - Rubbish mpg with City Driving

R

RhubarbandCustard

New member
Parked in the garage
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
30
Points
13
Hello there

Have had my Twinair for a fortnight. Driving around London (and using Stop Start) I'm only getting 22.3mpg. That's rubbish isn't it compared to all the advertised figures? And really rubbish against my old 1.2 which averaged about 37mpg driving in the same conditions.

Have tried in both Eco and normal mode - and the figures average the same.

I know there have been various comments about mpg on here - but would be interested to know what others have averaged driving in London, or similar city driving.

PS - the high pitch noise has disappeared...
 
How many miles on the clock? I found my MA to be fairly rubbish (35mpg) untill i had clocked up 6000 miles, and it has been gradually improving ever since (currently 40.1mpg).

22.3 is the worst i have heard from a twinair.
 
RhubarbandCustard said:
Hello there

Have had my Twinair for a fortnight. Driving around London (and using Stop Start) I'm only getting 22.3mpg. That's rubbish isn't it compared to all the advertised figures? And really rubbish against my old 1.2 which averaged about 37mpg driving in the same conditions.

Have tried in both Eco and normal mode - and the figures average the same.

I know there have been various comments about mpg on here - but would be interested to know what others have averaged driving in London, or similar city driving.

PS - the high pitch noise has disappeared...
Click to expand...

Look on the bright side - you will make Tony (Grimwau) feel better.
 
It sounds very poor, but as said new engines do use more fuel because there is more internal friction.

For economy the engine speed needs to be kept absolutely as low as possible and also note a cold engine will use twice as much fuel as a warm engine.

I would suggest taking it for a drive and running it for say 30 minutes at 60mph on a conveniently quiet motorway and see what that gives.

Hope that helps.
 
I live at Putney bridge and have been driving a 1.3mjd (95) for about a year now.

Fuel consumption isnt close to being as good as claimed but as many say on here gets better over time. I'm still only at 4k miles.

Motorway driving at 85ish averages out at 48mpg, it's always been about that. Town driving all depends on how many times i start/ stop and i think the worst ive had is about 35mpg. Last friday i had a run to Tesco's at new malden, approx 2/3 of the distance is 40/50mph dual carriageway (A3) and came back with a 61mpg average.

The trip computer is normally pretty accurate but i do check from time to time, it seems to range from 2mpg underestimated to 1mpg overestimated. What i do is reset trip A on every tank and then calculate the mpg every time and I fill up to the first click. Trip B is for when i want to know the mpg for a particular trip.

22mpg sounds far too low to me.
 
No car ever gets the advertised figures. I have a Smart CDI Diesel advertised as getting 80 MPG,however i only get 60 MPG. All the other owners are also getting 60 MPG on the Smart Forums.
I used to have a Panda 100 HP which only got 35 MPG,so i am very happy with 60 MPG in the Manchester traffic.
 
I'm no Stephen Hawking but 60/80 seems a lot better proportion than 22/69.

I'm sure things will improve for the OP as his engine loosens up, but it is warm weather now and 22mpg is hideous.
 
We're not in the city but have to contend with the town up the valley which can get pretty busy and never have we got as low as the 20s average.

Imagine there is a pressure operated hand grenade under the right pedal! :D
 
smart examiner said:
No car ever gets the advertised figures. I have a Smart CDI Diesel advertised as getting 80 MPG,however i only get 60 MPG. All the other owners are also getting 60 MPG on the Smart Forums.
I used to have a Panda 100 HP which only got 35 MPG,so i am very happy with 60 MPG in the Manchester traffic.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with the gist of what you're saying, but I think the main problem lies with the fact that the consumption levels many TwinAir owners have posted on here are a long way short of what is expected (irrespective of whether the engine's cold, not run in etc). Mind you, 22mpg is a classic though, good effort OP!:cool:

In addition, the way the TwinAir has been marketed up until now means that it SHOULD be significantly better than the 1.2 in terms of average fuel consumption. So far it seems to have fallen short in this area.
 
I have the 500 1.2 Dual logic at the moment and it get according to the computer 44mpg on mostly country lanes and town driving. It's done less than 3K miles.

I'll be honest I haven't even got my Discovery 3 auto down to 22mpg since I have had it and that weighs about 2.5 tonnes and is a V6 diesel.
 
Super Uwe said:
... but I think the main problem lies with the fact that the consumption levels many TwinAir owners have posted on here are a long way short of what is expected ...
...the way the TwinAir has been marketed up until now means that it SHOULD be significantly better than the 1.2 in terms of average fuel consumption. So far it seems to have fallen short in this area.
Click to expand...

That, I think, is the gist of the problem with TwinAir economy. Most folks realise the 'official figures' are not really representative of real world driving BUT - and it's a big but - they ARE supposed to enable comparisons to be made between vehicles.

On the basis of FIAT's marketing and published figures, most people would reasonably assume a TwinAir would be more economical than a 1.2 petrol - and from what many of you are posting it would seem that the opposite is true.

A former 1.2 owner getting 37mpg who bought a TwinAir primarily because their FIAT salesman told them it would be more economical than the 1.2, and then found their economy had dropped to 22mpg would IMO have a reasonable claim of misrepresentation against the selling garage. Robin - what's your verdict on this one?
 
pearce_jj said:
It sounds very poor, but as said new engines do use more fuel because there is more internal friction.

For economy the engine speed needs to be kept absolutely as low as possible and also note a cold engine will use twice as much fuel as a warm engine.

I would suggest taking it for a drive and running it for say 30 minutes at 60mph on a conveniently quiet motorway and see what that gives.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

I disagree... keep the engine in it's powerband & torque max I say. Labouring an engine destroys economy as does thrashing it. MPG figures come from unrealistic tests & will never be achievable in real life, they are just to show what the best is they can achieve. I have always knocked 30% off published figures for any car & have never been diappointed.
 
If the salesman made the statement as one of fact, definitely a viable claim for misrep. The dealership would obviously try to say that it was just opinion or puffery or the like but I think they would lose.

I suspect that if a county court judge saw evidence of figures that bad, then provided he accepted that the salesman had said the economy would better a 1.2, then the claim would be made out.

That would mean that you could hand the keys back or go for damages. Jolly interesting to work out how much you'd get: presumably the additional cost of owning the Twinair (compared to the 1.2) over the expected period of ownership (taking into account finance costs etc and fuel as well as extra insurance etc) less the amount by which its future value exceeds that of a 1.2.

Incidentally, any attempt by the dealership to say that the Twinair is more "fun" (and so reduce the damages because you are getting more car for your money, not just supposedly better economy) should fail because a car purchase contract is not a "contract of enjoyment" like a holiday contract where those sort of things get thrown into the mix.

So maybe that's the answer: buy a fun Twinair, then sue and recover the additional cost beyond that of owning a 1.2! Won't apply to you FF members however as you now all know how pants the Twinair economy is, so you will not have relied on the misrep in the first place!
 
22 mpg doesent sound right regardless of driving style etc. My 3.2 Merc does 23! I seem to recall a thread a while back re a dodgy knock sensor in a new TA that caused poor MPG and it greatly improved when sorted - might be worth checking it out?
 
Surely any statement by a Sales person would have to be in writing as a spoken conversation cannot be accurately referred to as fact... one persons word against another. No car will ever do the economy manufacturers & dealers quote from the paraphernalia they use to sell... caveat emptor is a good statement even today...
 
Not at all. Many cases turn on what people said. It's up to a claimant to prove his/her claim, and if there is a dispute over what was said it is the judge's job to decide who is right.

Of course, getting it in writing makes it much easier, but it is not impossible without it.

Also bear in mind that judges will have seen plenty of cases brought against car dealers and will often be pre-disposed towards finding in favour of consumers.
 
RobinPJ said:
If the salesman made the statement as one of fact, definitely a viable claim for misrep. The dealership would obviously try to say that it was just opinion or puffery or the like but I think they would lose.

I suspect that if a county court judge saw evidence of figures that bad, then provided he accepted that the salesman had said the economy would better a 1.2, then the claim would be made out.

That would mean that you could hand the keys back or go for damages. Jolly interesting to work out how much you'd get: presumably the additional cost of owning the Twinair (compared to the 1.2) over the expected period of ownership (taking into account finance costs etc and fuel as well as extra insurance etc) less the amount by which its future value exceeds that of a 1.2.

Incidentally, any attempt by the dealership to say that the Twinair is more "fun" (and so reduce the damages because you are getting more car for your money, not just supposedly better economy) should fail because a car purchase contract is not a "contract of enjoyment" like a holiday contract where those sort of things get thrown into the mix.

So maybe that's the answer: buy a fun Twinair, then sue and recover the additional cost beyond that of owning a 1.2! Won't apply to you FF members however as you now all know how pants the Twinair economy is, so you will not have relied on the misrep in the first place!
Click to expand...

But PJ - would the defendant (Fiat) have to have proof that the plantiff was a member of the FF ? ;)
On that topic I might need a better name than Loveshandbags just in case :)
The TA has been remarked as being 'half an Abarth' (e.g. 5th gear youtube of a TV review) - so there's no way that it's being bought for economy !
 
Ffoxy said:
... keep the engine in it's powerband & torque max I say. Labouring an engine destroys economy...
Click to expand...

On the 1.2 petrol best economy is obtained by keeping the engine below 2000rpm. It is, as you say, important not to allow the engine to labour, but labouring is a function of the load on the engine as well as speed. After all, the engine idles at around 800rpm and noone would describe an idling engine as 'labouring'. One way to maximise mpg is to keep the revs down AND prevent the engine from labouring by only using the lightest of pressure on the accelerator. If the engine does start to labour, then you need to change down and if necessary reduce speed to keep the revs in the 'eco' range.

Ffoxy said:
...MPG figures... ...will never be achievable in real life...
Click to expand...

According to Fuelly's running average mpg, which is based on measured consumption over the past few tankfuls, my 1.2 petrol is currently returning 59.2mpg, which is actually a little better than FIAT's published combined figures.

The 57.4mpg figure in my sig is the overall total for the car, and includes the initial running in period when the engine was new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GettinBetter
General Twinair Question
Replies
6
Views
553
GettinBetter
GettinBetter
A
General Fiat 500 twinair
Replies
19
Views
1K
d4zzl3r
D
M
Technical 2011 twinair
Replies
2
Views
813
milko
M
M
Technical Fiat 500 TwinAir
Replies
4
Views
930
John202020
John202020
P
Technical Twinair exhaust
Replies
11
Views
2K
Lounge lizard
L
Back
Top