My wife has had her Fiat 500 TwinAir for about 6 months now. One of the reasons we picked it is the high mpg advertised. Now I know that you should take manufacturers mpg with a fairly hefty pinch of salt, but our mpg is quite different. It started off at about 35 mpg and now that the engine has been broken in a bit we're averaging about 44 mpg but it's stable at that level. Seems like a long way off 69.8mpg (advertised).

Anyone else experiencing low levels? We are both good drivers, and our average journeys are around 30 mins with not much stop/start.

Pour yourself a drink and read this:

https://www.fiatforum.com/500/258424-twinair-thread-including-mpg.html

Oh, and welcome.

In the 1960s/70s I drove a 848cc mini and an 875cc Singer Chamois Sport both about the same size cc as your Twin Air. The mini would easily do 50mpg without even trying. The Singer would do about 55+mpg having a tuned engine. In those days you could fill the cars up for £4 easily with some spilling over!! I used to commute from Lincolnshire to Bournemouth on a Friday night and back to Lincolnshire at about 3am Monday morning. No garages open for fuel Monday mornings but both cars could easily do the 200 miles on a tank.
I was thinking of going for a Twin Air but every time I go for a test ride the cars been lent to a customer so Im not going to bother changing as my 1.4 MINI One gives me 50mpg. The reason I am changing from a MINI is because they are everywhere around here and 500s are a bit rarer but not a lot. They are getting popular.

how many miles has it done ?

Austin Mini said:

The reason I am changing from a MINI is because they are everywhere around here and 500s are a bit rarer but not a lot. They are getting popular.

Click to expand...

Odd reason to get rid of a car. If you like the MINI, keep it.

My mpg below:-

The car's mpg reading tends to be 10 % lower than Fuelly.

Austin Mini said:

In the 1960s/70s I drove a 848cc mini and an 875cc Singer Chamois Sport both about the same size cc as your Twin Air. The mini would easily do 50mpg without even trying.

Click to expand...

Hardly a fair comparison when you consider the relative power output of the two engines.

I wonder what kind of mpg the TA might return if you removed the turbo, cat, A/C, PAS, fitted 135 tyres, put it on drum brakes all round & detuned it to 34HP .

I wish Fiat would just lend jrkitching a TwinAir for a month, give him a video camera to record his driving and watch him clock up 70mpg with ease!

Super Uwe said:

I wish Fiat would just lend jrkitching a TwinAir for a month, give him a video camera to record his driving and watch him clock up 70mpg with ease!

Click to expand...

I doubt it. Maybe without exceeding 30 mph, but the problem with turbos, the second you activate that turbo, its goodbye mr. bond. I doubt on normal driving conditions, reaching 70 mph and driving in towns, will it be possible to reach 70 mpg? I dont think so.
With NA engines it is possible as JrKirching proves with his mpg figures.

Lets see what happens if/when the NA TA comes out. To be honest with you, if the 105 hp TA ever comes out, i doubt the mpg would be much lower than the 85 normal version as it is the same capacity, it just relies on some tuning to reach that power output.

Super Uwe said:

I wish Fiat would just lend jrkitching a TwinAir for a month, give him a video camera to record his driving and watch him clock up 70mpg with ease!

Click to expand...

It'd certainly be interesting to do a back-to-back comparison between my car & a TA over the same route. It'd need to be a properly run-in TA, though - most of the demonstrators haven't covered enough miles for it to be realistic. But I'm up for doing the comparison & writing a review if FIAT or any of the dealerships want to take me up on it .

ahmett said:

I doubt it. Maybe without exceeding 30 mph, but the problem with turbos, the second you activate that turbo, its goodbye mr. bond. I doubt on normal driving conditions, reaching 70 mph and driving in towns, will it be possible to reach 70 mpg? I dont think so.
With NA engines it is possible as JrKirching proves with his mpg figures.

Lets see what happens if/when the NA TA comes out. To be honest with you, if the 105 hp TA ever comes out, i doubt the mpg would be much lower than the 85 normal version as it is the same capacity, it just relies on some tuning to reach that power output.

Click to expand...

Not at 70mph it isn't. To have any chance of hitting those kind of figures, you need to keep it below 55.

jrkitching said:

Not at 70mph it isn't. To have any chance of hitting those kind of figures, you need to keep it below 55.

Click to expand...

Well then i have rightly giving up claiming decent mpg = ) for me anything near 40 mpg on my 1.4 is a bonus. My last fuel consumption over a tank was 7.2l/100 km. If i can maintain that i am very happy.

Austin Mini said:

The reason I am changing from a MINI is because they are everywhere around here and 500s are a bit rarer but not a lot. They are getting popular.

Click to expand...

I don't wish to sound rude but that is bonkers.

First, it is bonkers because of course MINIs and 500s are "everywhere" - they are comparatively cheap, mass produced highly advertised cars.

Second, it is bonkers because unless you go for something significantly more expensive, or more rubbish, or very specific, you are always going to face this problem.

Third, it is bonkers because this is only going to get worse if you buy a 500. The new MINI was launched 11 years ago. The 500 was launched 5 years ago. The Fiat is cheaper. Which do you think will be more common in a couple of years' time?

Fourth, it is bonkers because it is a car, not some unique valuable asset. Who cares if someone else has one? Wave, smile, enjoy the shared pleasure.

Fifth, it is bonkers because you can choose a hard top or a convertible, the colour, some stickers, stripes, wheel sizes and colours, interior colour and materials, and all sorts of other stuff if you really feel the need to be different. Hell, put flowers on it if you like. Oh no, someone has already done that....

Sixth, it is bonkers because itas popularity might just mean it is a good car.

Maybe you should buy one of these: they were rare then so must be even rarer now. Mind you, there might just be a reason why...

Austin Mini said:

...The reason I am changing from a MINI is because they are everywhere around here and 500s are a bit rarer but not a lot. They are getting popular.

Click to expand...

RobinPJ said:

...
First, it is bonkers because of course MINIs and 500s are "everywhere" - they are comparatively cheap, mass produced highly advertised cars...

Click to expand...

:Offtopic:
If you're buying a 500 it is because you want one.

Number crunching isn't going to justify it and for me it all comes down to the drive. The first blast in a 1.4 on a countryroad in a well broken in one is what did it for me.

Sadly I've no comparison youtube between MINI and a Twin Air - all I have is a 1.4 (with Vicki at the wheel) but bottom line is that it is quicker, more economical and lighter (pros & cons on this one) than a MINI. From being a member on the AF there was a discussion about should I get a 500c TA or a MiTo and one 'guy' said that only castrated males drive 500s. Well I'm not too sure what I would have done if I saw him 'face to face'. Any MINI that I see it's just woman driving them but the 500 has slightly more men driving them. 500s tend to be more common in affluent parts of 'city' but where I'm based it isn't so common.

Once you don't expect the paint quality and TLC service packs from the purchase of a MINI the 500 and particularly the Twin Air would be the choice of the heart.

If you can organise a test drive in a Twin Air you wouldn't be thinking about the numbers or how common it is - you will just want one. You can always find reasons not to buy something. Life is about living and taking (calculated ) chances - 'nothing ventured nothing gained'.

RobinPJ said:

I don't wish to sound rude but that is bonkers.

First, it is bonkers because of course MINIs and 500s are "everywhere" - they are comparatively cheap, mass produced highly advertised cars.

Second, it is bonkers because unless you go for something significantly more expensive, or more rubbish, or very specific, you are always going to face this problem.

Third, it is bonkers because this is only going to get worse if you buy a 500. The new MINI was launched 11 years ago. The 500 was launched 5 years ago. The Fiat is cheaper. Which do you think will be more common in a couple of years' time?

Fourth, it is bonkers because it is a car, not some unique valuable asset. Who cares if someone else has one? Wave, smile, enjoy the shared pleasure.

Fifth, it is bonkers because you can choose a hard top or a convertible, the colour, some stickers, stripes, wheel sizes and colours, interior colour and materials, and all sorts of other stuff if you really feel the need to be different. Hell, put flowers on it if you like. Oh no, someone has already done that....

Sixth, it is bonkers because itas popularity might just mean it is a good car.

Maybe you should buy one of these: they were rare then so must be even rarer now. Mind you, there might just be a reason why...

Click to expand...

Agreed. I bought our 500 because we liked it. Who cares what others think?

306maxi said:

Agreed. I bought our 500 because we liked it. Who cares what others think?

Click to expand...

No, Maxi, you have misunderstood.

The suggestion was not to buy a car because other people DO like it, not because they don't like it.

RobinPJ said:

No, Maxi, you have misunderstood.

The suggestion was not to buy a car because other people DO like it, not because they don't like it.

Click to expand...

You've misunderstood I said I bought it because we like it and I don't give a rats arse what others think

I haven't driven one of the newer 1.4 Minis, but got my TA to replace my 04 reg Cooper. The TA felt almost as quick, going more or less straight from one to the other, and has a more characterful sound. Personally, I like both of them - the Mini had the edge on handling, the 500 has a better ride and the Lounge has more standard equipment. The 500 is much cheaper to buy like for like.

Regarding mpg, it may seem we haven't advanced much (although it's easy to get 50mpg out of mine). However, I like being air conditioned, and if I crash into a '65 Mini or Imp I'd be glad I was in my 500. It's weight that's the main issue.

Hi, we have had our twinair 500c for 6months now and have just clicked over 8k. Although I agree the manufactures milage is in achievable I personal still see a good return when driven correctly.
Firstly out trip b mpg hasn't been reset since we took delivery and that has indicated a total of 52mpg through the entire 8k and might I add the car I used by my wife aswell and she has the right foot of clarkson!
When I drive I tend to see an average if 60mpg and when driving economically 70mpg.
I agree this is still far short of the manufactures Mpg but I like the blend of back road blat and everyday economy the motor offers me. And I always get 400miles to a tank of fuel eveny with the wife's right boot.

Even if you aren't getting the MPG you hoped for at least you look great in a style icon with a roarty little exhaust note following you everywhere.

simon willgress said:

Hi, we have had our twinair 500c for 6months now and have just clicked over 8k. Although I agree the manufactures milage is in achievable I personal still see a good return when driven correctly.
Firstly out trip b mpg hasn't been reset since we took delivery and that has indicated a total of 52mpg through the entire 8k and might I add the car I used by my wife aswell and she has the right foot of clarkson!
When I drive I tend to see an average if 60mpg and when driving economically 70mpg.
I agree this is still far short of the manufactures Mpg but I like the blend of back road blat and everyday economy the motor offers me. And I always get 400miles to a tank of fuel eveny with the wife's right boot.

Even if you aren't getting the MPG you hoped for at least you look great in a style icon with a roarty little exhaust note following you everywhere.

Click to expand...

Those are impressive figures if you are not singularly focused on driving economically.

Incidentally, I think the "Trip" calculation resets itself automatically after a certain distance (1,000 miles?), but I may be wrong.

RobinPJ said:

Those are impressive figures if you are not singularly focused on driving economically.

Incidentally, I think the "Trip" calculation resets itself automatically after a certain distance (1,000 miles?), but I may be wrong.

Click to expand...

I've been leaving my Trip A to run and resetting Trip B every fill-up. Trip A currently stands at 1900 odd miles, and average MPG over that is 40.3 (which I'm reasonably happy with as that includes some flat-out thrashing).