Lot of car for someone if goes for the opening bid. If we had a cold winter, 4 top rate winter tyres fitted for £220. Glasses guide top book trade in around £900 with average miles (I'm not a trader, anyone can access this via glass.co.uk and registering with email address and a password).



http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2009-FIAT...639368?hash=item568c46d388:g:FQYAAOSw9NdXwSiy

In 2013, I hired a basic spec 500 that had the high 5th gear used in the ECO Panda. It was just too high for most purposes. The slightest up slope meant a downshift to 4th with the engine going like mad. Any benefit from the high 5th was lost on almost all journeys and motorways were horrible. I was glad to hand it back.

Was the problem with the stalling (as seen on BBC Watchdog) only surrounding the Eco models of these cars?

DaveMcT said:

In 2013, I hired a basic spec 500 that had the high 5th gear used in the ECO Panda. It was just too high for most purposes. The slightest up slope meant a downshift to 4th with the engine going like mad. Any benefit from the high 5th was lost on almost all journeys and motorways were horrible. I was glad to hand it back.

Click to expand...

The 500 engine wasn't used in the Dynamic Eco until late 2010 - Pandas produced before that used the 60HP Euro4 engine, which has more torque below 3500rpm than the 69HP engine used in the 1.2 500. IMO the Euro4 engine in the earlier Dynamic Eco is both more flexible and more comfortable to drive, despite the lower absolute power output.

SB1500 said:

Was the problem with the stalling (as seen on BBC Watchdog) only surrounding the Eco models of these cars?

Click to expand...

This issue is specific to the Euro6 engine, which was never used in the Panda 169.

These days, many engines are run so weak on air fuel ratio that stalling is a common issue. My 2008 BMW 1200 boxer is a crabby thing with OEM map. Remapped it makes a lot more power, has better throttle response, loses the torque holes in it's mid range and hardly loses any mpg. But presumably its a bit more noisy and a bit less clean on accelerating throttle.

On the other hand very weak air fuel ratios can overheat the exhaust valves causing early failure. Running a closer to normal AF ratio is overall likely to save more resources than simply saving a few grams of petrol per mile.

Being as the EU are so bothered to clean up car emissions why don't they mandate that we all use LPG rather than petrol or diesel? It's a cleaner fuel with lower CO2 emissions per mile. What's not to like apart from the conversion costs?

DaveMcT said:

Being as the EU are so bothered to clean up car emissions why don't they mandate that we all use LPG rather than petrol or diesel? It's a cleaner fuel with lower CO2 emissions per mile. What's not to like apart from the conversion costs?

Click to expand...

That's an excellent point. And I see too that some cars in some markets actually came with an LPG fuel option, I'm sure the Panda was the same?!

Personally, and I don't know if I'm mad to say this, but I don't see why all the cars on the road can't be a maximum of a 1.6, surely that'd stamp down on emissions, speeding, accidents etc.. Guess the governments care more about money from tax than they really do toward the environment!

My car is a tiny 1.2... But it can move far faster than I can run so I'd love to meet someone who genuinely tries to explain the disadvantages of it being 'too slow'

I have no problems with people owing large cars. We are not a centrally control economy after all. But where my behaviour affects other there have to be rules.

Car pollution and noise are things we as punters can do very little to control. Car makers have given us more of the same but ever more strangled and compromised to meet the regulations. Going for a cleaner fuel (of which LPG has a high octane value) would solve he emissions problems and give the punters more efficient engines.

Some would say the legislators got turned over by their encouraging diesel so why would the push for yet another fuel type. But diesel was simply taking the line of least resistance. Car makers build more diesels. They cost more money = more profit - Deal. Fuel makers don't have to install new systems no loss of profits (they make more on diesel anyway) - Deal.

LPG. We burn that at source so we can't simply pipe it over though of course we should.. No easy deal.

What about the fiscal implications of using LPG as a mainstream vehicle fuel?

If use became widespread, I doubt it would be long before the government raised the level of duty to match that of petrol and diesel.

This would add about 50p/litre to the VAT inclusive pump price.

Given that you'll see about a 25% reduction in fuel economy with LPG, the numbers will no longer add up.

Don't expect the government to change it's tax schedule to favour the user. LPG was deliberately cheap to encourage people to have their cars adapted. But the costs are high and the results are between ok and horrible so its never taken off.

Only one firm injects liquid LPG. It's MUCH better in use but the costs are horrendous.

I'm sure LPG would soon be taxed but with all the strangulation added to petrol engines the fuel consumption has already gone up.

In the old days of leaded petrol most people used 4 Star and most cars were tuned to use 4*. Few cars had knock sensors so could not automatically adapt to 2 Star. Those that had the spark timing retarded to use 2 Star ran like slugs.

Fast forward to unleaded petrol. Did the Government mandate that unleaded should match to 4 Star?

Of course they mandated 95 RON which equates to 2 Star. Engines tuned to use unleaded ran like slugs and burnt more fuel.

Kerching!

Modern cars have knock sensors so can benefit from higher spec fuels. Tesco 99 is about 7p more costly than 95. It gives about 8% better economy for about 6% higher cost per litre. But for me the car and bike run so much better on 99 that it's a no brainer even if there was no overall cost saving.