Driving around town in my 2.4L Stilo Abarth, I'm getting 31.4mpg (9 L/100km) on average, and I think that's pretty good. 
My 1.4L FIAT 500 was getting 40.3mpg (7L/100km) in the same conditions, but it's hardly the same performance, and the car cost more than five times the price.
More importantly, each year the 500 will lose about $2000 more value than the Stilo. That's about 900 litres of fuel. To recoup that loss of value, based on the difference above, that would be 45,000km driven in the 500 each year.
I drive a maximum of 10,000km in a year, so the additional fuel cost in the Stilo (up to 200L, $440) seems hardly relevant in the big scheme of things. It still works out cheaper to drive the Stilo.
Put it another way for my FIAT 500, fuel costs about $1575/year for 10,000km - car loses $2000/year - also could have invested money at 5% return = $1120 - or avoided interest charged on other finance (up to 15%...) - fuel is therefore half or less of the cost of owning and driving the car. So saving fuel doesn't save as much money as you think. Having a cheap car and money in the bank saves money.
You might consider maintenance costs on the Stilo vs. the 500, but there are a number of modifications I'd want to do to my 500 that are a lot more expensive than the Stilo's maintenance. I've already spent $800 on soundproofing for the 500, for a start
My 166 is particularly bad because I get BOTH the heavy fuel use (14L/100km/20mpg) AND the $2000 lost value each year (I paid $15,000 for it in June), so I don't drive it and it's for sale.
From an environmental standpoint, my Stilo would probably be scrapped soon if I hadn't bought it, and another car somewhere would have been made, with lots of materials and resources. And meanwhile, millions of litres of LPG are probably being burned off somewhere as waste right now. My contribution to the environment is to work from home, saving fuel and reducing traffic congestion
-Alex
My 1.4L FIAT 500 was getting 40.3mpg (7L/100km) in the same conditions, but it's hardly the same performance, and the car cost more than five times the price.
More importantly, each year the 500 will lose about $2000 more value than the Stilo. That's about 900 litres of fuel. To recoup that loss of value, based on the difference above, that would be 45,000km driven in the 500 each year.
I drive a maximum of 10,000km in a year, so the additional fuel cost in the Stilo (up to 200L, $440) seems hardly relevant in the big scheme of things. It still works out cheaper to drive the Stilo.
Put it another way for my FIAT 500, fuel costs about $1575/year for 10,000km - car loses $2000/year - also could have invested money at 5% return = $1120 - or avoided interest charged on other finance (up to 15%...) - fuel is therefore half or less of the cost of owning and driving the car. So saving fuel doesn't save as much money as you think. Having a cheap car and money in the bank saves money.
You might consider maintenance costs on the Stilo vs. the 500, but there are a number of modifications I'd want to do to my 500 that are a lot more expensive than the Stilo's maintenance. I've already spent $800 on soundproofing for the 500, for a start
My 166 is particularly bad because I get BOTH the heavy fuel use (14L/100km/20mpg) AND the $2000 lost value each year (I paid $15,000 for it in June), so I don't drive it and it's for sale.
From an environmental standpoint, my Stilo would probably be scrapped soon if I hadn't bought it, and another car somewhere would have been made, with lots of materials and resources. And meanwhile, millions of litres of LPG are probably being burned off somewhere as waste right now. My contribution to the environment is to work from home, saving fuel and reducing traffic congestion
-Alex
Last edited:
