endrop - for all your online needs

General 1.2 versus twinair performance

Currently reading:
General 1.2 versus twinair performance

bgunn said:
Diesel = clattery din at idle.

TA = lawnmower esque chuffing at idle, but practically silent.

Big difference!
Click to expand...

So this sounds like a TA then?

$(KGrHqN,!oME8Vb!EgeUBPPnNTWmBg~~60_3.JPG


(It's a lawn mower. And a diesel.)
 
bgunn said:
A diesel? wtf :nutter:

Admittedly, there are a little tappy when cold as the Multi Air gubbins/oil warms up, but I'd never compare the engine note to a diesel.
Click to expand...

I am not sure thinking a TA sounds like a diesel makes me a nutter,

I was however surprised at the level of noise as it pulled on the drive after been driven about 16 miles from the dealer.
 
It's got the sound of a classic air-cooled 500 about it, which I guess is what some people really like...
 
Last edited:
bgunn said:
No, Horsepower is an arbitrary calculation based on torque. I suggest you go away, read about it, then come back when you understand. Seriously, you're making yourself look stupid here, as maxi has indicated in one emoticon ;)
Click to expand...


No no no no no.

A diesel 95 hp 1.3 has 95 hp which is less power than the 1.4 but much much more torque. Does it make it feel faster? Well yes in the mid range you feel more pulling lets say especially lower down. Does it make it faster? No!

The 1.4 feels like a 1.2 below 4000 as it has no torque. Take it above that and you feel the power coming along and it becomes faster than anything in the Fiat 500 range despite having awful toruqe and it being all the way in the higher echelons of the rev range.

Torque and Horsepower are two very different things.
Diesels are known for having massive torque but not so good hp and having narrow power ranges. (think buses!)

An f1 engine has lots of power but no torque. (i would guess this is because its na and its engine capacity is so small compared to the amount of power but i cant say for sure im just having a guess here)
 
Last edited:
MJG said:
I am not sure thinking a TA sounds like a diesel makes me a nutter,

I was however surprised at the level of noise as it pulled on the drive after been driven about 16 miles from the dealer.
Click to expand...


I agree with you. It drives and sounds (a bit) like a diesel. Lets say half a diesel haha. The torque and death power drop near the redline made me think it was a diesel or at least something similar to it!
 
ahmett said:
No no no no no.

A diesel 95 hp 1.3 has 95 hp which is less power than the 1.4 but much much more torque. Does it make it feel faster? Well yes in the mid range you feel more pulling lets say especially lower down. Does it make it faster? No!

The 1.4 feels like a 1.2 below 4000 as it has no torque. Take it above that and you feel the power coming along and it becomes faster than anything in the Fiat 500 range despite having awful toruqe and it being all the way in the higher echelons of the rev range.

Torque and Horsepower are two very different things.
Diesels are known for having massive torque but not so good hp and having narrow power ranges. (think buses!)

An f1 engine has lots of power but no torque. (i would guess this is because its na and its engine capacity is so small compared to the amount of power but i cant say for sure im just having a guess here)
Click to expand...

Before giving me a lecture (which is very nice, but completely irrelevant and if you re-read what I said, you'll see why), I suggest you refer to, say, wikipedia:

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower[/ame]
 
bgunn said:
Before giving me a lecture (which is very nice, but completely irrelevant and if you re-read what I said, you'll see why), I suggest you refer to, say, wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower
Click to expand...


I think you misunderstood me. I was saying having loads of torque doesnt mecessarily translate to high power. So if the TA has less torque in eco mode, it doesnt mean less horsepower.

You can have a high powered car with less torque than a car of half the amount of horsepower due to differences in configuration etc.
 
ahmett said:
I think you misunderstood me. I was saying having loads of torque doesnt mecessarily translate to high power. So if the TA has less torque in eco mode, it doesnt mean less horsepower.

You can have a high powered car with less torque than a car of half the amount of horsepower due to differences in configuration etc.
Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding me. What you're saying does not make any sense, torque and power are inescapably related.

You need to qualify yourself by using the shape of a torque curve and relating it to a power curve.
 
My TA has only done a couple of hundred miles and the computer is showing an average of 38mpg :eek:

Yes it has done a bit of around town driving, but equally it has been used on a few 20 mile return journeys to work (mainly A roads with either 60 or 40 mph limits....and only a few junctions).

I realise a new car needs to be run in, but 38mpg seems rubbish. for what they claim for a TA..I have been careful about driving habits (shifting up when required, using momentum on long down-hills....just to see if I could get the economy figure to improve)...not sure what my wife has been doing though?

Please tell me this is normal for a new TA :confused:

It's a relatively sporty little car....but I hope I don't have to drive it like a nun for the next 10K miles to get over 40mpg
 
Stupidmia said:
My TA has only done a couple of hundred miles and the computer is showing an average of 38mpg :eek:
Click to expand...

A computer reading after 200 miles doesn't really mean that much. The engine will still be very tight, and the computer isn't that accurate anyhow. If you're seriously interested in monitoring the car's fuel consumption, why not sign up for a fuelly account (it's free) at www.fuelly.com.

A quick look at that site suggests most drivers are getting figures in the low to mid 40's & that there isn't much real-world difference between the 1.2 & the TA.

You should see an improvement of about 10% over the next 5000 miles.
 
Super Uwe said:
Going slightly off topic, but does anyone actually know what the official criteria are so that Fiat are able to post average consumption figures of 68.9mpg for the TwinAir?

I would assume the test cars are run permanently on Eco mode, other than that what else would Fiat have used?
Click to expand...

Apparently it was in Eco mode and down a great long straight hill :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
General TwinAir 2018 or 1.2 2016
Replies
9
Views
566
Fudo87
F
M
General Twinair Head Gasket??
Replies
5
Views
472
varesecrazy
V
d4zzl3r
Technical TwinAir Coils
Replies
3
Views
466
GettinBetter
GettinBetter
S
Technical Gearstick vibration on Twinair
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Mistawonders
Mistawonders
D
General Twinair not staying in eco mode
Replies
5
Views
331
Duffys Dad
D
Back
Top