General 4x4 Multijet motorway mpg

[Herts Hillhopper]

Older panda increases likelyhood of rear suspension failure.. and potential of propshaft wear.. both expensive headaches :-(

True, although complete propshafts can now be bought new for £260-ish.

 

[varesecrazy]

This weather had better warm up..
if Im going to get into 70's mpg

 

[Toomanytoys]

Ok, a decent earlier cross could be an option.. trouble is some think boasting towing a 3t mitsubishi with it, is a good advert...
even been looking at Quibo/fiorino.... 500, Punto... And 2wd panda/trecking.. but the 4x4 is what I want...

Contemplating a TA... but don't really want to be babying it all the time to get decent mpg... Even considered an LPG conversion, but that really wouldn't float on a small vehicle... No space and no capacity.. The TA engine is likely ideal with forced induction...

The whole car situation is going to get a lot worse yet, I can see that...

 

[Toomanytoys]

Well...the MJ seems to be thin on the ground and looks like 10-15ppl difference in fuel a lot of places..
Twin airs seem plentiful, any risks with buying higher mile cars, (proper servicing is going to be critical I guess)

 

[Pandemik]

My Panda 4x4 multijet I get 50ish mpg mixed. Best Ive got is around 60mg cruising at 60.. worst I've got was 40mpg, had a full car, lots of hills.

 

[Marcus Daly]

I managed a personal best of 56 (indicated) in my TA on a 150 mile motorway run yesterday. That was with ECO off, but AC on. Car has 9000 miles on it.

 

[varesecrazy]

At 9,000 miles a TA will still be 'tight' expect to see gains in both power and mpg up until @20,000 ;-)

 

[Roscouk]

My 2017 MJ cross 4x4 averages 50mpg all mixed driving and I also do a bit of off roading when I go logging.
It's got plenty of grunt to pull my trailer full of logs though the rough stuff.
If you can stretch your budget, look out for one of the last diesel 4x4s.

 

[The Panda Nut]

TA 4x4 - I find eco off is best over 50mph and have managed over 60mpg when there was no fuel recently but I do admit to sitting in behind a big hgv at 55mph for many miles as consumption dropped to 70-90mpg while doing so. 150 miles with absolutely no petrol for sale was scary. A definite tow could be felt if around 40 - 50 yards behind. I switch eco on down hills, in traffic and if the traffic speeds are under 50 and then it seems to help. While it can feel slow eco on is more than a match for either of out two 1.2 Pandas. TA tows its max weight with total ease and romps up hills so its still a reasonable choice. Low first gear means hill start are a doddle. I use second to start if there is any slope in my favour. MPG driven without paying a lot of attention seems to be 42- 46 on a run. The 500mile everage when I last looked was 45mpg including a long fast run with the car heavily loaded and a full load of passengers. Short runs locally I leave eco on and get 43.5 avergage. Compares ok with my Panda 100.

 

[timmycm850]

Hi

Why do you want a 4x4 for racking up m.way miles?

I like TA's but the diesel is better for long term reliabilty (especially as a used purchase)

The reality of Diesel emission charging near Citys is real.. and a major consideration longer term

My TAs are £0 ved and cheap on insurance.. they are fwd only

I see mid 50's mpg..

Wheras the 1248 diesels get nearer 65 mpg.

Biggest issue with the Twinair panda is low gear ratios.. so 70 mph is 3,000 rpm

Diesel is@ 2,500.. it makes a difference for refinement also

Interesting thought. on the twin air 3000 revs at 70mph is 3000 engine fires. Compared to diesel 2500 revs at 70mph is 5000 engine fires. So i feel the twin is more refined.
I drive a 3cylinder smart fortwo diesel at 70mph at 3000 revs is 4500 fires.

Have you considered an early hybrid as they are quite a refined 1.0 l low friction 3 cylinder engine and a 6 speed box.

 

[timmycm850]

Stranger even. My son drives a twin air Alfa Mito 900cc turbo, 24 year old gets 43.9mpg at the moment, even with the mito Body size.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Interesting thought. on the twin air 3000 revs at 70mph is 3000 engine fires. Compared to diesel 2500 revs at 70mph is 5000 engine fires. So i feel the twin is more refined.
I drive a 3cylinder smart fortwo diesel at 70mph at 3000 revs is 4500 fires.

Have you considered an early hybrid as they are quite a refined 1.0 l low friction 3 cylinder engine and a 6 speed box.

I've never seen that logic advanced before. I'll avoid V12 engines for sure

 

[The Panda Nut]

50mpg is very conservative for the multi jet

Taking it easy at around 63-65 mph in the 1.3 500 used to get 60+ so I doubt the panda will be too far behind that

I tried a diesel on an extended demo and it averaged 78mpg so I would expect 60 in normal running. My TA is more like 40 to 43 in normal running, Going quick knocks it to 35 and going carefully it will do 60, Normal long run to Manchester and back (300 miles) it does 50. I agree with Varesecazy about the steady improvemenmt as miles build and 20K being a milestone. Summer tyres are 3-5 mpg better than winters but temperature will also be in play. I like the 4x4, the ride is much better, the brakes are discs all round, you sit higher up and this makes an appreciable difference, its easier to get in and out and best of all if you have to pull onto a busy road in the wet you can use full power with no wheel spin. The way it handles icy roads is astonishing. That said the potential maintenance costs are scary and more likely than the 2wd. Im thinking of moving to a single car, but cant decide which to keep especially as our 2wd is 5 years older although in just as good condition. Ill probably keep both a while longer. Ideally I should have had a 4x4 diesel but they stopped production just before I started driving them. I suppose you would say my fault for not buying in earlier. I am happier with the TA because of the forum and considerably better understanding of it from teh knowledge shared here, but still feel the TA is only half a step dwon from an F1 car in complexity which makes it service hungry.

 

[The Panda Nut]

Id like to see the powerand torque curves for each of these and the gearing applications.

Of course younger people face much harsher penalties than we did so seem generally to be more sensible, they cant do repairs because of the tech and they are more environmentally switched on. This is a good thing I feel!

 

[timmycm850]

Interesting thought. on the twin air 3000 revs at 70mph is 3000 engine fires. Compared to diesel 2500 revs at 70mph is 5000 engine fires. So i feel the twin is more refined.
I drive a 3cylinder smart fortwo diesel at 70mph at 3000 revs is 4500 fires.

Have you considered an early hybrid as they are quite a refined 1.0 l low friction 3 cylinder engine and a 6 speed box.

Its intetesting sound difference when youve worked it out. Put it this way, my wife has always driven 4 cylinder cars until with a rev counter. Chaning gear about 3200 revs She then drove a rebuilt original 500 engine from 1972 by listening to the engine note and not having a rev counter 5500 revs gearchanges every time, i requested she was more gentle with a newly rebuilt engine, to which i was told she was driving it more gently than the normal!

 

[The Panda Nut]

The TA is a bit like this the engine will rev lke mad isnt much rougher or noisier at high speed. 70mph in third gear on the motorway and then you notice the rev counter..... Probably not muchbworse than labouring the gears.

 

[Herts Hillhopper]

I tried a diesel on an extended demo and it averaged 78mpg so I would expect 60 in normal running…

My previous, 2012 diesel 4x4 easily managed 60mpg. But that was the 75hp, Euro 5 version of the engine.

My short-lived (ie written off) 2017 model and it’s 2018 replacement both struggle(d) to get over 52-55mpg averages across a range of conditions— but they are the 95bp, Euro 6 variants, which do seem to be a little thirstier. 70mph (shown on GPS, which is 75 on the speedo dial) is about 2800 rpm (which is ‘high’ for a diesel)

By the way, I see we’ve ’woken up’ a thread from 2022 in the past couple of days

 

[The Panda Nut]

My previous, 2012 diesel 4x4 easily managed 60mpg. But that was the 75hp, Euro 5 version of the engine.

My short-lived (ie written off) 2017 model and it’s 2018 replacement both struggle(d) to get over 52-55mpg averages across a range of conditions— but they are the 95bp, Euro 6 variants, which do seem to be a little thirstier. 70mph (shown on GPS, which is 75 on the speedo dial) is about 2800 rpm (which is ‘high’ for a diesel)

By the way, I see we’ve ’woken up’ a thread from 2022 in the past couple of days

Yes butvits fun.... Sorry if im adding to it.

 

[Panda IIs]

My previous, 2012 diesel 4x4 easily managed 60mpg. But that was the 75hp, Euro 5 version of the engine.

My short-lived (ie written off) 2017 model and it’s 2018 replacement both struggle(d) to get over 52-55mpg averages across a range of conditions— but they are the 95bp, Euro 6 variants, which do seem to be a little thirstier. 70mph (shown on GPS, which is 75 on the speedo dial) is about 2800 rpm (which is ‘high’ for a diesel)

By the way, I see we’ve ’woken up’ a thread from 2022 in the past couple of days

Well I guess you "canna change the laws of physics" (I probably miss-quoted) energy in = energy out essentially the same engine and drive train with little room for efficiency improvements..?

I don't object to thread resurrection as it saves us repeating ourselves...

 

[The Panda Nut]

I have searched but not really found a closer answer for the MJ..
I see most Twin Air generally average 45mpg especially if driving enthusiastically... (Maybe less at motorway speeds)
Will a MJ be much better? (50mpg? 55mpg?)
My current commute entails mainly a motorway run, but that will prob change to a cross country run in a few months..

Or, would the Twin air be more fun to drive and the fuel price difference negate the extra mpg... ??
I can spend up to 6k..
Any difference in maintenance costs would not really affect me as I do pretty much all my own maint, so either would be serviced every 6-8k, regardless.

Some quick number calcs puts the MJ about £100 better off calculated over 20k miles (assuming 45mpg/50mpg and using gov expense claim ppm) so in my opinion, not worth worrying about.. so it would come down to the realistic mpg, better/fun drive, balanced with ultimate reliability over extended miles. (It will get some miles racked up)
Any insights welcome..
Cheers Si.

Edits for extra thoughts..

Change that to 35mpg and you should be safe.