General consumption

[Ulpian]

Of course the consumption was poor. the Qubo only has a small 75hp engine. This has to work hard all the time; hence the poor consumption.

I love the Qubo, but until they fit it with the 105 1.6 Diesel, or a 1.4 120(ish) Multiair petrol, I'm not interested. Fiat always launches new cars with too-small engines. We will have to wait two years probably until they get this nonsense sorted out.

Big engines working within their limits tend always to be more economical; I say 'tend' because there are minimal exceptions - but as a basic rule it holds.

The present Qubo is in need of bigger engines. Either the 1.3 95 or, preferably, the 1.6 105. And a good 1.4 Multiair turbo with 120hp would be very tempting. Even the new 105 twin. When these happen I will buy one, but not before.

 

[Monkeyboot]

Now getting regular 48 - 53mpg, I drive a mixture of rural, town and dual carriage way. I am happy enough with this, I never expected to get the stated figures.

As for a bigger engine sometimes I think it would be nice, but I also think its quite nice just paying £35 a year for road tax, I think it may be going down to £30 in April.

 

[Ulpian]

True enough, but there are 1.6 Diesels with zero tax, since their consumption is so good and their emissions so low.

The Ford Fiesta falls into this category, as does the 1.4 in the VW Polo, which supposedly gives 80mpg. I know it won't, and I know the Polo is smaller than the Qubo, but when Fiat can sell me something that does 0-60 in twelve seconds or less, and still give 60+, I'll buy it.

 

[Monkeyboot]

Yeah I agree it would be nice to have a good range of engine sizes, especially if they can fall within zero low tax bracket. However for my circumstances it is a great car-a-van

 

[Ulpian]

I agree. Even now there is no compromise - and all cars are compromises - quite as good.

I've looked at the Citroen C3 Picasso, ad it's a bit of a girl's blouse frankly, and not particularly economical either.

 

[JTD_Liam]

Of course the consumption was poor. the Qubo only has a small 75hp engine. This has to work hard all the time; hence the poor consumption.

I love the Qubo, but until they fit it with the 105 1.6 Diesel, or a 1.4 120(ish) Multiair petrol, I'm not interested. Fiat always launches new cars with too-small engines. We will have to wait two years probably until they get this nonsense sorted out.

Big engines working within their limits tend always to be more economical; I say 'tend' because there are minimal exceptions - but as a basic rule it holds.

The present Qubo is in need of bigger engines. Either the 1.3 95 or, preferably, the 1.6 105. And a good 1.4 Multiair turbo with 120hp would be very tempting. Even the new 105 twin. When these happen I will buy one, but not before.

Totally agree. Im not in the market for a Qubo (more a potential Bravo, Punto Evo customer) but the engines theyve given the Qubo sells it abit short i think. I would say Fiat would be mad not to fit the 1.3 95 Multijet, especially now it's on the 500, which doesn't need to carry the weight of the Qubo. And i agree the 1.6 105 Multijet wouldn't be a bad idea either.

The 75bhp is working its arse off in the Qubo so id think there will be a very fine line between working it enough to maintain pace, and not revving it enough to compromise economy - from being a passenger in many cars it seems alot of people don't adapt their driving style to suit different engines. Try out different driving techniques & see which benefits the fuel consumption is my advice.

On a different note, i've seen 3 Qubos so far, one Orange Dynamic in Manchester with a private plate, so was obviously a privately owned one. One Disco Green one on the M40 in north Oxfordshire, think the reg began PE58, so that probably wasn't a Fiat Fleet vehicle either (since these usually begin with WM, WN, WP, WV) and one white one on the A419 going towards Swindon, which i can't remember much about!

Ive only seen one Citroen Nemo & none of the Peugeot versions, so this bodes well, particularly as Fiat never exactly go overboard on the advertising of their cars except for the Punto.

I do think Fiat have a better reputation than particularly Peugeot when it comes to MPVs tho, so this may have some bearing on why i've seen more.

 

[clockworks]

I've now done 900 miles in my Qubo, so I've filled the tank for the second time. Trip computer says 50.5mpg average, brimming the tank works out at 49mpg.

While 75bhp doesn't sound like a lot of power for a car that weighs nearly 1300kg, in reality it drives fine. The engine is remarkably flexible, pulling on the flat from 1000rpm. On hills (and there are plenty of them where I live), it's perfectly happy at 45mph in top gear, around 1500rpm. Get up to 55mph, and I don't have to change down to maintain speed on any hill I've found so far.

It's a car that gets by on torque, rather than power. Of course, it isn't as fast as my last company car ('58 Mazda 6 diesel), but it's more than adequate for normal driving.

I agree that the 95bhp engine might be slightly more economical, though.

 

[guyno]

shock horror i was 99% there in buying a new Qubo but what iv just read has thrown a big spanner in the works, at the moment i have a 1.9 multi jet doblo van that does a genuine 56 mpg (and thats worked out on what i put in the tank not what the lieing trip computer says,it usually says 62 mpg) what your all saying is born out by what the Qubo i test drove had on its computer (42 mpg ) but i just put that down to it been just shunted about locally, maybe not ehh

 

[calvjones]

shock horror i was 99% there in buying a new Qubo but what iv just read has thrown a big spanner in the works, at the moment i have a 1.9 multi jet doblo van that does a genuine 56 mpg (and thats worked out on what i put in the tank not what the lieing trip computer says,it usually says 62 mpg) what your all saying is born out by what the Qubo i test drove had on its computer (42 mpg ) but i just put that down to it been just shunted about locally, maybe not ehh

Mine's currently at 42mpg genuine (albeit in the Valleys). I score about 58 on EcoDrive so am no hooligan.

So maybe not, ehh?

Mind you, I put my racing bike in the back this weekend without taking either wheel off, and still had 4 seats and half the boot free. For a less than 4metre long car that's ace, and worth 42mpg:slayer:

 

[Qube O]

shock horror i was 99% there in buying a new Qubo but what iv just read has thrown a big spanner in the works, at the moment i have a 1.9 multi jet doblo van that does a genuine 56 mpg (and thats worked out on what i put in the tank not what the lieing trip computer says,it usually says 62 mpg) what your all saying is born out by what the Qubo i test drove had on its computer (42 mpg ) but i just put that down to it been just shunted about locally, maybe not ehh

Hi Folks, I've just clocked over the 4000 miles now in my Qubo Multi jet Diesel Durologic, and never yet dropped below 51 plus M.P.G., either by the workings out of the computer, or my pen and paper doodles. Most of my motoring is on level'ish roads, no big mountains hereabouts, unlike calvjones over there in the lovely Welsh Valleys. Lucky man.
The engine is really beginning to loosen now, with very noticeable difference in pulling power, and acceleration. I normally leave the car in the eco mode, and find the gears change about 1000 revs less, hence that saves fuel. Easy to drop it back down a notch if extra speed/power is needed.
Take care, Qube O

 

[Highlander]

Both our Panda's and the Punto GP, daughter had were all about a year old and 10 to 12k on the clock before they started to improve mileage wise.

From what I read the 95bhp engine in the Qubo aint making a big differance in fuel economy.

I know the 75bhp engine in the Punto GP was giving great mileage, over 70 mpg on runs between Edinburgh and Livingston (all M?way).

One can only assume that due to the weight, and being shaped like a brick is not helping.

Our Qubo is showing an average of 49mpg (all Town). but on a recent trip down south and all M/way 66mpg.

To be honest I thought the brick's fuel figures were not that bad for a new engine.

cheers Ian

 

[JTD_Liam]

The figures reported seem alright to me. I think people think, and are unfortunately encouraged to think by motoring press, Government etc, that downsizing = lower fuel bills. It doesn't always work like that.

A smaller engine working it's little ar*e off to shift a car isn't going to be as economical as a slightly larger engine that's taking it all in its stride.

However, considering the boxy proportions of the Qubo, plus it's likelyhood to be carrying more than two people, or a dog, or luggage, or all 3, the little 1.3 engine seems to be doing okay i think.

Many newer engines seem to do less well for outright economy to their older counterparts (a friend is experiencing the same thing with a new Audi diesel compared to an older VW TDI engine). I think in part it's due to manufacturers over promising with their claimed MPG figures, reinforced by the general belief that newer = more efficient. And in part due to modern technology over-complicating things & hampering the very economy it's trying to improve.

 

[ivantate]

the killer the the economy is emissions. To reduce the co2 and NOx you have to inject more fuel in both the pre and post combustion stages.
Seems crazy, burning more fuel to save the planet!

The poorer response of the engines to stop any smoke will also make people use more throttle to get the same amount of go they are used to.

The electronic control does very well to provide the power and economy it does within the constraints of the law.


talking qubo, as we are here, i saw a german test on youtube and it quoted 123g/km for co2. It could be the uk has a different engine dataset to hit the tax break. if this isnt as refined as the euro one it could use more fuel for less power. Something highlighted by the improved official figures when the trekking was launched?

its a pity we dont have more diesels on the idea section as the cars weight and size is comparable, so the economy of the older spec engines could be compared.
My petrol idea will do 42mpg on an 80-85mph run for 200miles, i am not sure what i would expect from the qubo diesel, 15% better maybe? i think thats the efficiency difference between petrol and diesel but might be wrong. considering my old tech none multiair engine and and the new multijet maybe that should be 20%. will they do 50mpg at a sympathetic 80-85mph?

My panda on a run down to italy at a good 85mph over 850miles in a day managed 58.5mpg. This did include pushing it hard across the alps though. probably another 20% improvement for the lighter car and smaller frontal area.

 

[calvjones]

CO2 is directly proportionate to fuel burned, so injecting fuel pre and post combustion to kill particulate emissions will increase CO2 emissions & fuel use

There's a tension between local and global pollution in this case.

 

[crossman]

Hi there, I know what your thinking, should have bought the multijet but I went for the petrol Qubo, mainly because of the extra purchase price for the diesel and that I ride a motor bike for about 8 months of the year. It has only done just over 500 miles and the average consumption has been between 30-32. Bearing in mind using my heater rear heated window etc.
So hopefully this may improve slightly with a few more miles. Just to add though you out there with a multijet Qubo get a tuning box from TMC, absolutely brilliant, had one fitted now about a month on the Panda cross, better performance and fuel consumptionexcellent.

 

[markandmu]

Hi Guyz I drive a IDEA 1.3 multijet 90hp on the motorway i can get upto 75mpg ! at steady 56 - 60mph mine is the duel logic and i achive this in the economy mode.



sorry if the picture does not have not figured out how to insert yet?

the pics are in the members gallery

 

[Highlander]

Just a little note folks, over the past weeks I had been taking a note of mpg from the onboard computer plus taking a note of fuel and mileage in a notebook.
Sorry to say they dont match. Our Qubo has not been out of town over the past 12 weeks, and is showing an mpg of 44. Taking the figures from the little book its out by 3.5 mpg, i'm getting it to work out to 47.4 mpg.

Anyway, just food for thought.

Ian

 

[ivantate]

Do you always fill up at the same garage? probably different pumps anyway even if you do.

The Panda over the last few tanks has been under reading, 66.1 and 65.3 on the computer but calculated it is 68.3 both times. This is about as inaccurate as it ever has been and is fortunately under reading!!

 

[JTD_Liam]

At least both cars are under-reading - alot of cars prefer going the other way!

 

[TMC Motorsport]

Just spotted this and thought it was quite funny...