Technical Fiat 500 vs Mini Cooper

[Most Easterly Pandas]

Comparing an early 700kg Panda or a later <1000kg Panda to a Bravo's 1300kg+(?) isn't fair. I could compare UFI's ~960kg to my 1710kg TDi and come to the same conclusion.

Weight of car doesn't overly affect the principle though, panda warms up just as quick as our petrol Stilo, Stilo vs Bravo would be better comparison, and same applies tbh.

Although it seems for Ahmett this is not going to be felivent as he's doing decent daily mileage.

 

[UFI]

Not comparing warm up times, but in cold engine/short trip economy. In stop start use, weight is the economy killer (unless you don't brake of course).

However, in a heavy diesel that glides a long way in gear, I'd suggest that about 25% of my 4km trip to the shops is spent with the injectors off. A lighter car won't glide as far and so would spend more time with the fuel 'on'.

 

[ahmett]

Weight of car doesn't overly affect the principle though, panda warms up just as quick as our petrol Stilo, Stilo vs Bravo would be better comparison, and same applies tbh.

Although it seems for Ahmett this is not going to be felivent as he's doing decent daily mileage.

Also don't forget, Greece and Australia are much warmer than UK = much quicker warmup times! In the summer my car reaches operating coolant temp in about 500 meters, vs. about 2-3 kms in the depth of winter.

 

[ahmett]

:slayer: I reckon you might start missing all that free-revving, addictive, naturally aspirated goodness if you get rid of your 1.4! Three-pot diesels need some clever balancing and can put heavy torsional loads on the crank, but there's no doubt they are torquey and very economical. A very different driving experience is ahead if you decide to trade but there will be plenty of things about a third-gen Mini that will make you smile.

Yes you are right, but unfortunately they are not economical. In town, i actually prefer the low torque of the diesel. And if I had a choice between turbo petrol and turbo diesel, I would choose diesel each time. No one seems to make NA petrol engines anymore.

The brand new Mini 1.5 3 cylinder diesel engines look really good!
After all, my 1.4 engine is what, 20 year old tech?

 

[MarginWalker]

Yes you are right, but unfortunately they are not economical. In town, i actually prefer the low torque of the diesel. And if I had a choice between turbo petrol and turbo diesel, I would choose diesel each time. No one seems to make NA petrol engines anymore.

The brand new Mini 1.5 3 cylinder diesel engines look really good!
After all, my 1.4 engine is what, 20 year old tech?

The Suzuki Swift Sport has a NA 1.6 petrol engine of modern design and is a peach of a car.

Don't get me wrong about diesel - I'm actually a big fan and love the flexible driving offered by the great slugs of torque. My other car, a Skoda, has the VW 1.9 TDi pumpe duse engine running 130 bhp, and I can easily get 60 mpg even if I drive it like I stole it. It's a fantastic engine, tough and reliable, no DPF issues (these can cause problems in diesel cars that do mainly town driving - all new diesel cars have them) and can go on to do starship mileages if properly maintained.

 

[Ulpian]

But you have to take the Suzuki to 5k revs, plus. This isn't fun. I took it for a test drive and I was quickly tired of not being able to surf along on a surge of torque. Nothing can compare to the huge slug of overtaking power that a good Diesel offers, it's almost magical.
Given Ahmett's driving style, the tax system, and the ambient temperatures in Greece - this matters - I'd say go for the Diesel. Fun with savings can't be sneezed at, and I dare say the residuals will be better too.
However, with simple NA petrols, like the Suzuki, you can be sure of epic trouble free mileages. More thinking then... Lol.

 

[ahmett]

But you have to take the Suzuki to 5k revs, plus. This isn't fun. I took it for a test drive and I was quickly tired of not being able to surf along on a surge of torque. Nothing can compare to the huge slug of overtaking power that a good Diesel offers, it's almost magical.
Given Ahmett's driving style, the tax system, and the ambient temperatures in Greece - this matters - I'd say go for the Diesel. Fun with savings can't be sneezed at, and I dare say the residuals will be better too.
However, with simple NA patrols, like the Suzuki, you can be sure of epic trouble free mileages. More thinking then... Lol.

Are you sure about the epic trouble free mileages? I am worried that stressing the engine constantly between 4-6,000 rpm wears out the engine. what do u think?

 

[jrkitching]

I am worried that stressing the engine constantly between 4-6,000 rpm wears out the engine. what do u think?

I'd say you were the expert when it comes to stressing an engine with continuous high rpm .

 

[Ulpian]

No, they are designed for that. Don't forget racing engines regularly get to twice those revs. And then they blow up

Drive a car sensibly, with no madness before it's properly warm, and change the oil annually - none of this two yearly nonsense - and all should be well.

With turbos always let them idle a while after a run to ensure the hot turbo bearing doesn't atomise the lubricant.

 

[MarginWalker]

Turbo engines operate under higher pressure than NA engines, but many well-designed turbocharged engines have good reliability records. More parts with a turbo though, so potentially more parts that can fail. I reckon on balance, under the same driving conditions, a NA engine will have less mechanical wear over time than an engine with forced induction, but I'm not a mechanic!

 

[Geddes]

However, in a heavy diesel that glides a long way in gear, I'd suggest that about 25% of my 4km trip to the shops is spent with the injectors off. A lighter car won't glide as far and so would spend more time with the fuel 'on'.

But there's no such thing as a free lunch, so your heavy car took more energy to get going in the first place.

 

[Ulpian]

I'm guessing, but I'd bet there are relatively more high mileage NA engines on the road, from any given recent period, than there are turbos. Early petrol turbos could be quite flakey. Most Diesels are turbos anyway, so you are comparing similar tech here. But good ones go to very high mileages.
I do know of some Suzuki 1.6 petrols that are still running in harsh climates, with basic maintenance, at astronomical mileages. Ditto other Japanese cars. Oil, filter, points -yes, points, remember! Twice a year, for ever... Even ones with fuel injection seem to be indestructible.

 

[ahmett]

Ok then, let me keep the Fiat and see how I go! 90,200 km's and counting. Servicing it tomorrow so it should feel all good inside.

 

[MarginWalker]

Ok then, let me keep the Fiat and see how I go! 90,200 km's and counting. Servicing it tomorrow so it should feel all good inside.

Hopefully, it will prove to be a good decision . The 1.4 FIRE engine has proved pretty trouble-free in all its variants and I bet there are plenty out there that have done over 150k. It's a great engine for small Fiats, in my opinion.

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

I've seen a fair few with 200k+ miles which will be 300k/km without issues

 

[UFI]

But there's no such thing as a free lunch, so your heavy car took more energy to get going in the first place.

Which is why I pointed out that comparing a lightweight petrol to a much heavier diesel in economy was unfair.

However, that single line really only refered to why a diesel takes so long to warm up. Everytime I lift off the throttle, no fuel is delivered with air still coming into the radiator so I loose a couple of degrees each time.

ICE's and diesels in particular are most effcient under heavy load. Added weight is just an energy storage system that's 100% effcient, better than any hybrid, at least until you brake.

 

[UFI]

But you have to take the Suzuki to 5k revs, plus. This isn't fun. I took it for a test drive and I was quickly tired of not being able to surf along on a surge of torque. Nothing can compare to the huge slug of overtaking power that a good Diesel offers, it's almost magical.

Modern petrol turbos behaive very diesel like, with peak torque from 1500rpm.

 

[ahmett]

Modern petrol turbos behaive very diesel like, with peak torque from 1500rpm.

yeah but with higher fuel consumption. the twinair is a perfect example, they 'claim' amazing fuel consumption but in reality its a joke.

 

[scout]

yeah but with higher fuel consumption. the twinair is a perfect example, they 'claim' amazing fuel consumption but in reality its a joke.

While I don't usually defend this sort of thing, it is possible to achieve the figures quoted by Fiat for the TA (Not the way I drive normally, but I have done it on occasion to prove to myself it could be done.). On a long run its easy to get into the mid fifties, even with some energetic driving and my car is now averaging mid to high 40's which in my book is OK for a car that puts such a big grin on my face. I don't think there is a manufacturer that doesn't massage the figures to suit themselves.

 

[UFI]

While I don't usually defend this sort of thing, it is possible to achieve the figures quoted by Fiat for the TA (Not the way I drive normally, but I have done it on occasion to prove to myself it could be done.). On a long run its easy to get into the mid fifties, even with some energetic driving and my car is now averaging mid to high 40's which in my book is OK for a car that puts such a big grin on my face. I don't think there is a manufacturer that doesn't massage the figures to suit themselves.

While I agree that the TA is about smiles per gallon, with all my other cars I can beat the official figures by 17-31% (lifetime averages).

Like you I've managed mid fifties over a tank and have just reverted back to thrashing it and getting mid 40's.