Lol it not my thing
General how is your mpg on a new 500?
- Thread starter serpico
- Start date
Currently reading:
General how is your mpg on a new 500?
It's not difficult thoughLol it not my thing
Just remember your odometer reading when you refill and how much you put in.alfatastic
New member
Maxi, If I'm reading that right are you managing to get 11 imperial or US gallons into your tank? If so may be you have a leak some where to be getting less than 40 to the gallon?
jimbro1000
Established member
Mine shows an average of 31.3 after 6000miles
alfatastic
New member
Interesting that the more you sqeeze into your tank the lower the mpg, I wonder if you're losing some through the tank vent, when the fuel heats up a bit? A person at work did that by filling to the brim 1st thing in morning and during the afternoon, a lot of it had leaked into carpark due to expansion. Smelled shocking.
Nah no leaks
It just gets low mpg because firstly the wife brakes too much when she drives and it also tends to get driven short distances which means it never really gets up to a temperature where it operates at maximum efficiency.
average 34 mpg - car is 1.4 16v 100HP
update...
after 3 full tanks of mainly motorway driving, i have the following
1st tank =273
2nd tank = 292
3rd tank = 297
even if not so accurate, this is circa 40mpg mixed (driving 75% motorway at 70mph)
its a big difference to fiat's claimed economy of 56mpg
can i ask the dealer to do tests under warranty??
after 3 full tanks of mainly motorway driving, i have the following
1st tank =273
2nd tank = 292
3rd tank = 297
even if not so accurate, this is circa 40mpg mixed (driving 75% motorway at 70mph)
its a big difference to fiat's claimed economy of 56mpg
can i ask the dealer to do tests under warranty??
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,119
- Points
- 198
70mph is too fast, you'll never get book at that speed.
i've just been through my first full tank on a 1.2 500
= 273 miles before the range went to 0!
that equates to 37mpg... nowhere near the quoted 55mpg
(this is for mixed motorway/city driving)
is it to be expected???
xx
Far too low - go back and swap it for a diesel version
Only joshing - don't bother checking consumption figures at this early stage - give it a couple of thousand of mixed driving first.
Firstly as pearce jj said 70 is probably too fast to get book. I managed 56mpg indicated in my 500 on some motorway but was probably averaging 60-65 or so. Secondly you don't list how many litres you've put in your tank so you can't accurately calculate mpg from that.
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,119
- Points
- 198
Here's some info on how they're conducted,
The tests themselves are conducted on a ‘Rolling Road’ dynamometer and have two parts. The first part consists of 2.5 miles of accelerating, slowing down and idling in the lower three gears (unless it’s an automatic), after a cold start, at an ambient temperature that we expect to experience on a English summer day. The maximum speed is 30mph and the average 12mph.
Following on immediately from this, the second figure is derived over a further 4.3 miles driving in all gears, accelerating very gently up to a maximum of 75mph, and averaging 39mph. The total fuel consumed in both tests, divided into the total 6.8 miles, gives the combined result.
Bear in mind as well that there is also a milage limit for the actual test cars (10,000km possibly?) - so the manufacturers will have absolutely CAINED the test car right up to this, to minimise engine internal resistance and hence provide the best possible reading. There is no way a brand new car will get ANYWHERE NEAR the book figure.
The tests themselves are conducted on a ‘Rolling Road’ dynamometer and have two parts. The first part consists of 2.5 miles of accelerating, slowing down and idling in the lower three gears (unless it’s an automatic), after a cold start, at an ambient temperature that we expect to experience on a English summer day. The maximum speed is 30mph and the average 12mph.
Following on immediately from this, the second figure is derived over a further 4.3 miles driving in all gears, accelerating very gently up to a maximum of 75mph, and averaging 39mph. The total fuel consumed in both tests, divided into the total 6.8 miles, gives the combined result.
Bear in mind as well that there is also a milage limit for the actual test cars (10,000km possibly?) - so the manufacturers will have absolutely CAINED the test car right up to this, to minimise engine internal resistance and hence provide the best possible reading. There is no way a brand new car will get ANYWHERE NEAR the book figure.
i do 60 miles a day on the m25 and it seems if i do 70 - 75 mph i get better mpg than if drive at 55- 60 . The car is coming up to 4000 miles now and the mpg is getting better at the moment i am getting 48.7 put the funny thing is my eco drive score is going down ? ,i also use shell v+ 99 fuel
1.2 doesn't have a knock sensor so I suspect you're wasting your money on anything above 95 RON.
exactly why eco driving is unrealistic and questionably unsafe
Yes but you can make fast driving as economic as possible by short shifting a little, not braking unnecessarily etc etc
just seems to run better on shell v+ plus i get my fuel payed for
Yes but you can make fast driving as economic as possible by short shifting a little, not braking unnecessarily etc etc
if you had the 1368 16v you wouldn't short shift
i agree about over-braking though :devil:
just seems to run better on shell v+ plus i get my fuel payed for
indeed Fiat 16v engines love Shell V Power (and Optimax before it)
Similar threads
