500 How long until your 500 fell apart, mine is not yet 6 !!

[UFI]

Whenever I have driven a turbodiesel I haven't got close to its claimed economy, I expect it is using the turbo that kills it. The standardised EU test is probably so leisurely and expertly driven that it doesn't need to use the turbo thus giving unrealistic and therefore TOTALLY POINTLESS figures. I expect the same is true for the modern trend of small turbo petrols such as the Ford Ecoboost and Fiat Twinair unless driven very carefully.

Whereas my NA petrol beats its published combined figures, calculated properly not by its computer, and is driven normally on a mixture of roads (not like a Nun and not always on the motorway). In fact it varies less than 5mpg all year round.

People were comparing various petrols against diesels such as the Ford Focus 1.6 but were comparing performance/power figures for a NA petrol against a turbo diesel. If you compare two NA engines such as the VW 2.0 SDi against the VW 2.0 FSi of a few years ago then the diesel compares poorly.

Exactly my experience. In 99% city use (some days average 10mph), my NA petrol beats the combined figure (36mpg) by 10mpg, it beats it's city figure by 65% (just 5mpg shy of the DCi 106's combined numbers). All with an old tech K4M engine. Even my ancient tech Jeep on oversized tyres beats it's combined figure by 20% in 'all' off road use. Now my VW TDi beats it's City figure by 25%, but it only just matches it's combined 33.6MPG (if anything the TDi did more highway miles as once a week I took the long way home to heat up the DPF).

Downsizing has it's limits, tiny (petrol or diesel) engines do great on the NEDC, but but in the real world the slightest load and your AFR shoots up. UFI's driven 90% highway, but it still only just beats it's city figure by 2mpg (maybe 4 this tank), of course some people would be happy with 65mpg...(incidentally a diesel would have to do ~75mpg to have the same Co2 footprint)

I've given diesel one more chance, but I don't expect my latest tech DCi 140, to beat it's official combined figure. 1.6 litres to move two tons? We'll see.

 

[ahmett]

Exactly my experience. In 99% city use (some days average 10mph), my NA petrol beats the combined figure (36mpg) by 10mpg, it beats it's city figure by 65% (just 5mpg shy of the DCi 106's combined numbers). All with an old tech K4M engine. Even my ancient tech Jeep on oversized tyres beats it's combined figure by 20% in 'all' off road use. Now my VW TDi beats it's City figure by 25%, but it only just matches it's combined 33.6MPG (if anything the TDi did more highway miles as once a week I took the long way home to heat up the DPF).

Downsizing has it's limits, tiny (petrol or diesel) engines do great on the NEDC, but but in the real world the slightest load and your AFR shoots up. UFI's driven 90% highway, but it still only just beats it's city figure by 2mpg (maybe 4 this tank), of course some people would be happy with 65mpg...(incidentally a diesel would have to do ~75mpg to have the same Co2 footprint)

I've given diesel one more chance, but I don't expect my latest tech DCi 140, to beat it's official combined figure. 1.6 litres to move two tons? We'll see.

UFI i am 100% with you there. There is nothing more annoying than a car with a tiny diesel engine!

I rented a Mini Cooper Countryman D ALL 4. 1.6 110 hp 4 wheel drive in a car that weighs a lot! Absolute misery, was full throttle all the time, and got 7.2l/100 km with a lot of motorway driving!

No thank you!

 

[ahmett]

Pretty much all new cars fail to get anywhere near stated figures, manufacturers deliberately cook the books on fuel economy tests to get the numbers as high as possible ie over inflating tyre to cut rolling resistance, making sure batteries are fully charge externally before beginning the tests so the alternator doesn't need to charge the battery. and a number of other cheats and tricks to get the numbers up. Plus most new cars have start stop which is used correctly on the tests but often isn't in the real world.

My 2004 punto diesel gets exactly the stated figures for fuel economy out mini doesn't.

my going rate is 20%-30% over the figures. So when looking at mpg in a car, I just calculate like that, and ideally take a few hour test drive over normal driving to see its real world economy.

Of course, for me the biggest liar ever is the TA figures = ) Give me a break! haha

 

[StevenRB45]

my going rate is 20%-30% over the figures. So when looking at mpg in a car, I just calculate like that, and ideally take a few hour test drive over normal driving to see its real world economy.

Of course, for me the biggest liar ever is the TA figures = ) Give me a break! haha

One could suggest if you were feeling cynical that the whole downsizing trend was caused entirely by the need to cheat at the fuel economy and emissions tests (which the UK govt has decided to disincentivise).

The fact is a 1.4 starjet or a 0.9 TA 500 will require a very similar amount of energy to travel at a given speed, they both use the same fuel to do so, they have roughly similar aerodynamics, rolling resistance weight and the same internal combustion engine whose principles have been refined over 100 years so all the quick wins have gone.

Yet the TA claims 1/3 better economy...magic..OK they seem to produce very similar real world figures to the old 1.4 give or take outliers either way.

It could be that no matter how clever your designer is physics is physics and efficiency savings of that size don't happen in mature technology and the main benefit of small engines is that the NEDC test doesn't require you to boost as it's designed for trucks and buses as well as cars so pie in the sky figures are easy to achieve.

 

[UFI]

One could suggest if you were feeling cynical that the whole downsizing trend was caused entirely by the need to cheat at the fuel economy and emissions tests (which the UK govt has decided to disincentivise).

It could be that no matter how clever your designer is physics is physics and efficiency savings of that size don't happen in mature technology and the main benefit of small engines is that the NEDC test doesn't require you to boost as it's designed for trucks and buses as well as cars so pie in the sky figures are easy to achieve.

It's worse than that. Frankly Fiat is a saint when it comes to TA fuel consumption if you consider the various hybrid supercars that report less Co2 that a TA. You could get a Nitro Funny car into the sub 100g Co2 bracket if the plug in hybird system is any good.

 

[306maxi]

I got over the urban consumption figure this morning. Twas a cool morning too.....

 

[UFI]

I don't normally pay for loan cars (UFI needs a couple of warranties about to expire parts - issues since new- the later I leave them the longer the new parts should last), but I might see if I can get a 1.2 for a day, 100mpg here we come

 

[306maxi]

good luck!

 

[StevenRB45]

And so the circle continues....

Yes older diesels produce more nitrogen oxides and particulates..... But Euro 6 standards have eradicated this (note your guardian article is from 2012 when we only just had euro 5 standards imposed) Now petrol and diesels have more or less the same standards for particulates and oxides. (Also as I've already pointed out petrol cars produce more and more NOx and NO2 as they get older)

Just in case anyone reads this and this and imagines this was all fixed in 2012..Euro 6 came in this month September 2015..the average age of a car the UK is 6-7 so we'll all be following cars in the article for some time yet, unless they are forcibly scrapped obviously...oh hoho

 

[UFI]

From Wikipedia:

Cycle beating

For the emission standards to deliver real emission reductions it is crucial to use a test cycle that reflects real-world driving style. It was discovered that engine manufacturers would engage in what was called 'cycle beating' to optimise emission performance to the test cycle, while emissions from typical driving conditions would be much higher than expected, undermining the standards and public health. In one particular instance, research from two German technology institutes found that for diesel cars no 'real' NOx reductions have been achieved after 13 years of stricter standards (2006 report).[19]
An independent study in 2014 used portable emission measurement systems to measure NOx emissions during real world driving from fifteen Euro 6 compliant diesel passenger cars. The results showed that NOx emissions were on average as much as 7 times higher than the Euro 6 limit. However, some of the vehicles did show reduced emissions, suggesting that real world NOx emission control is possible.[20]

Perhaps that's why some people are so keen to quote official figures and not real world data.

 

[Mick F]

.........Perhaps that's why some people are so keen to quote official figures and not real world data.

....... and some folk don't believe about the muck chucked out when they floor the go pedal when they overtake a cyclist.

Mick.

 

[Super Uwe]

I know this thread has been trundling along for a while, but I kind of feel it needs tidying up as the majority of these posts have no relevance to the original purpose of the thread

People are often asked to search the forum for answers, but to be fair if you were hoping this thread was full of posts about 500s that have had multiple failures/problems then you would be disappointed!

Would that be possible at all?

 

[AGH1965]

From Wikipedia:

Cycle beating

For the emission standards to deliver real emission reductions it is crucial to use a test cycle that reflects real-world driving style. It was discovered that engine manufacturers would engage in what was called 'cycle beating' to optimise emission performance to the test cycle, while emissions from typical driving conditions would be much higher than expected, undermining the standards and public health.

Optimising isn't the same as cycle beating. Optimising is just acting to the letter of the law. Detecting if the car is driving an NEDC and applying different strategies in that situation than in similar situations on the road, that is the real cycle beating. There are old stories about car manufacturers whose cars checked if the non driven wheels rotated or if the hood was raised, since that would indicate that the car was on a rolling road...

Perhaps that's why some people are so keen to quote official figures and not real world data.

In my country the official figures are the only figures that are allowed in ads. Publishing real world data in ads is not allowed here. Therefore most ads and brochures contain a disclaimer that the published values might not be representative for normal everyday use.

 

[AGH1965]

Yet the TA claims 1/3 better economy...magic..OK they seem to produce very similar real world figures to the old 1.4 give or take outliers either way.

I have an experiment for you: Drive with both engines at a constant speed of 30 mph in the gear that gives the best fuel economy and look at the mpg on the dashboard. You will be astonished by the difference!

 

[UFI]

Optimising isn't the same as cycle beating. Optimising is just acting to the letter of the law.

We well know that the NEDC is a farce for forced induction engines.

Detecting if the car is driving an NEDC and applying different strategies in that situation than in similar situations on the road, that is the real cycle beating.

There are old stories about car manufacturers whose cars checked if the non driven wheels rotated or if the hood was raised, since that would indicate that the car was on a rolling road...

Just today:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/epa-accuses-volkswagen-cheating-clean-air-act-orders-recall

Still happening.... and surprise, surprise, it's diesels, putting out 40 times the allowable limits, modern, state of the the art, best selling 'green' diesels.

 

[UFI]

People are often asked to search the forum for answers, but to be fair if you were hoping this thread was full of posts about 500s that have had multiple failures/problems then you would be disappointed!

Only if they don't own a 500

 

[StevenRB45]

I have an experiment for you: Drive with both engines at a constant speed of 30 mph in the gear that gives the best fuel economy and look at the mpg on the dashboard. You will be astonished by the difference!

I don't disagree with that statement in principle, the TA won't be boosting at that speed and aerodynamic drag isn't that great to overcome. If we were to increase the constant speed to 70 or have both cars drive an identical real world scenario that's where they would be much closer.

Have a look at this

There is one petrol 500 listed as doing 47.1 UK mpg but it may be a 1.2 as the engine isn't specified. All the specified twin airs are between 33 and 44mpg which the 1.4 could easily achieve. There's even an abarth on there doing 41 mpg.

 

[AGH1965]

I don't disagree with that statement in principle, the TA won't be boosting at that speed and aerodynamic drag isn't that great to overcome. If we were to increase the constant speed to 70 or have both cars drive an identical real world scenario that's where they would be much closer.

On the motorway both the TA and the 1.4 might have about the same mpg. If you have some luck with the traffic lights, then it's quite easy to achieve the same mpg in city trafic as on the motorway with a TA, but with that 1.4 that is absolutely impossible. Personally I'm impressed by the low speed mpg of the TA. FIAT's engineer did their work well optimising this city car. You won't hear me complain about the TA's fuel economy.

 

[AGH1965]

UFI, thanks for the link to the interesting article about VW's cycle beating. (For some reason the forum didn't show the "thanks" button.) When I tried to explain the difference between optimising and cycle beating, I should have mentioned the magic words "defeat device", because that is the essence of the difference.

UFI and StevenRB45, you are absolutely right about the NEDC not being representative, but you have to blame the politicians in Brussels for that. You can't blame car manufacturers for obeying the law literally, since that is what they have to do to stay in business. Apparently a new cycle will be introduced with Euro 7.

 

[StevenRB45]

On the motorway both the TA and the 1.4 might have about the same mpg. If you have some luck with the traffic lights, then it's quite easy to achieve the same mpg in city trafic as on the motorway with a TA, but with that 1.4 that is absolutely impossible. Personally I'm impressed by the low speed mpg of the TA. FIAT's engineer did their work well optimising this city car. You won't hear me complain about the TA's fuel economy.

I'm not picking on the TA as such they are all at it. It makes a good example as unlike other manufacturers Fiat introduced it into an existing range rather than at a model change (you can't compare a 1.4 panda to a TA as the base car is different or a Euro v to a Euro vi golf as one is mk6 one is mk7 unless it's a cabrio). Also this being the Fiat forum there is quite a lot of data on TA economy knocking around.