Technical Twin-Air MPG

[OldhamDoblo]

Well, my MPG report isn't for a TA, but my 1.3 MultiJet MPW. We've had it 16 days (!) and have covered just 1000 miles of mixed running including round town and a motorway run from Manchester to Slough and back. Our MPG is currently showing as 55.4 . . . Tight engine, still getting to know the car. . . I expect this figure to improve!

I'm surprised that anyone still expects to come near the "factory" mpg figures. I thought it was common knowledge that factory figures are obtained under controlled conditions on a rolling road, following a prescribed programme of acceleration, deceleration and idling to simulate urban or "extra-urban" (horrible expresssion!) conditions, and, as such, can only be used to compare one type of car's economy against another's. They certainly bear no relationship to "real-world" mpg in most cases

 

[soupdragon]

Well, my MPG report isn't for a TA, but my 1.3 MultiJet MPW. We've had it 16 days (!) and have covered just 1000 miles of mixed running including round town and a motorway run from Manchester to Slough and back. Our MPG is currently showing as 55.4 . . . Tight engine, still getting to know the car. . . I expect this figure to improve!

I used to get a shade under 60 mpg from my old MultiJet Panda. I'm sure that they've tweaked things a bit to squeeze a bit more out

Cheers Tom

 

[MJG]

Well, my MPG report isn't for a TA, but my 1.3 MultiJet MPW. We've had it 16 days (!) and have covered just 1000 miles of mixed running including round town and a motorway run from Manchester to Slough and back. Our MPG is currently showing as 55.4 . . . Tight engine, still getting to know the car. . . I expect this figure to improve!

I'm surprised that anyone still expects to come near the "factory" mpg figures. I thought it was common knowledge that factory figures are obtained under controlled conditions on a rolling road, following a prescribed programme of acceleration, deceleration and idling to simulate urban or "extra-urban" (horrible expresssion!) conditions, and, as such, can only be used to compare one type of car's economy against another's. They certainly bear no relationship to "real-world" mpg in most cases

To be honest I think most folk understand this.

It's well documented that there is no correlation between real world driving figures and those published by the makers. However I can certainly understand the frustration of anybody who's MPG figures fall so far short of what FIAT have published.

Plus manufacturers certainly sometimes market their cars as if you can expect to get such high figures driving in normal conditions rather than what are virtually laboratory type conditions they are created in.

 

[milesperhour]

With my Fiats - 500l 1.6 diesel, and panda 1.2 petrol, I find I get closer to the manufacturer quoted figures than any other car I have previously owned (out of a long list of about 30 or so cars).

 

[OldhamDoblo]

To be honest I think most folk understand this.

It's well documented that there is no correlation between real world driving figures and those published by the makers. However I can certainly understand the frustration of anybody who's MPG figures fall so far short of what FIAT have published.

Plus manufacturers certainly sometimes market their cars as if you can expect to get such high figures driving in normal conditions rather than what are virtually laboratory type conditions they are created in.

I agree entirely. To get a better idea of "real world" mpg, visit http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/
Motorists post their mpg experience, and the website collates the figures to give an
average mpg for their model of car.
The most interesting figure I found was when I was checking my previous car's consumption (Peugeot Partner Tepee 1.6HDi 112- mine was distinctly average at 44.5mpg) and found that owners of the petrol-engined Peugeot Partner averaged around 20% better than the factory figures!

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

I agree entirely. To get a better idea of "real world" mpg, visit http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/

Nope, that honest John is a load of rubbish IMO.

A real life view is fully.com - you can look at all the date inputted to come up with an MPG figure and workout for yourself if its realistic or fiddled

 

[OldhamDoblo]

Nope, that honest John is a load of rubbish IMO.

A real life view is fully.com - you can look at all the date inputted to come up with an MPG figure and workout for yourself if its realistic or fiddled

I went to fully.com and got a domain for sale page . . .

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

I went to fully.com and got a domain for sale page . . .

Me bad, typo - www.fuelly.com

 

[OldhamDoblo]

Me bad, typo - www.fuelly.com

Thanks for that, interesting reading . . .

 

[santa]

Or You can take a look at http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/

 

[Mercky]

Right, to bring you up to date with this one as it stands.



I've had Fiat customer services on the phone to me and they are at least taking the complaint seriously. The matter has been passed to main dealer who are very apologetic and have asked me to do a brim to brim test over one tankful initially so that they know what they are dealing with.



As soon as I have finished this tank I shall do the brim to brim test and report back to them. At leat I feel that I am not being ignored anymore. Once I know more, I'll let you all know.



Having monitored a couple of tankfuls recently it seems it is possible to get reasonable economy at mediocre speeds over a good distance. I went from Deal to Rye using mostly the coast road, never much exceeding 45mph for the duration of the 120+ mile round trip and over the distance it showed 50mpg!



However, as soon as I sarted bumbling around town and too and fro work etc. the mpg immediately fell to low thrities again, in an instant. I mean you could virtually watch the fuel guage drop, again. So strange to note the huge difference so quickly. It just seems odd to me.

Any update on your mpg issue?
Just curious!

 

[Pandabloke]

Ok, been in to main dealers to have the air-con fixed (it broke....) and they checked out the mpg at the same time. They did three seperate runs in it culminating in a 14 mile trip that gave 47 mpg.

I have taken the car back and it is back to it's old 'high thirties' tricks again.

I just cannot make it stay above very low forties for any length of time. It just tumbles back to high thirties no matter how careful I drive. In a single shortish journey, yes it is possible to get mid forties, but in real world terms it just falls back over a tank full.

I am gonna give it another thousand miles to see what I can do, but frankly I just want to give it back and get a diesel Kia Soul, which I should have done in the first place. It's really taken the shine off owning a new car.

Also the windscreen smashed on the motorway and someone has scratched it in the car park. Wish I still had Myrtle the Multipla, to be honest. Grumpy old bugger, aren't I.....

 

[Ulpian]

Very disappointing. No car gives what it says on the box though. Saying that, the Fiat Diesel 1.6 120 in my Suzuki S Cross gives 48-55 in town and recently gave 67mpg on a 56 mile run in the country. Never more than 65 mph, with one faster overtake, though. On a long dual carriageway at motorway speeds I get @ 65 - 69.

This is a result of light weight and decent aerodynamics, not rocket science.

But I do drive for fun, so I'm delighted. And the Fiat Diesel is lovely.

 

[MJG]

Ok, been in to main dealers to have the air-con fixed (it broke....) and they checked out the mpg at the same time. They did three seperate runs in it culminating in a 14 mile trip that gave 47 mpg.

I have taken the car back and it is back to it's old 'high thirties' tricks again.

I just cannot make it stay above very low forties for any length of time. It just tumbles back to high thirties no matter how careful I drive. In a single shortish journey, yes it is possible to get mid forties, but in real world terms it just falls back over a tank full.

I am gonna give it another thousand miles to see what I can do, but frankly I just want to give it back and get a diesel Kia Soul, which I should have done in the first place. It's really taken the shine off owning a new car.

Also the windscreen smashed on the motorway and someone has scratched it in the car park. Wish I still had Myrtle the Multipla, to be honest. Grumpy old bugger, aren't I.....

TBH I can understand your disappointment, fuel is not cheap and if your car is gobbling it at a much higher rate than it should be then it's totally understandable.

The problem is that you are in a bit of a trap because of the money you will lose if you change, unless you can make the dealer feel obligated to offer you a good p/ex price on the back of the problems you have had, I wouldn't hold your breath though expecting them to.

 

[JTD_Liam]

My Sister only manages 39-42mpg out of her MiTo TwinAir (85bhp), so your 500L doesn't surprise me a great deal, Pandabloke

I think for decent fuel returns in a 500L, the 1.3 Multijet is the best bet. However, if you've been used to the torque of the 1.9 engine in the Multipla, the 1.6 Multijet will probably suit you best. It still seems to get high 40's - early 50's to the gallon, but has a shed load of torque.

Perhaps give one a try and see if Fiat UK and/or the dealer will assist with a swap?

 

[varesecrazy]

this is JUST an observation..,
but I've eventually figured out that "babying" the TA isn't the best for economy..

I used to chug along at 1800 rpm and get 50'ish MPG,
but I've since discovered that @2100 rpm to 2400 RPM gives considerably better economy.

while leading the MI convoy last week (in a speed limit)

6th gear gave an indicated 58 inst MPG ( @ 1700 rpm)

5th gave an indicated 82 MPG ( @2400 RPM)

the cars 12K lifetime average is still 49.7 mpg..!! so I'm well pleased.



charlie - Punto TA

 

[Pandabloke]

First of all apologies for sounding like a spoilt child, if I did in my last post. It was not my intention but reading back it did seem that way. I am very lucky that I could afford a new car on this occasion and I should seem more grateful. Sorry!

Secondly thank you for your sympathetic replies, they are gratefully received.

The latest mpg figure is 43.4 combined. My biggest gripe is not that it's not reaching the suggested mpg combined figure of 58.9 mpg but I can't even achieve the urban cycle figure of 49.6 mpg in everyday driving. I'm not even getting close. The first couple of tank fulls were up there but then it's been low ever since. I've now done 11,000 miles and I was hoping for about 50 mpg in everyday use by now.

Spoke to my salesman at a car show today and he is going to see what it would cost to chop it in for a diesel version.

 

[twinairturbo]

First of all apologies for sounding like a spoilt child, if I did in my last post. It was not my intention but reading back it did seem that way. I am very lucky that I could afford a new car on this occasion and I should seem more grateful. Sorry!



Secondly thank you for your sympathetic replies, they are gratefully received.



The latest mpg figure is 43.4 combined. My biggest gripe is not that it's not reaching the suggested mpg combined figure of 58.9 mpg but I can't even achieve the urban cycle figure of 49.6 mpg in everyday driving. I'm not even getting close. The first couple of tank fulls were up there but then it's been low ever since. I've now done 11,000 miles and I was hoping for about 50 mpg in everyday use by now.



Spoke to my salesman at a car show today and he is going to see what it would cost to chop it in for a diesel version.

I only get 38 mpg and agree with you 100% I now only visit a fiat dealer for warranty work and go elsewhere for service as fiat talk a load of bull

 

[Ulpian]

I know it's slightly unnecessary, but using the 1.6 diesel 120, in a Suzuki S Cross, I have just done 190 miles, with a combination of a long stop-go crawl on the M25 and the usual town work in Norwich, on two separate days, plus two long motorway runs at very high (I daren't say) speeds on the M11, and I've got an average of 59mpg.

I travelled fast on the motorway, in two directions, so I am happy with the results, and today's slow run out of Norwich to visit a garden, through traffic and contending with effing dickheads who think 50 is fast, plus town congestion on two separate days, added into the computation, made me think that perhaps 59 isn't bad.

It's not rocket science. The truth of economical motoring is based on light weight, plus decent aerodynamics. Fiat might get it right withe the forthcoming XCross. I hope. The twin air isn't as economical as the three cylinder Ford engine, and that seems to be proven over two years of real life motoring computations.

 

[Ulpian]

It was 290 miles by the way. Plus another trip into the country yesterday which added 40 miles and brought the average up to 59.5.