That's fine. The point I was trying to make is that there are many contradictions and shortfalls emerging (both technical and marketing) between what was originally promised by Fiat and what we are seeing now that I am genuinely puzzled as to what is going on. I'm glad that you are happy with the car. However, one of the main attractions of owning small cars is fuel economy and yet here is a new, very advanced engine which appears to deliver MPG which is not only "not great" but which struggles to match that of older engines. The fact that Fiat are now dropping references to fuel economy in their marketing of the 500 TwinAir is also odd.
General TwinAir Thread (including MPG)
- Thread starter grimwau
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mpg sport tomtom blue&me twinair
Currently reading:
General TwinAir Thread (including MPG)
That's fine. The point I was trying to make is that there are many contradictions and shortfalls emerging (both technical and marketing) between what was originally promised by Fiat and what we are seeing now that I am genuinely puzzled as to what is going on. I'm glad that you are happy with the car. However, one of the main attractions of owning small cars is fuel economy and yet here is a new, very advanced engine which appears to deliver MPG which is not only "not great" but which struggles to match that of older engines. The fact that Fiat are now dropping references to fuel economy in their marketing of the 500 TwinAir is also odd.
keeforelli
Member
the twin air thread will be full of MPG references because fiat have based a large part of the engines marketing on the eco/67MPG aspect of its performance, and there was ALWAYS going to be a response here as soon as someone had actual results to share. The fact that it hasnt achieved near to these figures, for whatever reason, has only increased the interest.
and THAT is what ppl are interested in, despite all its other notable benefits.
UPDATE!
from my autocar mag- steve cropley blog- (not online)
'when we road tested the car we were disappointed with its economy-
this weekend i drove three 60 mile expeditions to reach my own conclusions-
the first, driven carefully for economy reached 53.2mpg- the second, in which i drove more normally (although id learned more about how the engine operates) yielded 47.9mph- the third, in which i made liberal use of the gears and the 6000rpm red line, returned 34.4mpg.
my conclusions is tht the indifferent fuel economy figures the twinair can deliver are entirely fiats own fault- if it had not made the engine such a seductive, smooth but gruff little thing, whose willingness brings back echoes of alfasud, drivers wouldnt be induced to give it beans all the time.. as it is they can miss the fact its amazingly torquey below 2000rpm and will pull fifth smoothly at staggeringly low revs. for equally staggering economy. my view- THE CLAIMED FRUGALITY IS THERE IF YOU LOOK FOR IT, but the engines willingness is too much of a temptation'
i think he might just have knocked this whole thing on the head.
and THAT is what ppl are interested in, despite all its other notable benefits.
UPDATE!
from my autocar mag- steve cropley blog- (not online)
'when we road tested the car we were disappointed with its economy-
this weekend i drove three 60 mile expeditions to reach my own conclusions-
the first, driven carefully for economy reached 53.2mpg- the second, in which i drove more normally (although id learned more about how the engine operates) yielded 47.9mph- the third, in which i made liberal use of the gears and the 6000rpm red line, returned 34.4mpg.
my conclusions is tht the indifferent fuel economy figures the twinair can deliver are entirely fiats own fault- if it had not made the engine such a seductive, smooth but gruff little thing, whose willingness brings back echoes of alfasud, drivers wouldnt be induced to give it beans all the time.. as it is they can miss the fact its amazingly torquey below 2000rpm and will pull fifth smoothly at staggeringly low revs. for equally staggering economy. my view- THE CLAIMED FRUGALITY IS THERE IF YOU LOOK FOR IT, but the engines willingness is too much of a temptation'
i think he might just have knocked this whole thing on the head.
Last edited by a moderator:
That is a long, long way from the official government figures - my 1.2 driven carefully for economy on a 60 mile round trip will show ~ 70mpg on the trip for a true figure of around 65mpg. And it's not even run in yet.
I've not yet seen one single piece of real-world evidence that the twinair is more economical than the 1.2.
Last edited:
i don't understand why people keep referring to Fiat's figures...
They are official government figures and it says they are only a guide
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/
They are official government figures and it says they are only a guide
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,247
- Points
- 210
No idea how you manage to get 65mpg from your 1.2. The most I ever saw in mine was 48mpg.
The TwinAir is not only about economy, I've not driven one yet, but you do get 85hp and by all accounts the engine is great fun, whereas the same could not be said for the 1.2.
That's very true.
Perhaps we are confusing two issues - whether it's a good, fun engine (and most reports suggest that it is), and whether it's a ground-breakingly economical, low emissions engine (of which I think there is now reasonable cause to question).
Not everyone needs or wants to maximise fuel economy at the expense of having an exciting and interesting driving experience, and the twinair could be an excellent choice for many people.
But there are some folks who are trying to decide if it's worth buying a twinair on economic grounds alone, and I am concerned that the official government figures may be misleading those folks into making the wrong decision for them.
Perhaps the real comparison should be with the 1.4, which IMHO shows the twinair in a much better light.
I agree, for me buying the TWINAIR was never a comparison with the 1.2, it was always a comparison with the 1.4. This thread and my limited experience suggests the 1.2 is a fine engine and has its place in the line up. Take a look at the Fiat site, you can no longer buy a 1.4 pop, how long until this spreads throughout the range I wonder?
And I also read Autocar's blog and think it sums it up well.
So my advice is, if you are thinking of a 1.4, give the TWINAIR a go.
Fiat have referred to the Twinair eventually replacing the 1.2,which is why I don't understand why it is being marketed as a premium or niche product. Whichever current engine you compare it to, the Twinair is supposedly a modern, state of the art, 900cc engine. And yet according to Top Gear, Autocar and Auto Express will return only (approx.) 35 mpg when driven briskly.
look at the price point of twinair and 1.4
look at the mpg figures
look at the performance figures
it is obvious that the twin air will replace the 1.4
there is no mention of the 1.2 dying yet although not sure it can pass euro 5
simply, if you are mainly interested in economy buy a diesel Panda
keeforelli
Member
its worth bearing in mind that there will be 3 power output twin airs available-
60 bhp/ 85 bhp AND 105 Bhp. each of these outputs have been mooted as replacing different engines in the line up- the lower powered output as the direct 1.2 replacement.
something i don't understand about eco-turbos is that turbos are installed to increase power and volumetric efficiency
ergo they need to be 'on boost' to work
if you drive around 'off boost' changing up at 2000 rpm how can this be the most efficient?
ergo they need to be 'on boost' to work
if you drive around 'off boost' changing up at 2000 rpm how can this be the most efficient?
Very true. I'll be interested to see what ends up in the in the new Panda, when it arrives.
OP
OP
You can't deny that this is a very innovative design and I commend FPT for producing something brand new as opposed to trying to revamp current technology as most other manufacturers are doing.
However, it is only when Joe Public gets his hands on the car that problems (for lack of a better word) become apparent. We seem to drive the cars differently to the stereotype and this is usually how developments/enhancements happen.
I'm betting that Fiat are scratching their heads and trying to come up with a solution to this unexpected consequence and hopefully within a few months there could possibly be a positive result.
My personal opinion is that this will be in the form of a software upgrade as we all know that a standard ECU on modern cars can be remapped to provide a plethora of improvements; more power, more low down torque and/or better fuel consumption.
I wish I was brave enough to hand my car over to Red Dot or another respectable tuning firm and let them experiment with it on a rolling road.
keeforelli
Member
something i don't understand about eco-turbos is that turbos are installed to increase power and volumetric efficiency
ergo they need to be 'on boost' to work
if you drive around 'off boost' changing up at 2000 rpm how can this be the most efficient?
the twin air delivers peak torque from 1900RPM, so the turbo would be blowing at this low RPM to generate the kind of torque available. keeping in this torque band, not labouring the engine would give you the best efficiency.
im sure the light pressure turbos in use nowadays are to take advantage of possible efficiencies of smaller capacities without sacrificing power.
its just if you use the power, not the torque, that the economy deteriorates, obvs when you are revving higher up..
I wish I was brave enough to hand my car over to Red Dot or another respectable tuning firm and let them experiment with it on a rolling road.
Go on. You know you want to really.
FireballXL5man
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 196
- Points
- 53
I have my doubts whether the 60bhp (is that non-turbo?) 900cc twin air will have the necessary power and especially torque to perform as well a the 69bhp 1.2 8v.
Time will tell.
look at the price point of twinair and 1.4
look at the mpg figures
look at the performance figures
it is obvious that the twin air will replace the 1.4
there is no mention of the 1.2 dying yet although not sure it can pass euro 5
simply, if you are mainly interested in economy buy a diesel Panda
I agree. It appears obvious from the price & performance that it's a 1.4 alternative, but it seems Fiats marketting department have dropped a clanger in that they've not asked magazines to stress this in their reviews. Therefore everyone thinks 'oh, 0.8, that'll be a modern replacement for the 1.2' and are then left feeling short-changed when it delivers fuel economy closer to the 1.4.
Tbh much of this debate is Fiat Marketting's fault, as they pushed TwinAir on its eco credentials & only hinted at the other things it offers. It's clear there's little 'wrong' with the engine as such, it just under-delivers because Fiat have over-promised.
D4nny8oy
Established member
The issue is whether it can meet Euro 6, 7, etc in the future... There's no point having an engine line-up that's fine now, but will mean you have nothing to put in next year's car as it won't meet the regs. It takes considerable time and money to develop a completely new engine design, and Fiat have always been two-steps ahead of the Euro regs to ensure the product is future-proof (most were Euro 5 ready before Euro 4 was law).
The 1.1 FIRE has already been dropped for Euro 5 reasons, so the 1.2 is likely to fall foul of it soon.
Well obviously in terms of BHP it's not going to compete. But in terms of economy it should be pretty darn good.
