OP
OP
I think we have just gone full circle, lol. I hope that the first owner to post on here can redress the balance.
General TwinAir Thread (including MPG)
- Thread starter grimwau
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mpg sport tomtom blue&me twinair
Currently reading:
General TwinAir Thread (including MPG)
I think we have just gone full circle, lol. I hope that the first owner to post on here can redress the balance.
Well I think the absence of a turbo will make it a bit easier to extract better economy from it. It's just so hard to drive a petrol turbocharged car economically.
OP
OP
Especially a small engined one where it relies on the turbo for a percentage of it's torque.
Not so difficult on a larger engine where there is built in torque allowing you to be able to drive off the turbo and still maintain a reasonable pace.
Not so difficult on a larger engine where there is built in torque allowing you to be able to drive off the turbo and still maintain a reasonable pace.
FireballXL5man
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 196
- Points
- 53
We would hope its economy would be good. However, I believe the 500 isn't a really lightweight car. If I'm correct, asking a 900cc engine to produce great economy might not be so easy. It would have to be worked harder to make the same progess as the 1.2.
I could be wrong here, but it seems logical to me.
actually 500 is one of the lightest cars in the market right now. according to wikipedia 865 to 980 kg (depending on trim level). i believe twinair should give more positive figures in good hands. fiat can't just lie about it's fuel consumption, it's determined by EU directives. don't get me wrong i'm not trying to imply that twinair owners here don't know how to drive but there are certain ways that you can get the most out of it. try using ecodrive, i managed to decrease my consumption from 41 to 48 mpg with it(1.4 petrol). i didn't read the whole thread so maybe you are using it, so forgive me if you are. but right now, 40 mpg just sounds horrible no matter how the experience is, i'm really hoping to try it out when it arrives here, maybe then i'll believe it's crap. 
ahmett
Prominent member
I dont think you can compare the two engines at all because the 1.2 is Nautrally Aspirated while the 0.9 is a turbocharged engine.
Last edited:
Yes but there is also a .9 normally aspirated engine.
FireballXL5man
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 196
- Points
- 53
Correct. Which I was comparing to the 1.2 8v
ahmett
Prominent member
So then the 1.2 should be compared to the 0.9 non turbo when it comes out!
500 miles in....
Mostly the wife driving (it's her car) - but if I threaten her enough, she hands over the keys... I think I'm in a good position to comment on how the car is performing - we traded in a 1.2 Grande Punto for the TwinAir, and I drive a 1.5 dci Megane - so I can make reasonable judgements on how it compares to a small(ish) petrol engine and an equivalent small diesel. I'm using the mpg readout on the car only, and I know that is not 100% accurate - but my experience tells me it will not be far wrong.
I need to state, first, that I am Fiat 'mad'. A 127, 2 Unos, a Tipo (great car, ahead of its time), a Stilo, 2 Puntos and I know, before I die, that I WILL buy a Fiat Coupe! I've never driven the 1.2 in a 500, BUT in the Grande Punto it was...how can I say this politely...underwhelming. Flat, slow and - over 2 years - average 36mpg. To be fair, not that bad for inner city driving - but the diesel would get 45ish at least on the same route, but with much more power and flexibility.
The TwinAir, in comparison with the 1.2 in the Punto, is a beast. It growls from the off, pulls like a train - easily as much as the diesel - and has 10 times the character. On the downside, because it wants you to wring its neck, you hold onto the gears longer than you know you should...
This week, it dawned on me why the TwinAir was so good. After 400 miles or so with mixed driving - commuting, stop start, the odd motorway sprint - the mpg was 42ish. Not brilliant, I know - but about 6mpg more than the 1.2 Punto would have got, and only 3 or 4 mpg less that the (admittedly heavier) Megane would have done.
But - and here it is - I'VE had the car for the past 4 days. Stuck the thing in ECO, changed up when the indicator said (which was strange - coz it sounded like the engine was under pressure, but it pulled ok anyway) and driven it like a granny.
The result? 62mpg. If I'd driven the diesel that way I reckon I would have got a bit more (but not much) and I know that this is still not close to the official figures, but a couple of things are clear -
Drive it like it is meant to be driven - and I intend to from now on - you get competent mpg (but not world beating) but an engine that is characterful, willing and brings a smile to your face whenever you press the pedal - and in a way that no diesel will ever come close.
OR - drive it like every last drop was your last, and you will get as close as you can to some of the most efficient diesel engines on the market right now. And it has only 500 miles under the belt....
Can't fault the car.
Mostly the wife driving (it's her car) - but if I threaten her enough, she hands over the keys... I think I'm in a good position to comment on how the car is performing - we traded in a 1.2 Grande Punto for the TwinAir, and I drive a 1.5 dci Megane - so I can make reasonable judgements on how it compares to a small(ish) petrol engine and an equivalent small diesel. I'm using the mpg readout on the car only, and I know that is not 100% accurate - but my experience tells me it will not be far wrong.
I need to state, first, that I am Fiat 'mad'. A 127, 2 Unos, a Tipo (great car, ahead of its time), a Stilo, 2 Puntos and I know, before I die, that I WILL buy a Fiat Coupe! I've never driven the 1.2 in a 500, BUT in the Grande Punto it was...how can I say this politely...underwhelming. Flat, slow and - over 2 years - average 36mpg. To be fair, not that bad for inner city driving - but the diesel would get 45ish at least on the same route, but with much more power and flexibility.
The TwinAir, in comparison with the 1.2 in the Punto, is a beast. It growls from the off, pulls like a train - easily as much as the diesel - and has 10 times the character. On the downside, because it wants you to wring its neck, you hold onto the gears longer than you know you should...
This week, it dawned on me why the TwinAir was so good. After 400 miles or so with mixed driving - commuting, stop start, the odd motorway sprint - the mpg was 42ish. Not brilliant, I know - but about 6mpg more than the 1.2 Punto would have got, and only 3 or 4 mpg less that the (admittedly heavier) Megane would have done.
But - and here it is - I'VE had the car for the past 4 days. Stuck the thing in ECO, changed up when the indicator said (which was strange - coz it sounded like the engine was under pressure, but it pulled ok anyway) and driven it like a granny.
The result? 62mpg. If I'd driven the diesel that way I reckon I would have got a bit more (but not much) and I know that this is still not close to the official figures, but a couple of things are clear -
Drive it like it is meant to be driven - and I intend to from now on - you get competent mpg (but not world beating) but an engine that is characterful, willing and brings a smile to your face whenever you press the pedal - and in a way that no diesel will ever come close.
OR - drive it like every last drop was your last, and you will get as close as you can to some of the most efficient diesel engines on the market right now. And it has only 500 miles under the belt....
Can't fault the car.
62mpg from any petrol engine is pretty damn good. Admitedly it's a few mpg short of Fiat's claimed 68.9 or whatever it is, but it ain't far off. My Stilo is meant to do 53.3 combined & i get 46.5mpg, so the difference is very similar.
I know some cars match or even beat their claimed figures but there's a alot that don't & when factoring in different driving styles, different road geography & different climatic conditions to the those during the strict official testing, getting only 7mpg short of the claims seems perfectly acceptable to me.
It's not unreasonable to expect people to have to use the Eco setting to achieve such figures, but it would be interesting to see if Fiat (in any of their literature) make any reference to the need for this setting in order to achieve more reasonable mpg (as obvious as it may sound).
official figures are city 58 mpg, combined 69 mpg. it's actually pretty close or even better if it's all city driving. btw you've done exactly what i asked for and result sounds very pleasing thanks and let's not forget this engine is far from loosened up.
Thanks. A good informative post which goes some way towards answering some of my questions. Glad to hear you're enjoying it.
Ah - I was not as clear as I should have been (it was late!). The 62mpg was not city driving - and therefore not a direct comparison with the 'usual' 45mpg or so. It was mainly motorway and stretches of constant driving - round the 50 to 60 mph mark, with some stopping and starting but nothing like if it was driving around town. And I drove it really, really carefully. In ECO mode the engine struggles to maintain speed on the motorway with any sort of incline, without having to drop down to 4th.
I just wanted to see what would happen if you tried to drive it as economically as possible - and to compare it with the diesel I have. And, to be fair, it did not do too bad at all. Should you wish to drive it like that you should see good results - even around town - and certainly not as bad as some of the reports are saying. The trouble is, it is hard to drive it that way for any length of time, and you are not using the potential of the engine - which is a shame.
But the fact is you have the choice - drive it gently, in ECO, with economy in mind and you will get results that go someway to justifying the mpg claims (I can see, now, why it did so well in the government tests - and if you try really hard I bet you could get close). Drive it the way it wants to be driven, however, and get 40 to 45, even around town, and with a boatload of fun built in. I know which way I'm going to drive it from now on...
I just wanted to see what would happen if you tried to drive it as economically as possible - and to compare it with the diesel I have. And, to be fair, it did not do too bad at all. Should you wish to drive it like that you should see good results - even around town - and certainly not as bad as some of the reports are saying. The trouble is, it is hard to drive it that way for any length of time, and you are not using the potential of the engine - which is a shame.
But the fact is you have the choice - drive it gently, in ECO, with economy in mind and you will get results that go someway to justifying the mpg claims (I can see, now, why it did so well in the government tests - and if you try really hard I bet you could get close). Drive it the way it wants to be driven, however, and get 40 to 45, even around town, and with a boatload of fun built in. I know which way I'm going to drive it from now on...
Check out the New Video from Autocar.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/fiat-500-vs-fiat-500-video-comparison/
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/fiat-500-vs-fiat-500-video-comparison/
Benny the Bee
New member
I've been reading this thread from the start, and one question has popped into my head;
I may be way off the mark here as I have no experience of turbo engined cars (but I am an engineer of sorts), how does the turbo react if the car stops after driving on boost in its "start-stop" process when I thought the engine should be allowed to tick-over for around three minutes before shutting down?
Perhaps I have not been clear in my wording but hopefully someone can answer this for me.
My friend has his TwinAir delivered on 1st March, I've been promised a drive.
Cheers
Tony.
I may be way off the mark here as I have no experience of turbo engined cars (but I am an engineer of sorts), how does the turbo react if the car stops after driving on boost in its "start-stop" process when I thought the engine should be allowed to tick-over for around three minutes before shutting down?
Perhaps I have not been clear in my wording but hopefully someone can answer this for me.
My friend has his TwinAir delivered on 1st March, I've been promised a drive.
Cheers
Tony.
I've been reading this thread from the start, and one question has popped into my head;
I may be way off the mark here as I have no experience of turbo engined cars (but I am an engineer of sorts), how does the turbo react if the car stops after driving on boost in its "start-stop" process when I thought the engine should be allowed to tick-over for around three minutes before shutting down?
Perhaps I have not been clear in my wording but hopefully someone can answer this for me.
My friend has his TwinAir delivered on 1st March, I've been promised a drive.
Cheers
Tony.
IIRC this was discussed when the start stop was made standard on the multijet- I think the general consensus was that with a relatively low stress engine using modern oils oil breakdown in a hot turbo at rest is not an issue.
D4nny8oy
Established member
...and if you had decided to rag it senseless and felt the turbo (and engine oil) needed some time to cool, all you have to do is disable Stop/Start with the button on the dash and you can sit and let it idle until you're happy to re-engage it again/switch off.
