General TwinAir Thread (including MPG)

[DraigFlag87]

The TA in my opinion has the character of a 'warm' hatch, rather than an economy model. Hence people seem to get the mpg they are getting. The car likes being driven hard.

This is true, it's the way Fiat's should be driven. The A500 likes it too

But this engine was developed with economy in mind, so it's only natural to feel disappointed that the figures aren't as good as hoped. I would put money on the percentage difference in the "official claimed figures" and the "actual" figures are higher than almost every other car on sale today!

 

[cjc156]

This is true, it's the way Fiat's should be driven. The A500 likes it too

But this engine was developed with economy in mind, so it's only natural to feel disappointed that the figures aren't as good as hoped. I would put money on the percentage difference in the "official claimed figures" and the "actual" figures are higher than almost every other car on sale today!

I dont think economy was the whole story. It was developed to be more economical for sure. But it was also to have significantly lower emissions, be flexible (i.e. different outputs) and have a decent drive. I've said this before but the TA is a replacemnt for the 1.4, in current guise and not the 1.2.

 

[rallycinq]

I've just passed 1800 miles (in a month, ulp). Mine is loaded with stuff and on wide tyres and I am now getting over 50mpg on this tankful.

Will see how fuelly works out after the next refill.

Cheers

D

 

[cjc156]

I've just passed 1800 miles (in a month, ulp). Mine is loaded with stuff and on wide tyres and I am now getting over 50mpg on this tankful.

Will see how fuelly works out after the next refill.

Cheers

D

I seem to remember, you are using ECO most of the time, is that right?
cheers

 

[rallycinq]

I seem to remember, you are using ECO most of the time, is that right?
cheers

yup.

Cheers

D

 

[multispoke]

I dont think economy was the whole story. It was developed to be more economical for sure. But it was also to have significantly lower emissions, be flexible (i.e. different outputs) and have a decent drive. I've said this before but the TA is a replacemnt for the 1.4, in current guise and not the 1.2.

I seriously looked at getting a TA pop on scrappage and for me the 1.4 with the 'sports' suspension was a key factor in sticking with it. The 'devil you know is better than the devil you don't know'. Now into my 3rd week on the 2nd 1.4 - the average mpg has climbed into the high 30s (despite some weak moments of restraint). For me the TA - although a great engine needs a stiffer suspension setup for the twisties. I am hoping to improve the 1.4 with a bit of induction to give the buzz that comes with the TA.

 

[gib1970]

The TA in my opinion has the character of a 'warm' hatch, rather than an economy model. Hence people seem to get the mpg they are getting. The car likes being driven hard.

the twinair a warm hatch...you jest, surely

 

[306maxi]

the twinair a warm hatch...you jest, surely

He said character of a warm hatch

 

[multispoke]

the twinair a warm hatch...you jest, surely

It was worded as character as mentioned by Maxi but I would 'nearly' classify the TA as a warm hatch.
Hot hatch 0-60s were always around 8sec whilst the warm version were circa 10s. The GTI uped the anti dropping this figure to 7s meaning that only the likes of a esseesse Abarth would only really be able to 'hold its own'.
Take the 0-30. I reckon the TA would put a Type R to shame. A lot of high powered cars have no low end.
Plus the TA being a car with a small turbo it has near instant acceleration around the city which was what it was designed for.
Anyway the 0-60 measurement have now become 'old hat' and isn't really a good yardstick from which to compare cars' performance.
Also, I wonder why the insurance guys have rated the TA above a 1.4 - is it because of its quickness ?
Now if your questioning the credentials of a 1.4 not been a wam hatch you'll really upset the Panda 100bhp forum whose 0-60 is 9.5s and this is definitely warm hatch territory.

 

[cjc156]

the twinair a warm hatch...you jest, surely

errr, no I don't. Its not all about 0-60 times...... I stand by it, for the reasons Multispoke and Maxi have added above.

 

[Madabout500]

Quick update on life with the twinair now up to 2500 miles and engine is definatly loosening up. Average fuel consumption has been 43mgp over the 2500 miles. Stop start has stopped working and went into dealer to be fixed afer keeping it overnight (to charge the battery) they said that it needed a new rod attached to the clutch which was on backorder. Car is drivable so not a big deal. Asked wile it was in if there had been a software update and they updated ecu wile it was in . Ineterstingly fuel consuption seems to have gone down to 48ish over the last few days but engine does not seem as sharp on normal mode . Rear lights occasionally mist up when the car is washed but overal a great car

 

[loveshandbags]

Quick update on life with the twinair now up to 2500 miles and engine is definatly loosening up. Average fuel consumption has been 43mgp over the 2500 miles. Stop start has stopped working and went into dealer to be fixed afer keeping it overnight (to charge the battery) they said that it needed a new rod attached to the clutch which was on backorder. Car is drivable so not a big deal. Asked wile it was in if there had been a software update and they updated ecu wile it was in . Ineterstingly fuel consuption seems to have gone down to 48ish over the last few days but engine does not seem as sharp on normal mode . Rear lights occasionally mist up when the car is washed but overal a great car

Are you putting the car through a 'car wash' ?
Interesting one about the battery being left in for an overnight charge and the fact that your mpg has gone down to 48 from 43 average .

 

[Madabout500]

I did choose my words carefully "fuel consumption " has gone down, But it definatly isnt as sharp in standard mode as before. Fiat have phoned and the part has arrived for the stop start so can have fitted next week ! Did a decent run in the car last week about a 100 mille round trip about 50% dual carriage way and the remainder urban driving fairly economically managed 55 mpg on the trip .

 

[loveshandbags]

I did choose my words carefully "fuel consumption " has gone down, But it definatly isnt as sharp in standard mode as before. Fiat have phoned and the part has arrived for the stop start so can have fitted next week ! Did a decent run in the car last week about a 100 mille round trip about 50% dual carriage way and the remainder urban driving fairly economically managed 55 mpg on the trip .

Hi Madabout500. Thanks for clarifying the mpg. Do you know which part for the S/S has been ordered ?

 

[TrevC]

On another (now closed) thread I posted about trip computer accuracy. I've just done my first brim to brim where I was able to use the same pump and carefully brim to the same amount as the previous fill (ie fuel lapping up to the filler hole. After 300 miles exactly I put in 29.16l, which I calculate as 46.81mpg. The A trip (reset at the previous fill) said 47.1 - a little optimistic, but I reckon the error is only 0.6 percent, which is good enough for me.

 

[306maxi]

On another (now closed) thread I posted about trip computer accuracy. I've just done my first brim to brim where I was able to use the same pump and carefully brim to the same amount as the previous fill (ie fuel lapping up to the filler hole. After 300 miles exactly I put in 29.16l, which I calculate as 46.81mpg. The A trip (reset at the previous fill) said 47.1 - a little optimistic, but I reckon the error is only 0.6 percent, which is good enough for me.

As has been pointed out numerous times, it's not always out by the same amount. The amount ranges from as good as nothing to up to 10%. I've done 68 fuel ups, 60 or so which are brim to brim ones and it how much it's out varies depending on the ambient temperature, the length of your journeys and probably other factors. As was pointed out in the closed thread, the trip computer works partly by using the readings from the MAF (Mass AirFlow sensor) and then calculating how much fuel would normally be burnt with this amount of air. The problem with that is that for instance when you're coasting in gear you will be burning hardly any fuel, but the air will still be taking in air

Comparing two brim to brim tanks done in roughly the same temperatures and over the same roads, they should be more or less the same, but the moment you start to drive the car harder or less hard, or in colder weather or even with a different driver doing most of the miles then you will have a different margin of error.

 

[jrkitching]

As has been pointed out numerous times, it's not always out by the same amount. The amount ranges from as good as nothing to up to 10%.

This is exactly what I've observed. The trip computer is very useful for comparing regular journeys but generally makes the car appear to be more economical than it actually is.

For me, the 'gold standard' measure of mpg is what you've actually put in the tank / distance covered, averaged over at least 5 and preferably 10 tankfuls.

 

[306maxi]

This is exactly what I've observed. The trip computer is very useful for comparing regular journeys but generally makes the car appear to be more economical than it actually is.

For me, the 'gold standard' measure of mpg is what you've actually put in the tank / distance covered, averaged over at least 5 and preferably 10 tankfuls.

Yes, it always makes me facepalm when someone seems to place 100% trust in the trip computer whether it be as an absolute reading of fuel economy or as a means to compare fuel economy between two tanks.

 

[TrevC]

OK guys, I'll bow to your superior knowledge that trip computers are crap. Nonetheless, on all of the cars I've had, when I've done a brim-brim calculation and have reset the computer to measure over the same period, it's always been to within a percent or two.

 

[bgunn]

Incidentally, most trip computer algorithms don't look at air consumption (it's irrelevant - you don't pay for air at petrol stations), but the pulse length of an injector, then it multiplies this by the number of injectors in the engine to determine the amount of fuel being consumed. Then simply express this over the mileage travelled to work out average MPG.