General TwinAir Thread (including MPG)

[Ulpian]

Well, that's pretty good really, isn't it, from a petrol car driven decently.

I drive my old Diesel like that and I'm happy with 45+. Okay, It's bigger and heavier, but I can live without the volume, and petrol is cheaper than Diesel...

I'm braining up to change my car you see and I can't make up my mind....

 

[306maxi]

Yeah I know how you feel, thats why my overall averages are lower, I just cant drive that way all the time.

From a trip to London and Back (240 Miles on the M1) at about 70MPH Indicated (67MPH True), I got an indicated 53MPG over the whole trip (Fuelly confimed that as acurate as well when the refuel was done) so at 70 53-55 is realistically about the most its going to return I think

But I think my average is going top out over time at about 50MPG, I just cant resist giving it a kick, and also drive with the top down whenever possible which kills the economy as well

interesting

When I drove up to Northumberland from North Wales and back with a little commuting inbetween, my average was 61.8. If not for the 2 days commuting in the middle and starting off with a flat battery I'd have done closer to 65.

 

[Ulpian]

How fast were you going. If you had 80 shown on the clock for most of the journey I'd be sold?

 

[jrkitching]

How fast were you going. If you had 80 shown on the clock for most of the journey I'd be sold?

Maxi would have been running at 55-60 mph for that Northumberland trip & anyway he's got a 1.2.

Ulpian, if you're seriously looking to buy a new car based on what's posted here, be careful reading too much into any individual trip figures (mine included) - your driving and economy will almost certainly be very different. A better guide may be to compare some of the aggregate fuelly figures - the data could do with a cleanup as some cars are incorrectly classified, but it shows the TA giving about 43mpg on average. The 4 cyl petrols also seem to be averaging about 43mpg but remember there will be some 1.4s in there too.

My best guess is that on average folks get 42-44mpg from the TA & 47-49mpg from the 1.2, this is consistent with what's posted on other websites but they are averages; yours will be different & if you drive in a 'spirited' fashion cruising at 80mph on the motorway, it will probably be less.

The best thing to do is to hire one for the day, drive it the way you'd normally drive & just see what you get. Much cheaper in the long run than buying a car you think will do 55mpg that only ends up doing 40.

No 500 will give you decent economy cruising at 80mph on the motorway, not even a diesel (though that will be the best); the car simply isn't sufficiently aerodynamic. At those speeds, aerodynamic drag is everything & an economical motorway cruiser needs to be slippery; size & weight are less important at sustained steady speeds since you're not dissipating energy by constantly braking a heavier car & the rolling resistance at 80mph is only a small fraction of the total drag.

Just my 2c worth, but reading between the lines of your recent posts, I don't think a TA will give you as much of a gain in economy as you might be hoping for. It could still be a hoot to drive, though I'd suggest you try sitting in the seats for awhile before buying if you're going to be making many journeys over an hour.

All best with your decision
John

 

[jimbo118]

Very interesting 'flashphotos', thank you.

64 mpg is very good across country like that, but my problem is that I drive at 70 mph+ on motorways and there is no way I could pootle along at 60: unless the car was limping or I was running short of fuel it just wouldn't happen. I would love to know what the mpg would be if you drove a similar journey, but doing the maximum speed limit and safely overtaking people doing below the speed limit and holding you up. I'm all for changing up sensibly, but I don't believe in freewheeling or any other risky fuel saving technique either, just normal good driving.

If I was to get 55mpg out of a TA driven as I do I'd be very happy.

I've done 1200 miles in our Ypsilon TA. Overall average so far is up to 39mpg. Driven spiritedly it does circa 36 - 37mpg, driven as you describe above, it does 41 - 42mpg.

 

[306maxi]

Maxi would have been running at 55-60 mph for that Northumberland trip & anyway he's got a 1.2.

Ulpian, if you're seriously looking to buy a new car based on what's posted here, be careful reading too much into any individual trip figures (mine included) - your driving and economy will almost certainly be very different. A better guide may be to compare some of the aggregate fuelly figures - the data could do with a cleanup as some cars are incorrectly classified, but it shows the TA giving about 43mpg on average. The 4 cyl petrols also seem to be averaging about 43mpg but remember there will be some 1.4s in there too.

My best guess is that on average folks get 42-44mpg from the TA & 47-49mpg from the 1.2, this is consistent with what's posted on other websites but they are averages; yours will be different & if you drive in a 'spirited' fashion cruising at 80mph on the motorway, it will probably be less.

The best thing to do is to hire one for the day, drive it the way you'd normally drive & just see what you get. Much cheaper in the long run than buying a car you think will do 55mpg that only ends up doing 40.

No 500 will give you decent economy cruising at 80mph on the motorway, not even a diesel (though that will be the best); the car simply isn't sufficiently aerodynamic. At those speeds, aerodynamic drag is everything & an economical motorway cruiser needs to be slippery; size & weight are less important at sustained steady speeds since you're not dissipating energy by constantly braking a heavier car & the rolling resistance at 80mph is only a small fraction of the total drag.

Just my 2c worth, but reading between the lines of your recent posts, I don't think a TA will give you as much of a gain in economy as you might be hoping for. It could still be a hoot to drive, though I'd suggest you try sitting in the seats for awhile before buying if you're going to be making many journeys over an hour.

All best with your decision
John

Absolutely agree with John here, there are so many variables at work here too.

Put 16" wheels on and kiss goodbye to 5-10% of your fuel economy. My 61.8 was done in the depths of winter on skinny winter rubber so if I went and did it this week I'd expect to be getting nearer 70 if I was on skinny tyres.

If you're going to be doing 80 then the dismal would be my pick. When I was on the continent a couple of years ago my speedo was showing 80-90 with a passenger and almost 2 weeks worth luggage and I got 47mpg over the whole trip.

 

[flashyphotos]

I don't agree that the Trip Counter does not give an accurate reflection of the MPG (On Mine Anyway) - Its always about -.5MPG off what the Fulley calculation gives which I think is really good.

And yes the 16" Wheels did severely impact on MPG (So much so I took mine off again after a week and put the 15s back on).

I had got used to the smooth ride from 15s and the 16s seemed a lot noisier and were harsher on ride (Plus as you can see from the Fuelly graph really hit the MPG)

The latest Fill up was my best yet at 62.9MPG (Trip said 62.5MPG)

21st May : 62.9 MPG -
That was Mansfield/Llandudno/Mansfield and about 100 Miles of local driving as well (on 15" Wheels)

19th May : 53.2 MPG -
That was Mansfield/London/Mansfield and about 1/2 a tank of local (on 15s again)

16th May : 45.1 MPG -
That was Mansfield/Birmingham/Manchester/Mansfield (on 16s this time)

12th May : 44.7 MPG -
That Was Mansfield/Birmingham/Manchester/Mansfield (again on the 16s)

6th May : 53.7 MPG -
That was Mansfield/London (Lot of Local Driving in Central London / Mansfield (on the 15s)

Before that the car was on and off the road for repairs a lot with the S&S issues so I deem the figures unreliable

But it really looks like the 16s hit the economy (And the ride) very hard

Shame as I love the wheels.

(Maybe this is why my 1.2 only averaged 42 MPG over its life!!)

 

[Ulpian]

Thanks for all the contributions everybody.

I know consumption is very variable, depending as it does on driving technique, weight, temperature, topograhy and traffic. I had no idea wheel size made so much difference either.

My old Doblo Diesel gives about 45, almost regardless of speed. Indeed, I have more than once got 45+ after 500 mile journeys with the speedoneter never reading much below 80, and sometimes more. It can drop to the 30s in town in winter when used for regular short runs.

I just don't want a new Diesel, for varous reasons, and I reckon that if I could get similar performance and roughly similar economy from a small petrol car, whilst still enjoying the driving, I would be quids in, certainly based on the cheaper price of petrol and zero road tax. Certainly I should be no worse off and in truth as I don't expect to be doing so many long journeys in future so routine high speed running will be less significant.

I'm hanging in there though because buying a car is always a balance of compromises and I'm in no hurry.

It really does seem that 40+mpg is about as much as anyone can realistically expect from any petrol car (driven by me ), almost regardless of size, but low tax and small size certainly appeal where regular urban popping in and out of the car and hunting for scarce parking spaces is routine. Driving pleasure matters too of course.

Thanks again.

 

[306maxi]

I don't agree that the Trip Counter does not give an accurate reflection of the MPG (On Mine Anyway) - Its always about -.5MPG off what the Fulley calculation gives which I think is really good.

And yes the 16" Wheels did severely impact on MPG (So much so I took mine off again after a week and put the 15s back on).

I had got used to the smooth ride from 15s and the 16s seemed a lot noisier and were harsher on ride (Plus as you can see from the Fuelly graph really hit the MPG)

The latest Fill up was my best yet at 62.9MPG (Trip said 62.5MPG)

21st May : 62.9 MPG -
That was Mansfield/Llandudno/Mansfield and about 100 Miles of local driving as well (on 15" Wheels)

19th May : 53.2 MPG -
That was Mansfield/London/Mansfield and about 1/2 a tank of local (on 15s again)

16th May : 45.1 MPG -
That was Mansfield/Birmingham/Manchester/Mansfield (on 16s this time)

12th May : 44.7 MPG -
That Was Mansfield/Birmingham/Manchester/Mansfield (again on the 16s)

6th May : 53.7 MPG -
That was Mansfield/London (Lot of Local Driving in Central London / Mansfield (on the 15s)

Before that the car was on and off the road for repairs a lot with the S&S issues so I deem the figures unreliable

But it really looks like the 16s hit the economy (And the ride) very hard

Shame as I love the wheels.

(Maybe this is why my 1.2 only averaged 42 MPG over its life!!)

and people scoff at the idea of 16" option wheels affecting fuel economy :doh:

There are 3 good reasons why 16" wheels will kill economy

1. Wider rubber means more rolling resistance
2. Heavier alloys mean you have to have to accelerate harder to reach a certain speed plus there's just more weight to carry along for the ride. You also need to brake harder (thereby losing more energy in the form of head) than you would with lighter wheels/tyres.
3. Aerodynamic drag. Don't laugh..... Anyone who knows anything about F1 will know that a disproportionate amount of the aerodynamic drag on an open wheel car is from the tyres. Even just 10 or 20mm more width of tyre makes a difference.

There's probably some other science at work too....

 

[loveshandbags]

Thanks for all the contributions everybody.

I know consumption is very variable, depending as it does on driving technique, weight, temperature topograhy and traffic. I had no idea wheel size made so much difference either.

My old Doblo Diesel gives about 45, almost regardless of speed. Indeed, I have more than once got 45+ after 500 mile journeys with the speedoneter never reading much below 80, and sometimes more. It can drop to the 30s in town in winter when used for regular short runs.

I just don't want a new Diesel, for varous reasons, and I reckon that if I could get similar performance and roughly similar economy from a small petrol car, whilst still enjoying the driving, I would be quids in, certainly based on the cheaper price of petrol and zero road tax. Certainly I should be no worse off and in truth as I don't expect to be doing so many long journeys in future so routine high speed running will be less significant.

I'm hanging in there though because buying a car is always a balance of compromises and I'm in no hurry.

It really does seem that 40+mpg is about as much as anyone can realistically expect from any petrol car (driven by me ), almost regardless of size, but low tax and small size certainly appeal where regular urban popping in and out of the car and hunting for scarce parking spaces is routine. Driving pleasure matters too of course.

Thanks again.

With the price of petrol being cheaper than diesel in the UK it bucks the trends since in most countries diesel is at least 10c cheaper than petrol plus for some VAT is recoverable on diesel. Here unless yor car is diesel it's hard to sell unless it's a small petrol engine. With the tightening of 'dirt' out of the back of the diesel engine with DPFs these means that you have to do a few motorway juants to keep it cleared out. So petrol lives on in small cars or small engines with turbos like in the new ford ecoboost engine that is only 1.0 in size. The downside of a small turbo charged petrol engine is that it will not last the same as a diesel engine since they are made stronger. It's not unheard of to see MJ lasting into the 200K mark. Time will tell with the TAs or the smaller turbocharged engines.

 

[jrkitching]

Thanks for all the contributions everybody.

I know consumption is very variable, depending as it does on driving technique, weight, temperature, topograhy and traffic. I had no idea wheel size made so much difference either.

My old Doblo Diesel gives about 45, almost regardless of speed. Indeed, I have more than once got 45+ after 500 mile journeys with the speedoneter never reading much below 80, and sometimes more. It can drop to the 30s in town in winter when used for regular short runs.

I just don't want a new Diesel, for varous reasons, and I reckon that if I could get similar performance and roughly similar economy from a small petrol car, whilst still enjoying the driving, I would be quids in, certainly based on the cheaper price of petrol and zero road tax. Certainly I should be no worse off and in truth as I don't expect to be doing so many long journeys in future so routine high speed running will be less significant.

I'm hanging in there though because buying a car is always a balance of compromises and I'm in no hurry.

It really does seem that 40+mpg is about as much as anyone can realistically expect from any petrol car (driven by me ), almost regardless of size, but low tax and small size certainly appeal where regular urban popping in and out of the car and hunting for scarce parking spaces is routine. Driving pleasure matters too of course.

Thanks again.

Given all that you've just posted, I'd say a TA makes sense & will likely meet your expectations. A day's hire would seem to be a sensible final check before committing, though if they think you're serious, a dealer might just lend you one if you pay for the fuel.

The problem comes, I feel, when someone reads somewhere that it's supposed to do 70mpg & they buy it without any further research & end up disappointed when they're struggling to see 45. The answers are all here on this forum, but I worry that the important stuff might not be that easy for a casual newbie to find.

 

[loveshandbags]

and people scoff at the idea of 16" option wheels affecting fuel economy :doh:

There are 3 good reasons why 16" wheels will kill economy

1. Wider rubber means more rolling resistance
2. Heavier alloys mean you have to have to accelerate harder to reach a certain speed plus there's just more weight to carry along for the ride. You also need to brake harder (thereby losing more energy in the form of head) than you would with lighter wheels/tyres.
3. Aerodynamic drag. Don't laugh..... Anyone who knows anything about F1 will know that a disproportionate amount of the aerodynamic drag on an open wheel car is from the tyres. Even just 10 or 20mm more width of tyre makes a difference.

There's probably some other science at work too....

the 16s seem to affect the TA more so than the 1.4
the contis 2 don't help - rolling resistance impact the figs
the abarth alloys are light so weight may not be the issue here in comparison with say the 15 inch multispokes
drag could be playing a much bigger 'part' particularly on the 'open road'
the 15inch sport alloys might be the best optimum choice for the more sporty 500 and you can now get some decent 'performance' tyres in this size.

 

[jrkitching]

the 16s seem to affect the TA more so than the 1.4

Are they fitted with the same tyres? The more rubber you have, the greater the effect of any differences in the rolling resistance of different compounds. Also the TA engine might be less fuel-efficient when running at higher power settings.

 

[loveshandbags]

Are they fitted with the same tyres? The more rubber you have, the greater the effect of any differences in the rolling resistance of different compounds. Also the TA engine might be less fuel-efficient when running at higher power settings.

:yeahthat:
Tyres are the same on both Flashyphotos TA and the 1.4 I used to have. Given the eco potential of the TA it's effect is more pronounced compared with the 'thirsty' 1.4. The fact that he 1.4 is lower by 10mm probably makes little of no difference. Turbo charged engines by their nature have a bigger appetite for fuel and have to be used in a sensible way to get the most of them. My impression of the TA engine was that it was a high boost engine.

 

[wigit]

Also the TA engine might be less fuel-efficient when running at higher power settings.

i think this is definitely the case with the TA as after about 60mph it drops off considerably, in reality for the driving i have tended to to do the last year it wouldn't surprise me if an A500 had retuned similar figures

i think Top Gear proved this theory when they drove a Prius and M3 around the track at the same speed and M3 was for frugal

 

[handal]

My wife has borrowed a twin air while we are waiting for her 1.2 to arrive, my daughter has a 1.2 already. I have driven both and HATE the twin air. Not sure why, it just doesn't seem to suit in town driving. You pull away and within a second have to change gear because it's hit the rev limiter, if you try to drive slower it is not very smooth. If you are in traffic poodling along at 30 mph, you have to do it in 3rd anything else and the car vibrates like its engine is about to fall out. Economy, not sure how well it will perform there as it's always revving so high to get anywhere.

It's ok on a motorway but no better than a 1.2. Might be slightly faster but I still prefer the 1.2 as it's a smoother and quieter drive. The twinair I have is a 2011 Dec reg with 2200 miles on. Not sure whether the car is just older than my daughter's which makes it not as good or its lived a very hard life but my other observations -

Suspension on twinair - I have a speed hump at the end of my road, no matter how slow I go over it, the front of the car hits it. This doesn't happen in my daughters car.

The gearbox isn't as good, it just seems a bit weird going from 3 to 5 like there is no space between the gear stick. In my daughters, it easy to tell and feels much more direct. The twinair just feels wrong, also the clutch is different, not sure why just again feels wrong for a new car, I would say it drives like its done 100,000 miles not 2,200!!.

 

[wigit]

it took me a good few weeks to adjust to the TA experience and 18k and a year on i'm still learning, for me the engine feels like its a cross between a diesel and petrol in terms of driving experience especially with a redline at 6k

the 2 cylinder isn't the smoothest at low rpm around towns and i always use the eco button as the mapping is a lot smoother and tweak to the steering makes light work of the urban crawl

engine is definitely gets a marmite response

 

[deeyup]

My wife has borrowed a twin air while we are waiting for her 1.2 to arrive, my daughter has a 1.2 already. I have driven both and HATE the twin air. Not sure why, it just doesn't seem to suit in town driving. You pull away and within a second have to change gear because it's hit the rev limiter, if you try to drive slower it is not very smooth. If you are in traffic poodling along at 30 mph, you have to do it in 3rd anything else and the car vibrates like its engine is about to fall out. Economy, not sure how well it will perform there as it's always revving so high to get anywhere.

It's ok on a motorway but no better than a 1.2. Might be slightly faster but I still prefer the 1.2 as it's a smoother and quieter drive. The twinair I have is a 2011 Dec reg with 2200 miles on. Not sure whether the car is just older than my daughter's which makes it not as good or its lived a very hard life but my other observations -

Suspension on twinair - I have a speed hump at the end of my road, no matter how slow I go over it, the front of the car hits it. This doesn't happen in my daughters car.

The gearbox isn't as good, it just seems a bit weird going from 3 to 5 like there is no space between the gear stick. In my daughters, it easy to tell and feels much more direct. The twinair just feels wrong, also the clutch is different, not sure why just again feels wrong for a new car, I would say it drives like its done 100,000 miles not 2,200!!.

The TA takes a little while to get used to. A friend drove mine and was constantly hitting the rev limiter. Because it only has 2 cyls it doesn't sound like your doing 6k revs. Once you master it though progress is swift. Ride the torque curve. It is significantly faster than a 1.2. You didn't have eco mode on did you? This gives similar performance to the 1.2.
I also found the car to be poor at very low revs but have adjusted my driving style to compensate. You can go down to about 1200 rpm as long as the is little load.

I'm sure once you were used to how to drive it then you would no longer hate the motor.
I think it's fantastic and a perfect match for the car.

 

[deeyup]

Drove eco style on my way home today. Got 69.2mpg on the computer. Mostly rural with the last few miles city.
12.4 miles, average speed 28mph

It did show 70mpg at one point but the city driving ruined it!
I wonder if I had 15's on how much better I could have done?

 

[chas379]

My wife has borrowed a twin air while we are waiting for her 1.2 to arrive, my daughter has a 1.2 already. I have driven both and HATE the twin air. Not sure why, it just doesn't seem to suit in town driving. You pull away and within a second have to change gear because it's hit the rev limiter, if you try to drive slower it is not very smooth. If you are in traffic poodling along at 30 mph, you have to do it in 3rd anything else and the car vibrates like its engine is about to fall out. Economy, not sure how well it will perform there as it's always revving so high to get anywhere.

It's ok on a motorway but no better than a 1.2. Might be slightly faster but I still prefer the 1.2 as it's a smoother and quieter drive. The twinair I have is a 2011 Dec reg with 2200 miles on. Not sure whether the car is just older than my daughter's which makes it not as good or its lived a very hard life but my other observations -

Suspension on twinair - I have a speed hump at the end of my road, no matter how slow I go over it, the front of the car hits it. This doesn't happen in my daughters car.

The gearbox isn't as good, it just seems a bit weird going from 3 to 5 like there is no space between the gear stick. In my daughters, it easy to tell and feels much more direct. The twinair just feels wrong, also the clutch is different, not sure why just again feels wrong for a new car, I would say it drives like its done 100,000 miles not 2,200!!.

You would be better impressed with a Dualogic box