How can it be due to poor math? Fuelly does all the calculations.
General TwinAir Thread (including MPG)
- Thread starter grimwau
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mpg sport tomtom blue&me twinair
Currently reading:
General TwinAir Thread (including MPG)
How can it be due to poor math? Fuelly does all the calculations.
catherinej
New member
You've said elsewhere your wife says you smell like a petrol station when you come home.
Might be worth getting the car in to be checked.
Might be worth getting the car in to be checked.
I get horrible mpg. I do have a heavy foot but not that bad. Today I filled up and got a whopping 30 mpg. Is there something wrong?
Just a thought - how hilly is it in the part of Spain where you live?
So much for that idea then.
It's hard to say whether your low mpg figure is down to your driving style or a fault with the car.
You could always try resetting the trip & driving as carefully as you can for about 20 miles to see what kind of difference it makes.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 3,696
- Points
- 796
I would put it down to stupidity, incompetence or bloody-mindedness.
As they are Italian it is probably all three.
As they are Italian it is probably all three.
ahmett
Prominent member
I calculated the difference between fuel consumption of the 1.2 and 1.4.
If one does 16,000 miles a year, given lets say 35 mpg for 1.4 and 48 mpg for 1.2, this comes out to 957 euros differnece a year. 800 pounds ish?
I guess the twinair would be somewhere around 45 mpg itself? so lets say 750 pounds cheaper than 1.4 and about 150 more expensive a year than 1.2?
If one does 16,000 miles a year, given lets say 35 mpg for 1.4 and 48 mpg for 1.2, this comes out to 957 euros differnece a year. 800 pounds ish?
I guess the twinair would be somewhere around 45 mpg itself? so lets say 750 pounds cheaper than 1.4 and about 150 more expensive a year than 1.2?
TrevC
Established member
My TA has averaged 48.8mpg over the last 1000 miles or so. This tallies almost exactly with the "Real World" fuel consumption figure on the Honest John website, which is compiled from owner feedback. Hence, it's probably representative. The HJ figure for the 1.2 is the same, so not a lot to choose between them. I'm glad I paid the extra for the overtaking ability the TA gives you though, and renewing the UK road tax for £0 made me feel smug!
My TA Ypsilon has just clocked up it's first 1000 miles. Average for the full 1000 miles is 37.5 mpg although the last 200 miles it's been 41/42mpg so slowly improving. If it would average 45-48 mpg in real world driving, I'd be happy.
The 500 TA really is a drive on Eggshells to get "Great" Economy
I have managed to get over 70 MPG on a run from Mansfield to Birmingham (65 miles), by doing 55MPH behind an HGV
But even on more sensible driving it still hangs in there
Did Mansfield, Llandudno, Mansfield today 280 Miles round trip which was Motorway, Across the Peak District, Manchester and then back motorways with a real snarl up in Derby on the way back, and the stats were
280 Miles, Total 64.7MPG (Was at 67.2 before hitting delays in Derby then the uphill slog up the A38 brought it down to 64.7)
That was trying to drive at a constant 60MPH indicated 57MPH Actual, anything faster and the MPG starts to fall off very rapidly, but being honest I can see the 70MPG is very achiveable if you are prepared to drive thinking ahead and with a right foot like a feather twitcher!
I have managed to get over 70 MPG on a run from Mansfield to Birmingham (65 miles), by doing 55MPH behind an HGV
But even on more sensible driving it still hangs in there
Did Mansfield, Llandudno, Mansfield today 280 Miles round trip which was Motorway, Across the Peak District, Manchester and then back motorways with a real snarl up in Derby on the way back, and the stats were
280 Miles, Total 64.7MPG (Was at 67.2 before hitting delays in Derby then the uphill slog up the A38 brought it down to 64.7)
That was trying to drive at a constant 60MPH indicated 57MPH Actual, anything faster and the MPG starts to fall off very rapidly, but being honest I can see the 70MPG is very achiveable if you are prepared to drive thinking ahead and with a right foot like a feather twitcher!
They''re impressive numbers, but remember they're taken from the trip computer, and the trip computer is rather optimistic. According to its trip computer, my 1.2, similarly driven, will beat those figures by 3-5mpg. Driving to/from Leeds a couple of weeks ago I saw around 73mpg outward & 76mpg return - but you've only got to make a couple of shorter journeys to see that fall to a fuelly-backed true figure in the low '60s.
That said, my 1.2 has now broken the magic number & since new, has managed a measured 60.1mpg over 11,922 miles - which includes the running in period & two winters, comfortably beating FIAT's official combined mpg figure.
So as of right now, I'm still saying the 1.2 will beat the TA on fuel economy - but if anyone would care to post a better fuelly-backed figure over a similar distance, I'll happliy eat my words & buy them a free pint
.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 3,696
- Points
- 796
Oooooooh look who has joined the 60mpg club...
It's lonely here & it smells strongly of diesel. Hopefully I'll have some company once the NA TA arrives.
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,769
- Points
- 568
Well done JR.
You've been striving to reach that figure for a while now.It will be interesting to see if the NA TA will do any better given that it is
1. bigger cc
2. multi-air technology is 20% more effiicient will turbo charging whilst it's only 10% in NA form (figures quoted by Fiat)
3. unlikely that the NA TA will beat the London congestion charge since turbo charging seems to reduce the grs/km in MA
That said when a 'normal' engine is turbo charged the compression ratio is reduced to allow for it coming on boast which means that it's inefficient in off boost mode - this contradicts the MA turbo theory.
'Tuning' an engine for economy with an ACEA C2 oil (experimental vehicle comes to mind
) in possibly a slighter lighter viscosity oil 5w30 ? (you wouldn't be going past 2,000rpm), eco tyres in the non-power steering size of 165 width, Denso iridium VX plugs, solar panel to charge the battery when it's stationary, a sports cat and reducing weight e.g. no spare wheel, etc. etc. could help to stay in the 60mpg club even during the winter. Unfortunately the cost of these 'improvements' wouldn't justify the 1-2mpg saving.:bang:Well done JR.
It will be interesting to see if the NA TA will do any better given that it is
1. bigger cc
2. multi-air technology is 20% more effiicient will turbo charging whilst it's only 10% in NA form (figures quoted by Fiat)
3. unlikely that the NA TA will beat the London congestion charge since turbo charging seems to reduce the grs/km in MA
That said when a 'normal' engine is turbo charged the compression ratio is reduced to allow for it coming on boast which means that it's inefficient in off boost mode - this contradicts the MA turbo theory.
'Tuning' an engine for economy with an ACEA C2 oil (experimental vehicle comes to mind
Thank you. It's been hard work sometimes.
You & I are thinking along similar lines for developing a true ecocar. Once you accept a design limitation of 2500 rpm / 60 mph, all manner of things are possible, especially if the car is hard limited to those numbers. Many of these would add little or nothing to the cost, but I don't think the market is ready at current fuel prices.
Since you're going to be operating the engine in a fairly narrow rpm band, say 1200-2500, I think MA is a red herring; reducing friction is everything & the key is probably to keep it mechanically simple. An 0-30 C2 oil would be more than adequate & tyres could be 135 width or even less.
By far the biggest real-world gains would come from improving the cold-running economy; both my cars are appalingly inefficient when warming up; the Euro4 Panda noticeably more so than the Euro5 500. I can think of several ways of doing this, some of which would cost very little.
True ecodriving means keeping off the brakes; sometimes this means needing to start reducing speed well before you'd want to for other reasons, so some form of regenerative braking would certainly make the car more driveable. For operating in hilly areas, this is probably essential.
The real challenge will be mass market acceptance; I can't see many folks rushing to buy a car with 35BHP & a 0-60 time around 30 secs. Hybrid technology could get you the performance back up to around 60mph, but for long distance cruising, it won't help much. However, if I really let my imagination run riot, and spend real ££££ on our transport infrastructure, I can see a future in replacing our motorways with high speed electrified railways, & hybrid vehicles driving on & off car transporters with drivers relaxing in comfort whilst being whisked on their journey at 150mph as the car's batteries are recharged from the railway power supply
.Huge numbers of cars, many with only one occupant, all following each other along the same motorway for hundreds of miles and each averaging maybe 30-40mpg really is appalingly inefficient in energy terms.
Good afternoon all.
First fill-up at last ... Please see below.
First fill-up at last ... Please see below.
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.
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.
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
