As there is a bit of controversy about the new twin air 875cc 500 consumption, I'd thought I'd just put down my fuel use online.

First tank full brim to brim 34.7mpg, mixed driving 50% with 'eco' on and 100% 'start/stop'

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

Next full tank
36 mpg

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

I suspect a big con here.

These figures are way worse than we get out of Liz's Punto Evo which has a resolutely low-tech 1.4 litre 8 valve engine that looks pretty much like the 1.2 in my own Mk1 Punto and any number of Unos and Pandas from the 1980s. Ok, it's got multi point fuel injection and a load of sensors and "things" attached to it but the basic castings look the same!

Our Evo, despite being heavier than your 500 gets 38mpg around town (where the computer gives it's average speed as 13mph!) and if you actually go anywhere that needs 4th and 5th gears it gets 50mpg+ easy. We've just been to North Wales so a mixture of roads (and some mighty mountains to slog up and down) we got 56.3mpg for the whole trip.

It can't be the auto box either because according to Fiat's figures the Punto Evo fitted with the Dualogic box is actually MORE economical than our manual! They quote 132g/km for the manual and 129 for the Dualogic.

My guess is that the manufacturers have cottoned on to the fact that turbo engines do really well in the official tests where the feather-footed driver can run through the cycle without waking up the turbo. This gives the car excellent carbon emission and economy figures for advertising and tax purposes but you'll find that these are impossible to reproduce in the real world when you're driving like you're actually going somewhere.

My best score so far on the EcoDrive is 73% which puts that 56mpg into perspective!

Membership Number: 7109

This was a subject that was covered in our own mag. Parliamo, and full marks to us that it appeared before the same subject in What Car mag. Fuel consumptions of modern cars are calculated in laboratory conditions, and are a far cry from the actual figures which can be achieved in "the real world" as Jim has mentioned. If you are stuck still in traffic, and for those who do a high percentage of their motoring in inner city/ suburban areas will do a lot of that - you are doing NIL MILES PER GALLON- because your not going anywhere , obviously. A lot of this and it knocks your averages bigtime. Even cars that switch themselves off while stationary , the process of shutting down and re-starting must momentarily use more fuel to do this.

All these figures today confuse me. Urban/ extra urban/ city / touring. and who the hell in this country (apart from them who shouldn't be here!) relates to litres per 100KM or the emmission levels of 0. % whatever. A salesman in the Fiat dealer, Arnold Clarks, of Stourbridge started waffling on about this and I nearly fell asleep!

The old road tests from the 70's were best. Good old MPG. Overall consumption is what they achieved throughout the whole test, as an average.Touring consumption what is likely on a long run, with the usual provisio, most owners will achieved better because we'ved thrashed the doors off her!!

Membership Number: 10962

I also think Fiat atre conning us as I tested one recently & the consumption was far worse than my 1.2 pop!!!
It also felt like an under powered diesel, wasnt too impressed

Membership Number: 455

It's not just Fiat - I've got a Toyota Iq on test for a week - officially 65mpg- the one I have which is being driven 'normally' is giving around 39mpg. My 16year old Punto 55 is better ...and has just earned itself a spruce up !

I agree, keep the Punto! Best car Iv had for fuel consumption which actually 'Works' was the AUDI A2 TDI,
these cars are amazing & can top 120mph if required!

Membership Number: 455

To the prospective purchaser of the ECO Fiat 500 , the fact there is nil car tax (a saving of just £35 per year), plus any ideals of caring for the environment gives the impression of a super economical car, hence authorities have granted the car tax exemption.

However, to get the car to keep with mainstream rush hour traffic, one would hazard a guess you would have to work the little engine harder to move a car of the same weight ,as its larger engined models, therefore engaging the turbo on a regular basis.

Very often "joe public" are misinformed into thinking a low emission car is more economical in overall consumption .But its not just about fuel management , as other factors are weight, gearing, and aero-dynamics of the car also play their part. The very fact that cars have got bigger and heavier to meet EU crash-legislation requirements , seems to counteract performance on fuel consumptions.

Membership Number: 10962

I don't know about the "official" figures being impossible to get near. Fiat's own figures for our car are 38 mpg (urban) -pretty much exactly what Liz gets, 60 mpg (extra urban)-our trip to North Wales with added poncing about up steep hills we got 56.3 so we're less than 4 mpg short. They quote 46.3 for the combined cycle which seems pretty much on the money to me in our experience although we've never put the car through a "combined" route and measured it.

One of the motoring shows (5th Gear I think) did a test using various cars which they brim filled and got members of the public to drive around a fixed route and in every case they came out close to the official figures. In every case worse than but always close.

But the Multi Air 500 is quoted at combined 68 mpg and urban 57 mpg which it seems that no-one can get within 20 mpg of in real life. There's something funny going on here.

Road tests speak of 4th and 5th gears being quite high which means that you need to use 3rd quite a bit when a larger engine would be happy to plod along in 5th (ours will pull happily from 1000 rpm in 5th).

How this affects a Dualogic car with (CVT?) auto gearing though...

Membership Number: 7109

Slight improvement could be the warmer weather

37 mpg

FIAT's offical comsumption figures for a Dualogic twin air
Urban 61mpg
Extra urban 78mpg
Combined 71mpg

Jim, My engine spec. compared to yours

875cc- 85bhp/5500rpm-145Nm/1900rpm-108mph-0/60.11secs-92Co2

1.4/8v-77bhp/6000rpm-115Nm/3250rpm-103mph-0/60.13.2secs-132Co2

Lots more torque and it will always be in the right gear

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

Average to date 35mpg


Just thinking of my old SuperStrada 2 1500cc 85bhp 5sp. manual.
Used to get 35-40mpg
Progress

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

Console yourself with the fact that your annual tax disc is free and ours is £115.

So you're saving the cost of two tanks of fuel every year ;-) (probably less than two by the time I've typed this!)

By the way, last October when we bought the Evo I took over Herselfs old Punto 60SX for work and stopped using my Alfa 75 Twinspark every day. But until then-

1962cc, 148bhp/5800 rpm, 186Nm/4800rpm, 129 mph, 0-60 8.2 sec emissions- err, yes it does thanks...


...and 38 mpg.

This one's actually a bit thirstier than the previous 75 because it's chipped. I used to get 40 out of the red one.

Progress eh?

Membership Number: 7109

My 500c with 1.2 petrol engine has now done 11000miles from new, average consumption is over 50 mpg town and motorway driving. With care 60mpg could be achieved.

Steve.

Membership Number: 6610

So what have FIAT created here?

Have they made a technical mistake or is it a marketing faux pas?

Whatever this is not going away.

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

Dunno, but I've been watching and reading the TV and print ads for the Twinair and Fiat are being very careful about not saying that the car's incredibly economical (which you'd think they would if it really did 60 mpg plus).

There's a lot about it being fun to drive and having the lowest measured emissions of any petrol engine but nothing about it doing millions of mpg aside from parroting the Govt figures in the small print at the bottom...

So I guess they know it's a problem.

Membership Number: 7109

Emissions is one thing.............fuel consumption another

Membership Number: 10962

Emissions and fuel consumption should be linked, as more fuel used will emit more.

In the past, apparently very economical models used more in real life, the eighties Metro and Maestro "E" models were generally more thirsty due to the higher gearing, which you mostly couldn't use.

Of course, where and how you use it makes a big difference. Mostly town work will use more fuel, especially if used briskly. Every time the engine starts, a little extra fuel is used to kick the engine into life, note the way it revs slightly then settles. Stop/Start will save fuel at traffic lights and busy junctions, but I'm doubtful if there is a benefit in a stop/start queue.

I ran a 500 1.2 for a year as a driving school car. (BSM) Average consumption 45mpg. Very good for a school car as we do a lot of slow moving (or not moving) and lots of town work. Average speed 23mph. On runs I regularly got over 50mpg. My colleagues doing all town work were getting 40-42mpg.

Now an AA Fiesta, 42.5mpg, still av. speed 23mph.
My own Panda 1.2 is doing 50mpg at an av. speed of 42mph. (mostly longer runs.)

So it depends on the usage. And hills of course.

Membership Number: 4815

Cor blimey, the latest fill up and it's UP.

Up to 40.1mpg

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

What does the 124AC get?

Never checked TC's yellow 124 AC and my new red 124 AC is awaiting me to rebuild the engine.
So I can only go on my black 124 AC. Back in 1881, sorry 1981, when it was last on the road with it's 1608 BC engine I saw 24 miles at ten bob a gallon or was it a firkin?

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

OH DEAR

Latest tank full 37.3 mpg

Looks like it's peaked already

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

Now down to 35 mpg

Mainly in manual mode with eco engaged

Still not driving briskly, just normal

Still I'm saving on VED

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

Did a check on my last tankful of diesel today, for my company car, Citroen C3 (1.4) which I have completed over 116,000 miles in a little over 3 years.

Don't know what it says on the fuel computer as an average, don't look at it , besides I don't regard them as particulary truthful anyway.

So I worked it out the proper way, based on what it took to refill the tank to the brim ,as before, and calculate mileage covered:-

495.10 miles covered on 39.20 litres.

39.20 divided by 4.54609 = 8.622 UK gallons.

495.10 divided by 8.622 = 57.42 mpg.

This included some fast motorway driving, mostly 80-90 mph , a couple off brief bursts near "the ton", plus some stationary motorway jams, plus an hour of 1st/ 2nd gear driving out of london, from south Norwood through Fulham / Chelsea out on the A4/ M4 today.

I have managed over 70 mpg average on a complete tankful ,(on 2 previous occassions) with a purposefully restricted right foot and in more favourable conditions, working it out it the same manner

Membership Number: 10962

Intrigue, just taken the little beastie back to the dealer to have the fuel consumption and gearbox problems sorted and there is a recall.
A recall to replace the turbo!

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

Faster and thirstier?
Or the right fuel for the right amount of air for the conditions, hopefully giving better economy.
I'm sure you'll let us know.

Membership Number: 4815

Turbo change was apparently nothing to do with fuel consumption but thickness of waste gate spindle. (Too thin).

Anyway been enjoying driving the little buzz bomb, absolute hoot!! Still not anywhere near flat out but a little faster than normal traffic.

Consumption now 33mpg

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

What a miserable saga! My 1581 sohc Punto ELX90 Cab did 35 to start with, declining to 30 with prob faulty sensors. My 'new' 1242 16v ELX85 ditto promises 42 with mk1 motor, 48 once it's got a mk2/2A motor in there. Strange consequence of the delay in doing the latter - if all goes well the 124AC may be back on the road as stopgap after 6yrs in the shed!

Good news Tom with the 124.

Here's the little rascal in question

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

These fuel consumption figures are way off the manufacturers, and the fact that they are consistantly so , surely begs further investigation.

I've commented before how peoples driving enviroment can produce no -where near the figures the manufacturers quote . I remember getting just 28mpg on one tank in my 1992 fiat panda (999cc). But that was a "one -off" , involved a lot of town/surburban driving with some heavy traffic jams. Most of the time it was around 40mpg as an average throughtout the tank.

Are these figures calculated manually (similar to I've previosly quoted on this post, or are they off the cars computer (I presume it has one, as most moderns do?)

Membership Number: 10962

The moral of this story is DRIVE IT LIKE YOU STOLE IT at least you will enjoy driving and still get pants MPG

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

Ive just completed a trip in my 850 spyder with steel hard top.
we left England via Dover to go to belgium followed by a journey down into mid France for the Lemans 24hr race (660 miles in one day), the next few days of travelling back and forth from a gite to the circuit for practice and race day, then a further 440miles to return to England and so home.
A total of 1280 miles in 5days and an average of 44.8mpg, in a carb fed 1973 engine.(£115 VED)
we did 850 miles last year to the Nurburgring and back in annother 1966 850 coupe and back plus some circuit time and averaged over 43.5 mpg (plus NO VED).
On local area trips both 850's give about 34 to 36 mpg, not bad for basic cars but both wiegh arround 700kg and for old cars are quite aerodynamic, I hope this puts another stance on things.
Tim

Membership Number: 5222

Just a thought. does any body know where to find the economy figures for our older cars like my 850's
Years ago our club used to run economy runs, but it wasn't my sort of thing then and petrol was about 65p or less per litre Hmm......

Tim

Membership Number: 5222

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

Off on a slight tangent, just had a new AA Driving School Fiesta 1.4 petrol delivered.
Used as a school car, fuel consumption is usually rather lower than most will get around town. Previously, a Corsa 1.4 gave 43mpg overall teaching and private use, although on private journeys always gave 45-47mpg.
Fiat 500 (BSM) gave 47mpg as a school car, 50+ in private use.
Just replaced Fiesta 1.4 gave 42mpg over 19700 miles, almost exclusively teaching use.

New one was delivered, 139 miles, computer showed average 35.5mpg. 3 days teaching and this has risen to 43mpg. So any guesses as to what average speed the first 139 miles were driven at? Well run in?

Own Panda 1.2 giving 50.5, all private use.

Membership Number: 4815

Have a fiat 500 Dualogic, (not twin air,) finding its doing around 55 mpg, (town driving)

Membership Number: can recall!

neil

Have a fiat 500 Dualogic, (not twin air,) finding its doing around 55 mpg, (town driving)

Membership Number: 11553-124 sport registrar

have a mate at work who had a twin air...found it drank petrol.....now owns a normal 500 .(...55mpg to 60 mpg around town...(.odd thing, when buying the 500 pop, the fiat agent hinted that the twin air was not the beans,....and the 500 we got would be a better buy......

Membership Number: can recall!

neil

Have a fiat 500 Dualogic, (not twin air,) finding its doing around 55 mpg, (town driving)

Membership Number: yes

just back form Italy in the 500 pop! dual logic not twin air,(1856mile round trip) with a mix of motorway/normal road and Mountian driving, averaged out at 59mpg,

Membership Number: can recall!

Economy run on a bike? I'm in!-

Here's my entry photographed on our summer hols in Lymington (and the car that took us there and back at 56mpg. Sorry Bernie!)

Membership Number: 7109

Hi All

I borrowed a 1.4 sport 500 and the first half of the tank was 44.6mpg from oxford to high wycombe and down to weymouth on a total of 191.5miles.
I zeroed the trip computer to do the return journey and did the first 40 odd miles on A roads back to wycombe and got 60.2 mpg. it seems to be more economical at less than 50mph pulling just about 2000 revs

yes 60.2 MPG in a 1.4 16v sport manual

I then got bored when i reached the M27 and went a bit faster when the average dropped slowly to 54mpg, total return journey of about 130miles.
The handling on the sport allows you to maintain your speed at any roundabouts and junctions etc and it seems to be much higher geared than our 1.2 panda dynamic although this does seem to make it feel as if its not as lively as our panda.
The 500 1.4 is doing 70ish mph at engine revs of 3000, this makes it running about 23mph per 1000 revs. this is a little different from my 850's pulling 14.6 mph per 1000 revs in top gear

thanks

Tim Milnes

Membership Number: 5222

On the subject of eco cars, I happened to test for my employer, the supposedly most economical non-electric car, being the new Kia Rio ecodrive. It has a 74bhp ,3 cylinder diesel motor capable of a potential 88mpg. Engine, very quiet on tickover, makes quite an infectious roar above 2500rpm too. However, the overall gearing is very high throughout the pleasant gearchange, plus it has 6 gears so absolute top is very strickly an overdrive ratio, and has little in the way of accelerative qualities. My mixed driving covering around 90 miles looked to be averaging 44 mpg for the day if the fuel computer is to be believed, which looked realistic enough when compared the the fuel-gauge reading. I realise it would be a lot better on mostly motorway cruising, but I think to get twice the mileage is very optimistic personally, in "real world motoring. " It's a large car for 1100cc and you feel you need to "row the car" along a bit by changing down a cog or two to make decent progress. This could be another car which has quoted mpg figures that may be hard to get near, in todays motoring climate.

Membership Number: 10962

Relevant to my post above, my company car averages late 50's- 60mpg throughout the same driving environment, and it doesn't have the auto stop-start trickery and other eco stuff this new model has. However, it's 1.4 HDI is less taxed, pulling a lighter car through ever-so slightly lower gearing. So less gear changing to make progress.

I've been trying to persuade the company to make Fiat purchase to the fleet of cars ,but they have proved a little pricey to the budget.

Membership Number: 10962

Hi All

It seems to me that it very much depends how interested the user of the car is in economy. driven reasonably normally our 2005 panda 1.2 dynamic A/C petrol would probably be good for about 45 to 48 mpg and petrol is cheaper than diesel, the modern version is cheaper on road fund, the Pandas are easier to get a good deal on them too. especially as the model has just changed

We got our £7850 car for £6000 as a pre reg car 6 weeks old so it was quite a small investment for a car with aircon

Timi

Membership Number: 5222

Our company would buy a "fleet" of cars, maybe 10-30 cars at one time , which would have to be all the same spec. ;registration year, all diesels (we have our own fuel depot/pumps etc; diesel only )

Membership Number: 10962

Hi Martin

That must be nice to have upto four transporters arrive at the same time making that delivery. but i can see why running costss and economy is important..

Tim

Membership Number: 5222