General Fiat 500 vs the Competition

[pearce_jj]

Being out of warrantee, I've been wondering for a while what to do with the multijet. Sure there are third-party warrantees, but they won't cover things wearing out and it's already got 40k on the clock.

After much crunching, two cars were on my list: the Fiat 500 twin-air dual-logic and Skoda's Fabia TSi DSG. So on to test drives: head-to-head on a 20 mile round trip of country lanes, dual carriage-ways and a little town driving - driven from cold.

500 Twin Air. One word really sums up this car: rough. It needs to be spinning over 3,000 rpm to avoid shaking the car to bits! Drive it like that though and its loud and very entertaining though.

Undeterred, I pressed on, ignoring the vigorous vibration 40mph in 5th produced. On the trip it averaged 54.5mpg - a reasonable number, but over 20% less than book.

Skoda Fabia. It turns out no-one actually has one, and there's an 8-month wait to get one, so I've tested a Roomster - same specification but a little bigger. Aesthetics aren't in the same league as the 500 of course, especially inside, but the DSG box is a real gem. Consumption for the run: 48.4 mpg, 2.5% less than book.

Finally, a 'control run’ in my existing 75bhp 500 multijet. Quieter than the twin-air but feels nowhere near as powerful. Consumption for the run: 68.4 mpg. Slightly better than book.


For me, the twin-air was a real disappointment and emphasised just how important it is to try before you buy. In comparison, the 75bhp multijet is quieter and smoother, but has WAY less shove despite the torque numbers being near identical.

As for the Skoda, the Roomster suggests the quoted mpg figures are realistic for the TSi engine, and at 53.5mpg the real-world consumption may be little different between the 105bhp Fabia and the 85bhp 500 Twin Air.

What has really surprised me is the sheer cost of the 500 now - MJ configuration as I have is now over £16k. Taking into account expected residuals, even Audi's A1 actually looks to be a cheaper car to own for 3 years than the 500. And as for the Skoda, it's £2,200 less to buy. Sorry Fiat.

 

[306maxi]

I had a Punto Evo courtesy car whilst my car was in having its airbox changed and a fault investigated.

Lets just say that if the 500 is written off and I have to claim on the gap insurance I probably won't be buying a 500 again

 

[Andy Monty]

The twin air is horrid......... test drove one two weeks back... thought there was something wrong with it..... think coil pack or faulty spark plug.....

 

[nicks500]

" Shaking to bits" weird there must be something wrong with the car you drove. Now I dont have a Skoda dsg or a fiat 500 dual logic but I do have a Skoda fabia green line estate and a 500 twin air and both the wife and me think the fiat is more comfortable

 

[FloJo]

The TAs I test drove before ordering my car were all quite a bit louder than the TA lounge I have ended up with. Maybe it's something to do with earlier models or something? I get the juddering sometimes in 5th, I just change back down again (this is in eco mode). I'm able to tell when it's likely to happen now and don't even bother with changing up alot of the time now

 

[Chrisilda]

Regarding the fuel consumption of the twin air, the low consumption rate is possible with the eco mode on which means less torque. I don't have one but this is what i have read and what the sales rep has told me.

 

[FloJo]

Regarding the fuel consumption of the twin air, the low consumption rate is possible with the eco mode on which means less torque. I don't have one but this is what i have read and what the sales rep has told me.

Meh, I'm still waiting for mine to improve... I've had it up to 52mpg on a trip to sheffield, but for town and short distance driving it seems to average at anywhere between 40 & 45mpg. It's done about 1300 miles now... I drive it in eco mode for all town driving as I like the lighter steering (city) and change up when told to.

 

[Chrisilda]

Meh, I'm still waiting for mine to improve... I've had it up to 52mpg on a trip to sheffield, but for town and short distance driving it seems to average at anywhere between 40 & 45mpg. It's done about 1300 miles now... I drive it in eco mode for all town driving as I like the lighter steering (city) and change up when told to.

Flojo, you are the only one who can state an accurate opinion. Can you please explain the galons-liter thing? How many liters a gallon is? Just to have an idea. For Greece is an average consumption of 4 L per 100 km.

 

[bgunn]

TA Rough? You must have either been driving it wrong (expecting it to behave like a 6 cylinder car or something with 1000rpm gear changes?), or it was knackered in some way. The only way I can get mine to stutter/judder is by sitting in fifth at 1000rpm and expecting it to pull, above 1500rpm in a high gear, it's absolutely fine.

 

[eco sTAr]

I just tried this converter: http://mpg.webix.co.uk/
4l per 100km = 71mpg
50mpg = 5.6l per 100km

 

[pearce_jj]

" Shaking to bits" weird there must be something wrong with the car you drove. Now I dont have a Skoda dsg or a fiat 500 dual logic but I do have a Skoda fabia green line estate and a 500 twin air and both the wife and me think the fiat is more comfortable

The green line (3-pot TDi) is pretty rough too, to be fair. The Fiat simply has masses of viabration when driven with low rpms, which are needed to get anywhere near the stated mpg.

Keep the revs up and it's fine (albeit with a short power band) as I said, but driven back-to-back with VAGs TSi/DSG combo the difference is pronounced indeed. In my test, the TSi (A1, Fabia, Polo) has real-world mpg barely any different to the Twin Air, yet provides more power, has no vibration, and for reasons I don't understand cost less (over £2,000 less, in the Fabia, and they service it for free too).

 

[RobW]

If you load any Petrol engine at such lows revs it will bog down and go into a retarded ignition map to prevent damage

Perhaps those of you that are experiencing rough engine is because you need to be lighter on the throttle?

 

[bgunn]

Peak torque on the TA is at around 1900 rpm, so that's where you're going to get the best economy - gear change points are around 250-500 rpm above depending what you're doing.

I'd challenge you to find any TA that's running properly to be considered 'rough' at 1900rpm.

 

[smart examiner]

Why not add to the list the Toyota IQ or Aygo,Or for a little extra cost the Fabia VRs.
You could wait till 2012 for the VW UP which looks good.

 

[pearce_jj]

Yes the Up does look promising. The vRS is interesting - by my calculations to do 40k over 3 years the 180bhp vRS would cost about £375pm (excluding insurance, since it's such a variable), whilst a twin-air-plus dual-logic would be about £365pm.

 

[rkt2003]

I had a Punto Evo courtesy car whilst my car was in having its airbox changed and a fault investigated.

I have been looking at the evo for my next car possibly 1.6 m-jet sporting ,they have grown on me and quality wise a lot better.

 

[Chrisilda]

I just tried this converter: http://mpg.webix.co.uk/
4l per 100km = 71mpg
50mpg = 5.6l per 100km

This is what i'm talking about! The adverts here claim that the twin air has an average fuel consumption of 4 L per 100km but this is impossible.

 

[RobinPJ]

pearce_jj - my three pennies' worth:

1) On fuel consumption, you implicitly criticise the TA for not getting as close to "book" as the Skoda. So what? All that matters is what you actually get (which was 12.5% more in the Fiat, compared to the Skoda, incidentally). The only impact of "book" figures are on road tax and congestion charging and the like - which works in your favour if the figures are generous.

2) Regarding "roughness" - which I take to mean unacceptable levels of NVH, I have only driven a TA once for a short test drive. During that time I found the noise level to be noticeably higher than my 1.2, but is a definitively good way. I did not find any deterioration in vibration or harshness when compared to the 1.2. I would say you might be fussy about these things but you currently drive a diesel so I can't imagine that is the case. Perhaps you were indeed not driving it as intended.

3) In your costings you choose to ignore the cost of insurance "because it is such a variable". Given the cost of premiums today that is a remarkable decision and one that undermines the value of your figures completely. Furthermore, although premiums will obviously vary between different users who present different risks, you could make a valid comparison for yourself easily enough by using one of the many websites and entering your details for each of the cars under consideration. Perhaps your decision to ignore insurance was driven by the fact that are on a mission to criticise the Fiat, and adding in the cost of insurance is going to work rather heavily in the 500's favour when the TA+ Dualogic is group 12 and the Skip, I mean Skoda, is 27.

 

[TrevC]

I'll put in my two pence-worth as a 7-month 7000 mile TA (manual) owner.

Yes, it does judder if you try to pull from around 1500 rpm or less - but you'd expect it to as it's only firing once per rev. You soon get used to this and drive accordingly, and it's perfectly smooth from around 1800 upwards.

Fuel economy is well down on the official figures, but is still good if driven with restraint - I get 50+ mpg, and no longer bother with the Eco button as I prefer the heavier steering and the extra urge always being available.

Finally, I wouldn't consider the Fabia as a rival. Skodas are very good cars these days, but I was after something distinctive and retro to replace my Mini, and so far the 500 has delivered. And if you think 500s are expensive, look at a Mini price list. In general they have more power, but they have less internal space than the 500.

I guess in the end we all have our personal preferences. I probably wouldn't buy a 500 again, but that's just because I like a change each time I buy another car.

 

[Eklipze3k]

I'll admit firstly that I don't venture into this section very often but I have to query some logic here.

You want a new car purely because it's out of warranty? Surely if you've had 3 years of essentially trouble free motoring with no major component failure you've no reason to suspect that this will happen anytime soon, so surely it would be more financially and environmentally responsible to keep the MJ on the road and well serviced until such time as the cost of any repairs exceed the economic gain of doing so?