Save up to 15% with Adrian Flux insurance!

General Twinair power and torque

Currently reading:
General Twinair power and torque

B

Berginz

New member
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
3
Points
2
Hi.
We've owned 2 169 series Panda's, both Fire 1.2 Dualogic and really enjoyed them. Looking at a 2012 Panda Twinair Dualogic to buy now and a bit confused by Wikipedia stating that the Dualogic version of the Twinair has considerably less torque and hp. Manual: 85hp, 145nm versus Dualogic: 77hp and 100nm.
Can someone confirm these figures please, Only Dualogic Pandas were sold here and that reduction in power and torque would make for dismal progress on hilly winding roads with the Dualogic.
 
Berginz said:
Hi.
We've owned 2 169 series Panda's, both Fire 1.2 Dualogic and really enjoyed them. Looking at a 2012 Panda Twinair Dualogic to buy now and a bit confused by Wikipedia stating that the Dualogic version of the Twinair has considerably less torque and hp. Manual: 85hp, 145nm versus Dualogic: 77hp and 100nm.
Can someone confirm these figures please, Only Dualogic Pandas were sold here and that reduction in power and torque would make for dismal progress on hilly winding roads with the Dualogic.
Click to expand...
theres at least 3x twinair engines

.9, 1L, ,9 turbo

your better asking in the post 2012 section of the forum

as for our engines the 60HP is better than the 69HP in my opinion. but that might be due to the different gearbox ratios

I have had both the 1.1 and 1.2 and there very little driving difference on the flat.

1.2 and 1.2 69hp eco isn't much difference except the 60HP seems to pull better at low rpm

out and out power and torque isnt everything the lower down the rev range and wider the power band the more enjoyable the drive in my opinion
 
Last edited:
Berginz said:
Looking at a 2012 Panda Twinair Dualogic to buy now
Click to expand...
Hmm. The two most common big ticket failure items (TA engine, dualogic gearbox) in a 10yr old used car. You'll be living with the potential for an unexpected £2k+ bill from the moment you drive it off the forecourt. And at today's pump prices, the (lack of) real world fuel economy from the TA engine would be a consideration for me also. Just do a quick search of this forum for TA engine problems, dualogic issues and TA fuel consumption.

This is a car I'd only have considered buying if brand new, and I'd have traded it away before the end of year three.

At the risk of offending someone, performance shouldn't be the main consideration at this price point. If you can afford to prioritise performance, you can afford something better than a 10yr old Panda.

My personal advice is to forget about this and go look for a nice, mechanically much safer, 1.2 manual instead.
 
Last edited:
Since the Dualogic is an automated manual I could see it hindering performance, or they downtuned the engine to not wear the clutch so much but that feels like a stretch.

If it holds true that the Dualogic Turbo has less power for some reason it's likely done through the ECU, you could ask around if a shop could re-tune it for you.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your thoughtful replies. The Panda we are considering has just 24,000 miles and 1 owner (don't they all say that...!)
I'll have a drive today including some hills and see how I get on with the Twinair engine. The Dualogig box doesn't scare me, We've had 2 Panda's in the past with them and they've been fine with much higher mileages than the car under consideration has.

Thanks again, this space.....
 
The Duologic system does a great downshift :) but generally emulates the slow shifting of a torque converter automatic. This can cause considerable clutch wear especially if the driver previously used torque converter automatics. A worn clutch makes the clutch operation very heavy leading to errors on the robot shifting system.
 
Well, drove the car and liked it. Nice seats and driving position, felt much more substantial than the 2 earlier versions we had owned.
Tried some long steep hills in town, went very well especially when in manual mode.
We are debating.... It's missing the sat nav TomTom unit and is a bit $$. The reports of poor fuel mileage and needing premium octane may mean we look at something else..... Perhaps a 3rd Panda is not in our future?
 
The poor mileage is one thing, it might run better on premium unleaded, but it's not mandatory.

Standalone satnav units are outdated now, Google and Apple maps have put paid to this with the same functionality, updated more often and often can earn you of accidents traffic, something only the higher end sat navs used to.
 
Berginz said:
The reports of poor fuel mileage and needing premium octane may mean we look at something else
Click to expand...
Poor MPG compared to what ?

a quick real world MPG search shows small hatch form Suzuki, Toyota and Fiat to be identical to 1 or 2% lost the will to search any further

I very much doubt the twinair requires premium fuel. Could be wrong, but I wouldn't believe everything I read on the internet. There plenty that say the 1.2 8v runs better on the posh stuff. You need real world data, proper facts not someone saying it feels better. The 1.2 8v does not adjust the timing to take advantage of the posh stuff. I get just over 60 on both posh and supermarket and its pretty consistent on MPG for 10s of thousands of miles.

The biggest effect on MPG is not the car model, its the nut behind the wheel, and the type of driving.
 
European cars will run on 87 octane (as is common in France). However the power and mpg stats are done using 97 RON. Run them on 95 and you will not get the manufacturer's quoted power or mpg figures. They also measure power at the wheels, then add 15% to account for transmission losses. This is another scam because no gearbox wastes that much power. Dumping that amount of heat would need additional cooling - which they never have.

I run my cars on Tesco 99. It costs more per litre but £ per mile are about the same and they are are much nicer to drive. Cars and bikes that don't have knock sensors are fine on vanilla 95. Posh petrol makes zero difference to them.
 
DaveMcT said:
European cars will run on 87 octane (as is common in France). However the power and mpg stats are done using 97 RON. Run them on 95 and you will not get the manufacturer's quoted power or mpg figures.
Click to expand...
are you sure on this
the higher the octain has less energy per litre
without increasing the compression ratio (set by the factory) to make use of the higher octain you will get "less" MPG. Not you can measure the difference.

official figures for the 1.2 are 50.4–57.6 mpg which is well below what I achieve on cheap petrol on mixed driving.
 
Never have I ever...
seen 87 on this side of the channel. Occasionally there is 91 available in Germany, but that's meant for tractors not cars.
Octane number says something about selfcombustiontemperature (temperature increases with higher compressionrate), but zero about the energy.

Edit: And are there cars available without knocksensors?

gr J
 
Edit - I said FRENCH 87. It's horrible stuff but it's often sold as a suitable replacement for 95 RON. It has never been sold in UK.

I can't find the original data on the fuel used for engine spec tests. However, no manufacturer would quote mpg figures gained with low RON fuel although their cars can use it. They use the fuel which best massages their figures.

The optimum setting for spark advance happens at 97 RON. Engine ECUs retard the spark timing according to the knock sensor. Retarded timing puts more heat into the catalyst so will reduce fuel consumption.
When unleaded first came out, the motoring groups asked for the standard octane to be the same as 4 Star leaded (97). Unsurprisingly, oil cos and government wanted more petrol to be used so 95 became the new standard. I had a 1985 Citroen BX "adjusted" to allow 95 RON. It was horrible less power and higher consumption. I quickly put it back to standard and used 4 star. It was sold long before 4 star was discontinued.
Many of today's engines cold start with retarded spark timing to faster heat the catalyst - less emissions. I doubt the 169 Panda does that but today's cars will have to. They then advance the spark until the knock sensor activates and back off slightly.

The new B10 95 has 10% ethanol, while premium fuels (97 and higher) remain at B5. Premium fuels will have slightly more energy per litre, because ethanol carries less energy than petrol. It's negligible but it is there. On the other-hand, ethanol molecules (C2H6O) contain oxygen which is released on combustion. This does not add energy but it does improve burn efficiency. It's there in both fuels.

Tests with biodiesel (which also contains the OH from alcohol) showed top end power down by about 5% compared to dino diesel, in line with the fuel calorific values. But driven carefully, bio would give at least the same mpg as dino and sometimes better. It also ran quieter with less diesel knock. I would expect a larger alcohol petrol to have similar effects when used with "hyper-miling" techniques.
 
A3jeroen said:
Octane number says something about selfcombustiontemperature (temperature increases with higher compressionrate), but zero about the energy.
Click to expand...
Correct the RON is temperature, I was over simplifying to explain it impossible to increase MPG by putting posh fuel in

the side effect of of lowering the temperature is more dampening

assuming they using the same chemicals

RON 87 = 32 mj/litre
RON 95 = 31 mj/litre

in a normally none turbo car, with fixed compression there is no way there can be an increase in MPG

In the real word I get 62-65 MPG regardless of RON, brand and so on.

The only difference you ever see is from stale fuel from a small out of the way garage.

the only way to make use of the higher RON is to increase the compression ratio. Putting it a car that hasn't got the higher compression ratio will reduce the MPG. Even though I don't see any real world difference others have done more accurate test and thats what they have found

not to mention unless the compression is raised it will not burn as fully again wasting fuel. Although it can make the engine sound smoother
 
Last edited:
You seem to be missing my point.

All petrols have pretty much the same energy per litre/kg though I suspect the new E10 is slightly down compared to E5 or E0. The higher RON numbers do not add calorific value they just allow the engine to make better use of the energy produced. Fuels that are less prone to pre-ignition allow a more heat to go into pushing down the pistons. Lower RON fuels need a later fired spark, putting more heat down the exhaust with less heat goes into moving the pistons. It's a small percentage but it all helps when you dont have much to begin with.

The latest engine ECUs deliberately fire the sparks late on a cold engine. The catayst heats up faster emissions improve. When up to temperature, the timing is advanced using the knock sensor.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

KungFooPanda
Technical 100hp spark plug torque setting.
2
Replies
26
Views
455
koalar
koalar
lachyjb
Technical Another Power Steering Failure
Replies
14
Views
400
koalar
koalar
B
Technical LCD instrument panel failure Panda twinair 2015
Replies
8
Views
191
varesecrazy
V
K
Technical Loss of torque after diesel sump replaced
Replies
5
Views
234
kierant
K
C
Technical Complete power steering loss
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
koalar
koalar
Back
Top