PDA

View Full Version : 500 Turbo...A sporty car or a high mpg car?



jcunny33
09-16-2013, 10:14 PM
We have threads about gas mileage for the NA 500 and the Abarth. Perhaps some would be interested in what the 500T can give them. Well, if you want an economical car or a quick little (dare I say sports car)...this little Fiat can be either. The power band is simply wonderful, whether going through the gears or running at interstate speeds...especially with the RRM ECM I now have in my T.

I traded in my Sport for the 500 Turbo in March 2013. I already have 18,000+ miles on the T...I had 43,500 on my Sport. Most of my miles are highway or country roads. In town I drive really easy to keep my mpg up. Having owned a VW Jetta TDI several years ago make me mpg conscious. I do enjoy the new found power, but not often enough to affect mpg.

My combined is about 37 mpg...1 more than with my Sport. Prospective buyers should not be concerned with the 28 city/34 hwy numbers if they are looking for a car with great mpg.

Today I did a little test on the interstate. 25 miles with cruise set at 65 mph gave me 44.5 mpg. The next 25 miles I set the cruise down to 60 just to see what it would give me. Here are pics to show the results. The 2nd pic shows 59 mph, but that was only for a few seconds going up a slope.

79137914

I should state that this is the first tank that has 100% ethanol free 93 octane. I found this at a little store out in the country.

Andree
09-17-2013, 12:26 AM
Good job! Pics tell the story. Definitely some great highway MPG there, all wrapped up in a sporty turbo appearance. Certainly looks much better than any of the cars we used to call "econo-boxes". Things like the early Toyota Starlet (became the Tercel) looked like economy cars. Small, two door, four seat (with tiny back seats) vehicles with a hatch. We have small, two door, four seat cars with tiny back seats.

The Starlet came with a whopping 58 horsepower.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7414261_toyota-starlet-specifications.html

You have double the horsepower in your Turbo, and get about the same as the early 80's Starlet. And more bells and whistles in the Turbo than were ever dreamed about back in the time of the little Toyota.

If you said you were getting an economy car and came back with the Turbo, I'd have figured you went for the sports car and bypassed the economy car. LOL. You should start telling people you have an economy car and watch their expression when they see the Turbo. heh. ;)

Ryephile
09-17-2013, 09:36 AM
Thanks for sharing. It's a sign of the times; many modern cars get great fuel economy for the power they have.

trevc
09-17-2013, 09:47 AM
Glad you are enjoying your T with the RRM John!

opiateESP
09-17-2013, 10:59 AM
I drove my 500T 4600km from Vancouver BC to Toronto. Fuel cost was $500 total and I had over 1/2 tank left when I arrived. Couldn't have been more pleased.

Andree
09-17-2013, 07:21 PM
Thanks for sharing. It's a sign of the times; many modern cars get great fuel economy for the power they have.

It gets me to thinking, will we see big trucks with that kind of mpg in the future? I'm thinking Ram Trucks to start with. Full-size heavy duty Ram Trucks bringing home 45 mpg. Can you imagine? Wow.

It certainly would ease the gas price burden on vast amounts of the economy. All the city, county, state vehicles that have to use trucks for certain duties. All the contractors. All the people that tow equipment.

4carbcorvair
10-01-2013, 02:10 PM
Thanks for sharing. It's a sign of the times; many modern cars get great fuel economy for the power they have.


Thing is, cars of the 90's got better mileage than any hybrid produced now. A 95 Civic with the 1.5 got 50 highway. :\

Andree
10-01-2013, 07:07 PM
Thing is, cars of the 90's got better mileage than any hybrid produced now. A 95 Civic with the 1.5 got 50 highway. :\

That's true, and I'm not sure where the improvements have been. I look at places like Fuel Economy, here is the Turbo, a couple of Civics, and an 85 CRX HF (High Fuel Economy, California car): http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33027&id=11699&id=11698&id=1173&#tab2

I think it's in giving more horsepower with better gas mileage.

There are the safety improvements, the Fiat is much better than the Honda for safety. But the older cars were less polluting from the general info shown on Fuel Economy.

Sergio wants smaller turbo engines, thinks that's where the future is for gas cars. Like the TwinAir. Bring the TwinAir over to the US and let us have a go at it. Show me that 65 mpg, or whatever it's been touted as having.

Felnus
10-01-2013, 07:22 PM
Cars of the '90s that got great gas mileage also wadded up like tissue paper in an accident. I had a '93 Ford Festiva that averaged about 42 mpg with a 1.3 liter that produced a blazing 63 HP. It got good mileage because it only weighed 1,400 pounds or so. My 500 is a little bigger, has 101 horsepower, gets about 38 mpg and also has an extra thousand pounds of airbags, door guards beams, etc., etc., and air conditioning and a thumping sound system. Seems like a good trade-off.

500ways
10-04-2013, 09:17 PM
Cars of the '90s that got great gas mileage also wadded up like tissue paper in an accident. I had a '93 Ford Festiva that averaged about 42 mpg with a 1.3 liter that produced a blazing 63 HP. It got good mileage because it only weighed 1,400 pounds or so. My 500 is a little bigger, has 101 horsepower, gets about 38 mpg and also has an extra thousand pounds of airbags, door guards beams, etc., etc., and air conditioning and a thumping sound system. Seems like a good trade-off.

Yep - well put^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^