Adam Owners Club banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
does anyone else think there adams not very good on petrol or is it mine? i get better mpg in my 1.8 honda civic i get about 42mpg and looks about 28ish in adam dont know if it's still needs running in a bit more. cause the engine and gearbox is starting to feel better now it's got 500 mile on her i will give it another few tanks full then it's dealer time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
Not sure exactly what i am getting but I am definitely saving a lot of money in petrol compared to the 1.6 Mazda I had before the adam?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
I'm getting 43.9mpg on my 1.4 s/s and I live in the Peak District with lots of hills. I don't do a lot of city driving though and most of my journeys are averaging 50mph. I done over a 1000 miles in mine now.
Edited by: gillsid
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Yeah mine's not great. I've got the start/stop 1.2 and I've had it for 2 and a half weeks now and had to fill it up at least once a week - I've done just over 500 miles. I think the tank is quite small though - it cost about £42 to fill it up and the pump says it filled 35 litres. Compared to £10 more and 10 litres more on my old vw fox...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
I have had my Adam a month but only driven just over 200 miles as I am lucky enough to drive a works car. Was told by my sales guy that my 1.4 Jam mpg would not be great for the first 1500 miles.

I was told I would have free AA for a year but having to chase themabouttjisas no paperwork yet. Anyone else had probs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
I've ordered 1.2ss
So hope I get that (ish) Adam & josh
That's one reason for me getting the Adam 8(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
dont know if mines bad because i've got the 18" wheels on andmines 1.4 s/s looks like somes good and some not so good
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I did a wee write up on the 500 v Adam and mentioned my poor fuel economy on there. The wheels you have will certainly cause a drop in both economy and performance - that old trade off between looks and power with a small engine.
When driven "steadily", our 1.2 will achieve 42-44mpg on a run (hills kill the economy) and when driven "spirited" drops to mid 30's.
Now my theory on this is that the engines used in these cars are fuelled to the knock sensor - i.e. it will in essence over fuel the engine until the knock sensor detects the knocking (pinking/pinging) from the engine and then reduces the fuelling accordingly - all in microseconds of course. Now when we designed an air intake system for the 1.2 8v Fiat engine it gained some incredible power for the original output (some 6-8bhp) and more importantly some 12% on economy as it was simply running better.
However with the Adam, the gains from a similar design were a bit less - but the good news is that with the air filter replacement we did the gains were the same (there is a reason for this which I wont bore you with but you can PM me if you want!) so although Ihaven'ttested this over many miles yet, I am hoping for some 10% improvement in economy from a simple change thatisn'tgoing t be thatexpensive:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
I'm sure the wheel size does have some affect .. in the brochure it tells you and estimated mpg depending on the wheel size .. of course 18" is the lowest mpg .. which is what iv ordered :-/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Luckily, the mpg on mine has suddenly vastly improved. I've done just over 1100 miles and did a few 2 hour journeys on the weekend. I suppose the engine is kind of like a muscle, it takes a while to warm up. Especially with the engine going from doing nothing to loads means it's going to struggle a bit at first, but then should get better. Only time will tell!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
I just took mine (1.2 ecoflex) for its first proper run which went through a full tank, involving a mixture of A-roads, motorways and city streets and did drive it quite economically I thought but only got 34mpg average - obviously isn't brilliant but I'm hoping from other comments things will improve in the next couple of weeks. (This was one of the main reasons I went down in engine size from my previous car so it better bloody had do!!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I did the same 110 mile round trip to work and back in 3 different cars last week and the scores on the doors were...
Adam 43.7mpgMX5 1.8 (roof down both ways!) 32.9mpgAbarth 500 1.4 T-Jet 186bhp 44.1mpg
The average journey time was within 2 minutes of each other and what I found amazing was how economical my Abarth was when driven "slightly" slower than I normally do - this is a car that I could get down to 16mpg on a track lol!
This morning I brought my newly purchased RCZ 2.0 HDi in and averaged 48mpg and made it here 5 minutes quicker than last week.
The Adam now has a cat back exhaust and ITG panel filter and has freed up a lot more torque and doesn't get bogged down so easily
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Clare said:
Yeah mine's not great. I've got the start/stop 1.2 and I've had it for 2 and a half weeks now and had to fill it up at least once a week - I've done just over 500 miles. I think the tank is quite small though - it cost about £42 to fill it up and the pump says it filled 35 litres. Compared to £10 more and 10 litres more on my old vw fox...

My partner has a 1.2 vw fox and loves it, she gets about 40mpg+ from her car and that is with town driving. SOmetimes new cars need to be run in a little before you can tell what they are really using. Try giving it a tank of the expensive petrol and run that through the engine. It worked on my old corsa well enough. Also recently manafacturers have taken a hammering for mis advertising MPG rates on their cars, very few cars get what they say in the figures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
jackiebo1 said:
Try giving it a tank of the expensive petrol and run that through the engine. It worked on my old corsa well enough.
If by expensive petrol you mean the higher octane "super" fuels, running an engine on that for a tank will not help, in fact it may even make it worse. On a modern engine the sensors in the exhaust send the fuel-oxygen information back to the ECU which then try's to adjust the mixture to 14.7-1 air to fuel (true Lambda and hence why these are called Lambda sensors). Whilst the ECU is trying to adjust this the economy may be even worse, so when you change the octane and burn rate of the fuel the mixture changes, so when you first fill the tank with the "super" fuel, the engine is in fact out of tune and will try to adjust accordingly.
This is why most people get put off using the super fuels as they dont always get good results immediately then say their car ran rough afterwards when they changed back to the lower octane fuel. Its not the fuel's fault, its the owners! If they had either given the ECU time to adjust and then stuck with it, the results are indeed much better. The other thing that speeds up this process is to reset the ECU just after you have filled with the higher octane fuel giving the ECU a fresh start.

jackiebo1 said:
Also recently manafacturers have taken a hammering for mis advertising MPG rates on their cars, very few cars get what they say in the figures.
The figures quoted in advertisements etc are Government test figures. The economy and emissions testing is a very strict set of tests carried out in the UK at Millbrook Proving Ground (yes, same place as the Aston barrell roll was done in Casino Royale!). The car is taken into quarantine where it stays for a set number of hours at a constant temperature (sorry cant remember the figures!), then it is pushed onto the dyno and Dave the driver has a screen that comes down in front of him and he follow the "duty cycle" that he is asked to drive. He mustn't deviate from this by more than 2% (IIRC) and follows the patter request for speed, acceleration, gear change, braking etc until the end of the cycle. This whole process is repeated 3 times from the start including the quarantine.
The results are analysed from pads that are put into the exhaust extraction and therefore extremely accurate data can be recorded.
What does this give you - well, this is a set of extremely accurate COMPARISON data that allows you to compare between different vehicles. Its these figures that are on the adverts (if you look it should say govt. figures somewhere). What it is NOT, is an indication of what you will get economy wise from a vehicle, that is the most often misunderstood thing from this data.
When the testing is done, it cannot reproduce exact affects of additional weight in the car (and yes, I mean you lol!), wind (no, I dont mean you this time lol!) inclines etc.
What I have described is the tip of the iceberg of the test, there is a huge amount more to it, but you get the gist! Duty cycles can be set for all sorts of testing, i.e. London Taxi Co have a specific one for their tests to replicate the sort of journey's their vehicles would make etc. It is interesting, honestly :-D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Mines abt 35.6 on town driving which isn't amazing but isn't bad either! the fuel guage itself seems to drop,i did think it wasn't that good on fuel but then i also remembred it has a tiny fuel tank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
After 300 miles we're returning about 43mpg with amixtureof town and motorway driving. I only hope this figure can get better the more miles we do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Had a more successful run with Adam over the weekend up to Loch Lomond and back and the MPG seems to have crept up to around 41 which is moving in the right direction, seems it does improve at least initially. Oddly when I first filled up the car, it showed the "miles left till empty" thing as around 250 but this has now gone up each time and it's now around 325, so don't know if that takes a while to properly calibrate too.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top