[RBH58]

What l/100kms have you averaged on both?

I've used both cars over a week period driven pretty much the same way over the same route. The MX5 returned 6.4L/100km and the Abarth returned 7.4L/100km.

Both are good numbers but the MX5 is exceptional. It runs on the smell of an oily rag.

The Abarth probably has the potential to use less fuel if you drive it like there is an egg under the gas pedal and you try to avoid spooling up the turbo. But driving normally without consciously trying for hyper economy, the MX5 uses less fuel and by a pretty significant margin.

Really highlights how poor and easily routed "official" tests are.

 

[The Lifeboatman]

The Abarth probably has the potential to use less fuel if you drive it like their is an egg under the gas pedal and you try to avoid spooling up the turbo.

mmmm I'll let you know if I ever feel like driving like this and we'll go and trade her in for a Nissan Micra.

Thanks for the figures - better than I thought they would be.

 

[Jim Spackman]

That's the Abarth 124 though. The UK Fiat 124 has 138 bhp so that's the one they use in the comparisons because they don't want it to look like you can buy a faster Fiat than a Mazda. It's slightly slower than the 2 litre Mazda (couple of tenths to 60 and 5mph-ish top speed) but it is more economical.

I noticed that when the Top Gear TV tested it they used the Abarth version so they could tell everyone that it's way more expensive than the MX5 but crucially didn't happen to mention that performance-wise it's in a different league to the MX5!

Ho hum!