Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Fiat Panda fuel consumption

Of all Fiat Panda modifications produced from 1986 to 2017 real fuel consumption according to user ratings is approximately 14% higher compared to advertised consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 8% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 19% higher. Starting from 1990 Fiat Panda average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was slightly above industry average, at 2007 it was similar to average, at 2011 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became less than industry average. It is noteworthy during this period that the gap between advertised and actual fuel economy changed significantly throughout the automotive industry. For more details, see the table below.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline carsDiesel cars
All carmakersFiat PandaAll carmakersFiat Panda
1990+5%+10% +5%-
Show all years
1991+5%+10% +4%-
1992+5%+10% +2%-
1993+5%+10% +3%-
1994+6%+8% +3%-
1995+5%+5% +2%-
1996+4%+5% +2%-
1997+3%+5% +3%-
2001+5%insignificant+6%-
2002+6%insignificant+7%-
2003+6%+13% +8%-
2004+7%+12% +9%+16%
2005+8%+12% +10%+16%
2006+9%+11% +11%+16%
2007+11%+10% +12%+19%
2008+12%+11% +13%+21%
2009+14%+11% +14%+21%
2010+16%+11% +16%+21%
2011+19%+11% +19%+21%
2012+21%+12% +23%+21%
2013+23%+15% +27%-
2014+26%+15% +30%-
2015+27%+15% +33%-
2016+28%+15% +36%-
2017+28%+15% +38%-

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Fiat Panda.

2012

Fiat Panda 2012 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+14%
ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.2 liter petrol engine
Fiat Panda 2012 1.2 69 HP manual 49.0 MPG
4.8 l/100km
38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km+27%
1.4 liter petrol engine
Fiat Panda 2012 1.4 70 HP manual 39.2 MPG
6.0 l/100km
38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km+2%
2003 - 2012

Fiat Panda 2003 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines40.9 MPG
5.8 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+13%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines54.7 MPG
4.3 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines46.1 MPG
5.1 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+19%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Fiat Panda 2003 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.2 liters per 100 km or 4% less fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Fiat Panda with automatic transmission has nearly identical fuel consumption to the version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Fiat Panda advertised fuel economy is significantly above average, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is significantly above average.
The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 1.2 petrol engine and automatic transmission (Fiat Panda 2005 1.2 60 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Fiat Panda with 1.2 petrol engine and automatic transmission (Fiat Panda 2003 1.2 60 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.1 liter petrol engine
Fiat Panda 2003 1.1 54 HP manual 41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km
36.8 MPG
6.4 l/100km+12%
Fiat Panda 2005 1.1 54 HP manual 41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km
37.9 MPG
6.2 l/100km+9%
1.2 liter petrol engine
Fiat Panda 2003 1.2 60 HP manual 42.0 MPG
5.6 l/100km
35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km+18%
Fiat Panda 2003 1.2 60 HP automatic 43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km
36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km+20%
Fiat Panda 2004 1.2 4x4 60 HP manual 35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km
33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km+6%
Fiat Panda 2005 1.2 60 HP manual 42.0 MPG
5.6 l/100km
36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km+16%
Fiat Panda 2005 1.2 60 HP automatic 43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km
37.9 MPG
6.2 l/100km+15%
Fiat Panda 2006 1.2 60 HP manual 42.0 MPG
5.6 l/100km
36.8 MPG
6.4 l/100km+14%
Fiat Panda 2007 1.2 60 HP automatic 43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km
36.8 MPG
6.4 l/100km+19%
1.2 liter diesel engine
Fiat Panda 2004 1.2 1.3 JTD Multijet 16v 70 HP manual 54.7 MPG
4.3 l/100km
47.0 MPG
5.0 l/100km+16%
1.3 liter diesel engine
Fiat Panda 2007 1.3 Multijet 16v 70 HP manual 54.7 MPG
4.3 l/100km
45.2 MPG
5.2 l/100km+21%
1.4 liter petrol engine
Fiat Panda 2006 1.4 100HP Sport 100 HP manual 36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km
32.2 MPG
7.3 l/100km+12%
1986 - 2003

Fiat Panda 1986 3 doors fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines35.4 MPG
6.7 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *insignificant
ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
0.8 liter petrol engine
Fiat Panda 1986 0.8 750 34 HP manual 36.8 MPG
6.4 l/100km
0.9 liter petrol engine
Fiat Panda 1994 0.9 900 I.e. 39 HP manual 39.9 MPG
5.9 l/100km
37.9 MPG
6.2 l/100km+5%
Fiat Panda 1997 0.9 900 39 HP manual 35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km
35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km0%
1.0 liter petrol engine
Fiat Panda 1986 1.0 1000 44 HP manual 37.3 MPG
6.3 l/100km
36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km+3%
Fiat Panda 1986 1.0 1000 44 HP manual 36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km
36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km0%
Fiat Panda 1989 1.0 1000 I.e. 4x4 44 HP manual 33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km
Fiat Panda 1989 1.0 1000 I.e. 45 HP manual 37.9 MPG
6.2 l/100km
34.6 MPG
6.8 l/100km+10%
1.1 liter petrol engine
Fiat Panda 1991 1.1 1100 I.e. 50 HP automatic 35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km
Fiat Panda 2001 1.1 54 HP manual 36.8 MPG
6.4 l/100km
36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km+2%
Fiat Panda 2002 1.1 4x4 54 HP manual 27.4 MPG
8.6 l/100km

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.