Hi guys,

I'm about to buy a 500x but I don't really know what engine to choose. I drive approximately 40 to 50 miles a day and mostly on motorways. Which one do you think would be the best? I have read moslty bad reviews of the 1.6 110 but I don't know anything about the 1.4 multiair 140. To be honest, I'm mainly hesitating between the 1.3 multijet 95 and the 1.6 multijet 120, but who knows...
Could you help me on this one? Which 500x do you have and are you happy with it?

Thanks a lot

I have a 1.6 110, and it's ok! Is it the best engine I've driven, no. Is it the worst, far from it. It's not massively torquey but it does the job. If you're going to be doing 40 odd motorway miles a day, then probably better going for the 1.4, gives you an extra gear as well.

Ive got the 2ltr Diesel Manual 6speed engine, good for Motorway driving, getting approx 45mpg at the moment.

Pretty nippy in lower gears in Sport mode, a little sluggish in Auto (Comfort Mode), good uptake of speed in the higher gears in both modes.

I have the Cross 4x4 version

I have 1.4 petrol manual. Brilliant engine, fast smooth and quiet. Loads of power in sport mode mpg pretty reasonable considering how nippy it is.

Personal opinion. 1.4 Multiair is the way to go. I moved from a 150BPH 1.9 Multijet diesel (Croma 2005) to a 500X Cross Plus 1.4 and have never looked back. I also tow a 1000kg caravan to Italy and back (3000 mile round trip - 2000 towing - 1000 around the mountains) an get an overall MPG of between 26mpg and just under 30mpg.

In the UK most of my driving is 8 miles too and from local swimming pool on a journey that can take over a hour!) Here I get between 30mpg to 35mpg. All figures based on brim to brim fills and not trip computer values which appear to be 1 or 2 mpg higher readings. On a long run which I don't do very often it look over 45mpg on the trip computer.

Quite a few people have their MPG data posted here on the Fiat Forum and from my recollection all the 1.4 drivers get better figures than I do but I'm a sporty driver and only drive in Sport Mode.

I suggest you test drive all the models/engines you are interested in. You may have to shop around for some dealers to cover all the models but YOU have to be sure in your decision.

Other factors to consider are. 1) diesels are becoming more politically / socially frowned upon 2) diesels cost more to purchase 3) diesels if/when they go wrong generally can cost more to repair (depending on fault - e.g. diesel injectors cost over £300 a pop)

To put driving perspective into the picture regarding performance, handling, ride etc. then I have no complaints and from my signature you will see my other cars that I dive.

Having driven both the 1.4t and the 1.6MJ2 back to back, I have a good idea about what each gives. The 1.4 is my own car and the 1.6 was a hire car that I had for a month.

The 1.4 felt slower to start with, but I was driving it like a diesel. Need to leave it in gear for longer. It has a bit of turbo lag, but once it kicks in it goes OK. It is relatively quiet although when cold I think it sounds a bit like a tractor. It also doesn't sound that nice under high revs either, even when warm. It cruises nicely on the motorway and it's a bit nicer in slow moving traffic because compared to the diesel, it's quieter. That being said, it's extremely fidgety (in terms of gears, clutch accelerator) and I don't think it drives all that smoothly - especially in sport mode which I absolutely detest. I get about 250 miles to a tank and that is mostly 6 mile, town journeys to work.

The 1.6 diesel is better suited to the car in my opinion. Yes, it gets a bit gruff when you rev it, but in contrast to the sport mode on the petrol, I found it to be pretty good in the 1.6MJ2 and had a very enjoyable drive down to Somerset via the A303 and various country A roads. The fuel economy was also significantly better with me getting around 400+ miles to a tank. However this engine wasn't an option when I was buying it because my driving routine would have me in the garage all the time.

Both have rev limiters in first gear and neither is great for off the line starts. However, the diesel is far far worse in this area and first gear runs out of puff almost immediately. More so than many other diesels I have used in the past.

Interesting post from Garree001 regarding the 1.4. I've been struggling with this engine for a while and I quite like your description of it being figety.
I find it a bit (a lot really) difficult to drive in slow traffic.
It makes me think of a really long, elastic prop shaft. When you start off it seems to absorb the drive, causing you to use more accelerator, then it "unwinds" and fires you forward so you have to back off. Its not very elegant or smooth.
I've a theory that its a fueling flat spot just off idle caused by the ECU leaning off the mixture too much.

Clem, the best thing to do is try them. s130 has written a very good summary above. I have the 1.4 Multiair and find it quiet and smooth, and get mid 30's mpg in my normal running around, 40-ish on a long run. These are from the trip computer, but with 10% knocked off as it is optimistic by that amount.
I agree with Garee that it is difficult to drive smoothly in Sport mode, so I normally leave it in Auto which I find ok. Sport is handy on a fast cruise, when you may want a quick burst of acceleration.
If you are planning on keeping the car for a few years, bear in mind that the 1.4 Multiair has a belt cam, which will need a new belt, tensioner and water pump every 5 years or so. I don't know how that compares with the other engines available, or if it is a concern to you.

I have a 1.4 multiair DCT, done 6,000 miles now and it has settled down nicely. Recently got 45 MPG on a busy M25 run. Very nippy, haven't really had the chance to try the sport mode yet as auto mode has plenty of go. Very smooth and quiet.

The 1.4 Sport Mode (and I suspect other engine Sport Mode) coming under criticism is something I can agree / align to.

Before I forget my other current cars, a Strada Abarth 130TC and Barchetta 1.8 do not not appear in my signature as I thought. (different forums).

The 1.4 (can't comment on other engine versions) has a kind of an anti-stall system. This means when you lift the clutch pedal the engine revs automatically lift to 1100rpm. This happens in all modes. Sadly in Sports Mode the low down throttle sensitivity can catch you out leading to a lurchy behaviour which puts many people off.

My advice is "get used to it" in all modes. My personal opinion is that Fiat have got the bottom end throttle response "too sharp / wrong" in Sports Mode. In the Auto Mode they have got the mid range response wrong with IMHO a 50% plus pedal travel of dead response.

I would have preferred a traditional throttle response/profile (as in "older" Barchetta, Stilo Abarth etc.) but it is not there so one has to adapt.

When I had some minor warranty work carried out, they gave me a 124 Spyder as a courtesy car. Same engine, but I don't think it had different mode settings. Whatever the mapping was, it was excellent, smooth around town but good response when you wanted it. I don't consider the 500X response to be awful, but it could be a lot better.

Thanks a lot guys. I'm really surprised... Only 250 miles on a full tank? With my current car (petrol) I can drive around 350 miles with £40/45... I'll probably look into the 1.4 140 anyway. Thanks guys

Would just add that (if you dig around) one initial complaint of the 1.4 was poor? fuel consumption. Everybody subsequently found that matters significantly improved with mileage / age / running in.

s130 said:

Would just add that (if you dig around) one initial complaint of the 1.4 was poor? fuel consumption. Everybody subsequently found that matters significantly improved with mileage / age / running in.

Click to expand...

Yep mines coming up to 21000 miles and it has got better. It's still not what I hoped it would be when I bought it new but I find it an excellent motor and enjoy driving it.[emoji106][emoji469][emoji634]

Clem558 said:

Thanks a lot guys. I'm really surprised... Only 250 miles on a full tank? With my current car (petrol) I can drive around 350 miles with £40/45... I'll probably look into the 1.4 140 anyway. Thanks guys

Click to expand...

I just want to stress that pretty much all of my driving is short journeys (6 miles or so) from cold though. On the motorway I was getting 42-45mpg+. I reckon this might just make high 40s maybe even 50mpg if I had a very light foot.

Thanks a lot guys, I'll look into the 140. I'll try to book a test drive for next week. Can't wait to own this car

Get the 140.

You'd be silly to buy a diesel in any shape or form now, and in a very few years I suspect hybrids/electrics will make petrols look a bit old hat too. By then diesel cars will be seen as obsolete.

This is exactly how I feel about diesel engines, but I also do not want a car that does 20 mpg. However, after reading several forums (UK, France and Spain) it seems like the 140 is the best engine for the 500x regarding how I'll use it.
Thanks

Ulpian said:

Get the 140.

You'd be silly to buy a diesel in any shape or form now, and in a very few years I suspect hybrids/electrics will make petrols look a bit old hat too. By then diesel cars will be seen as obsolete.

Click to expand...

I like being silly..

Besides, about 5 years ago the Government was encouraging the purchase of Diesel vehicles and subsidizing their purchase on the grounds that they were better for the environment.

Now they have suddenly changed their minds and are making the motorist pay for their mistake...

I like the fuel economy I get from a Diesel so continue to but them..

Give a few more years and the Government will decide that something else about car engines and types are bad for the environment and change tact again...

The difference between diesels and petrols in the Euro 6 emissions standards is pretty negligible now. I suspect that when the Euro 7 standards appear, they'll be identical in terms of petrol and diesel.

There is however a potentially massive problem on the horizon for existing engines though - the new testing regime. It'll more closely reflect 'real world' conditions in terms of emissions and fuel consumption. Suddenly, engines that look great now on paper may well start looking pretty awful. Small turbo engines, I am betting, will soon become obsolete because whilst they return great figures on the current testing regime, in real world use, they drink fuel. I am pretty sure this'll be reflected in emissions results too. To understand this, look at how they conduct the test. The acceleration part is unbelievably gentle. So gentle, you wouldn't ever drive like that. Literally ever.

I am glossing over the company that was done for cheating and the fact that the tests are conducted in sterile environments. These don't really add or subtract from the points I am making.

So we'll probably end up returning to slightly larger, non-turbocharged engines. Or at least this is my bet.

Based on current options though, my main consideration would be the possibility of mechanical issues. And to meet the Euro 6 standards, diesel engines in particular are now massively complex. Just two items alone are responsible for a great number of faults reported at garages - EGR valves and DPF filters. You also have the extremely high pressures that diesel engines run under now and this makes them exceptionally fragile compared to 20 years ago, when diesel lumps would run and run and run. To this end, being hammered on perceived petrol inefficiency isn't so bad. Unless of course you are a hyper miler (20k+ motorway miles a year), in which case a diesel is still the best bet for you.

Sorry for the long commentary, but I hope it is at least interesting for one or two people.