(G) why are 1.4's bad

no offence to 1.4 drivers

but why is many 1.4's (not all) such a downfall.

they eat camshafts

Crap fuel economy the 1.6 is better IIRC

is there any way around that or is that why fiat put the effective 16valve 1.2 engine in the car.

it just seems strange that downsizing an engine could make such a differecne to the cars. without sacrificing on speed and performance. (am not talking downsizing to a bike engine or ought before any one tries to take the mickey)

could they not of solved the cam shaft issue and the fuel economy issue

i was looking to buy a Fiat Bravo and then i saw that people had said to stay away from the 1.4 and to buy a 1.2 or 1.6 can any one tell me why?

eat camshafts

The 1.6 is better for fuel economy that the 1.4 IIRC

Overall a pig of an engine in the bravo

Plenty of threads about have a search, the bravo/a lot will be on soon

obviously not

Have a search of the forum there are plenty of threads about

ok i'll have a look

The 1398cc engine is known to have a problem with its oil feed screen blocking, which in turn starves the camshaft of oil which means it either runs dry and runs its bearings, or it'll possibly bend as other parts lock up as they seize due to oil starvation.....

I didnt realise fuel consumption was that bad tbh!

Im only basing that on what ive read on here hence putting IIRC

the 1.2 has the same power as the 1.4.
fiat stopped using that 1.4 lump because the oil feeds to the cam keep blocking

More thank you, I quite like my extra 2bhp and 0.1s less 0-60

ahh well am glad i went for a bravo 80 then.

its a fantastic car and petrol consumption aint bad either

I would hope it is for a 1.2

your sig is out of date, no cinq anymore

My mum must be one of the lucky ones, shes had her P reg 1.4 12v for 4yrs now and its done 160,000 miles with good consumption and not a problem. It starts on three nowadays though lol!

Jordan