End Fiat TwinAir engine production is near.

Currently reading:
End Fiat TwinAir engine production is near.

Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
3,914
Points
1,012
Location
The Centre
According to internal information, Fiat is planning to stop TwinAir engine production in April 2017.

407850_5857_big_2013-fiat-500-twinair-2.jpg


It is not clear if production stops completely in April 2017 or that they let production running out, from April 2017.

In 2007 The TwinAir engine was introduced in the Panda Aria Concept.

107.jpg


In 2010 the first production TwinAir engine was introduced in the Fiat 500.
 
Last edited:
Fiat is replacing the TwinAir with the new Firefly engine line-up

motorchase[dot]com/en/2016/09/fiat-presents-the-new-firefly-gse-engines-in-brazil/
 
Fiat is replacing the TwinAir with the new Firefly engine line-up

motorchase[dot]com/en/2016/09/fiat-presents-the-new-firefly-gse-engines-in-brazil/

these images from Brasil seem to confirm it's a 3 cylinder 1.0 .. like a LOT of the competition..,
http://hypenews.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/fiat-fabrica-betim-visita-NA-67-1024x682.jpg
I'm left wondering if it's still using "multi-air" injection solenoids though..??

http://hypenews.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/fiat-fabrica-betim-visita-NA-68-1024x682.jpg

and yes - they have more than 1..

http://hypenews.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/fiat-fabrica-betim-visita-NA-12-1024x682.jpg
 
Last edited:
Did the TA ever make it to Brazil ?
In any case it is one of their prime markets and there is a need for a FIRE replacement by now and this new engine family seems like the replacement for the long serving FIRE and the not hugely popular TA. It may be similar to everything else out there which means it will sell...
Anyway, how soon will we see it in European and US market vehicles ?
 
Surprised they are killing it off so fast but with Europe going to "real world" figures for Euro 7 I wonder if the two are related.

The basic gasoline engine was too small not to rely heavily on the turbo for performance and whenever you were on boost it drank heavily.

Shame really it was a nice concept but a lot of the downsized engines seem better on paper than in reality, with the heavy reliance on being on boost.
 
3 cylinder engines are natually well balanced.What i notice about the new firefly engines is how tall they are.Knowing FPT they will be good units.They seem to be having a real good time at the moment in my field with real good engine sales to third parties beating the likes of Cummins and Scania construction.
 
3cyl engines seem to be a good compromise. Fewer moving bits, so lighter than a four, yet well-balanced, although an uneven firing interval, giving them a 'sporty' note. They seem to rev well, so even non-turbo units go well if you're prepared to spin them.
The twin seems a bit rough and I was never convinced it was a good replacement for the FIRE. A triple should be good though.
 
Surprised they are killing it off so fast but with Europe going to "real world" figures for Euro 7 I wonder if the two are related.

The basic gasoline engine was too small not to rely heavily on the turbo for performance and whenever you were on boost it drank heavily.

Shame really it was a nice concept but a lot of the downsized engines seem better on paper than in reality, with the heavy reliance on being on boost.

Out of interest, how are they going to make the test more accurate?

In my personal opinion, all the downsized turbo engines were created solely for securing low official emissions figures, rather than for genuine economy.

I remember a Top Gear magazine road test where they put a normally aspirated 2.0 Mazda 3 up against 3 downsized turbo family hatches, and despite having by far the biggest engine, it gave the best fuel economy in that group...
 
Out of interest, how are they going to make the test more accurate?

In my personal opinion, all the downsized turbo engines were created solely for securing low official emissions figures, rather than for genuine economy.

I remember a Top Gear magazine road test where they put a normally aspirated 2.0 Mazda 3 up against 3 downsized turbo family hatches, and despite having by far the biggest engine, it gave the best fuel economy in that group...

At the moment they haven't specified the new tests.

The small turbos can be economical but the engine being boosted needs to be big enough to move the car on its own otherwise you're using boost all the time in the real world with a knock on effect for fuel economy. They can't produce the pie in the sky figures they get on the rollers but they can get respectable figures.

It'll be interesting to see if any other manufacturers ditch downsizing when things turn around. I have a feeling too much money has been spent in this direction for them to do so.

The new 3 is impressive there's a bloke on the 3 forum running a remapped 2.0 petrol with 170Bhp and it's doing 47mpg, normal ones tend to do about 40-45. But unlike just building a small engine and slotting it into an existing big car so it works on rollers it needs you to start from scratch with a lighter shell and also spend a lot engineering the engine. As a result most manufacturers have gone the easy way.
 
3cyl engines seem to be a good compromise. Fewer moving bits, so lighter than a four, yet well-balanced,
A triple should be good though.

One of our forums noted "modifiers" stated that the

875cc TA ENGINE , weighs the same as the 16 Valve 1242cc

in the real world the 16V is ALWAYS going to be better.

the TA was probably to be "different" as it DOES phutt phutt like a 126..

there MAY WELL be some truth that it was a concept to be packaged with Hybrid kit..,

although FIAT seem to be the last company in Europe to offer such.:(

Quite possibly historically significant; having offered pure electric for so long, without any great gains - and dabbling with - then writing off Hydrogen.

Sounds like they are "Petrol Heads":rolleyes::D
 
One of our forums noted "modifiers" stated that the

875cc TA ENGINE , weighs the same as the 16 Valve 1242cc

in the real world the 16V is ALWAYS going to be better.

Fiat isn't the only manufacturer with this issue the fiesta ecoboost weighs more than the equivalent 1.6 with all ancillaries fitted.

But the character is a another point you can achieve similar figures very differently, the 16v 1.2 was a high rev screamer (or at least it was in my mk1 punto) while the twin air I drove was a bit more dieselly and more about the mid range shove.

The current market prefers the latter apparently though not me personally.
 
There is defenantly a pattern with Fiat power train (fpt)where as they dont follow the competition.By this i mean the industry norm now seams to be bolt as many turbochargers on a small engine as you can and then badge it as though its 2litres bigger than it actually is.The diesels are left in a low state of tune,the turbo petrols are also left in a low state of tune.It looks to me if they require more power the sizeing of the engine gets increased which i class as the proper route and one reason why there so reliable.We ran the 8220.20 (17.2 litre v8 turbostars)back in the day.Completely understressed,never laid a spanner on the engines,the cabs rotted of in the end.
 
Fiat isn't the only manufacturer with this issue the fiesta ecoboost weighs more than the equivalent 1.6 with all ancillaries fitted.

I use a Fiesta 1.0 100hp Ecoboost as a school car. (AA Driving School). Performance is good, although the small turbo runs out of puff higher up, tuned more for low torque. Disappointingly, getting exactly the same economy figures with this, and the previous 125hp, as I did with the 1.4 normally aspirated before it. So no economy gains. It does do better when not driven by the learners though, so might be a bit better in 'normal' owners hands.
 
A larger, low stressed engine will often run cleaner and more economically than a similarly powerful low capacity highly boosted alternative. It looks as if FPT and Mazda have woken up to this....other will follow a little later.
 
A larger, low stressed engine will often run cleaner and more economically than a similarly powerful low capacity highly boosted alternative. It looks as if FPT and Mazda have woken up to this....other will follow a little later.

True, and I actually like having a N/A engine again.
The torque is at a bit higher rpm but in the Mazda engine it's still at a respectable 2,800 rpm, so quite good for N/A engine and there's fewer parts that can break (no turbo, no intercooler etc.).
I still think the T-jet is a great engine but it's based on the old FIRE engines, so the new Firefly should be a step forward, with or without turbo.
And I have to say, being a longtime Fiat man (having owned 5 Fiats and 1 Lancia) the new Mazdas are actually where I think Fiat should be: Great design, great engines (and transmissions) and they have a sporty feel to them.
I never thought I would buy anything other than an Italian car, but there you go :)

I'm looking forward to the Firefly, it could lure me back to buy a Fiat :D
 
Back
Top