Technical Petrol Engine specs

Currently reading:
Technical Petrol Engine specs

thebiglad

Garlic and cheese muncher
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
196
Points
58
Location
Limousin, France.
Hi there, I think I've found the Panda of my dreams, but I was hoping someone could link me to the differences in engine specs, particularly torque specs for the following engines:

1.2 8v 60bhp

1.2 16v(vvt?) 69bhp.

I believe the 69bhp engine was introduced late 2009 and it has more torque at lower revs than the previous unit; plus it is more economical.

I've Googled this but only came up with the Wikipedia stuff which doesn't seem definitive.
 
Sorry sir, cant find any data on a 16V petrol 1.2. Panda.
There is an 8V petrol 1.2 with 69PS form that sort of time, same torque (74 foot pounds) as 60 PS unit, presumably similar performance at bottom end. I suspect the extra power is achieved in a peak not as a flat gain, but as you say, little info.
I doubt there would be very much difference in actual drivability, or indeed, fuel consumption in the real world. - not enough to make a noticeable difference. But, that is pure hypothesis based on previous engine changes.
 
Well having looked into this a bit more the driver noticeable differences between the 8v and 16v 1.2 units are very small.

The 69bhp engine produces it's max power at slightly higher in the rev range, same with torque; but the actual torque figures are identical !

So the impression I'm left with is that the 69bhp car only has a power advantage at high revs - basically when you are thrashing it's tits off - which is not my style of driving.

There are very small differences in fuel consumption and emissions between the 2 engines but I can't help wonder whether that would be noticeable in the real world.


I wonder if I could fit an LPT on a 1.2 60 ............................................... :yum:
 
The lpt would be fun..... ;)
Are you sure it is 16V ??? - It would appear to be 8V - can you point me at the info you have out of interest as that would be a tasty little unit.
 
To be honest mate I can't find the source for the 16v info, so I would say that it just might have been a "vision in the night" after some rouge.

That still leaves the question however, is it worthwhile to stretch myself financially to get one of these 69bhp 1.2 engines?

I just can't find enough good quality info to make an informed decision. I suppose some road-testing is in order.



Dave
 
To be honest mate I can't find the source for the 16v info, so I would say that it just might have been a "vision in the night" after some rouge.

I think you might be right, too much 'vino collapso' (y) (though you can't have too much red wine).

I have a new Panda brochure which lists the 1.2 69hp engine as having 8 valves (torque @ 102nm at 3000rpm).

I think the only 16v engines were/are the 1.4 100hp or the Multijet.

Derek.
 
To be honest mate I can't find the source for the 16v info, so I would say that it just might have been a "vision in the night" after some rouge.

That still leaves the question however, is it worthwhile to stretch myself financially to get one of these 69bhp 1.2 engines?

I just can't find enough good quality info to make an informed decision. I suppose some road-testing is in order.

Dave

No worries Dave :D - I used to know that feeling - but am a good boy now, which is a shame as its so bloody cheap here ! (y) - but, I digress....
The 1.2 8V is a darn good engine, have a drive, I hardly ever go above 3000 to 3500 rpm, mostly, in town, its 2000 or less, mucho bottom end grunt. I love it, rather economical as well. Have a test drive, extended if you can.. I think you will be delighted with which ever.
Best of luck with it. - I would tend to save my dosh and go for the 60 if the car is otherwise the same and cheaper....
Cap'n Joe.
 
As said above, the only 16v petrol engine is the 1.4 100hp. The 1.2 is an 8v unit.

The 60hp unit is a safe engine. If the cambelt breaks, no engine damage. This is a soft power delivery, suited well to town work, but will handle longer journeys well, but don't expect to hurry. Using lower gears for acceleration gives a little more urgency, but mostly a little more noise. It's what I've got, and it is very relaxing.

The 69hp unit is essentially the same, but with vvt. If a belt breaks, valves are likely to clash with pistons. However this is not to be feared if the belt is changed at the recommended intervals. This unit is used in the 500 and is a significantly sportier engine. It can be made to hustle along quite enthusiastically, but will also drive gently very happily, and return better consumption figures than the 60hp. It is the one to get if the budget allows.
 
I've got one of each engine in the Panda & 500 respectively. If you're driving for economy, there's no meaningful difference between them; any difference in real world economy on like-for-like trips is too small to measure - the VVT engine has more power at higher revs, but below 2500 you won't notice it.

Where I think there may be a difference (at least in economy) is between the earlier & later 60HP engines; the introduction of the eco models brought the 60HP 1.2 Panda into the £30 tax band (except for the Eleganza) & the difference in the official figures between the two was surprising, given that all FIAT claimed to do was change the oil spec & tyres... I suspect the mapping was changed also.

Question for MEP - do you know if the 60HP Eco Pandas run the same gearing as the earlier ones?
 
Last edited:
The 1.2 69hp has got a bit more "upstairs" than the rest, but it's hardly noticable, you'd need to be jumping in and out of them all to notice.

I do every now and then, my sisters a 1.2 - 60hp,
a new 1.2 - 69hp,
the mum in laws 10 plate 1.2 Eco - 69hp
and we're just said arriva derchi to a 1.1 - 54hp.

Having spent time in all of them, with the exception of the later 1.1 Eco, I still like the feeling on the bogo 1.1.
54hp is enough to drag it around quite comfortably, there's enough for the motorway cruise and it's entertaining keeping it "strumming" along.

But I fell for the 1108 (and the 1116 before that) along time ago, I like the "all you ever need that you use all the time" feeling, that begs to be driven the Italian way (valve bounce then change up a gear).

There's little in any of them mpg wise, the 10 plate 1.2 Eco returns a little better, but that's probably due to it's off peak use and little old lady owner!

Both 1.1 and 1.2 Eco models are cheaper to tax at £30.
Both non Eco 1.1 and 1.2 are non interferance engines, so no real need to worry about cam belts failing.

There are plenty out there, so test them all, don't write any of them off too soon, they're all very hardy.
There isn't much "kit" with them, but if you require aircon, then it's a later Eco model, if not I would look for a 2007 onwards car (red badges rather than blue), interior is far nicer with plastics a shade darker and non illuminous seats!

I shall be picking up a Twinair 4x4 Antartica on Saturday (yes, two new Pandas in 8 days and with illuminous seat and door trim), I'm not to sure what to expect from that, but the test drive did have me giggling at the noise and the torque low down did feel quite nice, didn't get chance to rag it, but it did seem like it was begging for it!
 
Last edited:
The 1.2 69hp has got a bit more "upstairs" than the rest, but it's hardly noticable, you'd need to be jumping in and out of them all to notice.

I'd disagree, the difference between our 2009 1.2 Panda and a 2013 1.2 VVT 500 is massive - both on fuel economy and performance, both in the 500's favour!
 
So two different engines in two different cars indicate massive differences?
How suprising, I guess someone will come along as state the Multijet in the Doblo is more economical than the 1.2vvt in the 500 soon.
 
Back
Top