im Axle Specialists

General 500 1.2 Pop brief review.

Currently reading:
General 500 1.2 Pop brief review.

I really don't get this whole 16v thing, they're fine if you drive everywhere at high rev's, but at low rev's their response is not upto an 8 valve, as they have more moving parts and Mass creating greater inertia, and also the greater area of the 4 valves in each cylinder mean the seal under compression is compromised. The old last of line Alfa 4 cylinder 8 valve had a lot of advantages over the later fiat based 16v twin spark. the two spark plugs per cylinder meant you could fit bigger valves and get an nice spread of spark. It also have variable valve timing and was of all alloy construction, in the 155, Fiat/Alfa activily under tuned it so that when the Fiat based engine replaced it (the main reason being it was much cheaper to produce as used in other cars and cast iron) the new engine could appear more powerful, the 8v had 148 BHP the 16v 150, but the 8v in the earlier 75 produce over 150 bhp.

16v are fine for high reving racing cars, but there characteristics are one of the reasons people rave about Diesels so much. Most people like to drive around American stylee using as few revs as necessary. For me the 8v is somewhere between the diesel and 16v and as such a good compromise for every day use.
 
Last edited:
alfatastic said:
16v are fine for high reving racing cars, but there characteristics are one of the reasons people rave about Diesels so much. Most people like to drive around American stylee using as few revs as necessary. For me the 8v is somewhere between the diesel and 16v and as such a good compromise for every day use.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%, I like to lift the clutch slowly and then apply revs gently - much more relaxing in congestion and saves fuel. With a car with little low-down torque you'll have to rev it to at least 2000 rpm before raising the clutch. Horses for courses though...
 
trphil said:
I agree 100%, I like to lift the clutch slowly and then apply revs gently - much more relaxing in congestion and saves fuel. With a car with little low-down torque you'll have to rev it to at least 2000 rpm before raising the clutch. Horses for courses though...
Click to expand...

Yes agree - the 1.2 is more of a relaxed easy drive in traffic, not to say that it's no use out of town though. With the 100Hp you have to be more aware of what you are doing with the accelerator and brakes rather than just driving, but as you say horses for courses.
 
the point of tdq's post was to give her driving impressions

if you buy a car you should test drive it before, along with others to satisfy yourself it performs as desired

i have not driven a 1.2 engined 500 but have driven the diesel and own a 1.4

i do have a Cinq Sporting with the 1.2 8v engine though so can say it is a good engine, but as has been said it is probably a bit under-powered for the 500 if you want nippy performance - but many people are happy with the performance so good for them (y)
 
alfatastic said:
I really don't get this whole 16v thing, they're fine if you drive everywhere at high rev's, but at low rev's their response is not upto an 8 valve, as they have more moving parts and Mass creating greater inertia, and also the greater area of the 4 valves in each cylinder mean the seal under compression is compromised. The old last of line Alfa 4 cylinder 8 valve had a lot of advantages over the later fiat based 16v twin spark. the two spark plugs per cylinder meant you could fit bigger valves and get an nice spread of spark. It also have variable valve timing and was of all alloy construction, in the 155, Fiat/Alfa activily under tuned it so that when the Fiat based engine replaced it (the main reason being it was much cheaper to produce as used in other cars and cast iron) the new engine could appear more powerful, the 8v had 148 BHP the 16v 150, but the 8v in the earlier 75 produce over 150 bhp.

16v are fine for high reving racing cars, but there characteristics are one of the reasons people rave about Diesels so much. Most people like to drive around American stylee using as few revs as necessary. For me the 8v is somewhere between the diesel and 16v and as such a good compromise for every day use.
Click to expand...

That's just the point though a 16v 1.4 is more responsive than the 1.2 everywhere. A 4v per cylinder engine is far more efficient. I'm not most people, I like to rev an engine. My other car is an ITR that revs to 8500rpm.

Who wants a low revving car with such a small engine? Not me I'm afraid. Sure if you've got a big engine then you can waft along on the torque, but you can hardly do that with a 1.2. I just find nothing worse than a small engine that is setup to provide low down torque at the expense of top end go. I've got a redline I actually enjoy hitting it. I thought the point of owning a small Italian car was that you revved it till the valves were bouncing off the bonnet? :p

Agred though 8valves are cheaper to make. About time really that Fiat changed to 16valves on all their engines much like most other manufacturers.
 
trackdayqueen said:
That's just the point though a 16v 1.4 is more responsive than the 1.2 everywhere. A 4v per cylinder engine is far more efficient. I'm not most people, I like to rev an engine. My other car is an ITR that revs to 8500rpm.

Who wants a low revving car with such a small engine? Not me I'm afraid. Sure if you've got a big engine then you can waft along on the torque, but you can hardly do that with a 1.2. I just find nothing worse than a small engine that is setup to provide low down torque at the expense of top end go. I've got a redline I actually enjoy hitting it. I thought the point of owning a small Italian car was that you revved it till the valves were bouncing off the bonnet? :p

Agred though 8valves are cheaper to make. About time really that Fiat changed to 16valves on all their engines much like most other manufacturers.
Click to expand...


spot on (y)

1.2 will be phased out soon anyway when the MultiAir engines are released
 
trackdayqueen said:
That's just the point though a 16v 1.4 is more responsive than the 1.2 everywhere. A 4v per cylinder engine is far more efficient. I'm not most people, I like to rev an engine. My other car is an ITR that revs to 8500rpm.

Who wants a low revving car with such a small engine? Not me I'm afraid. Sure if you've got a big engine then you can waft along on the torque, but you can hardly do that with a 1.2. I just find nothing worse than a small engine that is setup to provide low down torque at the expense of top end go. I've got a redline I actually enjoy hitting it. I thought the point of owning a small Italian car was that you revved it till the valves were bouncing off the bonnet? :p

Agred though 8valves are cheaper to make. About time really that Fiat changed to 16valves on all their engines much like most other manufacturers.
Click to expand...
But you've got to remember that the natural habitat of the 500 is the city and power at the top end of the range is not really all that useful. I'm not one of the deluded people who think the 1.2 is quick or a race car or other some such thing but it's really suitable for what we use it for which is driving shortish distances to work where power really isn't a problem and using it as a shopping trolley.

I was quite underwhelmed with the 1.4 500 when I drove it because it didn't feel omfg quick or anything and compared to the 1.2 it felt a bit dead low down and needed to be revved to get anything out of it.

If we only had one car I think perhaps I'd have gone for the 1.4 but as we've got something else which has a bit of power the 1.2 was the perfect choice.
 
alfatastic said:
I Doubt the 1.4 16 valve without MultiAir head will last too long either
Click to expand...
Well they'll prbably be replaced at the same time after all as the 900cc engine replaced the 1.2 and the 900cc turbo replaces the 1.4.

Grrrrrr..... I would have beaten Rob if not for the cock offering double glazing at the door.....
 
We have two other cars in our family. Both have 16v engines, a Ford Focus and a Mondeo. I have never needed to red-line them in normal driving. My initial impression of the 1.2 8v 500 is that it compares very favourably in normal driving conditions. Obviously it doesn't have the "punch" of the Fords, but for making brisk progress it seems just fine. Between 2,500 and 3,500rpm, the 500 pulls very nicely with only a slightly depressed throttle. I'm no expert here, but I don't feel a 16v engine is essential. The economy is also proving very good indeed. I set the trip and over the last two fillings, with a lot of rush-hour town milage included, I averaged 40.3mpg with an average speed of only 18mph.
 
I just hope it arrives soon. Rumours put it late next year, but Geneva would be better. They've been testing it for four years on the road already, and it has done gazillions of miles. I remember reading about it being fitted to a number of small vans for real world testing four years ago. Obviously they daren't get it wrong, but, please Fiat, I am getting older...and we have seen cutaways of the SGE so it must be nearly there. Get it launched!
 
Ulpian said:
I just hope it arrives soon. Rumours put it late next year, but Geneva would be better. They've been testing it for four years on the road already, and it has done gazillions of miles. I remember reading about it being fitted to a number of small vans for real world testing four years ago. Obviously they daren't get it wrong, but, please Fiat, I am getting older...and we have seen cutaways of the SGE so it must be nearly there. Get it launched!
Click to expand...
Well it's been released in the 159 anyway. The 1750 turbo is just 2 of the two cylinder engines together so to speak.
 
But by the time the balance shafts and Multijet valving et al are added it becomes just a little different doesn't it.
 
Ulpian said:
But by the time the balance shafts and Multijet valving et al are added it becomes just a little different doesn't it.
Click to expand...
Multijet? That's diesel and this is petrol. The engine in the Alfa is basically as it will be in the 500 minus 2 cylinders.
 
Multijet? That's diesel and this is petrol. The engine in the Alfa is basically as it will be in the 500 minus 2 cylinders.
Click to expand...


Sorry, typo. It has the same stroke and bores, but as I said (meant to say), the twin will have Multiair from the start. This is a significant difference. The balance is another thing, and the twin is effectively a completely different engine. The bore/stroke dimensions are, as you know, modular units which will be the basis of any number of engines, but that doesn't mean that the engines are basically the same, or that the twin has been released already, only with two extra cylinders. It isn't here yet. Sorry to be pedantic.

just web searched and still no official info on the 0.9 twin turbo petrol engine, really looking forward to it though
Click to expand...

My point exactly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RIA010
General 500 pop mhev
Replies
2
Views
256
richie17
richie17
K
General 500 - 2011 Pop; Right Panel & Bumper Replacement
Replies
2
Views
145
jrkitching
J
J
General 500 1.2 2017 fitting Denos spark plugs
Replies
15
Views
370
Jaymc1975
J
R
  • Poll
General Rear Suspension Fiat 500 2010
Replies
2
Views
113
Roguets50x
R
J
Technical P00016 Fiat 500 1.2 Lounge
Replies
9
Views
403
jrkitching
J
Back
Top