My 1.2 8v engined 500 lounge has now done nearly 5000 miles. It's always felt OK, but lately it seems to be running noticably looser and pulling stronger. I tried it out accelerating in 2nd gear from a 30mph zone up to 60mph, changing up to 3rd at 5,500 rpm. I was really surprised at how strongly it accelerated. I really didn't think it would pick up speed so quickly. It felt only a little slower (if at all) than my 2.0 petrol zetec Mondeo and my wife's 1.6 petrol Focus. It also sounded quite superb and showed no signs of mechanical harshness at 5,500 rpm. My eldest son is really into cars, and if I'd told him that our car was a 100bhp 1.4 16v, I think he would have believed me. Someone posted here a while ago that the 1.2 8v was just plain slow, in their opinion. I can't agree with that. For an "old" 8v engine, I think the 1.2 8v still gives a very good account of itself.

Anyone else think the same?

just you wait until its done 23k!!
It goes like a rocket
oh and its doing around 50mpg.

haven't driven a 500 with the 1242 8v engine but i have basically the same engine in a Cinq Sporting and yes it is a great engine

It just hates hills, although it is *far* better at 8k miles than it was new.

zanes said:

It just hates hills, although it is *far* better at 8k miles than it was new.

Click to expand...

Haha - yep, not the best going up steep hills with a full boot! But it isn't too bad IMO. Ours has just shy of 5k now and there is a noticeable difference particularly in 2nd and 3rd; the acceleration is quite decent and economy is also very good bearing in mind the amount of city driving (averaging 53 mpg over the past 2 months). I'm very happy with our car.

Will be interesting to see how the new 500 engines perform when they are released. I remember driving a Clio 1.2 TCE last year as a hire car - the engine I believe is something tiddly like 1160cc, but the turbo kicked in past 2000 rpm and so when going up hills and I was easily able to maintain 70 in 5th gear. If the new engines are anything like that then happy days!

caz360 said:

just you wait until its done 23k!!
It goes like a rocket
oh and its doing around 50mpg.

Click to expand...

It's good for a 1.2 but lets not go overboard. Only someone who's never been in a quick car would ever say that it's a rocket. For a diddy little 1.2 it's more than adequate though I'll say that.

LOL at feeling only just slower than a 2.0 Mondeo/or 1.6 focus. 1.4 must feel a tad slower than an M3 then?
I feel the 1.2 has its handbrake stuck on, heck even my 1.3 is insanely slow, thats even if I haven't been driving in the Skyline or Bentley.

SmoothHound said:

LOL at feeling only just slower than a 2.0 Mondeo/or 1.6 focus. 1.4 must feel a tad slower than an M3 then?
I feel the 1.2 has its handbrake stuck on, heck even my 1.3 is insanely slow, thats even if I haven't been driving in the Skyline or Bentley.

Click to expand...

I'm going to get a sore arse from sitting on the fence but the 1.2 definitely doesn't feel like it's got the handbrake on!

This conversation has been repeated in numerous topics now. It all depends on what you are used to. I'm used to using faster cars so to me I personally feel that it does feel like the handbrake has been stuck on.

SmoothHound said:

This conversation has been repeated in numerous topics now. It all depends on what you are used to. I'm used to using faster cars so to me I personally feel that it does feel like the handbrake has been stuck on.

Click to expand...

Yes but this is a thread about the 1.2..... which never claims to be a fast car. It should only be compared to cars of a similar size with a similar engine. For what it is the 1.2 8v engine is fine and on flowing roads you can easily maintain the speedlimit or therabouts. The 1.2 is a great engine to have in towns where you need to pull out into gaps as it's got enough power to get you out into a gap but not so much that you need to reign it in lest you crash into the back of someone.

I agree that it's not a rocketship or anything but don't try and make out that it's underpowered because at 80bhp/tonne it's got enough power.

okaaaay. TC compared to a Mondeo, so its already been compared to other cars. Personally I find the 1.2 to be underpowered its my opinion so I don't need to 'make out' anything.

I meant rocket for a 1.2

SmoothHound said:

okaaaay. TC compared to a Mondeo, so its already been compared to other cars. Personally I find the 1.2 to be underpowered its my opinion so I don't need to 'make out' anything.

Click to expand...

*sigh*

I think you're slightly confused between a car that is adequate for its purpose but by no means quick and a car which is just plain slow.

Let me put it this way, if I did my ~40 minute drive to work in my wifes Subaru which has 200bhp and stuck to speed limits I would probably only get to work a couple of minutes earlier at best and most of the time I'd be no quicker. For most people the situation will be the same unless they're munching motorway miles in which case yes it is underpowered, but who buys the bottom of the range petrol engined model and expects it to be a bahnstormer?

If you want slow then try driving a 3 cylinder daihatsu charade or a 70's saloon with the smallest engine in the range. You don't know the meaning of underpowered is till you've driven something like that. But then again driving Skylines and Bentleys will do that to you.

Really really slow was our 1981 1.3 Cortina 4dr with a whole 61bhp

It's all to do with the size of the car and the refinement. There is someone who's just joined the Abarth forum, he has a 3.0 litre A4 and says the Abarth "feels" faster, and that's just the point, big heavy car, lots of refinement etc, too smooth. Abarth = light agile, a lot less refined and a bit rough around the edges.

So a 1.2 in a small car probably would feel quite nippy. I've yet to try my 0.7 litre 126 on the road yet, but I'm guessing 50 MPH in that feels like 130 MPH in the Abarth!

DraigFlag87 said:

It's all to do with the size of the car and the refinement. There is someone who's just joined the Abarth forum, he has a 3.0 litre A4 and says the Abarth "feels" faster, and that's just the point, big heavy car, lots of refinement etc, too smooth. Abarth = light agile, a lot less refined and a bit rough around the edges.

So a 1.2 in a small car probably would feel quite nippy. I've yet to try my 0.7 litre 126 on the road yet, but I'm guessing 50 MPH in that feels like 130 MPH in the Abarth!

Click to expand...

Definitely. Sometimes something that's less refined can seem faster. My 406 was dog slow in real terms but because the boost came in quite suddenly it seemed faster than it was.

SmoothHound said:

LOL at feeling only just slower than a 2.0 Mondeo/or 1.6 focus. 1.4 must feel a tad slower than an M3 then?
I feel the 1.2 has its handbrake stuck on, heck even my 1.3 is insanely slow, thats even if I haven't been driving in the Skyline or Bentley.

Click to expand...

Well I have a 1998 2.0 petrol Mondeo Mk 2 that I've owned from new. It's only done about 68,000 miles and I've driven almost all of them. I know that if I accelerate from 30mph in 2nd up to 5,500 rpm before changing up to 3rd it will reach 60mph quicker than the Fiat, but not by a massive amount. My wife's Focus 1.6 petrol feels punchier than the Mondeo, but in reality it is probably not quite as quick. The 1.2 8v 500, although not as quick as the Mondeo or the Focus, really does compare favourably with both the Fords in everyday brisk driving.

I'm not saying that the 1.2 8v 500 is a ball of fire, but I think that it's a great little engine which is just getting better and better as the miles increase. Our last three Fords (Escort 1.6, Mondeo 2.0 and Focus 1.6) have all had petrol 16v engines. When I ordered the 1.2 engined 500, I was a little disappointed that it was only an "old fashioned" 8 valve engine. I guess I expected them all to be 16v as a matter of course nowadays. I've been pleasantly surprised by the 1.2 8v engine in the 500. I don't claim to be an expert, but if I'd been told all along that it was a 16v unit of say 80bhp under my 500's bonnet, I would have believed it. As for smoothness and mechanical refinement, it's certainly the quietest engine in our cars, especially at high revs.

Why do Fiat make the 1.2 engine in the 500 in 8v rather than 16v form? Is it due to emission requirements?

Also, is the 8v engine mapped for low-down torque, it certainly feels that way? Does it pull better from low revs than a 16v version of the 1.2 engine would?

Either way, the 1.2 8v has strong low down pull, yet revs freely and pulls strongly at high revs like I'd expect a 16v to do.

As for 1.3 Cortinas, my father had one in 1979. It was a company four door basic 1.3 around 60bhp, I think. I drove it a few times and it was a total slug. It was impossible to get any urge from it no matter how long you held the lower gears. Now that really was an insanely slow car.

SmoothHound said:

I feel the 1.2 has its handbrake stuck on, heck even my 1.3 is insanely slow, thats even if I haven't been driving in the Skyline or Bentley.

Click to expand...

Comparing them to a Bentley and a Skyline is a tad pointless, they're completely different cars for different purposes! I found it a bit odd that you decided to mention them in your post....

Compare a 1.2 500 to a 1.2 Corsa, however, and it feels quite nippy.

Lloyd71 said:

Comparing them to a Bentley and a Skyline is a tad pointless, they're completely different cars for different purposes! I found it a bit odd that you decided to mention them in your post....

Compare a 1.2 500 to a 1.2 Corsa, however, and it feels quite nippy.

Click to expand...

I agree with you lloyd. I might mention the wifes Scooby a bit sometimes but I don't do it to impress people But I do have 3 sets of wheels for it

P.S Can someone start a thread about how the 500 has good traction so I can then go oooh look at me, I have an AWD car and the 500's traction sucks?

306maxi said:

I agree with you lloyd. I might mention the wifes Scooby a bit sometimes but I don't do it to impress people But I do have 3 sets of wheels for it

P.S Can someone start a thread about how the 500 has good traction so I can then go oooh look at me, I have an AWD car and the 500's traction sucks?

Click to expand...

I wasn't necessarily saying that Maxi, I just found it an odd comparison is all. They're totally different cars. My friend's Caterham makes my 500 feel slow but then....that's the point, and it's why it cost a lot more.

EDIT: Your post comes across a bit harsh BTW, even if it was meant jokingly. Just thought I'd mention it so it doesn't start any trouble.