I've owned my 1.2 lounge from new for 3 1/2 years. I am still impressed with its willing performance, particularly in its pulling ability from relatively low revs. I was surprised, when I bought the car, to find that it was an 8v engine. I guess I've become used to petrol engines in modern cars generally being 16v units.

Am I correct in thinking that the previous 16v version of the 1.2 FIRE engine would not meet current emissions and therefore could not be used in the 500, hence the 8v version?

If the 16v version had been used in the 1.2 500, I guess it would have had a higher power output, but would it have been as punchy as the 8v engine in the lower revs range?

On the open road, I change up from 2nd to 3rd and from 3rd to 4th at around 3,400rpm. This causes the revs to drop to 2,500rpm in the next gear and the resulting acceleration is pretty good. Would the 16v version of the 1.2 engine have been as strong if using these change up rpm speeds, or would it have been more powerful at the "top end", at the expense of good torque at lower /mid revs?

If I may ask, what do other members think of these observations?

FireballXL5man said:

If I may ask, what do other members think of these observations?

Click to expand...

I'd say you're pretty much on the money. The 16V 1.4 has a narrower power band higher up the rev range & in consequence has a 6 speed gearbox to help you keep it on song.

I suspect the main reason behind FIAT's choice of an 8V engine for the 1.2 was the desire to keep the car's CO2 figure below the crucial 120g/km figure needed to qualify for £30 road tax. At launch, it was one of only a very, very few 4cyl cars that qualified and I'm sure that helped get sales off to a good start.

Also the design cost of the 8V 1.2 engine was probably written down long ago & it helped keep the price down & the profitability up.

Although it now seems to have been somewhat eclipsed by the TA, it's a well proven engine with excellent economy & a good track record for reliability & is still a good choice for anyone wanting relatively cheap, reliable transport with a bit of flair & style.

FireballXL5man said:

...If I may ask, what do other members think of these observations?

Click to expand...

In the early 80's a mate of mine had a 128 3p (he had 2 of them) and he reckoned that the 1.3 it had was the best engine in that it had enough power and still has decent mpg. It would do a 100mph and returned 30mpg. I moved from an 850 cc to 1600 twin cam and stepped back to a 1050cc in a 127. The twin cam a bit thirsty (around 25mpg) and the 1050 didn't have enough power (lacked torque and was constantly red lined).

The Starjet engine 1.4 engine was a replacement to the 128 engine and if you compare the specs of this engine to the 1.2 16v the 1.4 was faster and still had more or less the same emissions and fuel consumption. Engine range was rationalised so the last 1.2 16V was Euro 3. Have heard that the 1.2 16V is prone to head gasket problems as it ages so there was a flaw in its design.

The developments but into the 1.2 8v increasing the compression ratio to 11:1 and making it Euro 5 compliant gave it an extra 9 bhp resulting in a very useful 69 bhp. Have a strong suspicion that the current 1.2 8V will get dropped shortly with the Twin Air in NA taking its place since Euro 6 is where we're at now.

I also suspect there isn't REALLY room for the 16V head in the 500's dinky underbonnet area,

done a few 16V HG's , but just as many 8V's..not really noticed a difference TBH.( it's the same gasket)

my only REAL observation of the 16V is due to it's "free-revving nature",
it would probably be hardwork as a "citycar", drove my sisters home to fix the broken brake cylinder..and was NOT best pleased with it's lack of engine braking..!!,

Charlie

I've back pedalled a bit from my last post and attached some screen shots on the 3P & the emissions (courtesy of wiki) from the 1.2 16V & 1.4 16V. The 1290cc SOHC Fiat in the 128 3P from the 70s had very similar performance to the current day 500 1.2. The 3P did sound faster but the mind can play a few tricks.

varesecrazy said:

I also suspect there isn't REALLY room for the 16V head in the 500's dinky underbonnet area,

Click to expand...

500 has a 1.4 16V and the A500 has a turbo so it fits !

varesecrazy said:

done a few 16V HG's , but just as many 8V's..not really noticed a difference TBH.( it's the same gasket)

Click to expand...

My sister was looking to buy a 2000 Punto 1.2 with 130K (!) for her 21 year old daughter about 2 months ago. Despite protests she bought it but at least it's the 1.2 8V which is non-interference. Needed a clutch, can't go through a car wash but it's still going. Remember Alex from NZ saying there was issues with the 1.2 16V on HG. This came from the AF backing it up but opinions were divided. The checklist on the Reliability index site does state that there HG issues with the 1.2 at 35-40K but doesn't state 8V or 16V.

varesecrazy said:

my only REAL observation of the 16V is due to it's "free-revving nature",
it would probably be hard work as a "city car", drove my sisters home to fix the broken brake cylinder..and was NOT best pleased with it's lack of engine braking..!!,

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the 16V is hard work around town it just needs the open road to get the best out of it & a close ratio gearbox. 8V is more economical for normal driving since peak torque is at lower revs.