Tempted by either of these , both have the tobacco leather I adore .Can I get opinions especially from anyone who drove both .I imagine the 1.4 has the akwardly large turning circle and feels less chuckable and maybe even less revvy / fun to redline But is ultimately faster and way more responsive .The 1.2 Id guess has ( far ?) better mpg also .I had a 100hp Panda and didn’t particularly like the engine in that car .Is the sixth gear ( much?) longer in 500 for economy ? In the case of the two cars I’m looking at the 1.4 has 62k miles vs the 1.2s 135k !!!Thanks a million !

I found the 1.4 in the Panda a much more characterful engine.

I still maintain (issues with later cars aside) that the 1.2 is probably the best engine in the whole range at what it does.

306maxi said:

I still maintain (issues with later cars aside) that the 1.2 is probably the best engine in the whole range at what it does.

Click to expand...

I'd agree, and it's probably the most reliable and longest lived engine in the whole range too. Unless you run it short of coolant or allow the sump pan to rust through, breakdowns due to engine issues are almost unheard of.

The 1.4 engine is essentially the same as the 1.4 engine in the 100HP, so if you don't like the power delivery characteristics of that car, you likely won't like the power delivery of the 1.4 500 either. It also has the same turning circle issues in 1.4 form.

After 145k, there are many things which could be well worn, but the 1.2 engine is a long long way down the list.

The 500 carries a huge fashion premium for its looks, even when well used, so at that price point, I'd put my money into a Panda instead; however you measure it, you'll likely get a lot more car for your money.

The Euro 4 1.2 used in the Dynamic Eco Panda pre the 2010/2011 changeover is probably the best variant of the 1.2 ever made, but that engine never made it into the 500. That got the later Euro5 engine from launch, although it was only homologated to Euro 5 with the 2010 model year changeover, when it additionally gained the rear beam stiffening & softer springs which together significantly improved the ride.

The Euro5 1.2 is slightly less flexible and has less torque lower down than the Euro4 engine it replaced. It did gain an extra 9bhp in peak power, but you'll have to go to 4000rpm to find it.

If I'd set my heart on an older 500, I'd at least get one with the later type of rear beam (or modify it later - the parts can be had from breakers easily enough now).

When I first test-drove several 500s many years ago (2008-2010 models), I tried out both the 1.2 5-speed manual and 1.4 six-speed manual. The difference that struck me was that the 1.2 actually seemed to get off the line a bit easier; smooth and torquey at low revs, making it easier to drive in town. The 1.4 seemed to need a bit more of a prod to get going but once up to the torque peak of 4000RPM, performance was clearly stronger than the 1.2. I thought the gearbox also felt different, with the 1.2 having a soft and rubbery shift action and the 1.4 more notchy/mechanical.

So I think it depends on where you will be driving your 500 - if it is the majority in town (stop-and-go) and minority on what you call ‘B’ roads, hills, etc., then you’ll be best with the 1.2.

If your driving takes in a majority of ‘B’ roads and hills and a bit less in the city, then you’ll appreciate the extra power of the 1.4 (it keeps accelerating where the 1.2 runs out of puff).

Either version is sufficient on motorways and dual carriageways.

Just my thoughts.

-Alex

So we own both models. I have a 500S 1.4 and my girlfriend has a 1.2 Pop.

The 1.2 feels torquier at low to medium revs (below 3000rpm) than the 1.4. The 1.4 makes up for this at higher revs. On the motorway the 1.4 feels considerably faster. I've had my 1.4 up to nearly 200kph indicated. Keep in mind the 1.2 has a torque peak at 3000rpm and the 1.4 at 4250rpm. The 6 speed box on the 1.4 also helps.

The 1.2 also struggles a bit up hills where as the 1.4 does not. The 1.2 is smoother and more refined than the 1.4. The fuel consumption of the 1.4 is terrible in comparison to the 1.2. I do drive my 1.4S quite enthusiastically but +/-400km's on a tank of petrol is not great.

The 1.4 Sport has substantially better brakes than the 1.2. Keep in mind that the 1.4 has discs all round (ventilated at the front) while the 1.2 has solid discs in front with drums at the rear. The 1.4 handles a bit better and feels more planted on the road than the 1.2, this is probably mainly to do with bigger wheels and tyres.

Our 1.2 doesn't have ASR and so lacks the hill holder which is quite a handy feature.

Thanks everybody for replies .I think I’m
More a 1.2 than 1.4 person .I like the low down torque of the 8valve and sure even if it doesn’t go much faster as it’s redlined it sounds nice getting there !Mind you this 1.4 I’m interested in is a gorgeous pearl with tan leather .The high miles plain white 1.2 has the even nicer tobacco leather but at 135k I think the drivers bolster has about a one inch tear in it ( from
Pics ) .Decisions , decisions !Might hold onto my Panda for now ...but a 500 woukd keep me away from the MG TFs I’m
Becoming mildly infatuated with ( yeah head gasket !)