Let's return to the videos that were the starting-point of this discussion. In the video below the same guy explains the water-cooled exhaust manifold of a Volkswagen engine.

[ame]https://youtu.be/nNendiDFzSM[/ame]

His explanation is again very thorough and clear. With a water-cooled exhaust manifold the engine warms up much quicker and there is no longer a need to use extremely low air/fuel ratios at high loads. Both improve fuel economy a lot. Unfortunately the guy doesn't seem to realise, that at the time he put this video on Youtube, such manifolds were already common practice on small turbocharged petrol engines of all car manufacturers.

FIAT introduced the water-cooled exhaust manifold on the 105 hp TA engine of the 500L in 2013 and all Euro 6 TA engines that followed have such a manifold as well.

So in my opinion the title of this thread should at least have been: Why the Euro 5 TA never really worked.

Am I the only one who thinks that this thread has become entertaining for all the wrong reasons, certainly a lot of willy waving...

jimboy said:

Am I the only one who thinks that this thread has become entertaining for all the wrong reasons, certainly a lot of willy waving...

Click to expand...

World smallest capacity wily waving competition. Just remember length of time spent in the driving seat depends on how fast your trying to get to the end goal.

Damn just remembered I got really bad fuel consumption and premature destination...

[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

So if I'm following this right, those that don't have willies are complaining about those that do.

Sounds about right.

Mercky said:

Think I’ll sell mine, it drinks juice and it’s not even any fun to drive, what was I thinking? I feel an i10 coming on.......

Click to expand...

Lol! I'd have sold you our 3 year old i10 but we just chopped it in for a new Suzuki Vitara SZ-T 1.6 petrol which is rather unbelievably giving more back in mpg in daily use than the 1.2 i10 did and definitely more mpg than the TA we used to own.


I do remember our old TA with affection though. It did sound great roaring off down the road in it, but I too was thoroughly disappointed with the real world mpg figure.

UFI said:

So if I'm following this right, those that don't have willies are complaining about those that do.

Sounds about right.

Click to expand...

Not complaining fella, making an observation.

https://www.carscoops.com/2018/08/2...cover-new-turbo-engines-subtle-design-tweaks/

Engines heading to 500?

lsgraham_uk said:

https://www.carscoops.com/2018/08/2...cover-new-turbo-engines-subtle-design-tweaks/

Engines heading to 500?

Click to expand...

More than likely.

A 1litre 120hp engine in a 500 would be great fun, however I suspect it might be a bit detuned for the 500?

“and the turbo units also feature Gasoline Particle Filters (GPF)” oh dear, that’s going to be fun for anyone who makes short trips

UFI said:

So if I'm following this right, those that don't have willies are complaining about those that do.

Click to expand...

Do you mean, those that don't have a TA are complaining about those that do?

AndyRKett said:

“and the turbo units also feature Gasoline Particle Filters (GPF)” oh dear, that’s going to be fun for anyone who makes short trips

Click to expand...

Short trips are no problem at all. It's the time between them that is.

AGH1965 said:

Short trips are no problem at all. It's the time between them that is.

Click to expand...

If there wasn’t a gap then it wouldn’t be a short journey...

AndyRKett said:

More than likely.

A 1litre 120hp engine in a 500 would be great fun, however I suspect it might be a bit detuned for the 500?

“and the turbo units also feature Gasoline Particle Filters (GPF)” oh dear, that’s going to be fun for anyone who makes short trips

Click to expand...

One would think if Fiat are actually in the design process with the new 500 for a reasonable timeframe, then it’s mot economical to put new engines on an old platform. But it’s Fiat and the 500 will probably be around for another 5 or 6 years...

306maxi said:

One would think if Fiat are actually in the design process with the new 500 for a reasonable timeframe, then it’s mot economical to put new engines on an old platform. But it’s Fiat and the 500 will probably be around for another 5 or 6 years...

Click to expand...

Unless they designed it with universal fitting in mind, but that might require a bit of foresight and its August and those people are on holiday..

You can bolt an engine into any car with little effort. It’s sorting out all the little issues like NVH, emissions, reliability etc etc bay cost money and aren’t economical on a platform that should really be put out to pasture sooner rather than later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Hatch

Going off the timing that Fiat seems to run on, we’ll have had two generations of 500 in the time that BMW has had two GENERATIONS of Mini...

frupi said:

Lol! I'd have sold you our 3 year old i10 but we just chopped it in for a new Suzuki Vitara SZ-T 1.6 petrol which is rather unbelievably giving more back in mpg in daily use than the 1.2 i10 did and definitely more mpg than the TA we used to own.


I do remember our old TA with affection though. It did sound great roaring off down the road in it, but I too was thoroughly disappointed with the real world mpg figure.

Click to expand...

That's a coincidence Frupi. A couple of weeks ago my wife traded her Suzuki SX4 S-Cross for a 1.2 500C. The S-Cross is the same as the Vitara underneath, just a bit bigger and not as nice looking. The 1.6 n/a engine is a gem, smooth with adequate power and great economy. We could easily get over 50mpg on a run, and it stayed above 40 around town. Interestingly, in the S-Cross, but not the Vitara, they now fit a 1.0 turbo "boosterjet" engine. Like all small turbos, I bet it doesn't give anything like the NEDC figures, whereas the 1.6 was very close on a run.

So far the 1.2 500 returns similar mpg to the TA we had, but without the character and torque reserve for overtakes.

AGH1965 said:

Short trips are no problem at all. It's the time between them that is.

Click to expand...

306maxi said:

If there wasn’t a gap then it wouldn’t be a short journey...

Click to expand...

I meant to say that it is the amount of time between short trips that can turn them into a problem. If all short trips would be a problem, then S&S wouldn't exist.

TrevC said:

So far the 1.2 500 returns similar mpg to the TA we had, but without the character and torque reserve for overtakes.

Click to expand...

Well said!

Lack of character and torque reserve for overtakes, exactly why I will never recommend the 1.2. So why save a few pennies and buy the 1.2?

The main reason we bought the 1.2 500C (used) was that it was the colour, price and spec that my wife wanted. TA versions are far less common, so we could have waited a long time for a 2-cyl car that suited. And I don't regard the 1.2 as a terrible engine, so went along with her choice, and she is very happy.
My take on this discussion is that no small turbocharged engine delivers on its economy claim. However, I personally like the way most of them drive, with lots of mid range torque. Many motoring journalists disagree.
Fiat's problem is that by building such a small, 2-cyl engine, they have limited its applications. Although it has the perfect character for the 500, it wouldn't suit anything else very well. A 3-cyl engine would have been better, as Renault have done with their 0.9 tce engine. This is a modular design that is also available as a 1.2 4-cyl. Between them, these engines power a huge range of cars from Renault, Dacia and Mercedes (Smart). Of course, they still exhibit the shortcomings explained in the first video that Maxi posted.

Interestingly Chris Rees, editor for Auto Italia, reckons the 105 TA is the best off all 500's and he includes the Abarths in that sweep.