Tuning Anybody Got The Essesse Kit Their Abarth?

Currently reading:
Tuning Anybody Got The Essesse Kit Their Abarth?

No it's too expensive, for me anyway, and if it's power alone you want, almost £3k can get you a lot more. And also, it doesn't increase the value of the car enough so you'll never see that dosh ever again! Oh and the suspension is too stiff. Actually i could on, but i won't...
 
no as with DF
cant afford the 2500.
but theres loads of them about and they love em.(y)
 
same as above, would love the extra power but not at that joke of a price! ...even with the unneeded brake upgrade and the rock hard suspension it gives you!

will get mine remapped as soon as the warranty runs out though - havent looked into cost but im guessing i'll get a lot of change from £2500....
 
same as above, would love the extra power but not at that joke of a price! ...even with the unneeded brake upgrade and the rock hard suspension it gives you!

will get mine remapped as soon as the warranty runs out though - havent looked into cost but im guessing i'll get a lot of change from £2500....

395+ vat is a propper remap on rollers etc...
I am going on the FF roling road day on the 17th jan to see if mine is 135 and to see if a bmc makes any difference...
Dave Q
 
395+ vat is a propper remap on rollers etc...
I am going on the FF roling road day on the 17th jan to see if mine is 135 and to see if a bmc makes any difference...
Dave Q
The BMC filter makes little difference, but i'm guessing (mileage depending) that it's running higher than 135 HP anyway. Some have reported a reading of 140 to 161 HP on a standard A500! (take with a pinch of salt) it that were the case, then the SS kit would REDUCE power! :p
 
The BMC filter makes little difference, but i'm guessing (mileage depending) that it's running higher than 135 HP anyway. Some have reported a reading of 140 to 161 HP on a standard A500! (take with a pinch of salt) it that were the case, then the SS kit would REDUCE power! :p

smaller-salt-mountain.jpg

:p

Although I imagine the standard A500 power rating is pretty conservative- Imagine the trouble if someone put their A500 on a roller and it was "only" making 125bhp.
 
Although I imagine the standard A500 power rating is pretty conservative- Imagine the trouble if someone put their A500 on a roller and it was "only" making 125bhp.
Does anybody know when cars are tested for these figures? If it's on a brand new car with 0 miles on it, then surely it's going to be underpowered and slower than once it's run in? Hence why there's such a big difference in performance after a run in period! The 0-60 times seem quicker too, at least 3 people i know have timed them from 6.8 to 7.4 secs after a few thousand miles.
 
Does anybody know when cars are tested for these figures? If it's on a brand new car with 0 miles on it, then surely it's going to be underpowered and slower than once it's run in? Hence why there's such a big difference in performance after a run in period! The 0-60 times seem quicker too, at least 3 people i know have timed them from 6.8 to 7.4 secs after a few thousand miles.

No idea. 1.2 owners tend to worry more about economy than power.

That and we get bored timing 0-60.
 
All car performance figures should be recored with two adults of average size and half a tank of fuel IIRC, therefore 1 up in car it should be a little quicker. There is no way on earth a car manufacturer would use a zero mileage car to record figures, it will be a well used final pre-production model that will have been stripped and tested to ensure everything was in top condition.

But to preperly test a car you need to go to somewhere like Millbrook, MIRA, Brungtinthorpe and have some decent timing equipment. The Abarth SS that EVO mag tested at Millbrook was 7.2 0-60 and 20.4 0-100mph which is good. For example a Panda 100HP takes over 40secs to 100mph, a SAXO VTS 7.6/22.6secs, a Clio 182 6.6/17.3secs, so 500Abarth is inbetween.

Car engines are homologated on a dyno and that is declared figure.

Car manufactures only have to ensure that road cars are no less than 90% of homologated figure. Many manufactures make full use of that and most N/A road cars make less, BMW M, and big engined N/A Audi's are notable for this, M3's being about 30bhp down on quoted. Renaults RS Clio's are also like this normally about 10bhp down on quoted, ie Clio 182's quoted at 179.5bhp make about 165-170ish.

But with many new turbo charged cars they are torque limited, so the cars ECU works to produce a set figure of torque, so its constantly adjusting the wastegate to produce the boost for the torque required.

Therefore they run on a torque setting unlike N/A cars which really are running at a set parameter, there's not much to change on a N/A car apart from ignition and spark advances/retardation, so it's more reliant on engine speed to make acceleration, hence why for example a Honda Integra Type R DC2 with 187bhp and only 131lb ft will still easily out accelerate a similar weight 500Abarth which has way more torque over a wider rev range and go onto a much higher top speed. And of course why diesels feel quick with the torque but because don't make the engine speed often run out of steam very quickly have narrow torque bands and have lower top speeds. So its not as clear cut as torque makes acceleration and bhp V's frontal drag makes top speed other wise diesels would out accelerate petrols which would go on to much higher top speeds. Or conversly why something like Audi Q10 (something like that, small house with large diesle engine) which has about double the torque of an F1 car and weight differance apart don't need to tell you which is faster.

This of course throws up some interesting figures on r/r's. I know someone who put there 500Abarth on another friends r/r so no need to make things up and it made just under 135bhp at the wheels, now remember all manufacturer figures are flywheel quoted, so its was over 150bhp at flywheel. And near enough 160lb ft torque about 5lb ft over quoted, so shows its pretty much spot on torque wise. On very same r/r his previous Ibiza Cupra R made pretty much bang on what VW quote of 178bhp 181lb ft.

Now after remapping the car as on exploring the ECU the parameters for the SS map are there, all it does is torque limit, the car made hardly any more bhp but 20lb ft more torque, so now its 180lb ft bang on what the SS kit is quoted at, but more importantly makes more lower down rev range and holds it longer, and it feels notable quicker.

Its not just Fiat that this happens to, recent road test article in EVO mag took a Megane 250, Leon Cupra R, Golf GTi and Focus RS on road test which included a r/r test with some very interesting results.

Megane RS250 Claimed 247bhb@5500rpm 251lb ft@3000rpm ~ actual 268bhp@5800rpm 276lb ft @3400
Leon Cupra R 261bhp@6000rpm 258lb ft@25-5000rpm ~ 274bhp@63-6800rpm 268lb ft@3950rpm
Golf GTi 207bhp 53-6200rpm 207lb ft 17-5200rpm ~ 229bhp@5700rpm 239lb ft@25-3200rpm
Focus RS 301bhp@6500rpm 324lb ft@23-4500rpm ~ 279bhp@55-6300rpm 326lb ft@3400rpm

On paper the RS should have 54bhp more than the Megane, yet it only had 11bhp, thats a big swing in favour of the lighter Renault, Megane actual weight 1430kgs 190bhp per/ton RS 1496kgs 189bhp/ton. The recorded times from Milbrook showed this RS 0-60 6secs Megane 6.1secsRS0-100 14.5secs Megane 14.6secs RS 1/4 miles [email protected] Megane 14.6secs 100.1mph, though they were just outgunned by the Leon 0-60 6.1secs, 0-100 14secs 1/4mile [email protected].

I don't think flat out there would be much differance against the clock, its the lower end fatter torque thats felt in the car that makes it feel quicker.

Oh and of course Fiat have been clever with they way they have sold the kit as it means that as an add on it didn't have to go through type approval as all new car do and therefore probably incur higher taxation fees from the inevitable higher emissions from running more boost/fuel. Type approval is a costly business.

Also EVO mag interviewed the chassis development engineer who has done the suspension on the GP/500 Abarths as well as most other Fiat/Alfa's for many many years, but interestingly he said he didn't do the work on the SS car and was not impressed by it. A testament echoed by others I know who have driven it, even more over sprung and underdampered, it really needs to be softer springs and firmer faster reacting dampers.
 
Last edited:
i have test driven both and the essesse has a very different character - much more focussed and exciting to drive, but not as relaxed if that makes sense

when i was looking at buying it was either the full fat, sugar and caffeine loaded essesse or nothing as i always like to have the top model (y)
 
yea thats interesting stuff j333evo :)

im definitely going to get a remap when warranty expires, nothing ott - just to the ss level, as this must have been proven to be a safe power output for the vehicle (although im sure i read somewhere that the transmission is up close to or beyond its rated limits with the ss torque?)

has the other benefit that it will make owning what will then be a 3 year old car something to look forward to!
 
Last edited:
Could be how it's driven, you may give it a harder life.
Either way, at least the dealers won't argue when it comes to warranty work, unless they are hypocrites of course. Some dealers have race prepped Abarth 500 Assetto Corse models with their names all over them which they take to racing events etc. If they choose to promote a brand in this way then that's fine, i just hope they realise the image it's portraying. A bit ironic if you watched them nail it around a track all day then you took your car in and they refused to replace a part because they thought the car had been thrashed!
 
yes but trouble is that the abarth isnt really a track car is it, despite what fiat would tell us.

i wouldnt reckon on mine lasting long without major mechanical issues if i genuinely thrashed the thing regularly at track days!
 
Back
Top