(T) Arguments for and against the TwinAir

I've always preferred the notion of the 1.2 petrol. Sure, it's slow and old but it's reliable and easy to keep right. Now, I'm opting for a 1.2 Easy but my backup is a more expensive 0.9 TwinAir... The engine is the only reason I'm avoiding it.

But just so I can decide with the facts (and opinions of you owners), I wanted to post my list of pros and cons, and if you can correct or educate me on it and potentially change my mind, I'm open to that too..

1.2 FIRE
Pros
- Reliable
- Easy to maintain
- Smooth
- Quieter
- Four cylinders
- Still produced (sign of superiority?)

Cons
- Old
- Slower
- Has a flat spot
- Less powerful (69hp)


TwinAir Engine
Pros
- Faster
- Newer technology
- Sounds great

Cons
- Always being hammered
- Noisy!
- Worse fuel consumption
- Discontinued
- Can't hack cruising at 70mph as well (?)
- More complex to fix with its turbo system
- Reduced longevity of less cylinders / more power throughput


Am I about right or missing something here?

Twinair is definitely worse fuel consumption and definitely noisy. I really wanted to like it, but I couldn't find its redeeming features at all.

That's the reason I no longer drive a Panda.

I'd stick with what you know and like. That's what I did with my Multijet Mito and I'm really glad I did.

1.2 super quiet and very reliable. And super economical. I wouldn't have another as nowhere near fast or fun enough. In comparison, the Twin Air goes like a stabbed rat. Economy awful. Though I don't care. It is quiet at 70 though. Lane changes a doddle.

Both engines will be Discontinued soon.

I've just traded my 1.2 in for a twinair. I love it. I love the noise but more than anything the difference in power is so marked. I couldn't go back to a 1.2 now. If you like a bit more oomph the twin air is better but if power isn't your thing a 1.2 is fine.

I wanted a 4x4 so my choice was, err there was no choice, so got a TA. Love it, but only done about 5000

£15 to £20 for a oil filter on the TA soon comes off boost ,gear change indecator totaly wrong.I guess i have had my time with TwinAir...

Is there anything else you dislike about the TA, and what are you likely to replace it with? How many miles, overall have you done with a TA.?
I am asking because I got a 4x4 TA last year and have not done many miles in it. It is unlike any other car I have ever owned, and I actually like it a great deal,BUT am I always going to like it?

Hasd anyone out there done a huge mileage in a TA, without (or indeed "with") any, or many problems?

I have self serviced 3 times over three years 46620 on the clock.Going to change coolant tank because small leak mine is a early 12 reg so has the cooper insert on the turbo coolant feed apart from 3 tyres Toyo T1R on front and a eco on the back.I have transfered owner ship to my daughter who learned to drive in it.Then went on to pass ..She found that 3rd gear was all she needed fof a round town..change to fourth at 30 and pop pop bang pop bang and a dead throttle so back up to 3rd....I have a C4 Cactus Flair 1.2 3 cyclinder pure tec..not the quickest thing but soooo smooth.

@SB1500 if we're just talking about the Twinair engine, @rallycinq had a pretty long lasting 500, and @The Panda Nut knew of a high mile 500 via friend of his daughter. I'd expect the engine to last long enough for most people. It is true that cars better built and more reliable than they've ever been. Though if read "Honest John" as I do, it's easy to think the opposite......

My 4x4 TA has done 73000 miles, is now on its 12th trip to our Italian home. Needed a new battery within weeks and the rear diff had a leak fixed under warranty, coolant header tank replaced last year - no other issues and those are not TA-specific. Much quicker than my wife's 1.2. 42-ish mpg. Uses no oil. Very relaxed at 70mph with sufficient acceleration to clear traffic issues on the motorway/autoroute/autostrada even up long hills with a load of wine and olive oil on board - would do at least 85 all day if there weren't cameras everywhere. Within a gnat's cock as fast from 25-80mph as my previous 100HP. Having written all that I'd still probably prefer a well-sorted four cylinder engine.

TA seems to get quieter, the faster you go. Did a round trip from Suffolk to Heathrow and back today, and cruising at 70+ it was in its element, with plenty in reserve for the odd burst to avoid the idiots around me. It's noticeable how the fuel consumption nosedives above 60.

It transpired that the engine failure at about 125000 miles was caused by a garage (not Fiat) leaving something in the engine that caused it to fail..... A reprieve for my nerves. I am not expecting to keep mine beyond that sort of mileage as things stand and expect it to still be running. I think the three pot engines seem to be the way to go. Its a shame they cant get the economy one might expect. Our Bravo 1.6D still does 53 to the gallon like clockwork for commuting and still easily does 60+ on a run. WHat all the fuss is regarding diesel I do not know they are mfar less damaging overall. I changed the back box last weekend and the inside and tail pipe had no detectable soot at all. You could have used the inside to eat your dinner off. I remain to be convinced that small high output petrol engines generate any less fine particulates and they are unfiltered and consume more fuel. Getting rid of the Bravo when time comes is going to be hard unless it dies!

Agree with a lot of what you say, but the twin air is quite capable of cruising stress free at 90 let alone 70mph. The big con is it does this so easily it would be easy to get done for speeding! The old 500 with its little 675 or thereabouts engine developed a fine reputation for reliability so the twin air should be OK if its serviced. My last one did 18000 miles and the only issue was the clutch master cylinder. I think that was just a one off spring failure so not really relevant. Basically Fiat have been around a long time and they do know how to build a decent engine.

You're certainly wrong on this point.