Seamaster said:

Bottom line and end of story.

Click to expand...

Yes but FIAT engines used in Panda do not appear as good as rivals who also have to meet the same standards.

AndyRKett said:

I’m not sure that’s right right, believe the average for all cars made by A manufacturer needs to be something like 95g/Km which is pretty hard to meet if you don’t make any electric or hybrid cars. Therefore fiat has been signing multi billion dollar deals with people like Tesla who have a 0g/km level of co2 so can sell some of there allowance off to other companies like fiat.

Fiat make small cars but with alfa, Maserati, Jeep, Chrysler etc, as a company that makes cars they probably make many more high polluting cars than they do small little green cars. So are they expecting Fiat to prop up the rest of the company? Obviously they are finally introducing electric and hybrid models which might help but right now it’s not going to massively improve CO2 Averages ?

Now they’ve merged it’s even more complicated taking all the French models into account.

Ido agree the fire engine should have been killed off long ago, but like everything with fiat they just keep flogging the horse until it’s completely dead by which time they’ve damaged their own reputation

Click to expand...

From what I've read they are allowed higher emissions when the avarage weight of the fleet is heavier


And fiat because of there mainly smaller light weight cars actually has a lower targeive read 92g/km for fiat and 103g/km for BMW but not too sure on those figure's
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fl...missions-cut-gives-new-hope-in-avoiding-fines





KEY ELEMENTS OF THE REGULATIONS
For the regulation on passenger cars:
» A target value of 95 g/km of CO2 for 2020 for the new car fleet is set. However,
there is a one-year phase-in period, requiring 95 percent of new car sales to
comply with the target in 2020 and 100 percent from the end of 2020 onwards.
Effectively, the 95 g/km target therefore applies from 2021 on.
» Vehicle weight is retained as the underlying utility parameter, i.e., the heavier
a manufacturer’s car fleet, the higher the CO2 emission value allowed by the
regulation. The factor used is 0.0333, meaning that for every 100 kg additional
1 The Council of the European Union is made up of the governments of the EU member states.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAHegQIDBAD&usg=AOvVaw1wDnQVVMyYUKaZvoNOdeW4

AndyRKett said:

The Vw scandal wasn’t about CO2 it was all about NOX emissions on euro v engines. The engines could not meet (at the time) NOX requirements so they cheated.

Click to expand...

Yes but it was found that the standards were barely fit for purpose as real world testing showed figures 20x the lab figures. That is a much bigger scandal, especially when it is found that local air quality measures have not improved despite billions spent on new engine technology.

Not to forget the reason for the big shift to diesels from regulators was... CO2. Despite the fact they are worse for particulates and apparently NOx. If the regulation is just a number in a spread sheet and manufacturers are told by diktat to reduce that number with each generation then it is not surprising that some will cheat or game the system.

Record grain harvests reported while all around people starve..

You're right about the issue with VW being NOx, which started life in the US under the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) rules. Trouble is, those setting the NOx limits didn't talk properly to the engineers and set ridiculously low, almost unattainable limits for NOx. At this low level, the engine would need almost as much urea-content (AdBlue basically) as it did diesel, which would cost an absolute fortune and result in a car that didn't drive very nicely. So the only way was to code around the testing rules, unsurprisingly. We are seeing potentially the same dangerous issues in the EU - we are driving technology by legislation as far as CO2 emissions are concerned, but the resulting technology isn't necessarily better overall for the environment. A much bigger discussion of course, but it's always risky to use Laws to drive behaviour - you don't always quite get the result that you expected (ask Gordon Brown about the push for diesels 20 years ago .....).

Look how many people bought IshyWishy Outlanders when they appeared - one of the first PHEVs released to market - as they attracted so much less BIK taxation. Yet figures suggest that less than 5% of people ever plugged them in, so all the owners did was drag 300+kg of unnecessary and CO2-producing weight around the country with them. But WLTP tests would show they make nearly no CO2's..... makes me very cross

I agree 100% on the Outlander scandal. They couldn't give them away until the financial incentives for owning a PHEV made them a very attractive proposition, and there were some amazingly cheap leasing deals available on them. But their electric range and performance was poor, even by the pathetic standards of Fiat's new effort, so in reality their CO2 output was appallingly high! (Which didn't stop one Outlander owner I know from being very smug about owning a green hybrid!)

Dear everyone!

First time poster, been here on the Fiat Forum in read-only mode for a while, however being an engineer I believe this is the first post where I could contribute. The link provided by chris3234 is full of great information, I'd recommend that article for anyone interested in details. What I'd like to add is there've been a VERY similar engine on the market for a while. The Toyota-Daihatsu KR-engine (default engine for the Aygo) has been produced for more than 15 years (so to answer the philosophical question: Fiat has been 10-20 years late with replacing the old F.I.R.E. units) and is virtually identical to the entry-level 70hp Firefly:
-same materials
-chain driven VVT
-indirect multi-point injection, naturally aspirated
-almost identical bore:stroke (70x86.5 on the GSE, 71x84 on the KR, so the Toyota is a tiny bit more square)
-both optimised for short trips & quick warm up (small oil & coolant capacity and both are open deck)
-even their torque curves are lookalikes (note: the KR's double torque peak is not a mistake, it's real since the 2018 update which they achieved with some weird intake manifold geometry, but the rest is hard to distinguish from that of the Fiat):



The list could go on with weight, auxiliaries, dimensions, etc.. The only real differences I could find is that the GSE is SOHC and has only 2 valves/cyl. when equipped with the cylinder head of the lower power versions like on the Panda. So even more basic than the Toyota Aygo's engine.
Of course I'm not suggesting that Fiat was a copycat, though similar requirements bore similar results. The Toyota KR was intended for poor Asian and Eastern countries (even the new COTY Yaris has the 1.0 3cyl engine in some markets), while the smallest GSE was not just designed in Brazil, but for Brazil and other emerging markets where low maintenance costs and longevity are key. It would be unrealistic to envision worse reliability as compared to the old 1.2 F.I.R.E. - in fact the new one should be better in every way. The modernity lies in manufacturing techniques (probably some friction-reducing coatings, weight-saving plastic, etc.), but in terms of specifications these engines are very old-school. Still, no one can guarantee that it won't have some typical sensor issues or some cheap connector won't break on a regular basis, but on paper the 70 hp Firefly should be just as bulletproof as the KR, which achieved almost legendary status. It lacks the MultiAir unit, turbocharger and direct injection of the more powerful versions, so rest assured my conservative friends, emission testing had minimal impact here (when they want to, they will just stick a GPF on it to comply).

"he old 1.2 F.I.R.E. - in fact the new one should be better in every way."

Except performance where it seems to be worse in every way, or at least that is what the torque curve suggests.

The Torque is terrible on the new 3 cylinder Firefly, it's 92 Nm, ±68 ft-lb.
The old 1242cc FIRE engine has 102-107 Nm, ±75-±79 ft-lb.
The TwinAir Turbo 145 Nm, ±107 ft-lb.

Outlier said:

"he old 1.2 F.I.R.E. - in fact the new one should be better in every way."

Except performance where it seems to be worse in every way, or at least that is what the torque curve suggests.

Click to expand...

Remember its Fiat giving the figures and they seem to say whatever comes into their head. I wonder what this engine really produces. I feel a test drive coming in the nearish future... hopefully..... with luck!

Its notable that power outputs seem to be left off a lot of details in car adverts these days. Maybe this is all part of the next big automotive deception scheme?

It is not just car adverts, most reviews focus on the infotainment system and the amount of CO2 supposedly produced. Cars are marketed and sold more like white goods these days.

The Panda Nut said:

Remember its Fiat giving the figures and they seem to say whatever comes into their head. I wonder what this engine really produces. I feel a test drive coming in the nearish future... hopefully..... with luck!

Its notable that power outputs seem to be left off a lot of details in car adverts these days. Maybe this is all part of the next big automotive deception scheme?

Click to expand...

Did the test drive happen ?

varesecrazy said:

Did the test drive happen ?

Click to expand...

I shall be combining with my next service before 3rd June. I must book that now.

Yep. Drove the hybrid today. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Im not sure about this. Basically a nice smooth 3 cylinder engine, but a lot of what felt like hunting going on. Apparently its when hovering around the point where the electric power does something. I actually didn't like it for this reason. The salesman said it takes a bit to get used to it and I accept this. It was showing 53.2mpg average at the start of my drive and 53.9mpg at the end so the economy is up a bit on the 1.2 engine which hovers just under 50 in similar use. Not enough however to offset the odd hunting nature of the power delivery, at least for me.

Power was adequate but limp after driving the twinair. Probably similar to the 1.2 in reality.

I personally couldn't recommend this engine apart from town use where it would be more economical than the current 1.2 . I would definitely rather have the 1.2 and make a bit more effort to get the better economy, whilst avoiding the slightly jerky progress of the hybrid. Also less to go wrong.

Its clear you need to try this engine for a couple of days to become familiar with it and see what get arounds there are for the odd power delivery.

We've just ordered a new Panda (our third) with the 1.0 hybrid. I wanted to try the new engine before ordering, but could only do so via a 500. I found it difficult to pull away smoothly in first gear to begin with, but it didn't take long to get used to. The 1.2 in my wife's current Panda isn't the smoothest for pulling away either. Once on the move, the little three cylinder felt ok to me. Like the 1.2, it benefits from being revved. There were the usual Fiat clunks and thuds, which may or may not have been related to the Hybrid system. The 1.2 (in Euro 6 guise) always felt a bit gutless to me anyway.

I don't do odd numbers......Three cylinders just does not seem right
Luigi

Hi.
Three cylinders in a four stroke are inherently unbalanced no matter what we think.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-three_engine

murphyv310 said:

Hi.
Three cylinders in a four stroke are inherently unbalanced no matter what we think.

Click to expand...

So is a straight 5, V6 etc. What does that actually mean in practice, particularly for a modern engine? I've driven Fiat and VAG three pots and find them quite characterful. This article does a good job of explaining the benefits in plain English:

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/comparison-three-cylinder-engines-test

More info
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/heres-the-problem-with-three-cylinder-engines/

There is a lot of info on 3 pot units.

murphyv310 said:

More info
https://www.carthrottle.com/post/heres-the-problem-with-three-cylinder-engines/

There is a lot of info on 3 pot units.

Click to expand...

Yes, but not all of that info is useful. That article states three-cylinder engines require a balance shaft. That's not the case. Neither the Ford, Fiat nor VW three cylinder engines have balance shafts. Technology allows progress.

Not persuaded by these anti-3 pot sentiments. I had an Ibiza with the VAG 3 pot, and it was an absolute hoot. It revved eagerly, and smoothly, and made a lovely, distinctive noise. Reliable too, in my time with it.

Haven't driven the new Fiat 3 pot engine, so can't comment in that.