I think it is valid the 1.4 makes the 1.6 redundant. I drove a 1.6 and found it totally underwhelming. The 1.4, with it's 6-speed close ratio gearbox would be just as perky (if not more so) on the road with this being a relatively new engine (the 1.6 powered the Ark in a previous life).

The only performance statistic these two differ heavily on is the 0-60 run which is down to the 1.6 being able to hit 60 in 2nd (therefore requiring only 1 gearchange) where as the 1.4 does it in 3rd (therefore needing 2 gearchanges) because the gears are shorter. This will make the 1.4 more responsive on the road.

And the 1.4 is much more economical.

The 1.4 16v 6-speed Active Sport 3dr with A/C (always an odd omission on the spec sheet) looks like a mighty fine but as it is only £10K (plus discount) at the moment

What cars has the 1.6 been in?? I know the Bravo for one... Has it had no improvements/mods since its introduction?

Came from the Tipo/ Tempra (and was, I think a stretch of the 1500 used in the Strada and the various Fiats before that), but with it's 16-valve head on the Bravo/ Brava/ Marea etc.

An awful long time...

If I understand correctly, I had that engine in its 8valve and none injection guise back when we had a 91 Tempra 1.6SX.
Its been uprated as times goes on. Made to meet euro2,3,4 specs as when required

Doesnt necessiarly make it bad does it?

The 1,6 in the stilo is an evolution from the 1,6 in the bravo/brava and tipo.
It has longer stroke and reduced bore (increasing volume from 1581cc to 1596cc) plus some oher changes.

Haven't personally had that engine in a car so i can't say if it's good or bad

paulmacs said:

Doesnt necessiarly make it bad does it?

Click to expand...

No.
Just because and engine is derived from an older engine doesn't make it bad.
My first car was a Tipo 2,0 GT.
It had the good old 2,0 twincam engine, which was developed from the 1,6 (i think ) twincam introduced in the 60's.
The biggest problem with old engine designs is the ever increasing emision laws.

It's a well proven engine. I've put nearly 25k on my 1.6 Brava in 1 year 4 months and it hasn't missed a beat. (Now that's tempting fate).

Nothing wrong with an older design, but when it needs adapting for ever-tightening emission regulations and catlysts etc. then it becomes ever-more of a compromise until it is completely strangled. Nowadays, the 1.6 16v engine is quite low on power for the engine size and is certainly down on torque, and with the Stilo being a heavy-beefer of a car the engine is not really as good as it ought to be. This also shows in the economy, the 1.6 Stilo being one of the poorest performers in it's class, and the CO2 emissions (not related to EU4 compliance) being quite high.

The Bravo/a with this engine had much less stringent emission regulations to comply with (and had the benefit of 16-valves over the Tipo/ Tempra) and was very much lighter than the Stilo.

The 1.4 16v, while being smaller, will breathe easier and has been designed for EU4 emissions from day 1 which makes it less of a compromise. I have not driven the 1.4 16v, but I did find the 1.6 16v Stilo to be pretty-much gutless

Not sure if new engines co-designed with General Motors will be on the scene anytime soon, or if these got canned when the two companies split.

To be fair, I have noticed no loss of performance in the 1.6 in my Bravo and the 1.6 in my Stilo...

The Stilo is a litle swifter in my opinion.

I agree that the same engine in different cars can feel different, also the 1.4 Idea only has a 5 speed box.

I think one of the best features on my 1.2, and the 1.4 is the 6 speed box, i find its suitably slick and good fun to row along.