Hi I a new to the forum.

My confession is that I have never owned a Fiat.Sorry!

I drive a Peugeot 306 which I love but am thinking of buying a nearly new car. I like the look of the new Vauxhall Astra but having sat in one the interior is definitely style over function.

I love the look of the 3-door Fiat Stilo, but I have my concerns (perhaps unfairly) about the old Fiat problems of build quality, reliability etc.

I do know the motoring press are often biased and misguided in their opinions (I drove a last shape Focus and hated it!) so I am asking you Fiat Stilo owners for help. I believe YOU can be trusted.

I am looking at a petrol model. Is the 1.4 too weak?

Thanks in anticipation.

Have been in a 1.2 Active. Seemed fine for driving so the 1.4 should be fine. Depends on what sort of driving you do. Long distance would suite a bigger engine where town driving is better with smaller engines.

Had read on the forum that 1.4 engines could be trouble but that might have only been on the Bravo/Brava.

Oh and welcome to the forum! So glad you come here with an open mind. If you do buy a fiat prepare to fall in love all over again!

Hellcat said:

Had read on the forum that 1.4 engines could be trouble but that might have only been on the Bravo/Brava.

Click to expand...

That's only the old Bravo/a 1.4 12v engine. The Stilo engine is entirely diffferent and not to be compared to the old engine.

Thanks for correcting me! Worrying that you call it old.. its new tech to my car

There you go, 1.4 is a viable option!

OK the Stilo is a fantastic car, in the early models there were issues with a few faults that repeatedly came up. Since 2003/4 every concern has been remedied, some people seem to have problems with some ignition coils, although this seems to be a certain make of coil. If you go for a post 2003/4 car then I would strongly advise the JTD, it is a fantastic engine, with good economy, cheap insurance and road tax. The 1.4 is a good engine, the 1.6 is very thirsty, the 1.8 is a good engine, and the 2.4 is gorgeous if you can afford the insurance, road tax etc.

If you read the forums, you could make the mistake that there are loads of problems, but if you look carefully the problems are repeated by different members. Also if you look at the number of postings, the more postings usually the fairer the assessment. Sometimes there are people who come on the forum, moan about everything, wait for a response, and then are never seen again, in my opinion, these people are not worth listening to.

Good luck in your quest to become a Stilo owner, and welcome to the forum.

Its not a secret anymore

I was planning to get the JTD ages ago in January, but then.....didnt. It was a nice test drive and seemed to be put together well, with no rattles. Sister's bf has a 1.6 02reg and thats been pretty reliable with only the coil packs going on him.

My experience is of good build quality and reliability. No issues really. Initially had a couple of niggles but its been faultless for the last 2 years now (3 years of ownership). I've clocked up 24000 miles in the last year and without a single issue. Not everyone has been as lucky though. Biggest problem with the Stilo is vertical depreciation, don't expect more than 30% of value after 3 years on anything except maybe a 3 door JTD.

Go for it if you like the car.

from the many 1.4 that we have in the greek stilo club we noticed the following things.

1) At a car magazine we dynoed alot of the cars and found that most of the 1.4 engines completely stock (no fancy air filters or exhausts) pulled about 103 hp average.

2) the 1.4 engine is a pretty economical and good hp engine for its size.

3) racing with 1.6 they are together to almost 3rd gear where only then can you see a difference with the 1.6 going forward

If you want a best value for money go for the 1.4 my opinion? if you dont mind spending the cash go for the 1.8 for more hp and better offensive driving (meaning for lane changes, overtaking) If you just want a nice comfortable car with a small engine that can pull the car good enough and better value for money go for the 1.4

The stilo has a pretty good range; other fings to consider is if going for the JTD the extra enital cost, what sort of miles we you be doing to account for this? Alot of people have the 1.6 on here and its basically slap bang in the middle of the range car for the stilo i fink about insurance group 5-6? But i have heard a few people with these gettin low mpg out of them and they only have 103hp which is quite good? But like sed you wnt tell much performance difference between the 1.4/1.6 unless you are on a long straight! It just depends what you are use to and what you are looking for? I have a 1.8, its insurance group 6-7, relatively cheap to insure i average around 35mpg and it has 133hp! For tuning capabilty the JTD is the best being capable of reaching 170hp from the standard 115hp! The flagship of the range is the abarth, which is a lovely car but not for me.. if you like high(ish) insurance premium group 14, and thirsty 2.4litre engine producing 170hp!
Heres is my opinion of the groupings of the stilo range;

cheap initial cost/cheap to run/cheap insurance/basic equipment (basically the bottom end of the range!) would be the 1.2 petrol

the middle of the range, moderate initial cost/moderate running costs/moderate insurance/bit more equpment; thes would be the 1.4/1.6 petrol

Senior of the range, with few more goodie than previous models,etc.. would be the 1.8 petrol/1.9 diesel

And the flagship of the range, with not excessive but fairly high insurance and running cost would be the 2.4petrol abarth; with more extra goodie etc...

There are different models/specs with engine sizes with slightly difference bits n bobs! Im just stating as a basic class guide!

I've had a 1.2 for 2 years and i find its perfectly acceptable, i've been used to nippier cars in the past but this has been no bother. So the 1.4 should be marginally quicker. Hopefully the economy is similar. I average over 40mpg, and on a long steady run at the speed limit (well at least not much over) i can get a bawhair off 50mpg.

I don't do a great deal of mileage, approx 9K a year.

I bought a 3 door JTD because TD's are in my opinion so much more fun to drive

Can anyone explain to me the official difference between acceleration and torque?

I find the quick in the pants of a good TD addictive!

Yep, you just can't get over that embarassing engine clatter when you start up in the morning, and the guffing grey smoke coming out the back! Only kidding!

If your not a high milage driver then seriously think what you need in your car....

Lol..You must mean my old tdi Focus, noisy thing that was.

Thing is though my friend has a 1.8 3 door and the onboard computer says 26mpg average.

Mine says 47.7 today.

So, 21mpg more.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but that is an awful lot more, factor in the increased resale as everyone loves diesel now, also I use a lot less of the planets resources just in sheer quantity of fuel.

Now 45mpg on a 1.2 Stilo.

I got approx 40mpg driving a 1.4 new shape Astra

I had to coast down hills and to give ways, change to 4th almost straight away and NEVER go above 65 to do this. 89BHP 1350cc engine by the way.

I drive my JTD in any old way and still always get 46mpg plus.

The floor is now open for the diesel/petrol debate

You are on to a looser there Michael; Stiloboy can get 165mpg out of his 1.2 and he has been known to upset the occassional Enzo-driving racing driver...

Anyway, torque is the ability of the engine to accelerate from a given speed. Hence at low revs a diesel accelerates better, but diesels loose all torque at high revs making lots of noise and unburned fuel the only outcomes.

Like you, I prefer relaxed acceleration; that's why I drive a turbo diesel (Oh, and 57-60mpg out of the A2 TDI might help too...) but some people prefer to rev an engine.

It's all personal choice, hence there is never a 'winner' in the petrol/ diesel debate.

The only solution if you want to experience good fuel economy AND a willing to rev engine is to have 2 cars - one diesel and one petrol.

No doubt somebody will be along soon to disagree.

Diesel generally have higher torque figures (the torque is what accelerates you) however, they suffer from a limited rev range, hence lower power. (as power (Watts) = torque (Nm) x rev (radians/sec)) so top end speed is generally lower. Gearing plays a very important fole here obviously. Diesels normally have a lower gearing ratio to have a decent top speed without screaming the engine (another reason why better fuel economy). Hence have a lower acceleration in the low gears compared to petrols of equal engine size.

If diesels had the same ratio GB then they would accelerate much quicker, but also run out of speed much quicker too, making gear changes earlier.


So in talking about the diesel engine debate, you also have to consider the Gearbox ratios aswell.

Stilo_ste said:

Diesels normally have a lower gearing ratio to have a decent top speed without screaming the engine (another reason why better fuel economy).

Click to expand...

It's higher gearing, but your description is correct

timr69 said:

The only solution if you want to experience good fuel economy AND a willing to rev engine is to have 2 cars - one diesel and one petrol..

Click to expand...

Now that's an idea

Higher gearing - lower gearing?? not sure which way round it would be.

But to avoid any possible confusion I meant lower revs for same speed.


Cheers

Just checked out the combined mpg on a JTD and a 1.2 3 door and 5 door

53 on the JTD 3 door (which I have)
43 on 3 door 1.2 and 44 on 5 door

Sourcearkers website

I'm being a bit cheeky here but I know that unless you drive everywhere like a puff these figures are exceptionally hard to attain.

So 10 secs 0-60 and 53mpg
or 13 - 13.4 0-60and 43/44mpg

Hmm, tricky choice isn't it?

No doubt the old clatter/smoke thing will be used against me!

Which is not even true with modern common rail diesels but there you go...