2.4 20v stilo

[Cynic-al]

Lets face it, a 2.4 5cyl engine in a 3 door hatch is a huge! engine, so why is the 0-60 time so much slower than the 2.0 20v bravo? Is the car really that much heavier? Is it geared so that it is quick on motorway pickup and designed more as a cruiser?

I just don't get how they can go up 400cc and lose a second on 0-60?

It's just wrong! Anyone any ideas?

 

[147]

stilo abarth...

The thing is with the stilo is that its a direct marketing tool rather then something sporty that was supose to replace the bravo.

that said, it was a big flop for fiat coz it wasnt that good, or it just didnt give enough against other cars like the golf or 307 or the megane.

however you cant really blame fiat. i mean what other car today really gives you a strong sporty feeling at a fair price? well....none actually.

i think thats why the stilo abarth didnt do as well as expected, its bigger, more refined , not really giving you anything but some design features.

today the bravo HGT is probably one of the last remaining GT cars that made you feel special and jam the thruttle every single time to hear the engine sing to you...

aside from a few alfa romeos, can you find anything like it today?? not really...

 

[Roberto]

Re: stilo abarth...

The 2.4 lump is an evolution of the previous 5 pot lump used in the HGT but the Stilo was designed to conform to & exceed European emission standards so therefore to make the engine conform there was limited options. They increased the engine size to 2.4 and balanced the tune to give 170bhp (15bhp more) and still conform to emission levels.

Sadly this made for a lacklustre vehicle and the engine, although retaining that 5 pot ring, was nowhere near what it could have been.

I'm sure if a pro tune company got their hands on it, they could get some pretty cool figures out of it, but as you say, it is a heavy lump too, which doesn't help.

When you see the likes of Honda and Mitsubishi squeezing ridiculous power out of 2.0 engines, it makes you wonder what potential lies within that FIAT engine.

Oh how I long for the day FIAT produce a real performer in the style of the X1/9 or Uno Turbo or indeed the Coupe Turbo. But with finances the way they are, they seem to be concentrating on models that will sell well and steady the boat.

Rob


"There are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't"

 

[AlfaNige]

Re: stilo abarth...

We have been transofrming the Stilo's for quite a while now. That 2.4 is not as bad as you think, however the thing that slows it down considerably is the selespeed transmission. The gear change is so slow it adds easily a second to the 0-60.
With a remap and CDA we are adding over 20bhp to this car and with the addition of Eibach lowever springs the handling is transformed too. One thing we have noticed on nearly all the 2.4 Stilo's is that the overall tracking of the car is not right (this is why so many have irregularily worn tyres). Once we do the above and laser align the whole vehicle it is a completely different car and is easily a match - in fact dare I say better than the HGT.
However you are right about the performance against some of the other cars you can buy, but it was never meant to compete with the likes of Honda. I can't understand why anyone would only want their ugly granny mobile type Rse to actually move when the rev counter is over 7,000rpm and screaming at them - only a child or someone with low IQ would get a thrill from that.
When the Stilo came out I was very critical of it and the early ones were a bit a shoddy, however the build quality has improved and the three door has now matured into a good looking car (I wont comment on the 5 door !).
Here are some stats on the Stilo Abarth, 3 door with selespeed (traction control on)





RUN 1 (PRE TUNING)









mph
s
g
ft



10
0.95
0.46
7



20
1.81
0.42
26



30
2.92
0.38
67



40
4.54
0.28
150



50
6.20
0.25
259



60
8.41
0.21
440









RUN 2 (POST TUNING)









mph
s
g
ft



10
0.92
0.45
6



20
1.75
0.57
24



30
2.71
0.37
60



40
4.20
0.37
137



50
5.70
0.28
236



60
7.74
0.15
403

 

[ryan]

Re: stilo abarth...

hmmm quicker than a bravo hgt-nige remapped any of the stilo gts with the manual box? if u could knock a second off 0-60 then we would be talking 6.4 secs mmmmm

 

[ryan]

Re: stilo abarth...

sorry 6.74 sec to 60

 

[briang]

have to disagree

Sorry 147, but am taking delevery of a Skoda Ovtavia Vrs next week, first non Fiat in many many years, now there is value for money. I am getting the estate which does the 60 sprint in 7.9 in standard form but intend to get it chipped up to 220bhp for £500 by a place called Star tuning in Fife. If Fiat had made a decent replacement for my Marea weekend they would have had my custom, Sadly im now a defector.
Still wife has a Punto so still showing some loyalty

cheers

Briang

 

[AlfaNige]

Re: have to disagree

Feck mine we aint charging enough for the Octavia VRS then....!!!
They go really well those Skoda's and its a cracking looking car too. You will love it. They seems to suffer from MAF problems though when tuned, if it goes really well when cold then **** when hot, change the MAF, we had one like that.
I have convinced my old man to buy a Fabia VRS too.... 180BHP and its as quick as the Octavia we do - if it could get traction lol!
We did a Seat Ibiza TDI today 0-60 in 7.2s and thats in the snow (ok it has melted!)

 

[briang]

sorry to be thick

but what is MAF?

cheers

Briang

 

[Tom]

Re: sorry to be thick

Mass Air Flow, the way it determines how much fuel to add.

Stilo 1.2: 1090kg
Stilo 2.4: 1265kg
Bravo HGT: 1190kg
Bravo 1.2: 1010kg

Its not exactly a light car.

Not got a weight for the VRS though.

 

[AlfaNige]

Re: sorry to be thick

Where did you get yout those figures and what the hell do they refer to?
Air flow demand goes up and down with the RPM as you will obviously know, but they seem extremely high, but then I always read in V rather than actual air mass.
Nige

 

[Tom]

Re: sorry to be thick

Kerb weights, car fully fueled but no-one in it.

Nothing to do with MAF

 

[Nigel]

Re: sorry to be thick

Think Tom was just pointing out how heavy the Stilo is, not relating to the MAF question.

And the octavia vrs weighs in at 1375 kg

 

[AlfaNige]

Re: sorry to be thick

PMSL, I see now, no wonder I didnt have a clue what those figures related to!!