General Euro 5 vs Euro 6

[AB100]

Bearing in mind my recent 'test drive' of a Euro 6 1.2 319 model and comparing directly to our Euro 5 1.2 169 model, has anyone else noticed an obvious difference in power/torque delivery between Euro 5 and 6?


The official figures suggest the same power/torque/revs but on the road there's a clear difference.

 

[aussiepanda]

I seem to remember there was a discussion about this a few months back where the consensus was that the new one a poor cousin indeed.

 

[jrkitching]

I seem to remember there was a discussion about this a few months back where the consensus was that the new one a poor cousin indeed.

:yeahthat:

And IMO the Euro5 169 is itself a poor cousin to the Euro4 169, possibly the best iteration of the 1.2 FIRE ever produced and mercifully lacking the added complexity and cambelt replacement implications of the VVT engine.

David Bliss posted some rolling road results which clearly show the Euro4 engine produces both more torque and more power below 4000rpm, which is where you'll likely be operating 99% of the time.

From several years real world experience, the Euro4 1.2 169 has a small but definite drivability advantage over the Euro5 1.2 500.

 

[aussiepanda]

So I'm NOT old and grumpy, the world HAS gone backwards since 1980

 

[jrkitching]

So I'm NOT old and grumpy, the world HAS gone backwards since 1980

We've certainly passed the point when the latest version of something is not necessarily as good as the version it replaced.

I'm sure folks can think of plenty of real-world examples; vacuum cleaners, path weedkiller & paint stripper being my current gripes .

Common factors would appear to include a relentless drive to add cheapness, the relentless tightening of health, safety and environmental regulations, and the relentless implementation of a never-ending stream of EU directives.

 

[AAB1992]

I have to say the 2 euro 6 1.2 8v's i've driven have all been better than the euro 5 1.2 's i've owned and test driven. The Euro 6 ones are almost on par with the old euro 4 panda 1.2 8v's, one of which i've owned for 7 years. Granted the power now sits further up the rev range but, I find the euro 6 engines quite sprightly.

 

[AB100]

I have to say the 2 euro 6 1.2 8v's i've driven have all been better than the euro 5 1.2 's i've owned and test driven. The Euro 6 ones are almost on par with the old euro 4 panda 1.2 8v's, one of which i've owned for 7 years. Granted the power now sits further up the rev range but, I find the euro 6 engines quite sprightly.

I wasn't imagining it then.


Don't get me wrong, I was sceptical about the Euro 6. How could a strangled 35 year old engine be better right?


It's not like we're short of hills in Derbyshire but the ones in South-East Spain are way bigger. The torque delivery was much better in the Euro 6 than the two 2011 1.2s I have access to - specially for a lazy dog like me who doesn't like to swap cogs often. Mind you, it didn't seem to like revs at the higher end unlike our Euro 5.


The indicated combined consumption (45mpg) was all the more surprising considering the very fast cruising we did on the empty AP7 etc as well as all the hills. A 950 mile trip gives a good spread.


So, apart from the woeful interior, bland looks and lack of decent colours, I wouldn't be dismissing the Euro 6 at all..............unless our hire car was somehow specially tuned.

 

[aussiepanda]

.unless our hire car was somehow specially tuned.

You probably had the special limited edition 1.6l hire car version

 

[Alexiloki]

You probably had the special limited edition 1.6l hire car version

Fastest car in the world is a hire car after all

 

[aussiepanda]

Fastest car in the world is a hire car after all

Hardest driven anyway

 

[AB100]

Well, 11 months later and another week in Southern Spain with the latest model Panda.

After driving hard for 1000+ miles in the week, what do we know?

1. It averaged 15.2km/L which is about 43 mpg. Better than our 169 Euro5 driven more gently.

2. It's still not pretty but the interior now looks better, though all black seats would be preferred.

3. As we noticed last year, it rides much better than the 169. Decent handling with not too much roll.

4. The power/torque delivery is way better than the 169 - I'd seriously consider the 1.2 if it drives like that over here. Torque is so much better.



5. Didn't try the u-connect but used the USB to charge the phone (which was used as satnav or timelapse-cam). The charging current must be tiny as it could barely charge with the nav on.


6. Dark colours show the muck much more easily - we all knew that.


7. What's this boot tray all about? I liked that feature.

 

[captpicard]

i had a euro 5 and 6 fiat 500, definitely a notable with that engine - for the worse.


no pull, issues with moving if parked on a hill .it was just horrible and fiat denied any issues , even reported on watchdog at the time .


SO bad I traded a one year old car in for a 500 abarth,

 

[AB100]

i had a euro 5 and 6 fiat 500, definitely a notable with that engine - for the worse.


no pull, issues with moving if parked on a hill .it was just horrible and fiat denied any issues , even reported on watchdog at the time .


SO bad I traded a one year old car in for a 500 abarth,

Indeed, that was a grim time and I think many folks still have concerns about the Euro6. But from these last two hire cars, the Euro6 is a much better drive than the Euro 5. Goodness knows how they've pulled it off.

 

[murphyv310]

Hi.
Mine is one of the early euro 6 1.2's. Initially I thought it ok on the test drive. As I got to live with it I felt it was a bit weak feeling as if there was insufficient fuel, I really thought about a remap. Then it kind of dawned on me that the last service stamp was just that with no work done. So an oil and both engine filters service was done, I got my local auto shop to get me Denso iridium plugs of the correct heat range and since then after a couple of Italian tune ups she now flies!! Two months ago I could hardly get her up my drive up ramps.
Not only is she quicker but the fuel consumption is better.

 

[The Panda Nut]

I wasn't imagining it then.


Don't get me wrong, I was sceptical about the Euro 6. How could a strangled 35 year old engine be better right?


It's not like we're short of hills in Derbyshire but the ones in South-East Spain are way bigger. The torque delivery was much better in the Euro 6 than the two 2011 1.2s I have access to - specially for a lazy dog like me who doesn't like to swap cogs often. Mind you, it didn't seem to like revs at the higher end unlike our Euro 5.


The indicated combined consumption (45mpg) was all the more surprising considering the very fast cruising we did on the empty AP7 etc as well as all the hills. A 950 mile trip gives a good spread.


So, apart from the woeful interior, bland looks and lack of decent colours, I wouldn't be dismissing the Euro 6 at all..............unless our hire car was somehow specially tuned.

t wouldn't be so bad if this Euro x crap actually achieved anything. As it is, its clear that 100% of the car industry has been sticking purchase cost, higher service costs, unreliability of unnecessary and by passed emissions equipment, unnecessary complexity and a whole load of totally useless computerised components, and guff that garages don't understand.... And yes I am a grumpy old man. I would dearly like to take all this **** and stick it where the inventing perpetrators would find it as annoying as I do, on every occasion they try sitting down!

 

[Super Uwe]

Well, 11 months later and another week in Southern Spain with the latest model Panda.

After driving hard for 1000+ miles in the week, what do we know?

1. It averaged 15.2km/L which is about 43 mpg. Better than our 169 Euro5 driven more gently.

2. It's still not pretty but the interior now looks better, though all black seats would be preferred.

3. As we noticed last year, it rides much better than the 169. Decent handling with not too much roll.

4. The power/torque delivery is way better than the 169 - I'd seriously consider the 1.2 if it drives like that over here. Torque is so much better.



5. Didn't try the u-connect but used the USB to charge the phone (which was used as satnav or timelapse-cam). The charging current must be tiny as it could barely charge with the nav on.


6. Dark colours show the muck much more easily - we all knew that.


7. What's this boot tray all about? I liked that feature.

Glad you liked it!

The cargo box is an optional extra for the Panda, we had one in our old 12 plate. Don't know how much it costs now but back then it was a £50 option.

With the folding front passenger seat it helped to create an almost flat payload stretching over 2 metres from the back of the boot to the glovebox. Very handy on the few occasions I needed it.

Only downside is it does take up a fair bit of the boot depth, depends what you need it for really.

 

[WoollyPanda]

A £50 option at the time of purchase. I bought mine after, it cost £109! I used it for a while, but over time I decided it took up too much space. So its now sitting in my garage!

Open to sensible offers...

 

[murphyv310]

A £50 option at the time of purchase. I bought mine after, it cost £109! I used it for a while, but over time I decided it took up too much space. So its now sitting in my garage!

Open to sensible offers...

£40 plus I'll pay the post?