Just wondering what people think of the FIRE engine. Good or bad. One of the best engines ever made, or one of the worst. I think these are some of the best engines made, especially the non contact versions 
General peoples views on the FIRE engine.
- Thread starter christopher watson
- Start date
Currently reading:
General peoples views on the FIRE engine.
Well I don't own a Panda, but my Punto's one is awesome, no problems at all. It gets two thumbs up from me
I've had nearly a dozen cars with FIRE engines of all sizes from 769cc up to 1242 16v. I love them. If you maintain them properly they will never ever let you down.
I read a post by Barry along the lines of "Fiat should do the decent thing and drop the FIRE engines" and I couldn't disagree more. Fortunately we all know that Barry is a pushrod fanatic so his opinion is hardly valid.
My recent experience of a 903cc pushrod Panda convinced me never again to stray from a FIRE engined Panda.
I read a post by Barry along the lines of "Fiat should do the decent thing and drop the FIRE engines" and I couldn't disagree more. Fortunately we all know that Barry is a pushrod fanatic so his opinion is hardly valid.
My recent experience of a 903cc pushrod Panda convinced me never again to stray from a FIRE engined Panda.
Steve do you mean this quote form Barry... "About time Fiat did the decent thing and retired the old FIRE unit, its pre-historic now and the cars deserve better IMHO". Personally i think all fiat need in they small cars these days, are the FIRE unit, and the Multijet diesel.
the 8v fire is a master piece, lost count of how many on here would be dead now if it wasnt for the safe bit
noTony M said:
refering to how many dead fiats there would be if timing belt brakage bent valves
I'm no expert but the 999cc in my Panda had proven a gem. The only thing to go wrong to date (touch wood) had been a rocker cover gasket in need of replacement and the alternator developing a rattle. Seeing as the alternator isn't critical to the engine's design, it's hardly worth mentioning.
The fuel economy has been superb, I've broken 50mpg several times and it rarely dwindles below 35-40 apart from when its legs are really being stretched. And, thanks to it's satisfying note, stretching its legs is no ordeal. The torquey nature of the engine also makes it more flexible than a plant designed for high-end power. 40-60 in 4th is dispatched with surprising ease, although the Panda's lacking kerbweight no doubt helps a lot.
It's squared up to every challenge and taken it on with ease, the only argument for an update could be it's slightly unrefined nature compared to other super silent petrols.
The fuel economy has been superb, I've broken 50mpg several times and it rarely dwindles below 35-40 apart from when its legs are really being stretched. And, thanks to it's satisfying note, stretching its legs is no ordeal. The torquey nature of the engine also makes it more flexible than a plant designed for high-end power. 40-60 in 4th is dispatched with surprising ease, although the Panda's lacking kerbweight no doubt helps a lot.
It's squared up to every challenge and taken it on with ease, the only argument for an update could be it's slightly unrefined nature compared to other super silent petrols.
The FIRE is a great engine, bottom end is virtually bombproof, relatively high specific power output, torquey in the mid-range yet happy revving to the red line. A worthy successor to the classic SOHC. Only weak point seems to be head gasket
Only weak point seems to be head gasket
I can’t comment on the fire engine yet as this is my first and was bought broke! There is a 3x1 inch tear in the sump and the fuel filler pipe has been cut, does any one have a spare?
It is aesthetically pleasing compared to the old 903.... Damon
It is aesthetically pleasing compared to the old 903.... Damon
Brilliant! Brilliant! Brilliant!
Not once in 9 years have I had a FIRE engine break down because something in it broke. ok, yes some dodgy carbs butThey are quite capable of 200,000 miles. They were way ahead of their time when they were introduced and are still up to todays standards IMHO
Not once in 9 years have I had a FIRE engine break down because something in it broke. ok, yes some dodgy carbs butThey are quite capable of 200,000 miles. They were way ahead of their time when they were introduced and are still up to todays standards IMHO
I've had two 1.0 FIRE engined Uno's, and asides from the ancillaries (starter motor, alternator, distributor etc. which don't count as they aren't part of the engine design) I've never, ever been let down by engine failure in over 50,000 miles of driving.
Considering the FIRE concept is nearly 21 years old, it is still a revolutionary design. It's compact, light (especially considering the block is cast iron), torquey and very strong. It also used something like 20-30% LESS parts than the old pushrod engine. Less things to move = less weight = less things to go wrong = better efficiency.
On a run I've achieved 60 mpg, and round town never less than 40mpg. It's mid range torque is suprisingly strong and it has no problems with keeping up with modern day traffic.
In 8v guise, it isn't the most revvy of engines but that appears to be more down to the valves being restrictive. 16v and MPI versions rev better as the head flows more due to bigger valves.
It is a bit raucous at higher revs, but nothing like some of the engines that were around when it was released! Compare it with the BMC 'A' series engine and the Ford Crossflow and CVH and it is light years ahead.
Someone mentioned a weak point of the headgasket, but I've never suffered a failure (famous last words!) Like a lot of cars, failure is more likely down to the fact that the cooling system is never serviced. The coolant loses its anti corrosion properties over time, and the remaining coolant then does a good job of eating away the headgasket leading to failure. Flush through and change the coolant every couple of years and the headgasket should give hardly any trouble.
Saying that, the headgasket appears to be a weak spot on Cinquecentos and Puntos. I'm sure I read somewhere that it was down to lower torque settings used by the factory for some reason. Maybe if they were tightened down to the orginal torque there would be less of a problem?
The FIRE is getting a bit old now, but it still holds its own and is still a great engine. Don't forget that the MPI and 16v versions bring it up to date! I wonder if I could fit one of those into my Uno? :chin:
Considering the FIRE concept is nearly 21 years old, it is still a revolutionary design. It's compact, light (especially considering the block is cast iron), torquey and very strong. It also used something like 20-30% LESS parts than the old pushrod engine. Less things to move = less weight = less things to go wrong = better efficiency.
On a run I've achieved 60 mpg, and round town never less than 40mpg. It's mid range torque is suprisingly strong and it has no problems with keeping up with modern day traffic.
In 8v guise, it isn't the most revvy of engines but that appears to be more down to the valves being restrictive. 16v and MPI versions rev better as the head flows more due to bigger valves.
It is a bit raucous at higher revs, but nothing like some of the engines that were around when it was released! Compare it with the BMC 'A' series engine and the Ford Crossflow and CVH and it is light years ahead.
Someone mentioned a weak point of the headgasket, but I've never suffered a failure (famous last words!) Like a lot of cars, failure is more likely down to the fact that the cooling system is never serviced. The coolant loses its anti corrosion properties over time, and the remaining coolant then does a good job of eating away the headgasket leading to failure. Flush through and change the coolant every couple of years and the headgasket should give hardly any trouble.
Saying that, the headgasket appears to be a weak spot on Cinquecentos and Puntos. I'm sure I read somewhere that it was down to lower torque settings used by the factory for some reason. Maybe if they were tightened down to the orginal torque there would be less of a problem?
The FIRE is getting a bit old now, but it still holds its own and is still a great engine. Don't forget that the MPI and 16v versions bring it up to date! I wonder if I could fit one of those into my Uno? :chin:
The FIRE engine was meant to replace all engines fitted to GM cars up to 1400cc before the break up.
The new 1368 engines are so good that no mechanic I know of has seen one inside.
The new 1368 engines are so good that no mechanic I know of has seen one inside.
Its a good engine no doubt, I loved it in the Cinq and Seicentos. However, wasnt too keen on the 1242 lump in puntos and the new Panda, it seemed a bit lifeless. The one we had in our old Panda 1000CL was rough as nails even though it had done only 26000 miles, maybe town driven. I find if they have been driven hard they seem sweet, but when driven slowly they seem to give trouble! Saw the new 1.4 in a Punto and it looks quite different. I was very impressed with it in the Grande I drove, much better than the 1242 8v.
pandafan said:
Hi Pandafan
Thanks for the offer, but it is an omega rear axle.
I think I can patch it temporarily with a bit of pipe and a couple of jubilee clips.
It’s the sump that is my main priority at the moment, getting fed up of pushing the car in and out of the garage (it’s a bit of a tight fit).
Cheers Damon
smokeme
Established member
Oldschool said:
I agree on that, i had a real hard time getting my hands on one (found one in a wreck)
i do think they could be squeezed a little more, at least get 100hp stock
