TwinAir or MultiAir(NA)?

[Didge3]

So I'm thinking of returning to the Fiat fold.

I'm looking at Puntos 2012+/Punto Evo. Both are rock bottom prices, my first car being a Grande other than some styling and a new interior I believe they're very similar except now they have some better engines available.
My Grande had the 1.4 8v and it wasn't great... so looking to avoid those and the few 1.2 8v's that seem to be out there...

Multi-Air (105 NA) Punto Evo or a Punto 2012+ TwinAir, those are my favourable options thus far.

I slightly prefer the 2012 facelift Punto design but nobody actually bought them so they're thin on the ground aside from base/low models with the 1.4 8v.

Punto Evo's are fairly easy to get hold of in 105 MultiAir guise.

Anybody have experience with both engines (in any Fiat)? I know the MultiAir is faster but thats not a huge worry for me, plus the 0 tax on the TwinAir is favourable despite the dismal fuel consumption.

 

[Eklipze3k]

I drove a MiTo with the TA105 and my wife has the TA105 in her 500S, in the MiTo it felt horribly underpowered whereas it's fine in the much lighter 500. I'd go 1.4MA personally.

 

[varesecrazy]

The 85 TA.. 6 speed does ok in the punto.

HAVE to agree that 4 cylinders should be more refined..

But would be a class motor after your panda and smart.

Twinair was its own trim spec.

The cruise is why I got mine.

46k from new..

issues..?

2 indicator bulbs were no longer yellow



As you will know proper servicing.. (oil quality.. is CRUCIAL)

Charlie

 

[AndyRKett]

Why not consider the evo sporting with the 130bhp 1.4 multiair ?

My 1.6 multijet evo sporting has 120bhp and 50+ mpg and £30 a year tax so it gets the best of all worlds. Also more reliable than the fragile multi air system.

 

[Didge3]

I drove a MiTo with the TA105 and my wife has the TA105 in her 500S, in the MiTo it felt horribly underpowered whereas it's fine in the much lighter 500. I'd go 1.4MA personally.

I guess it depends on how the TA 105 compares to a MA105, I'd hazard a guess that the TA has more torque but driving characteristics might be quite different.

The 85 TA.. 6 speed does ok in the punto.

HAVE to agree that 4 cylinders should be more refined..

But would be a class motor after your panda and smart.

Twinair was its own trim spec.

The cruise is why I got mine.

MA has me leaning toward it for refinement, TA seems a bit marmite from various reviewers, love the sound/fun of it, hate the lack of refinment/buzziness. I've had a lot of cars since the Panda so not exactly fresh out of that, my Saab was super refined but also a big petrol guzzler!
Not all of them have cruise control but a lot do, its something I've always wanted and haven't had in my last 7 cars.

Why not consider the evo sporting with the 130bhp 1.4 multiair ?

My 1.6 multijet evo sporting has 120bhp and 50+ mpg and £30 a year tax so it gets the best of all worlds. Also more reliable than the fragile multi air system.

The only Evo Sporting that's in my budget is a MA135 and its half way up the country. I hadn't found much on reliability on either the MA or TA, given they've both been around long enough. Searching for TA basically anywhere just lands you with complaints from people getting 30MPG
I won't touch a diesel with a barge pole :shakehead:

 

[Didge3]

I've since read up a bit on the reliability of the MultiAir system and specifically early models failing. If the servicing has been kept up properly then it's not an issue but when buying a 7/8 year old car that's not always an easy find.
Maybe I'll look at a 1.4 8v and just live with the disappointing performance...

 

[varesecrazy]

Maybe..

But if it runs ok on purchase.. flush the oil..use Selenia and enjoy

 

[AndyRKett]

I've since read up a bit on the reliability of the MultiAir system and specifically early models failing. If the servicing has been kept up properly then it's not an issue but when buying a 7/8 year old car that's not always an easy find.
Maybe I'll look at a 1.4 8v and just live with the disappointing performance...

Hence why in this instance diesel is the best option. Don’t know what your reasons are for not wanting diesel but it seems like a cut off your own nose to spite your face type situation.

 

[DaveMcT]

Many people believe that twin cylinder engines have more torque. They fire 1/2 as often so absolutely dont have more pull. They also get rough at lower revs when a four would move away fine. I would have the four cylinder every time.

The MultiAir is an electronically controlled hydraulic system. Car electronics are solid so as long as its been properly serviced all should be fine.

 

[Didge3]

Many people believe that twin cylinder engines have more torque. They fire 1/2 as often so absolutely dont have more pull.

My assumption of the TwinAir making more torque was based on it being turbocharged, not to do with the cylinder count. Turbo chargers are the typical way of getting torque out of low displacement engines. I'm not sure on the figures but I'd take a guess that the torque differences between the 4 cylinder MA and the TA are close.

 

[StevenRB45]

Many people believe that twin cylinder engines have more torque. They fire 1/2 as often so absolutely dont have more pull. They also get rough at lower revs when a four would move away fine. I would have the four cylinder every time.

Seem to recall when driving the twin air it was very susceptible to kangarooing if you let the revs drop a bit low (obviously can counteract it by holding the revs up but iirc the gear change indicator was determined to keep it on the edge). Makes sense on a 4 cylinder theres always one cylinder in each part of the combustion cycle whereas the 2 cylinder is firing half as often.

Even the 3 cylinders I've driven are more susceptible to low rev recalcitrance than a 4 despite being very much flavour of the month at the moment.

Overall torque is slightly higher than the 1.4 107lb/ft rather than 96 also I seem to recall the twin air drives like a diesel, so mostly low to medium rpm shove getting breathless and noisy past 4k rpm. Would imagine the multiair would be standard vvt petrol territory so not much till 4k...wheres theres still not an awful lot and peak power somewhere near 6k.

 

[DaveMcT]

I noticed the usable torque issue on motorbikes.

Yamaha 900 carb fed, 8 valves, four cylinders would pull in high gears from 1500 revs no problem. Giving 90bhp at 8000 revs, it wasn't exactly tuned for low revs grunt.

BMW 1200 twin fuel injected four spark plugs, 8 valves 100bhp. Top end was 1000 lower and anything below 2000 revs so rough to be completely unusable. It would also stall violently so I had a big incentive to avoid tricking along at very low revs.

Suzuki 750 two stroke triple will trickle along at very low revs with very smooth pickup and keeps going until it falls off the pipe around 7000 revs. A tuned exhaust raised the revs and power (at some expense in fuel consumption) but the bottom end flexibility was not affected.

Aprilia Pegaso - single cylinder 650 was like 1/2 of the BMW but obviously more lumpy. Despite having 5 valves, it lost out again on the top end and the bottom end was rubbish below 2,500 revs. Despite its size you had to always be ready with the gears to keep it in the sweet-spot.


More cylinders (or more firing stokes) make for smoother engines. IMO a straight six four stroke is the best compromise. Size for size, you lose a little on fuel consumption but the silky smooth power and flexibility is great to have.

 

[jimboy]

I'm not in the habit of lambasting any car, but been said on here before, fashion sells.

 

[Didge3]

Well it ended up being more about the colour than the engine it had

Very Green