General Why is the 16VT so much cheaper than a 20VT?

[coupedave]

Some lovely sounding 20VT's, mines the last one by the way!!

http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g45/cowboykarl/?action=view&current=patsphotos007.flv

Dave

 

[cars.robertsaerospace.com]

They're very different cars. The (non-turbo) 16v is a light, agile, little Italian sportscar.

The 20v cars are much more of a Coupe.

I don't like either of the turbo cars. If you want sheer grunt, there are better cars to have, and the non-linear power deliver spoils the balance on the twisty country lanes around where I live.

And remember, the 16v engine is straight out of the Lancia Integrale, the basis for the 20v is a van engine.

The 20v cars are unreliable, difficult (ie. expensive) to service, and obscene to insure.

As to the original question "why is a 20vT more expensive" - it's because far too many people just look at the horsepower figures and wheels.

Mike.

 

[pinin__prestatyn]

An interesting perspective, but I think you are wrong on all counts! The 20V variant is the more reliable engine. FACT. The 20VT is the better car, the sound is superb, you get the brembo's, 3rd brake light, 25Brake more, but also the power delivery is much more refined without the near comical turbo lag. That's why more people choose to pay a premium for the 20V.
Oh lastly, the 20VT is one of the cheapest 155MPH cars to insure, do a quote for an EVO, Impreza, M3 or any of the other cars with similar performance, and tell me what you find for me no car could get close to what I pay FC on the coop.
Servicing is also pretty cheap to be honest with specialists, I pay reasonable prices with Motormech who is fantastic and you have the god of coupe's down south, Rog @powerfiat. The servicing is certainly no more expensive than the 16V, in my experience. Oh - one more thing, The Fiat workshop manual lists the 16 as being heavier than the 20V, however a lot of it is down to the spec chosen.

 

[cars.robertsaerospace.com]

Oh lastly, the 20VT is one of the cheapest 155MPH cars to insure, do a quote for an EVO, Impreza, M3 or any of the other cars with similar performance, and tell me what you find for me no car could get close to what I pay FC on the coop.

I have a Maserati 222E with a factory upgrade to 290bhp. It's about £10 less than my Fiat Coupe. It's insanely fast...

Oh - one more thing, The Fiat workshop manual lists the 16 as being heavier than the 20V, however a lot of it is down to the spec chosen.

In the Fiat manual the base 16v is quoted as a little lighter than the base 20v, but as you say, the typically higher spec of the 20v cars is what makes them heavier in the real world.

As far as turbo lag is concerned, I wouldn't even bother with it, the NA 16v car is a lovely little sports car that doesn't overload the car. 200bhp+ through a fwd car based on the Fiat Tipo is a little too much for my liking, but, everyone is welcome to their own opinion and the Fiat Coupe is a car for individuals if nothing else...

How long did you own your 16v car for before changing to a 20v?

Mike.

 

[Hellcat]

200bhp+ through a fwd car based on the Fiat Tipo is a little too much for my liking

You say that as if it's a bad thing. The Tipo was totally over engineered for typical family use, I'm sure Fiat had plans for some kind of motorsport when they started the Tipo project. In all the motor mags the Tipo wiped the floor with the opposition of the day with perfect steering/suspension. Basically showing the rest how its done when it comes to putting down the power.

Its a great sucess in common part engineering, with it changing very little right up until 2002 in the Marea.

 

[pinin__prestatyn]

Hi Mike, I owned my 16VT for 6 months before I swapped to a 20VT. For me it was an improvement in all areas. A totally different car, if that makes sense! About the amount of HP being pushed out of the two front wheels, in the wet you've no option but to take it easy or you'll just steer straight on in the bends, and be very economical with the accelerator.
However in the Dry, With fresh wishbones (the coop, especially the 20V eats them in my experience) and some grippy rubber, I can lay the power down most of the time and let the Viscodrive sort it out. You can really put some power down as you leave a bend and power out. I have fitted coilovers to my coupe so this may have improved things a tad
I love my coop :worship: I can't see myself replacing it any time soon.

 

[sammiboo]

They're very different cars.....

oooo this has been dragged up a bit.

I know a few people that have changed from the 16v to the 20v, the 16v is renowed for cambelts going and is reccomended to be changed more than the 20v.

Yes the 20vt are expensive to look after, as matt suggested, find yourself a decent specialist and that will save you pounds!

When I bought my coupe, it wasnt the horse power that drew me in, yes it was an advantage but I like the look of the coupe, you can get a lot of car for little money. I wouldnt ever drop down to a 16vt or a 20v n/a now that I have experienced a 20vt. I paid a hell of a lot of money in replacing worn out parts but I wasnt ever disillusioned that it would be a cheap car to run.

 

[cars.robertsaerospace.com]

You say that as if it's a bad thing. The Tipo was totally over engineered for typical family use.

Fair enough, it's an outstanding platform - especially with the rear suspension that allows a good load space with decent geometary and essentially rosejoints.

At least the Fiat Coupe gets a decent sized boot because of it.

Mike.

 

[Inky]

I wouldnt touch a 16v - i just like the power of 20vt - once you have owned a 20vt coupe you couldnt down grade

I personally wouldnt buy one, or an N/A.

1994 punto 55s / 1996 bravo 1.6sx / 98 bravo 1.6sx / 2006 Panda sporting multijet HMMMMMM.... would rather drive My 16v NA Coupe than touch ANY of those...

 

[hmallett]

1994 punto 55s / 1996 bravo 1.6sx / 98 bravo 1.6sx / 2006 Panda sporting multijet HMMMMMM.... would rather drive My 16v NA Coupe than touch ANY of those...

I'd rather drive my old 20VT than any of those sometimes. Or sammi's 20VT pre-August 2005. But often I prefer the Panda.
Sammi's post isn't an anti-16V comment - it's a comment on how when you've had a good car, you don't want to drive a lesser car.
H

 

[Hellcat]

Wow is this still going?

5 pots are super smooth. No doubt. That's why I love my JTD130.

But in petrol I found the growl of the 16v more appealing than the whir of the 20v.

 

[EvilJaxx]

1994 punto 55s / 1996 bravo 1.6sx / 98 bravo 1.6sx / 2006 Panda sporting multijet HMMMMMM.... would rather drive My 16v NA Coupe than touch ANY of those...

And what is wrong with the Panda?? Id rather drive my 100HP over the guttless Coupe 16v anyday. The Coupe 20VT all day long... Sorry but Fiat make flag ship models and Fiat make lower models which are more "affordable" and I am sorry but the 16v is the budget car & 16vt middle range in the coupe series as the Punto 55's as you mentioned, are the budget cars for the Punto as the HGT/GT are the flag ship while the 20VT is the same.

Adam

 

[Hellcat]

guttless Coupe 16v anyday

2.0 16v... Gutless? I'd say my Tipo was anything but gutless.

 

[custard]

aw come on is this thread really gonna go this way?

 

[Inky]

And what is wrong with the Panda?? Id rather drive my 100HP over the guttless Coupe 16v anyday. The Coupe 20VT all day long... Sorry but Fiat make flag ship models and Fiat make lower models which are more "affordable" and I am sorry but the 16v is the budget car & 16vt middle range in the coupe series as the Punto 55's as you mentioned, are the budget cars for the Punto as the HGT/GT are the flag ship while the 20VT is the same.

Adam

Well Adam... Fiat make "cheap little cars" like the Panda (List Price under £10,000... and Fiat also made stylish coupes with list prices starting at almost twice that of the Panda.. As for the Coupe being gutless... get your facts straight... the 16v N/A is faster and much muchhhh better looking than than that little plastic shopping trolley... Yes the 20v & Turbo are much faster again.. but that doesn't mean the 16v is a bad car..


Panda 100 HP
Performance
0 to 62 mph (secs) 9.5
Engine Power - BHP 100
Engine Torque - NM 131
Top Speed 115 mph

Coupe 16v N/A
0 to 62 mph (secs) 9.2
Engine Power - BHP 142
Engine Torque - NM 180
Top Speed 129 mph

So many people slating this superb car who are driving 1.4 and 1.6 boring unstylish mass produced hatchbacks ... I'm sure the majority have never even driven a coupe... normally aspirated or otherwise...

 

[custard]

sigh so thats a yes? you cant slate 'lower' spec models then compare them to a coop?
interesting comparison you draw on the performance of the 2 considering they are at the opposite end of the model spectrum

 

[Inky]

sigh so thats a yes? you cant slate 'lower' spec models then compare them to a coop?
interesting comparison you draw on the performance of the 2 considering they are at the opposite end of the model spectrum

I didn't make the inaccurate comment, and the comparison between a Panda and a Coupe... I simply highlighted Adam's hypocrisy and corrected his mistake...

If the 16v NA Coupe is gutless Adam... what word describes the slower Panda?

 

[sammiboo]

oh god here we go.

I would rather have a 16v bravo than a 16v coupe. As i said in my post above if you care to read it properly....

If i had the choice of a coupe it would NOT be a 16v. End of - my choice, my opinion of what I would have. End of.

Stop being defensive and what is the point in dragging an old thread up

So many people slating this superb car who are driving 1.4 and 1.6 boring unstylish mass produced hatchbacks ... I'm sure the majority have never even driven a coupe... normally aspirated or otherwise...

Oh and i do hope your not including me in this as I own a coupe.

 

[Helz]

oh god here we go.

I would rather have a 16v bravo than a 16vt coupe. As i said in my post above if you care to read it properly....

:yeahthat: (except a Brava obviously ) If you're going to upgrade to the top of the Fiat range, you might as well head straight to the top - as I might have done if I weren't a tree hugger . Most people don't like half measures but for those who do, there's a 16v option there for them.

My car might be mass produced but it's not boring and certainly not unstylish (if a little unrefined) and I think a lot of other 'everyday' Fiat owners feel the same.

 

[EvilJaxx]

If the 16v NA Coupe is gutless Adam... what word describes the slower Panda?

A modern better equiped "Supermini", over a guttless "Coupe"... thats how I describe the Panda, and in all fairness I wouldnt start on a "what car have you driven competition" as I have used an 1995 BMW M5 recently reviewed as the last greatest M5 in EVO, the same magazine that they praise the new Panda 100HP as "Fiats new Hero"... Lets not forget an Aston Martin DB9 which I posted pictures on here over 2 years ago, Suberu Impreza WRX Pro Drive, R5 GTT, Megane 225 Sport and also a Coupe 20VT so yes I chose a 1.4 100HP Panda because its fun new and doesnt carry the normal Fix It Again Tomorrow problems of Fiat of old!

I also see the Panda 8th.... In the Top Gear Report (yes that report is crap) but no other Fiat comes close...

The Coupe is a lovely car but its showing its age now unless your in a 20VT with the nice allows and smooth spoiler!

Adam