General Euro rating 169

[agilecanonbal]

Hello all, looking for another panda, had the 319 1.2 2012(think is the squicle version) euro 5 engine, want another but the 169 version as I think it's more *Panda* , the one i like is a 2012 169, still 60hp like the euro 4 engines but is a euro 5 rating, so £30 tax like the newer versions. My question is will the lesser power engine with the newer engine euro rating be less fun to drive? I understand my last Panda 1.2 69hp has vvt, the older lesser power one does not, so what they done to get the emissions to euro 5? Will it make the drive dull? I understand the euro 4 1.2 is quite a peppy motor to drive, I want that peppiness and the looks of the 169 but with the £30 tax bracket, but if it's ruined by being made a euro 5 still with 60hp I won't bother, unless it's just thinner tyres and oil viscosity! But if it's tuned down via the ECU and now dull, I may as well get a 319 again. Long post i know but while in a forum of people in the know may as well get my question across properly, thank you in advance for your knowledge and info

 

[jrkitching]

a 2012 169, still 60hp like the euro 4 engines but is a euro 5 rating

Probably a misprint. IIRC Fiat never made a 60HP Euro5 engine; the last 60HP unit was Euro 4. Certainly I'm not aware of any 60HP FIRE with VVT. A 2012 169 should have the 69HP Euro5 engine; easy enough to tell from the VVT actuator on the cam cover.

I've driven cars with both engines back-to-back on a daily basis for several years. Personally I don't think the 69HP engine is as nice to drive as the 60HP Euro 4. Although the later engine has a higher peak BHP figure, the older 60HP engine actually produces more power below 3500 rpm, and is noticeably more flexible as a result.

The best of the 169's was the 1.2 dynamic Eco from 2009-2010; £30 tax and the more flexible Euro 4 engine. Cambelt safe, will keep going practically for ever so long as you don't let in run low on coolant.

If you're in any doubt, a test drive of the specific car you're interested in buying should soon sort things out.

 

[Goudrons]

There are a few differences between the 60hp euro 4 1.2 and the 69hp euro 5 1.2.

The main, obvious differences are the addition of the VVT and a longer inlet manifold to the euro 5, this all should improve low end torque.

The VVT makes the engine an interference engine, so it's no longer "safe" if the cam belt snaps.

I'm sure they'll be other, less obvious differences with the ignition and mapping, though I don't think they were as big as the next change, euro 5 to euro 6 in early 2014, these did marr the drivability somewhat more.

We've still got a 2012 euro 5 1.2 and it drives fine, peppy enough and somewhat freer reving that the later euro 6 which got a lot of complaints in both the Panda and 500 after launch.

We also had a 2014 euro 6 for a few years (still in the family) and when driven back to back it was obviously missing a bit of low end torque and feels a bit strangled when reved harder. It hard to describe, but it just feels the engine is a bit flatter and tighter.

They seem to have "knobbled" the euro 6 version pulling away and accelerating (when the engine is naturally less efficient) as that what most owners complain about.

Out of the 4, 5 and 6, perhaps 5 is the sweet spot.
No euro 6 accerleration shenanigans, yet £30 RFL. Though the cam belt does need attention on the required mileage/date. (same as the 6)

 

[agilecanonbal]

Thanks for the wisdom so far guys ?, so possibly a misprint then. So it seems it's the 1.2 euro 5 engine from a 319 in the shell of a 169 2012? It's an autotrader add I'm looking at and would've thought when the seller entered his reg details autotrader automatically finds the specs? Which in this case states 60hp, confusing!

 

[DaveMcT]

The 319 was never fitted with the 60HP engine.
The EURO 4 60HP was replaced by the EURO 5 69HP in 2009. The 312 (Mk4 Panda) come along in 2012.Panda

ENGINES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Integrated_Robotised_Engine

CARS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Panda#2009_revisions

 

[jrkitching]

The EURO 4 60HP was replaced by the EURO 5 69HP in 2009

The 60HP Euro4 continued to be produced and sold well into 2010; our Euro 4 169 was first registered Sept '10. Date codes on some of the parts suggest it left the factory late July/early August.

So it seems it's the 1.2 euro 5 engine from a 319 in the shell of a 169 2012?

The 69HP Euro5 was standard fit in the 169 from late summer 2010, and the 1.1 was quietly dropped at the same time, so the last of the base model 169 Actives also had the 69HP VVT engine.

You need to be careful when ordering parts for 169's from this era as the reg lookup function on many of the factor's websites commonly gets it wrong.

 

[Goudrons]

The 1.2 started out as a euro 4 60hp with 133g/km Co2 (4x4 was 155g/km).

Around 2008 the 1.2 60hp went "Eco", still euro 4 but with 119g/km (£30 RFL)

As JR writes, the Eco carried on until mid 2010, the 69hp vvt came in euro 5 with 113g/km (still £30).
I seem to believe there was a bit of an over lap around this time, they had car built in stock at the port with 60hp Eco's but specific builds all came with 69hp vvt's.

This Euro 5 69hp carried for a while in the old model and made it into the new Squircle model in 2012.

2014 saw the 69hp vvt tweeked to meet euro 6 (and drive horridly).

(these Co2's are for manual cars, the dualogics tended to shave a couple of grams off)

 

[Pugglt Auld Jock]

Our Panda Dynamic Eco (£30 road tax) was registered in March 2010 and has the 60 hp, non VVT engine. I specifically wanted this model because it has the older engine which nearly everyone says is a better drive due to it producing it's power lower down in the rev range but qualifies for the cheaper tax. As JR says, by 2011 it had become a 69hp with VVT and interference camshaft. In fact I very nearly bought both an "Active" with the 69hp engine and a "MyLife" also with the 69hp engine - The Active around this time particularly appealed because it does not have air con but does have the larger 1.2 engine - the 1.1 having been dropped by then. However whilst I was considering them I also became aware of lots of disgruntled people complaining about what a poor drive their new Panda MyLife was compared to their older Panda and wishing they'd kept their older car. Of course this all came to a head when Watchdog finally did their piece on the cars which couldn't climb or do restarts on steep hills. So beware, the last of the 169's were indeed powered by the 69hp Euro 5 engine. Apparently there were softwear updates available which were supposed to address these problems but, to this day I'm not sure whether these earlier cars were ever really properly sorted out so I would always drive one extensively if I were thinking of buying one - I have heard that they can vary quite a lot from individual car to individual car. Also mentioned above is how many on line sites will quote the wrong part for cars of this age. I came across this very recently when looking for a new thermostat for ours. Many sites were recommending the much more expensive one used on the Euro 5 engine whereas I actually needed the earlier and much cheaper one fitted since the car was introduced around 2003. They are not interchangeable. Luckily they are visually very different so I wasn't fooled. I still gave Mick/Mike at S4p a ring with my VIN before ordering just to be sure. It was indeed the older cheaper one I needed. Both Mrs J and I are very pleased with our "Becky" and I agree with all the others who say the 60hp is the better drive.

I've read a lot about the "Eurofication" of the 60hp and I find it fascinating. Apparently, and I've found nothing to refute this but please do chip in anyone who knows different because I'd love to know, apparently some clever Fiat chap realized the standard 60hp was so close to being in the £30 road tax emissions bracket that all they had to do was use "thin" oil, low rolling resistance tyres, etc and it would qualify. I've not been able to find evidence anywhere that programming changes to the UCU were made? This would seem to be supported that in MES the data for my car comes up under the 03 onward listing. Of course subsequently we are probably now all running on "normal" oil - 5W-40 for me - and "normal" tyres etc so probably none of the Ecos are really Ecos any more? Or does someone know different? I keep meaning to ask Kenny at the garage if he will check the MOT emissions figures for both versions - say a 2006 car against my 2010 Eco but I keep forgetting to ask. Mind you I've an MOT coming up shortly so maybe I'll remember to ask this year.

 

[jrkitching]

apparently some clever Fiat chap realized the standard 60hp was so close to being in the £30 road tax emissions bracket that all they had to do was use "thin" oil, low rolling resistance tyres, etc and it would qualify.

As far as I know, that's it - just the ecotyres & lower viscosity oil (although I'd bet they took all possible advantage of every loophole in the testing protocol). Interestingly the Eleganza with its wider tyres could never make the £30 RFL cut.

The difference in the real world economy is nowhere near as great; 1.2 169's of all years, driven carefully, will return long term mpg figures in the mid '50's, making it one of the most fuel efficient pure petrol cars you can own.

What makes the whole thing an absolute joke is fitting A/C as standard to the 1.2 Dynamic; as soon as you turn it on, you won't even come close to achieving 119g/km.

Still, joke or no, making the £30 RFL cut has saved me about a quarter of what I paid for the car new over its lifetime - and it's certainly helping to maintain the value of qualifying secondhand cars. Sadly, with the pressing need to rebuild the nation's finances, we may only be one budget away from losing this 'perk' of 169 ownership.

 

[Jockcl500]

I agree the euro 4 60hp is a great little engine, mine is the 2010 1.2 eco dynamic with air conditioning( I wouldn't buy a car without aircon as it is very useful in winter for drying the interior), my other car is £600 RFL per year, so the panda being £30 RFL is what attracted me to it, it is surprisingly usable even coming from a much more powerful car, I thought about getting a new panda but would be reluctant to upgrade to these gutless versions.

 

[jrkitching]

£600 RFL per year

 

[Pugglt Auld Jock]

I agree the euro 4 60hp is a great little engine, mine is the 2010 1.2 eco dynamic with air conditioning( I wouldn't buy a car without aircon as it is very useful in winter for drying the interior), my other car is £600 RFL per year, so the panda being £30 RFL is what attracted me to it, it is surprisingly usable even coming from a much more powerful car, I thought about getting a new panda but would be reluctant to upgrade to these gutless versions.

Thanks for that about the oil and tyres on the Eco JR. It seems amazing that so little was needed - You're probably right about the "creative" testing though! The aircon is a right joke too, wonder how they got away with that? When I inquired about getting stop start on my Ibiza disabled at it's first service I was told it was not possible because it would break the emission figures quoted for the car! What a load of c**p! I believe it can be done but I've become so used to just hitting the button at every start that I shan't now bother.

Jockcl. Of course you are right about how useful aircon is but as we were looking for a replacement for our 1992 Panda and I knew there was a whole lot more electronics and "stuff" in the 169 I was wanting to keep things as simple as possible. - In fact I may have been right, hope I never have to do an alternator as ours has air con too. Our other car, the Ibiza, (£0 RFL!) is not that much more powerful but being a turbo petrol it does pull well when asked to and feels like it accelerates much more quickly. That notwithstanding, I would always opt for the Panda if I'm motoring in town.

 

[The Panda Nut]

We have a Euro 6 Panda (I think) its 2014, and it drives identically to the Euro 5 169. Its a 1.2 so its not a fast car, but its never embarrassing and feels reasonably sprightly of the revs are kept up. It does not exhibit any of the traits attributed to its year in this thread. In convoy its clearly got the legs of the 169 up a long steep hill with an extra person on board too.

 

[Jockcl500]

I don't think aircon adds much complexity, although it does make it slightly cramped around the alternator, I changed the condenser on mine as the fins were gone, the worst part was removing the bumper, also changed the cabin filter which looked a right mess disintegrating like it had been in for many years, but not as tight as some other cars I have worked on, one of the worst I had was a Peugeot 205 1.9gti 1FM it was a limited edition of only 25 were made with aircon and other gadgets, the engine compartment is very tight, almost every job involved removing several parts just to get near the job you intended to do.
Dear god I wish I had kept it, I had no16, I have just searched found that no17 sold in 2019 for £20942

 

[Jockcl500]

Yes the highest band, but it is a 5.5 litre v8 petrol

 

[The Panda Nut]

Our other car, the Ibiza, (£0 RFL!)

Ah ha. Another zero emissions product from the VW stable....

I know fiats are just as bad. I so miss my 2017 70mpg twin air. The 2019 one only does 38mpg... and costs £150 in tax rather than £30. This does rather show how daft these bands are.

Funny how it uses a lot less petrol than its predecessor though.

I feel we should return to capacity based bands or even better power based and the graph should rise VERY steeply once 150HP has been surpassed. This would be more equitable and at least tip a nod to environmental concerns.

 

[The Panda Nut]

When I inquired about getting stop start on my Ibiza disabled at it's first service I was told it was not possible because it would break the emission figures quoted for the car! What a load of c**p!

Yes I completely agree. And there are no rules on whether you have it switched off or on. If there are why are these things fitted with a switch. So they were also talking it and their brains clearly full of it! I know there are subtle engineering tweeks on the S/S stuff but I feel its hard on the battery and starter. On the Panda it works seamlessly in the background and I hardly even notice it any more, but other cars have had quirks that were a nuisance.

I had a Hyundai where the head rests were B uncomfortable. They forced your head forced forwards to ensure its ALWAYS in contact with the head restraint even if it makes you ill. I had has similar C**P spouted by the dealer about type approval. So I got a length of scaffolding and showed them how to do it. I know where I wanted to stick that bit of scaffolding and I think they also got the message. If had had been mine rather than a company car I would have rejected it and stopped payment.

When you buy a car you expect to be able to make reasonable and sensible adjustments. Its your car, not the garages. I for one will not ever buy a Hyundai again as the showroom fountains dont's smell good.

 

[Pugglt Auld Jock]

Yes the highest band, but it is a 5.5 litre v8 petrol

That sounds very interesting Jock. Is it a yank? or could it be a Monaro? come on, spill the beanz!

 

[agilecanonbal]

Well thanks all for the help, the car I was looking at unfortunately sold, strange as it had been for sale for the last couple of months, soon as I put it on Facebook to ask similar questions, it sold! The seller said it was strange as nothing.....then all of a sudden today his phone was ringing of the hook! Thanks again guys for your help ??

 

[Jockcl500]

That sounds very interesting Jock. Is it a yank? or could it be a Monaro? come on, spill the beanz!

My name gives it away a bit
Mercedes CL500 on a 2008 reg I have always wanted one, I love the power but also very smooth and comfy, downside is they are very long at more than 5 metres and don't fit most parking bays.