Taking from the thread on which Nigel and Mrs. LickyL went through the history of both the 16v and 20v engines, it would be interesting to actually take this up again without all the emotions.

I personally think both engines are excellent choices for what was the Coupe at those times. I also think the 5 cylinder was probably the best choice, although I also think Fiat could have done a better job. Ranging from the Fire engine series, the 5 cyl is most of all a mass production engine, but probably one of the most well designed ones for that matter. Apart from the Coupe, also the bravo, and the marea got to use it. And let's not forget the kappa - in turbo form - and that three wheeler thing that later got a bmw engine.

As for the 16v engine, it is less modern, but probably one of the engines that went through the most thorough development during its long lifetime. Given the regulations and requirements of that time as well as the financial requirements.

I'd love to hear everyone's insights, as well as why they've gone for a certain engine, without all the extreme ideas. I for one chose the 20vt when I got mine, simply because that was available from the dealers at that time - apart from the 1.8 engine and the n.a. 20v. Choosing between 16v and 20v engines would bring me to the 20v, because of the more unique sound, the power delivery, economy and the possibility to take it to the next level part by part. That said, I do believe the 16v is the more 'finished' engine, but I only regret Fiat hasn't further developed the 5 cyl, because I think that already was a great engine in this first form.

Im also interested in seening the results of this thread,in Ireland I only had the choice of getting insured on a 16vt or a 20v na.
Ive loved the coupe as long as I could remember,ive just turned 22 so insurance is an issue.
Too be honest its the sound of the 20v vis that just dose it for me every time but saying that,cant wait to gat a turbo.

I chose a 20vt for the sound - the engine note is amazing, never bothered to use the audio.

my wife sold coupes during the late 90's and occasionly bought one home. That said when time and cash permits I would not mind having a good 16v example too - ideally red or silver!

Of course, when I bought mine, the 20v engine was unavailable in a coupe. When it was released a couple of years later, I did seriously consider chopping in the 16 against a 20vt.

Because, to be fair, I think it is probably a better engine from the power and efficiency point of view. However, I don't think they've finished the development yet in terms of reliability - no engine these days should drink oil like the 20vt does - and I really really don't like the noise a five cylinder makes. That said I have seriously considered a 20vt on several occasions and a tidy cheap *unmodified* example might still tempt me.

Had they upped the capacity at the same time I could perhaps have been tempted then - an unblown 2.5 would probably be putting out as much as the 16vt - but frankly I'm surprised they didn't squeeze a V6 in there. One of the Alfa V6s, blown or not, would be a cracker under the bonnet of a coupe, and hang the weight penalty!

I'm a old traditionist, so I really prefer the pure coupe, which of course is the 16v.

I have had a 20V, and whilst being perhaps a better drive, just didn't do it for me. And plus the fact that the 20VT was new, rampant depreciation was costing me at least $500 per month!

I started out with a 1.8 16v, it was either that or the 2.0 16v for me at the time (didn't dare to buy the turbo due to running costs and didn't have 20v/20vt budget). The 1.8 was a sensible choice, but never brought was I was looking for (sounds boring and lacks some excitement that the coupe needs). CraigB (is he still on the forum?) who was still living in Holland back then had a 20v n/a and that was so much more fun (the noise!) and lively.

During the first ever annual event I was a passenger in Scooby's moon grey 20vt plus and was just amazed how big the difference was. Not just the engine, but interior as well (I'm not a fan of the 16v interior). That really swayed me towards the 20vt and especially in Plus or LE form. So sold the 16v, saved up and bought a 20vt plus in moon grey

Never regretted the engine choice and mine uses about 1 liter of oil per 10.000km, so they're certainly not all oil drinkers! I do see the appeal of the 16vt engine, nice and agressive power delivery and feels more like an oldskool turbo'd car should. But I much prefer the total package of the 20vt.

Without doubt the main problem on most modern engines is the need to change the cambelt every 3/4 years at considerable. A 20vt designed with a chain cam would have made a fantastic engine imo.

The engine certainly shouldn't use as much oil as it does, though i think most of it disappears through the turbo than through the engine, maybe the manufacturing tolerances would be better in 2009 than they would have been in 2008.

I reason I chose the 20vt over the 16vt was fuel consumption and power.

In about 18,000 miles of ownership (4 years), apart from annual oil-changes I only ever added a couple of litres of oil at the very most, obviously some 20vt engines use more oil than others

RX8 anyone

I was told that the reason they use oil (20v, twin spark etc) is because the under piston jets spray oil that atomises into the breather system.

How true that is I don't know but my Hgt uses oil so I don't think its the turbo causing it.

Of the two I have found my 16v drinks a lot more oil than the LE. Probably four times as much.

Over nearly three years I have only had to put in 3 or so litres into her. I reckon the LE uses around 1 Litre every 3500/4000 Miles.

My 20Vt uses surprisingly little oil - Just for the record, certainly nowhere near the litre per 1000 miles-- maybe as little as a fifth of that, even if that.

Always sits above 3 bar mark when running and always know it needs topped up because it'll drop to around 2.7

2 - 3 litres every 10k is probably a good estimate.

Not worried about lacking that little bit more power with the 16vt tbh, but have to agree it is noticably more thirsty than my brother's LE ever was. I'm just about managing to average 27mpg at the minute.

Both are awesome engines though, I just wish we lived in a time where updating and developing the 20V for as long as they did with the twincams was a viable economic option for Fiat.

Ha dont get started on oil. When I got my 20vt a couple of years ago oil pressure never droped below 3bar even when v hot, and she never drank much oil if any. Now shes a good 3-2.5 bar in very hot temps and drinks my motul 10w 40 like it were beer at happy hour. Now shes in her late 60s 11 years on so im going to feed her some slighty thickers stuff and see if she stops drinking me out of money . But I got her as she was the first coop I saw and didnt want to leave without her.

I chose the 20VT because I wanted the very best Coupe I could afford, in terms of power, age, brakes, interior, and then some subjective things like the way it sounds and the colour. I also prefer the steering rack they used in the 20VT and I think it corners better.

having had ever engine (even the 1.8 i think (is it the same one in the bravo HLX 1.8?) i think im qualified to make this post.

there is no doubt in my mind that for my use, the 20v block better suits my needs. Reason being the 20v feels like it had a bit more grunt low down, its feels more smooth and refined, And finally fuel, my 16vt drunk it like no one's business. its quite possibly the poorest mpg car i have ever owned.

The 16v coupe is nicer to drive than the 20v handling wise, the weightier steering makes for more confident handling and the breaks feel just as good if not better than the 20vt

sound wise, i love them both, but for different reasons. the 16v with the right exhaust sounds like a angre wasp in a jar. its a manic sound once wound up
the 20v gives a very very different noise. at low RPM you can here every thump from the block, wound up its a very intimidating sound

the 1.8, i thought that was great. very good mpg and now slow at all (i think its 115 or 130bhp?)

Sam i think you always make a good point, me and Mrs L have had all the engine options, and i do agree the 20VT does make a good noise, is better on fuel, but for me, i grew up with the twin cam from the days when you could buy a Beta for £300 and spend a couple of weeks in the shed throw a pair of 45 DCOE's and some mental cams in the pot and hey ho you had 180BHP.
Years ago when tuning didn't involve sticking bits on to you car from Halfrauds ect, and the hills were alive with the screams of twin cams been trashed, this is the memories the coupe brings back.
I realy don't care if i often get 10MPG or my 20VT maybe a little faster or smoother, it's the passion and sole of the twin cam.

The Bravo 1.8 is the 115bhp unit (non vvt). The one in de Coupe is the Barchetta engine with vvt and has got 131bhp. But the engine itself is pretty good (actually great in the light Barchetta and Punto hgt), but didn't like it much in the Coupe.