I think the 1.6 figures compare well with its rivals and are pretty creditable and credible.
Autocar quoted a 0-60 time of 10.2s for a 1.6L 147 which is pretty good given the modest capacity.
Off the line starts are hugely dependent on the driver so I can easily imagine Alfisti "war stories" of a 1.6L seeing off a 2.0L at the lights or something :-)
Over 60 though it would be left in its wake for sure.
BTW the "large" gap of 10s is just the way these timing differences work as the speeds get higher, the wind resistance become much more significant and starts sapping all the life out of the smaller engine so proportionately less and less power is actually being used to directly accellerate the car.
Have a look at
which will estimate performance figures for cars based on a few factors.
Strangely accurate given it doesn't ask for gear ratios and wheel sizes.
and compare some of your favourite cars to see how much the times vary as the speeds increase.
A positive review of the 1.6 147 is at the link below. They also did their own performance tests, with similar figures
BTW the 3 seconds or you mention for the difference in standing kilometre time is about right, for example the 147 gta (at 26s) would only be about 3-4 seconds quicker than the 2.0L over a standing KM.
Or pushing it to extremes a Ferrari 360 Modena (at 22s) would only be about 4 seconds quicker than the 146 GTA..
You really need to compare relative times with other cars rather than the absolute figure.
Originally Posted by Alfalfa88
Those are very interesting performance figures. Thanks. I am surprised that the 1.6TS 0 to 100mph figure is 10sec off the 2.0TS. Over here, our local AR forum has threads posted that the 1.6TS is almost as fast as the 2.0TS. Well I guess they are wrong judging by the figure you have posted. BTW, what is the 0 to 100mph timing for a 2.0TS 147 Selespeed?