Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Zealand
Not to try and speak on behalf of Crispdust, but I was also surprised to see the flat torque curve. The 3.0V6 24V engine in the 166 - of which I've owned two - had a more peaky torque delivery with max around 5000 and rather little under 2000, which was not good when it was only available as a four-speed auto (in Japan and Singapore and therefore, NZ). The curve was really lumpy on an official chart (eLearn) as some sort of irregularities came into play. I read somewhere that manufacturers sometimes reduce fuelling at the RPM corresponding exactly to 90 and to 120km/h, for the purpose of getting good scores in the economy/emissions test but at the expense of having gaps in the torque curve!
Generally it's nice to have a smooth flat shape to the torque curve as it enhances the 'driveability' of the car (the driver not having to keep the engine within a narrow RPM range). The engine seems to pull more smoothly, feels stronger. It is also useful for real-world fuel economy, as efficiency is best at around the peak torque output, avoiding high-RPM excursions.
The old 12V V6 has excellent torque characteristics and gives exciting performance in the 1340kg 164. I had pretty much written off the torque characteristics of the 24V V6 after experiencing its 'average' performance in the 1550kg 166, where the top speed was very high yet performance in the more usable speed range seemed sluggish.
Obviously with the GTV being a lighter car and manual transmission, it is bound to feel better than a 166, but seeing those outputs, it must be really tractable (flexible) and nice to drive. I wonder what fuel economy I could extract from one. I get 35mpg from a 164 on a long trip (42 in the TS Spider). I got only 23mpg in a 166.
Now I wish I'd bought a Spider with a V6...
'00 GTV V6, '08 FIAT 500, shell and parts for a '71 FIAT 850 Coupe
Last edited by alexGS; 20-11-11 at 10:55.