Search This Site

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Fiat 500 Complete Vehicle Specifications

Fiat 500 in Giallo

New 2012 Fiat 500 SPECIFICATIONS
Dimensions are in inches (millimeters) unless otherwise noted.

General Information
Body Style A-segment hatchback
Assembly Plant Toluca, Mexico
EPA Vehicle Class Subcompact
Introduction Date January 2011 as a 2012 model

Availability Standard — Fiat 500 Pop, Sport and Lounge
Type and Description Inline four-cylinder, liquid-cooled
Displacement 83.48 cu. in. (1368 cu. cm)
Bore x Stroke 2.83 x 3.31 in. (72.0 x 84.0 mm)
Valve System Belt-driven, MultiAir®, 16 valves, hydraulic end-pivot roller rockers
Fuel Injection Sequential, multi-port, electronic, returnless
Construction Cast iron block with aluminum-alloy heads and aluminum-alloy bedplate
Compression Ratio 10.8:1
Power (SAE net) 101 bhp (75 kW) @ 6,500 rpm (73.8 bhp/L)
Torque (SAE net) 98 lb.-ft. (133 N•m) @ 4,000 rpm
Max. Engine Speed 6,900 rpm (electronically limited)
Fuel Requirement 87 octane (R+M)/2 acceptable
91 octane recommended
Oil Capacity 4.0 qt. (3.8L) with dry filter
Coolant Capacity 4.6 qt. (14.4L)
Emission Controls Dual three-way catalytic converters, heated oxygen sensors
and internal engine features(a)
Max. Gross Trailer Weight Not rated for trailer tow
Estimated EPA Fuel Economy 30/38 mpg (City/Hwy) (5-speed manual)
27/34 mpg (City/Hwy) (6-speed automatic)
Engine Assembly Plant GEMA Engine Plant, Dundee, Mich.

(a) Meets Federal Tier 2 Bin 5 emission requirements and ULEV II requirements in California, Massachusetts, New York, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington.

Availability Standard on 500 Lounge
Optional on 500 Pop and 500 Sport models

Description Auto Stick driver-interactive manual control and electronically modulated torque converter clutch
Gear Ratios
1st 4.044
2nd 2.371
3rd 1.556
4th 1.159
5th 0.852
6th 0.672
Reverse 3.193
Final Drive Ratio 4.103
Overall Top Gear 6.01

Availability Standard on 500 Pop and 500 Sport
Description 1st, 2nd gear: Double Cone
3rd, 4th, 5th, gear: Single Cone
Gear Ratios
1st 3.909
2nd 2.158
3rd 1.345
4th 0.974
5th 0.766
Reverse 3.818
Final-drive Ratio 3.733

Alternator 105-amp — Standard all
Battery 500 CCA, maintenance free

Wheelbase 90.6 (2,300)
Track, Front 55.4 (1,406.8)
Track, Rear 55.0 (1,397.0)
Overall Length 139.6 (3,546.7)
Overall Width 64.1 (1,627.0)
Overall Height 59.8 (1,519.6)
Ground Clearance 4.1 (104.0)
Drag Coefficient (Cd) 0.35
Curb Weight, lb. (kg) 2,363 (1,074.0) — 5-MTX
2,434 (1,106.4) — 6-ATX
Weight Distribution, percent F/R 64/36 — 5-MTX
66/34 — 6-ATX
Fuel Tank Capacity, gal. (L) 10.5 (40)
(d) All dimensions measured at curb weight with standard tires.

Seating Capacity, F/R 2/2
Front Seat
Head room 38.9 (989.1)
37.6 (956.3) with sunroof
Legroom 40.7 (1,034.8)
Shoulder room 49.4 (1,254.8)
Hip room 47.9 (1,215.4)
Total seat travel Driver — 8.2 (210.0)
Passenger — 8.2 (210.0)
EPA front row interior volume, cu. ft. (cu. m) 43.8 (1.239)
Rear Seat
Head room 35.6 (902.9)
Legroom 31.7 (805.1)
Knee clearance 3.8 (96.5)
Shoulder room 46.4 (1,177.5)
Hip room 1083.1 (42.6)
EPA second row interior volume, cu. ft. (cu. m) 30.2 (0.854)
Total Interior Volume, cu. ft. (cu. m) 85.1 (2.409)
EPA Luggage Compartment Volume, cu. ft. (cu. m) 9.5 (0.269)
EPA Interior Volume Index, cu. ft. (cu. m) 75.6 (2.140)
Trunk Liftover Height 27.7 (703.6)

Layout Transverse-mounted front engine, front-wheel drive
Construction Unitized steel body

Front - MacPherson suspension, coil spring with twin-tube shock absorbers and stabilizer bar — included with 500 Pop and 500 Lounge
Sport-tuned shock absorbers and springs — included with 500 Sport
Rear - Rear twist-beam axle with coil springs and twin-tube shock absorbers — included with 500 Pop and 500 Lounge
Sport-tuned shock absorbers and springs — included with 500 Sport

Type Power rack and pinion with electric power steering (EPS) column
Overall Ratio 16.3:1
Turning Diameter (curb-to-curb) 30.6 ft. (9.32 m)
Steering Turns (lock-to-lock) 3.0

Availability Standard on 500 Pop and 500 Lounge
Size and type 185/55R15 BSW all-season
Mfr. and model Continental ContiProContact or Firestone Firehawk GTH or Pirelli Cinturato P7 A/S
Revs per mile (km) 906 (563)

Availability Standard on 500 Sport
Size and type 195/45R16XL BSW all-season
Mfr. and model Pirelli Cinturato P7 A/S or Continental ContiProContact
Revs per mile (km) 901 (560) or 911 (566)

Availability Standard on 500 Pop
Type and material Steel wheels with tech silver painted wheel covers
Size 15 x 6.0

Availability Optional on 500 Pop
Type and material Cast-aluminum, five oval spoke design, fully painted tech silver
Size 15 x 6.0

Availability Standard on 500 Lounge
Type and material Cast-aluminum, nine split-spoke design, fully painted tech silver
Size 15 x 6.0

Availability Optional on 500 Lounge
Type and material Cast-aluminum premium finish, radial design, fully painted premium silver
Size 15 x 6.0

Availability Standard on 500 Sport
Type and material Cast-aluminum, polished face with dark mineral gray painted pockets
Size 16 x 6.5

Rotor size and type 10.1 x 0.86 (257 x 22) vented
Caliper size and type 2.12 (54) single-piston with aluminum housing
Swept area 193 sq. in. (1,244 sq. cm)
Rotor size and type 9.4 x 0.4 (240 x 11) solid
Caliper size and type 1.33 (34) single-piston with aluminum housing
Swept area 153 sq. in. (984 sq. cm)

With thanks to Chrysler Media


RacerRon said...

Thanks for posting the complete specs.
Wow, the manual 5th gear ratio is really low (numerically). You will probably need a level freeway to use that gear. But, Fiat is trying to lower the revs for highway gas mileage. I thought the final drive for the manual is a little low (numerically). But, I'm not an engineer. Fiat is probably trying a balance between acceleration, fuel economy,and to a lesser extent top speed.

Doonie said...


Daniël Mantione said...

Well, the low 5th gear is compensated because the engine can achieve it's maximum torque at a reasonably low rpm. This is actually one of the secrets behind reducing fuel consumption: Make the engine work better at low rpm, then the driver can use a lower gear so the engine has less internal resistance.

Cars with a Multijet II have a gear-shift indicator that recommends you to change to a higher gear as soon as you hit 1600 rpm. For me that's unheard of, but do as the car tells you and you will achieve the remarkable 28 km/l that the Multijet II promises you.

TK said...

Any word on them putting up a real listing of dealers?

Daniël Mantione said...

Maybe it's worth to compare numbers with the European version. Comparing with European Pop with 1.4 Fire, 6 speed manual, I note:
- The European version weighs 905 kg. Then the 1074 kg of the US version is a bit disappointing.
- The European version does 16.4 km/l. The 33 mpg of the US version is equivalent to 14.0 km/l. We are not comparing apples to apples here, because the European test benchmark is different from the US one. Still, the result is a disappointment, because the European version does not have Multi-air yet, expectations were that this would save fuel.
- Horsepower. The European version does 100HP@5000rpm, the US version 101 HP@6500rpm. Doesn´t really matter in practise.
- Now Torque. The European version does 131@4250rpm, the US version 133@4000rpm. US version slightly better.

While I absolutely agree a car can't be reduced to numbers, I'm not really impressed... To compare with 1.2 Fire the car does 19.6 km/l and 102nm@3000rpm, with 0.9 Twinair it does 24.4 km/l and 145nm@1900rpm, with 1.3 Multijet-1 23.8 km/l and 145nm@1500rpm.

This makes me wonder a bit about the engine choice. Likely the 1.4 Fire was chosen because it has the most horsepowers (the 110HP Twinair isn't sold anywhere yet), but apparently at the cost of the other interresting specifications. Ok, Americans want horsepower... so I can understand the decision.

I would chose a different engine, though.

Anonymous said...

My question is why Motor Trend in their latest article is quoting the forthcoming Abarth at 150hp. What the hell?

Gerry Stringer said...

All three factory tires are junk.The P7 has issues with oxidation (browning). The ProContact and GTH wears too fast and becomes noisy as does the P7. I tried to suggest to Fiat that Yokohama should have been the factory tire since it doesn't have these issues and it is less expensive but they obviously didn't listen. The tuner that developed the 500 Monza specified Yokohama as their factory tire for good reason. I am considering the Abarth 500 SS and will change the factory tire to Avid ENvigor before delivery. Non-turbo 500 should use Advan S4 or the Avid since treadwear index is 560.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous,
That's because this isn't just the 500, Not the Abarth.
And it's motor trend...

Anonymous said...

When will the Punto Evo be available?

Anonymous said...

My Dad had one of the first Topolinos in Zurich as a young man. He just passed away at the age of 91. What is the projected MSRP?

Anonymous said...

Interesting little car but, as a mechanic I look at more than oh it's so cute! It seems we are going back to a time of tiny cars and it isn't safe in my opinion as speeds are alot higher than in years past. Horsepower is down and everything is way too technical!!! People have to consider repair costs and parts availability not all can afford repairs on these types of vehicles. I hope they reconsider building such small cars as they are good on fuel but don't sacrifice on safety... I haven't been able to figure out the cost of these cars I mean does it really take 20 to 30 thousand to build these little creatures???

Anonymous said...

I love my 2012 "cinquecento" sport it has 3000 miles on it. I just got home and checked DIC,37.2 MPG automatic trans with the a/c on,running 65 mph. It was 90+ degrees all day today so it had a workout

Anonymous said...

My 1991 Honda Civic gets 42-48 mpg mixed driving in Denver on 85 Octane, 10% ethanol, stick, no air. With 20 more years of technology, why do we have to settle for smaller cars with worse fuel mileage? said...

A couple of points:

Your Civic's sole purpose is to get great gas mileage, it does not have the equipment buyers demand today.

It also does not have to meet the stringent safety requirements of today nor can it match the groundbreaking safety achievements of the Fiat 500.

The Fiat 500 is not made to be a fuel economy king. It's not an econo-box.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, and my 1981 VW Rabbit Diesel got 50MPG, but without any modern safety features. Cmparing cars on MPG is a waste of time unless MPG is the only thing you care about.

tahrey said...

Actually it's supposed to achieve all of the above ... at least in euro trim.

Chic, safe, comfortable, well-equipped, fast, economical? You'll be wanting the twinair, then. 85hp in a 900ish kilo car - so almost at the 100hp/tonne "sweet spot" which a heavier car would need 150+hp to satisfy, with a plentiful shove of torque from pretty low revs (at least, when both are put in terms of its size class) which means you still have a decent 33hp (enough for ~75mph) on tap at what in the US automatic model's 6th gear would be 48mph, and the lowest emissions/consumption (on official tests, and presumably if hypermiled than driven enthusiastically) of any production gasoline automobile engine in the world. In a vehicle even my cyncial eyes see as effortlessly stylish and desirable, with good space inside for 4 adults, a good ride and handling, astounding crash test results, powerful AC, voice command bluetooth, start-stop, etc.

Too bad the last twin cylinder turbo that landed on US shores was a single experimental diesel-fuelled VW Polo in the early 80s. Maybe that soured you on the idea? Never mind how clean and driveable this one is (more powerful and torquey than their base spec 1200cc!).

However, the Multiair itself is of course closely related, and has won an "engine of the year" award whilst installed in the Alfa Mito and their other smaller models. It's not exactly a slouch or a gas guzzler, just not as thrifty as the small one. For the same power output ten years ago you'd have needed a 1.6 litre and the additional consumption from the extra weight and air pumping (to say nothing of the distinct advantage multiair brings by doing away with the throttle butterfly, diesel-style). 15-20 years ago, an even hungrier 1.8 or perhaps 2+ litre engine. It's not to be sniffed at. And shoving that much power into such a small and still reasonably lightweight (if rather dense!) car will make it fly - and the multiair tech should shave down the cruising consumption.

BTW I wouldn't worry a jot about the gearing. Apart from what my dad calls "traditional Fiat gear spacing" (close-set 1st and second then a loonnng drop into 3rd - as seen here with 4.8, 8.6 then 13.8mph/1000 - almost as if they started out with an old 3-on-the-tree and just kept adding ratios on top), it's broadly similar to what I had in an old tuned-with-a-sledgehammer 1600cc that produced all of 69hp and 91 lbft in a heavier, less aerodynamic body. Granted, those outputs were at 2600 and 5200rpm, not 4000 and 6500, but if Fiat haven't been able to tune this ridiculously advanced engine to have power/torque curves at least as wide and flat as their traditional FIRE 1.2 (which my mother has in her 6 month old 500, and it does a fine job punting the car around, on slightly shorter gears, shift light occasionally prompting her to get 5th gear at less than 30mph from where it happily torques its way up to higher speeds without labouring) then they have no business building vehicles any more.
If we say that 1.2 is maybe good from 1500 upwards (and hits TP at 3000), then the 1.4 won't suffer until it drops below 2000 at least, and I'd put money on it having useful traction all the way down to idle revs - or below.

If it even has half its peak torque at 2000rpm (probably 80% or better, real world), that's approx 19hp. Which will get you almost to 60mph. Part-throttle cruising at 55mph on a 25mph/1000 top will be just fine. Full throttle at 4000 (~100mph in top) will bring you 75hp, which was more than my old 1.6 lump could ever manage at any rpm, but it still maintained 105-110 flat out, and it was completely unfazed by cruising around 80mph, part throttle, across hilly terrain, without downshifting.

(edit-chopped to fit 4000-char limit)

tahrey said...

(cripes did I really type that much? continuing...)

Basically what they've done is bring back - long overdue in my eyes (and my high-rpm-battered ears) the concept of "top speed in 4th, quiet comfortable cruising in 5th" (or 5th/6th for the auto). It's maybe a jolt if you've gotten used to the tight, short legged 5-speeds of recent years, but isn't that unusual, risky or inflexible.
(case in point: my current interim jalopy... more modern 1600 engine shoots it along quite nicely, and the 20mph/1000 top gear 5-speed helps in that regard whilst making you feel like you're in a touring car race, but goddamn does it howl at motorway speeds. First few journeys in it, I kept reaching for a nonexistent 6th. It gets good economy (40mpg UK on a with-the-traffic cruise) but I bet it'd be far better if they'd bothered to give it an overdrive 5th rather than one where it sits dead-on maximum power when you keep the throttle jammed open on a level road. The previous 69hp'er had 25% higher gears but would happily go from 30 to 110mph without shifting down, given a long enough road; and before that, I even had a buzzy 45hp with a higher 5th than this thing, which was good for cruising at the speed limit; ultimate speed (adding another 5mph to reach a total of 90, woo!) was unlocked in 4th).

In fact, refactor the final drive slightly to take account of my lower rpms (3750/5750 vs 4000/6500) and I'd be perfectly happy with that on my own 100hp-ish machine, more so than the motorsports-esque standard spec.

In any case, the smart money's on the semi auto I'd say. With that spread of ratios it should bang up to freeway speeds in very short order (41%, 35%, 25% rev drops take you from a standstill to past 95mph almost entirely within the 75~100hp torque-power band (1st-2nd is probably 6600-3900rpm)), and I would assume it's using Fiat's proven magnetic powder clutch instead of a torque converter (hence the low, low 1st gear) so power take up and gear changes will be postive, snappy, well controlled and just as efficient as a full manual. Plus top gear is even higher, by a small amount. The only question is whether the top speed may drop slightly (as 5th peaks at a probably-unattainable 129mph, rather than a hmm-maybe 124), but Fiat don't seem to be going for ultimate top speed prizes with the 500 (the 1.2 craps out at 99mph after all, despite accelerating hard towards it and veering off at the last minute). Nippy in-town and country backroad performance is where it's at, with "sufficient" top end to hold its own on 70-80mph limited roads, and offer a slight bonus to those living in Germany or Poland. So what if it only manages 115-120 at around 6000 instead of being able to camp out on the wrong side of the redline? You're heading for a ticket or a blowout either way.

tl;dr - if only it had 5 seats, I'd happily have one in this spec. That and not having the money for it (the equivalent of £10,000 is perfectly reasonable for what it is, but I can't afford that). Might look for a 1.3 JTD Panda with the optional third rear seatbelt instead. I've borrowed one a couple times and it's even more Tardis-like inside (given the microscopic footprint), just as safe and grippy, genuinely returns high 60s mpg (UK) and goes like the clappers so long as you keep it over about 1400rpm to avoid turbo lag.

(Minor query --- how were the wheel revs-per-mile worked out? My own calcs suggest your figures match more closely with what you'd expect from, say, a set of 165/60 tyres, not 185/55s. It's only a small difference but does change the gearing some, by about 3.4%... so a 14.6/19.9/25.2 progression (4th-5th-6th) becomes 15.1/20.6/26.1, definitely affecting top-end performance even if the in-town and cruising specs altered imperceptably. It's not much less than the sprocket swap I'm considering for my motorbike will achieve...

tahrey said...

By the way, yes, the Abarth IS 150hp, or at least, near as dammit. The adverts I've seen in the UK edition of Top Gear magazine state it as somewhere in the mid-140s. Bear in mind that it's a turbo-intercooler version of this same Multiair, and in fact is slightly detuned from the high-140s, insanely torquey but otherwise identical engine found in the "larger" (sort of partway between fiesta and focus) Punto Evo Abarth, because there's not enough space in the 500's front subframe to fit a gearbox (and clutch... and shafts? and crank?!) strong enough to accept the full grunt that the engine can produce. They've basically had to apply a mild form of the torque-output-limiting that small turbodiesels and large gasoline turbo engines have exhibited for some time now. You see one of those dyno graphs where there's a wide, flat plateau surrounded by rather steep drop-offs either side? That's where there would be a somewhat higher, narrower parabolic peak, but if the ECU allowed the injectors and ignition timing to produce that much, it would be all too easy for a misplaced stamp of the throttle and drop of the clutch to send cogs punching through the bellhousing at bullet speeds... (One good reason to be wary of easy-tune chips in already fairly on-the-edge cars like that will be)

I'd expect, given that most of the stuff for the US model is receiving a slight upgrade, and they've managed so far to gradually increase the torque handling of their smallest transmissions to allow things like the Multiair and the higher-tuned JTD variants (95hp instead of the 70-75hp of the first gen New Panda, with a correponding improvement in torque), that it's perfectly possible the stateside Abarth would produce that much.

Besides, maybe it's just the difference in fuel octane ratings or something, but whilst the peak torque revs are lower, the power revs are significantly higher in the non-turbo US model (hell, I've had cars where the revlimiter came in lower than its peak). That would allow it to develop more horsepower without having to increase torque; the difference between 6500 and 6000rpm is enough to go from 139 to 151 this way.

I can only imagine the fun you'd have with one of those. Be almost like two twinairs glued together. Lots of low down thrust, and crazy speed - in small car terms (150hp/ton) - when you let it wail. Even the similarly mental old Polo G40 (113hp, 850ish kg) and R5 Turbo, the only rivals I can think of in the same subminiature size class, wouldn't be able to keep up.

R. Archer said...

I had a Fiat 500D made in the late 50s. It got 45 mpg at 45mph. Top highway speed was 55 mph down hill. The generator mounting bracket had a problem with metal fatigue. I finally had to have one fabricated out of steel.

Anonymous said...

when do they come out with a multipla?
I'd buy one with a 1.6L 5spd
6 seater,about the same size as the old one
Not so into the retro dash tho

Ronnie, Englewood, Oh. 10-28-2011 said...

We just took a trip from Ohio to Mississippi in our po, 5 spd trans. It performed great, up and down the hills of Kentucky at 75mph w/cruise control on we had no fluxuation at all in speed or in RPMs and the least mpg we got was 38.325mpg and the most was 41.350mpg. Thus for our dealership has been exceptional.

Anonymous said...

Does it have all wheel drive for the snowy northeast usa?

Anonymous said...

In Europe the fiat 500 got 60 mpg in diesel version (torque 200 N.m and 95hp), citroen C4 to...