Fiat Sedici

Fiat Sedici: Which Version Should You Buy?

The Fiat Sedici was produced from 2005 to 2014 as a Hatchback 5-door in a single generation, with 11 listed versions. The main buying decision is between the 1.6 Gasoline engine and the turbocharged 1.9 or 2.0 Diesel engines, followed by a choice of Manual or Automatic transmission and FWD or AWD.

The Fiat Sedici was produced from 2005 to 2014 as a Hatchback 5-door in a single generation, with 11 listed versions. The main buying decision is between the 1.6 Gasoline engine and the turbocharged 1.9 or 2.0 Diesel engines, followed by a choice of Manual or Automatic transmission and FWD or AWD. Among versions with measured performance, the quickest and fastest is the 2.0 MT FWD, reaching 100 km/h in 10.5 seconds and 190 km/h. The lowest measured combined fuel consumption belongs to the 120 hp 1.6 MT FWD at 6.2 l/100 km. Buyers who want AWD can choose the 1.6 AT, 1.6 MT, 1.9 MT, or 2.0 MT, depending on the engine specification.

Fiat Sedici generation and version range

The only Fiat Sedici generation ran from 2005 to 2014. It used a Hatchback 5-door body and contains 11 versions in the supplied catalogue data. Several versions share the same database name, so power, transmission, and drive must be checked carefully: 1.6 MT appears with 107 hp or 120 hp and with FWD or AWD, while 1.6 AT appears with 107 hp or 120 hp and with FWD or AWD. The two 1.9 MT versions both produce 120 hp but use different drive systems, and the two 2.0 MT versions both produce 135 hp but are also separated by FWD and AWD.

Engines and specs

The 107 hp 1.6 engine produces about 67.5 hp per litre, while the 120 hp 1.6 reaches about 75.7 hp per litre. The 1.9 Diesel delivers about 62.8 hp per litre, and the 2.0 Diesel about 69.0 hp per litre. Specific output alone does not describe their character: the 1.9 MT has 280 Nm, which is 124 Nm more than the 156 Nm 120 hp 1.6 MT and 135 Nm more than the 145 Nm versions. The 2.0 MT raises output over the 1.9 MT by 15 hp and torque by 40 Nm.

Performance, fuel economy, and mpg figures

Within the 107 hp Gasoline choices, the 1.6 MT FWD is the performance and economy leader. Compared with the 1.6 AT AWD, it is 2.4 seconds quicker to 100 km/h, reaches a 15 km/h higher top speed, and consumes 1.1 l/100 km less on the combined cycle. Against the 1.6 MT AWD with the same engine and gearbox, FWD cuts the acceleration time by 0.8 seconds, adds 10 km/h to top speed, and lowers combined consumption by 0.3 l/100 km.

The 120 hp 1.6 MT FWD also has a measurable advantage over its AWD counterpart. It is 0.8 seconds quicker to 100 km/h, its top speed is 10 km/h higher, and its combined consumption is 0.3 l/100 km lower. City consumption falls by 0.3 l/100 km and highway consumption by 0.4 l/100 km.

Among the Diesel versions, the 2.0 MT FWD is 0.5 seconds quicker to 100 km/h than the 1.9 MT FWD and has a top speed that is 10 km/h higher. The 2.0 MT FWD is also 0.7 seconds quicker and 10 km/h faster than the 2.0 MT AWD. Fuel-consumption figures for both 2.0 MT versions and the 1.9 MT FWD were not measured, so an economy comparison among those versions cannot be made from the supplied data.

Dimensions, weight, clearance, tank, and wheel sizes

Every listed Fiat Sedici version has 190 mm of ground clearance and a 50 l fuel tank. Wheel sizes were not measured for any version.

The weight figures help explain several performance differences. The 107 hp 1.6 MT FWD weighs 60 kg less than the equivalent AWD model and carries about 10.8 kg per horsepower instead of about 11.4 kg per horsepower. With 120 hp, the 1.6 MT FWD weighs 60 kg less than the 1.6 MT AWD and improves the ratio from about 10.6 to about 10.1 kg per horsepower.

The 1.9 MT FWD is 130 kg lighter than the 1.9 MT AWD, corresponding to about 11.0 versus about 12.1 kg per horsepower. The 2.0 MT FWD saves 45 kg over the 2.0 MT AWD and carries about 10.4 instead of about 10.8 kg per horsepower.

Which Fiat Sedici version should you choose?

For the strongest measured all-round balance, choose the 1.6 MT with 120 hp and FWD. Its 10.7-second acceleration and 185 km/h top speed equal the measured results of the lighter 107 hp 1.6 MT FWD, but its combined consumption is lower by 0.3 l/100 km. At 6.2 l/100 km, it also has the lowest measured combined consumption in the catalogue.

Choose the 2.0 MT with 135 hp and FWD when measured performance matters most. It has the highest output at 135 hp, the highest torque at 320 Nm, the quickest 0–100 km/h time at 10.5 seconds, and the highest top speed at 190 km/h. Its consumption was not measured, so the available data cannot establish whether that performance brings a fuel-economy penalty.

For AWD with measured economy, the 120 hp 1.6 MT is the leanest listed choice at 6.5 l/100 km combined. The 1.9 MT AWD is close at 6.6 l/100 km, but supplies 280 Nm rather than 156 Nm—a difference of 124 Nm—while reaching 100 km/h in 11.2 seconds instead of 11.5 seconds. The 2.0 MT AWD adds 15 hp and 40 Nm over the 1.9 MT AWD, although both record 11.2 seconds to 100 km/h and 180 km/h; the 2.0 MT AWD economy figures were not measured.

If an Automatic gearbox is essential, the measured comparison favours the 107 hp 1.6 AT FWD over the 107 hp 1.6 AT AWD. FWD is 0.8 seconds quicker to 100 km/h, 10 km/h faster at maximum speed, 60 kg lighter, and 0.5 l/100 km more economical on the combined cycle. The 120 hp 1.6 AT FWD offers 13 hp more, but its acceleration, top speed, consumption, kerb weight, and gross weight were not measured. Those omissions prevent a complete numerical comparison with the 107 hp Automatic versions.

Reliability and problems cannot be ranked from the supplied data because no fault, maintenance, or durability measurements are provided. The defensible choice must therefore rest on the recorded engine, performance, economy, weight, transmission, and drive figures rather than an unsupported reliability claim.