1.6 Turbo (A16LET/B16SHT) vs 1.2 NA (Z12XEP)
Side-by-side reliability comparison
Higher reliability score
1.2 NA (Z12XEP)
ACCEPTABLE
76/100
+18 points over 1.6 Turbo (A16LET/B16SHT)
0
/ 100
CAUTION
1.6 Turbo (A16LET/B16SHT)
Opel
0
/ 100
ACCEPTABLE
1.2 NA (Z12XEP)
Opel
Specifications
1.6 Turbo (A16LET/B16SHT)
1.2 NA (Z12XEP)
Brand
Opel
Opel
Verdict
CAUTION
ACCEPTABLE
Reliability
58
76
Years
2007--2018
2000--2014
Displacement
1598 cc
1229 cc
Layout
I4
I4
Type
Petrol Turbo
Petrol Na
Power
170--200 hp
80 hp
Known Issues
6
5
Total Risk Cost
€3,100--€7,400
€590--€1,480
Character
1.6 Turbo (A16LET/B16SHT)
"A16LET is the problem child — timing chain, turbo, HPFP. Later B16SHT much better. Service history essential."
1.2 NA (Z12XEP)
"Greek city car workhorse. Simple, cheap, 200k+ km proven. Chain tensioner is the one known weakness. Bulletproof otherwise."
Issues Comparison
1.6 Turbo (A16LET/B16SHT) 6
◆ CRITICAL
Timing chain stretch + tensioner failure
▲ HIGH
High-pressure fuel pump failure
▲ HIGH
Turbocharger failure
● MODERATE
Ignition coil failure under boost
● MODERATE
Carbon buildup (direct injection)
● MODERATE
Water pump failure
1.2 NA (Z12XEP) 5
● MODERATE
Timing chain tensioner wear
○ MINOR
Ignition coil pack degradation
○ MINOR
Thermostat failure
○ MINOR
Water pump wear
○ MINOR
Valve cover gasket seep