|
toaster_pastry posted:The Euro version of the nuovo 500 (1.2 engine) weighs 1,900lbs. I would kill to get one of those over here. Less comfortable, less soft, fewer cupholders, and more cranking of manual windows. <3 As someone who has daily driven a base 1990 Miata for a few years, you think you want these things, you'll probably even like it for a few months, laughing at everyone else's monstrosity. The reality is you want none of these things. Yeah it's sure fun revving it out through every gear and never breaking the speed limit until you realize a year in you're doing it at every light because if you don't the shitbox Kia behind you will run you over. Less soft and comfortable for city driving?! It's fun feeling like you're a DTM racer over every tar line in the road until it's late, you're not feeling well and it's been a long day. Screaming at your passengers on the highway because at 65-70 you're turning at 4,000 isn't a recipe for a nice trip.
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:there's plenty to not like about the 500 but "when i touch the dashboard it feels cheap" is stupid as poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 03:17
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:...because? Because it's a $15000 car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 07:06
|
|
|
We service Enterprise rental cars at the shop and these are starting to come through for their oil changes. I absolutely love them but even adjusting the seat to whatever I want I can't find a comfortable position in the drivers seat  Seriously feeling dissapointed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 07:17
|
|
|
Do you people literally drive in a death race or everyone just blindly floors the gas pedal once the light goes green? I'm all for more POWAAA but 0-60 in 11 seconds is hardly dangerous (also better than 13 seconds for the EU 1.2l) and all the whining about it seems pretty weird. I understand if you think it's not price-competitive, that's because it's not supposed to be - the cheapest 500 I see on the local Fiat site is $15k vs 9k for the Panda with the same engine and a more useful car around it. Remember this thread the next time you complain that cars in the US aren't as fuel efficient as in Europe - this is the sacrifice you make to be the first in the traffic light grand prix 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 13:34
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Do you people literally drive in a death race or everyone just blindly floors the gas pedal once the light goes green? I'm all for more POWAAA but 0-60 in 11 seconds is hardly dangerous (also better than 13 seconds for the EU 1.2l) and all the whining about it seems pretty weird. I understand if you think it's not price-competitive, that's because it's not supposed to be - the cheapest 500 I see on the local Fiat site is $15k vs 9k for the Panda with the same engine and a more useful car around it. At 15k, a Fit gets better mileage in a better car.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 13:47
|
|
|
But it doesn't?   Fiat (correctly) felt that with the 1.2l engine, everyone would be claiming that the 500 murdered their families with how slow it was, so the stuck the 1.4l engine that doesn't appear to be even available in Europe into it. But it's still too slow  and no more 48mpg combined as with the 1.2. In any case again, it's a niche car - unless you want something small and cute and fun to drive (can't comment on this personally), better value is available elsewhere like, say, with the Panda that I mentioned, or even the Fit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
I don't know, my girlfriend routinely gets 35-40 mpg in her Fit so that's what I'm basing it on.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 14:54
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Because it's a $15000 car. quote:there's plenty to not like about the 500 but "when i touch the dashboard it feels cheap" is stupid as poo poo When I shift through the gears, I get lovely feedback When I bounce off the rev limiter, it's still balls slow When I press the clutch, I get lovely feedback When I adjust the seat, I still can't get comfortable All from this thread so far. But hey, it's a $15,000 car. So everyone stop complaining and be happy with your Italian Cavalier. Also, I've seen 38 mpg in a Fit as well and people in another thread reported even more. But we don't have real world numbers for Fiat so it's hard to compare. Wait, Fiat needs premium gas?! Nitrox fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Dec 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 15:21
|
|
|
see to me all of those criticisms you invented are more valid. in operating your motor vehicle, you are required to shift gears accelerate to keep pace with traffic push in the clutch to shift gears sit in the seat No one has to fondle the dash. If you're trying to cut costs, I'd rather have them cut costs in the dash materials than in any of the areas you listed. Evidently you don't agree?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
I'm actually having trouble finding reliable 0-60 info for the 1995 Cavalier that I used to drive, but I'm pretty certain that it came in around 10-11 seconds, and I never felt like I was going to get ran over driving in Michigan traffic, which is routinely doing 10+ mph over the posted limits of 70-75, so I'm really having trouble understanding the complaints here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 15:31
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:see to me all of those criticisms you invented are more valid. in operating your motor vehicle, you are required to When this thread started, people were eager to tout it as a better and cheaper Mini Cooper. But in reality, Fiat should be compared to Yaris, not Fit, Fiesta or Mazda2 and especially not Mini. Too bad it costs thousands more than the Yaris and probably not as good in the cost of ownership department or resale value. Also, premium gas 
Nitrox fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Dec 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:No one has to fondle the dash. If you're trying to cut costs, I'd rather have them cut costs in the dash materials than in any of the areas you listed. Evidently you don't agree? I think what he's trying to point out is just lovely interior build quality overall, that may look nice when new but over time may have issues? I haven't sat in a 500 yet so I'm going by what everyone has said here, but as an example take my '96 Kia Sephia. Based on the Mazda BG platform mechanically, it's a sound vehicle but interior wise the quality is horrible. My brother's '91 (Japanese built) Protege on which my Kia is based seems like a new car inside in comparison. So maybe only time will tell, but if I was buying a new car and the interior felt cheaper than other cars in the same price bracket it would be eliminated no question. I sat in a Mazda2 not to long ago and the interior was excellent, I sure as hell don't want a car that had the costs cut on the interior because I own a car that was a result of that and it sucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
I'm not sure I get the performance-is-dangerous angle. I've driven stuff slower than that, and I've never had an issue with feeling like that in UK traffic - and that includes motorways, where a traffic flow of 85 is perfectly normal. Hell, in general day-to-day running around I was usually faster than most of the traffic. There's no way a 1.4 500 is slower than a 1.6 Vauxhall Zafira, and in one of those I've had the window down yelling at kids in modified Saxos to get off the loving brakes and use the drat throttle. I can understand the setaing position (which has always been a bit funny in Fiats), the gearshift (which has always been a bit pants), and if the clutch is a cable I guess it might not be brilliant - but I thought the interior was more than acceptable, and as I said, I can't see how the performance can be that bad. Note that over here a 500 is bang on the money for direct comparison with the Yaris (if not a shade cheaper), and my personal opinion is that the BMW Mini is loving horrible in every respect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:When this thread started, people were eager to tout it as a better and cheaper Mini Cooper. But in reality, Fiat should be compared to Yaris, not Fit, Fiesta or Mazda2 and especially not Mini. Too bad it costs thousands more than the Yaris and probably not as good in the cost of ownership department or resale value. Why should it not be compared to a Fiesta? When I was in the market for a cheap, economical, small, and cheap car to buy as a commuter appliance, I looked at the Fiat, Yaris, Fit, and several others, and ended up purchasing a Fiesta. They are both small, 40'ish mpg commuter cars, but the Fiesta came in quite a bit cheaper for one with an Auto (again, commuter appliance), and at least to me, seemed to have better performance, and more room. Fiesta base model + auto transmission can be had for just over $14k + tax/title/destination, vs. the cheapest price I could get from a Fiat dealership for an auto equipped 500 started over $17k. Also, Fiesta doesn't ask for premium fuel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
Yeah, to say the 500 shouldn't be compared to, oh, everything else in its class is just  . It's a B-segment car, and yes, even the Mini fits into this segment. The Mini also sits at the extreme high end of pricing for the segment, but manages to offer high enough value for the money that it manages to get a sizable number of sales. Plus, since the two share the retro angle, comparisons in that regard are inevitable. This car is absolutely getting cross-shopped by people who are getting in Fits, Fiestas, Mazda2s, and Yarises instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
Never mind the fact that the 500 is pretty much an unproven car, and Fiat an unproven car maker here. Most people aren't going to know or care about it's rep in Europe and are going to go with trusted brands like Ford, Mazda and Honda. The 500 really needed to impress to compete, and it sounds like it's not doing that at all besides the style factor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
It's not doing that all that well either. My sister in law (who is style-conscious to put it mildly) is likely going to sell her '95M Miata this year, but will probably want to replace it with another convertible later on. On paper a 500 with a ragtop looks great, since she gets her open-air driving with theoretically lower costs to own/operate the car, plus something that looks like a back seat. She saw one on the road and dismissed it immediately. She knows little to nothing of Fiat's history (in the US or otherwise) or any of the other factors people have mentioned; I bet in another life she would've picked up an early New Beetle instead of the Miata. She's drat near the perfect candidate for the car buyer that wants something that looks cute, and the 500 just didn't do anything for her. Let's face it - that "oh it's so cute" crowd subsidizes a lot of cars that wouldn't get made otherwise. There'd be no Mini Cooper S or JCW if they weren't selling the regular Cooper like mad, and the slim chance that the US will ever get a Fiesta ST / Mazdaspeed 2 would be zero if they can't sell any base models. IOwnCalculus fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Dec 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Why should it not be compared to a Fiesta? Edit: nevermind
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Let's face it - that "oh it's so cute" crowd subsidizes a lot of cars that wouldn't get made otherwise. There'd be no Mini Cooper S or JCW if they weren't selling the regular Cooper like mad, and the slim chance that the US will ever get a Fiesta ST / Mazdaspeed 2 would be zero if they can't sell any base models. Just walking around here, every other Mini is a Cooper S, at least. I don't know what the actual sales statistics are though. One thing the Cooper S did right is offer the turbocharger paired to an automatic and a non-sport suspension, so if you want big car luxury/power in a subtle/compact package, the Mini is the way to go. Fiat could've done that, but instead they decided to do a Gucci edition and assumed that the extra appeal to the "oh it's so cute" crowd would make up for what they lost with the car people crowd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Do you people literally drive in a death race or everyone just blindly floors the gas pedal once the light goes green? It is not uncommon around here, due to terrain, to have a stop sign at the end of an on-ramp to a highway where everyone is doing 70mph.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
True, but again that may be just American desires driving that one up - after all, we don't get the true base-model Coopers here in the US. To add to bull3964's point: This is not uncommon in CA.  Those cars are on a freeway at full tilt. That stop bar on the right is the freeway entrance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:True, but again that may be just American desires driving that one up - after all, we don't get the true base-model Coopers here in the US. I dealt with that all the time in California with my 85hp (when new!) Plymouth minivan and I did fine, even as an idiot teenager. There is no car sold in the US today that is not more than capable of dealing with such traffic on a daily basis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:True, but again that may be just American desires driving that one up - after all, we don't get the true base-model Coopers here in the US. This is my favorite in the area. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGnIlb6TZIA The on ramp is before the off ramp so you have to get out of the off ramp lane to actually merge on to the highway. The on ramp has a stop sign. There's about zero visibility of the traffic coming up in the highway lanes. Oh, and you go directly into a tunnel afterwards. bull3964 fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Dec 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 19:54
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:I dealt with that all the time in California with my 85hp (when new!) Plymouth minivan and I did fine, even as an idiot teenager. There is no car sold in the US today that is not more than capable of dealing with such traffic on a daily basis. Capable of? Sure. Comfortable is an entirely different standard, though. On the rare occasion that I carpool in my ~120hp Ranger, on the drive home, getting into the HOV lane from the nearly-stopped regular lanes is an exercise in rear end-clenching and wringing that loving Pinto motor for all it's worth. Doing the same thing in my Mazdaspeed3 is a piece of cake. Americans are a special brand of whiny and self-entitled, and I honestly can't completely disagree. If I'm going to spend >$10k on a car, it's not going to be for a car where making that merge is going to be on a wing and a prayer. There are scores of cars available at the same or similar price point that can actually get out of their own way and then some.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Capable of? Sure. Comfortable is an entirely different standard, though. On the rare occasion that I carpool in my ~120hp Ranger, on the drive home, getting into the HOV lane from the nearly-stopped regular lanes is an exercise in rear end-clenching and wringing that loving Pinto motor for all it's worth. Doing the same thing in my Mazdaspeed3 is a piece of cake. I contend that this isn't an issue with the Fiat. You just have to know how to drive a small car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 20:26
|
|
|
^^^ I've never driven it, but I think that 4-cyl Ranger is going to be way slower than the Fiat still. Maybe you guys have magic highways where your 70 mph is faster than our 80, or 0 is slower than it's here   There are trees everywhere and it's uphill, too, so not only you can't see poo poo, you also have to fight gravity. I drive past this on my way to work every day and there's never ever been a problem there, or at other similar locations, despite the average car being a gutless piece of poo poo that would envy the performance of the 1.4 500. It only starts being problematic when there's snow and you're just glad you can make it to the top at all, but at that point no amount of power would help anyway. Aaanyway, I think I'm going to stop derailing this any further now, I was never trying to claim that more power wasn't better, all else being equal. If the 500 is too expensive for what it's offering in terms of performance, cuteness, image, fun or practicality, then that's something Fiat will have to deal with. I suspect they'll be able to do that too, if this car starts at $15k here (~2k below the Fit/Jazz, BTW), then they can certainly go lower in the US once they have everything set up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:^^^ Some Googling puts them at drat near the same, actually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 21:25
|
|
|
Nitrox posted:Wait, Fiat needs premium gas?! Nitrox posted:Also, premium gas That volumentric efficiency (and ignition advance) bump from engine design allowed with premium fuel totally counters the 5% cost increase, and spending $15,000 on a car is a bit silly and scientifically incorrect complaining about $3 a tank. I calculated a 8% VE boost just from increasing the CR from 9.5:1 to 10.25:1*, which in modern engines the latter is still able to run on 87AKI fuel. *on my ancient mid-80s engine, nowadays octane requirements and compression ratio allowance numbers are far better. DJ Commie fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Dec 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
Mazda is running 13:1 on 87 these days with the Skyactiv engine. And while premium gas is in reality a tiny uptick in operating costs, it is a significant psychological barrier for customers (and obnoxious since you can no longer trust premium to be $0.20 more than 87 - I've seen it as high as $0.40 more, so it makes trying to find cheap gas a pain in the dick).
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
The Skyactiv technology is patented, as well as has been one of Mazda's main R&D costs for a few years, its a bit hard to see it being much past Mazda's small car models. Even at $.40, thats still 10% of the cost of the tank, hardly breaking the bank on a new car. Complaining about the atrocious fuel efficiency of an Evo X would make far more sense than a few cents a gallon on a economy-ish style-driven car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
DJ Commie posted:That volumentric efficiency (and ignition advance) bump from engine design allowed with premium fuel totally counters the 5% cost increase, and spending $15,000 on a car is a bit silly and scientifically incorrect complaining about $3 a tank. Outside of the great interior debate, this is the second biggest bullshit argument. It's 3 dollars a tank. Are you guys seriously dismissing a car over an average ~$144 increase in gas costs? Better hop into a Prius that will break even in 7 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
I'm not, but it's the same kind of psychological hurdle that prevents people from viewing their $200 cell phone as a $3000 phone+contract. Valid or not, it will cost them sales, because the base 500 is not a sports car, it's an economy car. And as someone who drives a premium-fuel vehicle, I do admit it's a loving pain to figure out where cheap gas actually is. Even Gasbuddy and stuff like that is unreliable because people will either only fill in the 87-octane number, or if they fill in the rest, it's likely as not to be bullshit numbers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:And as someone who drives a premium-fuel vehicle, I do admit it's a loving pain to figure out where cheap gas actually is. Even Gasbuddy and stuff like that is unreliable because people will either only fill in the 87-octane number, or if they fill in the rest, it's likely as not to be bullshit numbers. Do the prices not move roughly in sync? Where I am 95 is usually x cents more than 91 and 98 is x cents more than 95 - somewhere that has cheap 91 will still be cheap for higher octanes. That said I've found going out of my way to get 'cheap' fuel seldom works out saving any money
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
I know that premium doesn't scale up just 20 cents at most places, but the difference between premium being 20 cents more expensive than 87 and 30 cents more expensive is a dollar. I guess it falls under: driving 10 miles out of your way to goto the gas station that has gas 3 cents cheaper than the one in town will save you approximately 15 cents!! People are pretty bad at math.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 22:30
|
|
|
Premium is recommended but has no problem on lovely AZ regular. And I have averaged over 39.5mpg in the almost 8000 mile I have had mine. I don't really take it that easy on it either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
I found the 500 slow, but not dangerously so. At least no with a manual. You do have to shift at the top of every gear to merge onto a fast freeway. Which I guess is a change in mindset. Plenty of Americans expect to be able to roll onto the freeway with enough torque on hand, without the car downshifting. That's obviously not a bar the 500 can meet. That disconnect of having to drop 2 gears to get enough pickup to merge might be a real dealbreaker in America, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 02:54
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Why should it not be compared to a Fiesta? Over this side of the pond  the 500 is built in the same factory as the Ford KA (they are the same floorplan) in Poland. http://500blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-fiat-500-vs-ford-ka.html So they really aren't that similar to the Fiesta which is more akin to the Punto.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 13:45
|
|
|
I drive a 90hp diesel people carrier with a 0-60 time of 15s! I love it! You have to somewhat floor it to get to speed on the motorway (although fortunately diesels give a lot of torque in the low rev range). Saying that, the youtube video of the highway with a stop sign on the onramp is just plain dangerous! Is there not standards for those things? In the UK you'd never get a motorway with anything short of a proper onramp. Even on dual carriageways (I guess the equivalent of a highway rather than an interstate?) they only require you to give way, not stop completely. I know that Americans have a love affair with stop signs, but stopping in a situation like that is just dangerous (not to mention terrible for gas consumption). Fundamentally, if you want to save money on driving, you'll probably still come out on top with an older car you already own than almost any new car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
leo_r posted:Saying that, the youtube video of the highway with a stop sign on the onramp is just plain dangerous! Is there not standards for those things? There are standards, but they're not mandatory due to the impracticality of implementing them in many areas. That stop sign in Pittsburgh seems like a prank though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 00:34
|
|
