GTP Cool Wall: 2012(+?) Fiat Panda 4x4 TwinAir Turbo
- Thread starter White & Nerdy
- 214 comments
- 11,866 views
- 13,295
- GTPlanet
- Street-King-07
- Quattro Saltire
James May likes it. Automatic seriously uncool.
- 7,703
- Indy
- xXKingJoshXx
What's with all the hate on the 500? I don't particularly like the [new] 500, but I don't really see why everyone seems to dislike it so much.
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
It's also a government choked 35 year old engine. 5 liter V8s now make much more now don't they. 2 totally different eras. I also lust over them for the sound, the fact there is a ton of power potential as well as other reasons such as them being stupidly cheap, easy to find, and easy to work on.
Last edited:
- 87,647
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It could look like anything - it's a modern five seat hatch on a new bespoke chassis (well, when it was new - they've put the Panda and the Ypsilon on it since then). Instead it's forced into a simulation of an old car with which it shares absolutely no characteristics to tap into some bizarre hippy niche.
Retro for the sake of retro. The Panda is far cooler simply because, while it has the name of a preceding model (with which it shares many characteristics), it's not a contrived external design - you can see the Pandaness of it but it's also its own car.
- 5,551
- Controls set for heart of sun
- GTP_RogerTheHors
To be fair, I haven't met a single "non-car person" who doesn't think that the 500 is the bee's knees, even if all of these "retro cars" seem rather questionable to us enthusiasts. (Although I must say, the A5 Beetle is really quite something in the flesh, although perhaps that's because it isn't so blatantly trying to look like a modern take on the Type 1 in the way that the New Beetle was, and instead just takes the general Type 1 style and tries to capture what so many people loved about that.)
Anyway, I think the best thing about the Panda really has to be the name. Panda's are awesome. Then again, I'm biased...
In all seriousness though, there's something very desirable about a Panda 4X4, in the same way as there is to a Safari Land Rover, or a Volvo 740. Mmm...
Anyway, I think the best thing about the Panda really has to be the name. Panda's are awesome. Then again, I'm biased...
In all seriousness though, there's something very desirable about a Panda 4X4, in the same way as there is to a Safari Land Rover, or a Volvo 740. Mmm...
- 3,475
- Vilnius
I voted cool. Just short of sub-zero.
I'd love to have one. A capable little all-rounder that doesn't pretend to be what it isn't. The engine definitely adds to the "wow" factor - a two cylinder turbo motor in a car? Show it to me now! The power figure might be lacking on highways but saying that you need a bazillion horsepower to dare to drive off the asphalt is ridiculous. Anyone remember Lada Niva? The 62hp thing that would leave 90% of off-roaders behind on anything that isn't a smooth road? Or any of 4x4 japanese compact vehicles from the 90s? Dissing a 4x4 just because it's not bigger than an average house and doesn't make as much power as a nuclear powerplant isn't very objective, is it?
I'd love to have one. A capable little all-rounder that doesn't pretend to be what it isn't. The engine definitely adds to the "wow" factor - a two cylinder turbo motor in a car? Show it to me now! The power figure might be lacking on highways but saying that you need a bazillion horsepower to dare to drive off the asphalt is ridiculous. Anyone remember Lada Niva? The 62hp thing that would leave 90% of off-roaders behind on anything that isn't a smooth road? Or any of 4x4 japanese compact vehicles from the 90s? Dissing a 4x4 just because it's not bigger than an average house and doesn't make as much power as a nuclear powerplant isn't very objective, is it?
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
A solid cool. You'd think that wouldn't apply to a deeply rational car like this (or the Yeti), but it's not shouty about itself in any way, and yet is filled with interesting design and engineering choices that things like a Corolla or Camry aren't. If there's one thing Fiat can do, it's build small cars.
I'll never understand those narrow-minded enough to judge a class of car by the standards of an entirely different class. I'm sure I've said it in another Cool Wall thread, but complaining about a small 4x4 hatch not measuring up to the mud-plugging, fuel-burning levels of some ancient truck is the equivalent of trashing said truck because it can't compete with a 911 turbo in a straight line.
I'll never understand those narrow-minded enough to judge a class of car by the standards of an entirely different class. I'm sure I've said it in another Cool Wall thread, but complaining about a small 4x4 hatch not measuring up to the mud-plugging, fuel-burning levels of some ancient truck is the equivalent of trashing said truck because it can't compete with a 911 turbo in a straight line.
- 8,100
- Guelph, Ontario
Yes, as long as it has enough power to turn the wheels it's not going to be a huge problem off-road, but it's still going to be very slow.
(We didn't have the most accurate way of timing our run, but it came out to be 12 seconds give or take a second. The dirt run on a very slight uphill took 18 second to get to 85km/h, then we ran out of road.
)I voted meh, it gets great gas mileage ok.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Yes, as long as it has enough power to turn the wheels it's not going to be a huge problem off-road, but it's still going to be very slow.
(We didn't have the most accurate way of timing our run, but it came out to be 12 seconds give or take a second. The dirt run on a very slight uphill took 18 second to get to 85km/h, then we ran out of road.
I voted meh, it gets great gas mileage ok.
Stopwatches suck. You can be off by more than that. Especially since the factory speedometer is a lying lying liar. They're typically 5-10% off when new. And that 5-10% can mean a difference of 1-2 seconds once you actually GPS the car. (Smartphones are better, but their execrable GPS refresh rate makes them woefully inaccurate for anything faster than 30 seconds to sixty...
If Jeremy Clarkson liked it, it would probably be seriously uncool. James May is the one true car geek on the show.
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
I think it's in the medium range of "ok" if it's N/A power, not turbo. I'm sorry but if I can take a Honda CRF450R (dirt bike) engine (factory rated 55hp) and convert it into a same engine style v-twin and make over 100 horsepower N/A, I have an issue, especially on a car that came with a factory turbo system, regardless of what it was made for (fuel economy/power).
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
Er, 94hp/L is incredibly good for an N/A engine, not "ok". And that's ignoring how useless that metric tends to be.
You're comparing a bike engine to a road car's. Bikes are nudging 200hp/L because they're designed to massively different parameters than a road car. It'd also make a fraction of the torque the TwinAir does - certainly you wouldn't want to sacrifice that...
- 34,949
- Indian Falls, NY
- slashfan7964
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
If I have already said it 900 times on here, I'll say it 900 more. There is a gaping hole in the American market for things like the Panda 4X4, Yeti, and others. The closest we get is the Buick Encore, same thing as the Vauxhall Mokka and Chevrolet Trax in other markets. Fairly reasonably priced at $24k to start,and thus far, they've sold quite a few. But, what if they did a cheaper one? One that you wouldn't feel bad banging up off-road?
I'm pretty sure they could sell off a few Panda 4X4s at the local Fiat dealer for somewhere around $18,500 to start.
- 19,707
- Alabamamania
- 23,800
- Philippines
- 4,209
- Wasilla, AK
