GTP Cool Wall: 2012(+?) Fiat Panda 4x4 TwinAir Turbo

[MatskiMonk]

nobody would ever brag about the 1.8 being a big engine.

Maybe not over there, but when I passed my test you were doing well if you could afford to insure a 1.4, 1.2-1.3 was okay... a 1.6 was a sports car, a 1.8 was supercar and IF you managed somehow to get insurance on a 2.0 Cavalier SRi it was the equivalent of owning a Veyron.

 

[Clark]

He didn't say big he said biggest. It's all relative. The smallest engine you can get in a corvette is 6.2 litres, but that doesn't make it a small engine.

@MatskiMonk My 1.1 Clio felt brisk compared to a push bike and my 325 felt like there was a nuclear bomb under the bonnet. In a small car 1.8 is a lot of engine.

 

[Bopop4]

Maybe not over there, but when I passed my test you were doing well if you could afford to insure a 1.4, 1.2-1.3 was okay... a 1.6 was a sports car, a 1.8 was supercar and IF you managed somehow to get insurance on a 2.0 Cavalier SRi it was the equivalent of owning a Veyron.

So I take it a 5.0 Fox is out of the question?

I wish I had a 1.2..

 

[Joel]

It started with the Cavalier vs. Cruze arguments, wherein the site's core userbase defended a 3,000 pound "compact" car with an 83 ci turbo four based on build quality and technical sophistication (and fuel economy, but the Cruze needed a lug-tastically tall 6th gear to acheive its high MPG ratings, probalby because it weighs 3,000 pounds). Then told me I should have got an I4 import because... interior quality! (and some other things, but that was the most annoying one). Then, managed to call my Sunbird (maybe 2,600 lbs despite having an iron V6) a chick car, while not having any such problem with the wimpish-looking, under-engined, over-luxuried Cruze. I don't doubt that the Cruze, or the Civics and Corollas you were saying I should've got, are very attractive to most modern city-dwellers with no interest in the act of driving, itself.

But you people were making it very clear that you, yourselves, would take the Cruze or the older I4 imports over a J-car, and thought I should have done the same. That's when I started thinking that most of GTP considers macho to be a negative thing, wants smaller engines in everything, and cares about luxury first and foremost.

You just don't get it at all, of course people would rather have a Cruze than a Cavalier/Sunbird, they're both boring econoboxes but one is newer, more comfortable, not utter crap, and better on gas. It's not like people are arguing about having a Fiesta vs. a Mustang, they're saying they'd rather have the newer econobox than the old POS econobox. You're arguing against a strawman here, nobody is holding up the Chevrolet Cruze as the pinnacle of modern engineering, but it's a reasonably priced, well equipped, and fuel efficient economy car.

And lol at no interest in the act of driving. They're all boring (save for certain Civics), they're not meant to be fun to drive, they're to be cheap to run. I'd say I'm quite interested in the act of driving despite *gasp* driving a Corolla, I drive a Corolla because it's the only thing I can afford to run/insure and it's not like I have the money to buy a proper sports car anyway. You seem to think that your Sunbird is some manly and macho car, while the rest of us see it for what it is: a crappy economy car from the dark days of GM. Forgive us for saying we'd pick a new car that's better in every important measure for an economy car.

This whole argument stems from the way you're perceiving your Sunbird. You're acting like you drive an old school sports car and people think you should have a Corolla instead. The reality is you're driving an old crappy economy car and people think you'd be better off with a newer decent economy car. Spare the semantics about luxury and coolness and manliness.

I dont feel I should have to put people on blast for it, when they do so I say something just like when the opposing does it I say something as shown from my previous comments. If you see only one side then that's fine, but there isn't only one and many of us in that past few cool threads have said this. Go back and look and you'll see. Also how are they saying they should be the same as the 60s, I've yet to see those same types mad that V8s now have FI or VVT so you lost me there. You yourself are creating a bias toward them just argue what you've seen no need for hyperbole they do that just fine. I've seen plenty I and implore you to either message me and ask or go back and look.

I'm not talking about the public I'm speaking about GTP obviously one facet is only seen by you.

I guess I just don't really see it, maybe I'm not looking in the right place but I don't really see a core group of people who don't like V8's or American cars. I think you're also perceiving me in a different light than reality, I love muscle cars just as much as the next guy and if I had the money a classic Mustang, Chevelle, Charger, GTO, or Camaro would be near the top of my list of dream cars. I'm also a big fan of American cars, lots of people trash American cars from the 90's and early 2000's because with the exception of their trucks they were objectively and demonstrably terrible compared to the competition. Not the same thing these days, where the Ford Focus is as good as anybody's C segment car, the Corvette gives exotics that cost 4 times as much a run for their money, the 300C is cool in a way no foreign make can be, the Mustang is an affordable and competitive sports car, and the CTS-V is just hilariously brash and awesome. People call 10-15 year old American cars crap because they are crap, not because they don't like American cars.

The difference is that despite liking V8's for the rumble and raw power, I can also appreciate I4's for their efficiency and reliability. I don't want a V8 in my Corolla because it would defeat the purpose of a cheap economy car, and it's not like a big engine in a basic economy car is going to turn it into a great car. That's really the crux of it, I'm seeing a few posters incessantly saying that every damn car in the world needs a V8 and it's just completely nonsensical to a global market and the point of an economy car. It was different back in the day when gas was so cheap you could have a huge engine in an economy car, these days not so much.

 

[Roger the Horse]

I actually dislike most muscle cars. Pony cars can be alright, there's something very desirable about an early Mustang. But honestly, I'd take the Panda over almost any car with a top speed of over 250, because it suits both my needs and tastes far better.

 

[Famine]

I read it that he had swapped it because nobody would ever brag about the 1.8 being a big engine.

I dunno. The most powerful version of the sainted Sunbird was a 1.8 litre turbo...

Incidentally, a 1.8 MX-5 isn't a gain of 200cc over stock. It is stock.

I'm just trying to work out how driving a Mk1 MX-5 with the largest possible engine and no gadgets and building a stripped out car with 30% extra engine capacity and a supercharger lumps me into the people who only care about gadgets, quality and making sure the engine isn't too big.

Two cars - one which is the biggest engine available in that car, the other of which has an engine swap increasing capacity by 30% (which wouldn't be 1.6 to 1.8) and including a supercharger on top of that. Neither has any amenities - the second one even less so.

So I have the biggest engine possible in one car (actually in two - my third has the biggest engine ever available for that nameplate) and an aftermarket engine swap in another to make it 30% bigger. This is why I'm at a loss why I belong in the group of people that only care about gadgets, quality and making sure the engine isn't too big.

 

[Clark]

@Noob616 Where abouts in the US is the Focus built?

 

[Joey D]

@Noob616 Where abouts in the US is the Focus built?

Currently? Wayne, MI.

 

[Clark]

Wow, I thought they were all built in Europe still.

Is it the exact same spec as EU ones or do they still make it with a worse interior like some manufactures do when being a car across the pond.

 

[Joey D]

Wow, I thought they were all built in Europe still.

Is it the exact same spec as EU ones or do they still make it with a worse interior like some manufactures do when being a car across the pond.

Same car more or less, just we get less engine options in the US and I believe we don't get the same headlights. Oh and the US doesn't get the same colors or wheel options either.

 

[Roger the Horse]

From my experience with my father's car, having the largest engine available for a car with many different engine sizes available has the advantages of:

• Making a lovely sound.
• Being able to join busy roads more easily.

And the disadvantages of:

• Terrible fuel economy.
• Making it much harder to reach around in the engine bay to change the oil and perform other such tasks.
• Not leaving enough room for a turbocharger under the bonnet.
• Driving repair bills up to an enormous amount more than they otherwise would.

Although the last one might just be due to it being an Alfa Romeo engine...

Funnily enough, the one criticism I might have of the Panda is that the engine is perhaps a tad too small. Somehow I struggle to imagine that you can get up to any decent sort of speed on a dualcarriageway from that 0.8 Twinair without revving it absurdly high and using a lot of fuel. But... It's not really designed for frequent motorway use or anything like that, so that's not so much of an issue as it would be with other cars.

 

[homeforsummer]

Yes and no.

I've driven a few TwinAir-equipped cars (the Chrysler Ypsilon and Alfa Mito*), and they're... unusual. Because it's a twin it always sounds like it's working half as hard as it is - i.e. at maximum revs your brain is telling you that you still have another half of the tachometer to go.

Which makes you subconsciously over-drive it - you don't feel like you're going too slowly, more that you think you're going slower than the car actually is. Which is another strange sensation because most small cars make you feel you're going faster than you actually are.

It's also, I suspect, one of the reasons that it's not as economical in the real-world as people expect. It's just an engine that eggs you on a bit into driving quicker, encourages you to change gear later etc.

Is it slow? Not really. At very low revs it doesn't feel like there's much there, but it's reasonably brisk in the mid-range, particularly in the lighter cars you find that engine in (500, Panda etc). Needs a bit more "go" in the Alfa Mito, but Alfa has given it 105 hp as we speak, which should be much better. I'd totally rock one as a daily.

I'm eager to have a go in the more powerful version because I suspect it'll form the basis of the next generation of a car I've already owned - the Panda 100HP.

Most important factor of all: Is it fun? Yes. I think so. It makes a cool sound when you're thrashing it, it weighs naff-all so suits small cars down to the ground, and it's an immediate character-boost for any car you put it in.


* Review here

 

[Bopop4]

Incidentally, a 1.8 MX-5 isn't a gain of 200cc over stock. It is stock.
Two cars - one which is the biggest engine available in that car, the other of which has an engine swap increasing capacity by 30% (which wouldn't be 1.6 to 1.8) and including a supercharger on top of that. Neither has any amenities - the second one even less so.

Ah.

And the disadvantages of:

• Terrible fuel economy.
• Making it much harder to reach around in the engine bay to change the oil and perform other such tasks.

A big engine doesn't mean it automatically has bad fuel economy.

And it sounds like you need a set of these.

 

[Roger the Horse]

I was speaking purely from my Dad's experience, and he did get terrible fuel economy. The best he could get out of it was 10.5l/100k / 27 MPG or so.

 

[Wolfe]

It started with the Cavalier vs. Cruze arguments...

...That's when I started thinking that most of GTP considers macho to be a negative thing, wants smaller engines in everything, and cares about luxury first and foremost.

W&N, exactly how many of your immutable, hysterically paranoid ("it's me against everyone!"), hyper-polarized delusions of the world are caused by singular incidents? Do you really think a discussion about two econoboxes, separated by 20-odd years, is enough to paint anyone who disagreed with you as an eco-vegan-liberal-effeminate-tiny-engine-worshipping-pony-loving metrosexual with an agenda in favor of everything you despise?

Shoving everyone who ever disagrees with you into an impossibly monolithic box is not going to take you very far in the real world.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Remove the vegan and pony-loving parts and you pretty much just described me there @Wolfe! That might explain why my point of view tends to go against W&Ns!

 

[White & Nerdy]

W&N, exactly how many of your immutable, hysterically paranoid ("it's me against everyone!"), hyper-polarized delusions of the world are caused by singular incidents? Do you really think a discussion about two econoboxes, separated by 20-odd years, is enough to paint anyone who disagreed with you as an eco-vegan-liberal-effeminate-tiny-engine-worshipping-pony-loving metrosexual with an agenda in favor of everything you despise?

Shoving everyone who ever disagrees with you into an impossibly monolithic box is not going to take you very far in the real world.

I'm not sure. Still just plain rubs me the wrong way when someone who can only afford one car (i.e. Noob) takes luxury and quality as their most important attributes, despite apparently being a "car enthusiast". The fact that I can't afford a special car just to mess around with on the weekends is one of the reasons I put up with my car's admittedly horrible interior - my daily driver has to be able to provide some fun as well. And since most of the roads I travel regularly are pretty straight, the J-V6's torque and throttle response sort of become more important than any reduction in understeer that would be acheived by using a smaller, lighter engine.

Of course, the other reason is I just don't care. I won't try to deny that GM did horrible interiors - there are a couple of peices so laughably misaligned that not even the "hider" technique can trick the eye into thinking they're lined up right - but I will try to deny that that's a primary consideration in a cheap, entry level economy coupe that also, in my case, has to pretend to be a muscle car until I can afford an actual muscle car.

 

[Joey D]

You must hate me then. I can afford a car to mess around with and I bought a Dodge Neon and a Focus. Both with small engines. The horror.

 

[Tornado]

Yeah I agree, but I also have those square patches in the Fiat as tiles in my previous home so...

Oh, don't get me wrong. It looks dumb, in that most horrible "look at how different I am!" way. But it also looks much more well built than the "Why did the door handle break off when I closed the door" look that the Fiesta seems to be homaging the Chrysler Aspen to achieve.

 

[Joel]

I'm not sure. Still just plain rubs me the wrong way when someone who can only afford one car (i.e. Noob) takes luxury and quality as their most important attributes, despite apparently being a "car enthusiast".

As if I think my Corolla is luxurious. Just because you think your Sunbird is a hot rod doesn't mean I think my Corolla is a 7 series. I drive one because I'm paying thousands of dollars to go to university, I can't afford a fun car, I don't want to pay tons on maintenance, and I can't afford the gas and the insurance on a car with a V6 or bigger. If I wasn't going to university and I was working full time, I'd have something more fun that a Corolla, but 🤬 me I guess for putting my education ahead having a fun car for a few years. I'll turn in my car enthusiast card at the door, maybe some day I'll drop out and buy a Fox body so I can enjoy cars again.

Fair enough that you like going fast in a straight line, but all your post shows is that you're just plain delusional. You think you're the only one that appreciates driving fun when in reality you drive a crappy car with 2 more cylinders than everyone else's crappy car.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I guess I just don't really see it, maybe I'm not looking in the right place but I don't really see a core group of people who don't like V8's or American cars. I think you're also perceiving me in a different light than reality, I love muscle cars just as much as the next guy and if I had the money a classic Mustang, Chevelle, Charger, GTO, or Camaro would be near the top of my list of dream cars. I'm also a big fan of American cars, lots of people trash American cars from the 90's and early 2000's because with the exception of their trucks they were objectively and demonstrably terrible compared to the competition. Not the same thing these days, where the Ford Focus is as good as anybody's C segment car, the Corvette gives exotics that cost 4 times as much a run for their money, the 300C is cool in a way no foreign make can be, the Mustang is an affordable and competitive sports car, and the CTS-V is just hilariously brash and awesome. People call 10-15 year old American cars crap because they are crap, not because they don't like American cars.

The difference is that despite liking V8's for the rumble and raw power, I can also appreciate I4's for their efficiency and reliability. I don't want a V8 in my Corolla because it would defeat the purpose of a cheap economy car, and it's not like a big engine in a basic economy car is going to turn it into a great car. That's really the crux of it, I'm seeing a few posters incessantly saying that every damn car in the world needs a V8 and it's just completely nonsensical to a global market and the point of an economy car. It was different back in the day when gas was so cheap you could have a huge engine in an economy car, these days not so much.

I'm not saying you aren't a Muscle car fan, I just feel that some see the loud mouth more than the other more subtle yet somewhat blunt anti-american car base here. I don't like either side, as I've said but what I see from you is someone that doesn't like the way fellow V8 fans act here and it seems to give a bad name to those of us who can actually be impartial car lovers no matter liter size or how my cylinders are in the engine or cars for different purposes. I just think that along with slamming the extremist V8 fans the anti-V8 side needs to be slammed as well.

 

[Slash]

From my experience with my father's car, having the largest engine available for a car with many different engine sizes available has the advantages of:

• Making a lovely sound.
• Being able to join busy roads more easily.

And the disadvantages of:

• Terrible fuel economy.
• Making it much harder to reach around in the engine bay to change the oil and perform other such tasks.
• Not leaving enough room for a turbocharger under the bonnet.
• Driving repair bills up to an enormous amount more than they otherwise would.

Although the last one might just be due to it being an Alfa Romeo engine...

Funnily enough, the one criticism I might have of the Panda is that the engine is perhaps a tad too small. Somehow I struggle to imagine that you can get up to any decent sort of speed on a dualcarriageway from that 0.8 Twinair without revving it absurdly high and using a lot of fuel. But... It's not really designed for frequent motorway use or anything like that, so that's not so much of an issue as it would be with other cars.

You must have not have worked on many old cars with a 7.0L V8 then if you think there's no room under the hood. There's a good foot and a half of space on each side if not more vehicle depending. Hell my 5.8 truck has almost 3 feet on each side, and its not even nearly as wide as most trucks out now. I don't know what you getting at but old American engines especially pushrod style are very compact, part of the reason 302s and LS1s are so popular. Compare a 4.6L modular V8 next to a 302 and the 302 looks like the size of a big 4 cylinder. Looks like an ant. In full trim a 302 is barely 18 inches wide. I see 6 bangers physically larger than that.



I agree with bopop too. Doesn't automatically mean bad mpg. Also repair bills are rediculously cheap if you do the work yourself.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Strange, our mechanic always thought their was no room under the bonnet as well. Perhaps that's because we were driving a car actually small enough to fit on a european road though...

 

[Slash]

New cars have no room under the hood and it drives me nuts. Can't get to anything.

You can dis their size all you want but it doesn't change the fact they exist and there is a large following for them. Anything "Eco friendly" or small without a 550hp v8 in it around here gets instantly laughed at and written off as a piece of 🤬 (exact words), and if you think I am kidding you can ask any number of the guys i have from here on my Facebook that see it daily from my friends that argue who has te better truck or car. That's just how it is. It's funny how views changed based in where you are in the world. At least we are all enthusiasts, I guess that's all that really matter.

Now I really can't hate economy cars as much as I do. In fact I like them because they allow me to save gas money for my weekend toys.

 

[Roger the Horse]

And around where I live, anything which can't get decent fuel economy is written off as a piece of 🤬 and is soon replaced with something either much smaller or much Priusier.

Enjoy your absurdly cheap fuel while it lasts, it'll happen to you to some day!

 

[Slash]

And around where I live, anything which can't get decent fuel economy is written off as a piece of 🤬 and is soon replaced with something either much smaller or much Priusier.

Enjoy your absurdly cheap fuel while it lasts, it'll happen to you to some day!

Like I said its funny how view change based on where you live. I'd bet a nice 79 Ford pickup would draw quite the crowd on the street overseas though not seen all the time. $3.70/gal ain't cheap though. Least it ain't $4.30 anymore though.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Hell my 5.8 truck has almost 3 feet on each side, and its not even nearly as wide as most trucks out now.

That's certainly interesting, since a 2013 Ram sits at just a smidge under 6ft 8in wide. And those are gigantic.

You can dis their size all you want but it doesn't change the fact they exist and there is a large following for them.

An odd statement to make when one seems to think stating it about any other type of car is acceptable. Actually, what's that next line?

Anything "Eco friendly" or small without a 550hp v8 in it around here gets instantly laughed at and written off as a piece of 🤬 (exact words)

Ah.

At least we are all enthusiasts, I guess that's all that really matter.

I question how well the term "enthusiast" applies to folks who only like one tiny microcosm of the automotive palette and dismiss everything else.

 

[homeforsummer]

Still just plain rubs me the wrong way when someone who can only afford one car (i.e. Noob) takes luxury and quality as their most important attributes, despite apparently being a "car enthusiast".

Let's just deconstruct that term for a second.

"Car enthusiast". Someone enthusiastic about cars. Noob has already dismissed your comments about luxury and quality but even if those were his priorities in a car, how does that not make him a car enthusiast?

Hint: He's still a car enthusiast. Even if, as per usual, he doesn't fit into your own pencil-thin definition of an enthusiast.

He wouldn't be any less a car enthusiast if his favourite car was a Mercedes 600 Grosser with those qualities, or a Rolls-Royce Phantom, or a Lexus LS. It's just a different type of enthusiasm - something you comprehensively fail to understand.

You can dis their size all you want but it doesn't change the fact they exist and there is a large following for them. Anything "Eco friendly" or small without a 550hp v8 in it around here gets instantly laughed at and written off as a piece of 🤬 (exact words), and if you think I am kidding you can ask any number of the guys i have from here on my Facebook that see it daily.

As I alluded to in a previous thread, that says much more about the people you know than it does the sort of cars they ridicule.

However...

Its funny how views changed based in where you are in the world. At least we are all enthusiasts, I guess that's all that really matter.

Ding ding ding ding ding! Slashfan gets it! We all like cars in our own way, based on different things. We have our own tastes and are capable of liking different attributes.

Arguably that still shouldn't influence cool wall posting - as has been pointed out before, liking something, or even a car being good, doesn't necessarily make it cool (and on the flip side, a bad car isn't necessarily uncool) - but cool wall votes are at least an acceptable compromise between how much you like something and whether it's actually a good car or not. Unfortunately, a few around here seem incapable of separating something they like from how good it is or indeed how large the engine is. And voting cars like the Panda uncool because they assume it's rubbish without knowing anything about it...

 

[Roger the Horse]

Around where I live, I haven't seen it drop below the equivalent of $10.50 per gallon in quite a long time.

Fuel is cheap in the US, trust me...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

And around where I live, anything which can't get decent fuel economy is written off as a piece of 🤬 and is soon replaced with something either much smaller or much Priusier.

Enjoy your absurdly cheap fuel while it lasts, it'll happen to you to some day!

So if it isn't a Prius it's crap? I understand the chip on your shoulder and the fact that your area has a different standard but from a technical aspect, I'd say that any car churning out 500+ factory and getting high 20 mpg anywhere...is quite a feat especially when you beat the gas guzzler tax.

You're starting to sound nearly as warped as the side you oppose based on the limits of where you live. I'll probably never get to own most of the cars I see here, but I can still appreciate them and find them cool.