Wouldn't mind one these but what do you reckon folks: revvy little petrol or a torquier diesel? I am drawn to the latter but I still link little FIATS to revvy little petrol engines. Any feedback from those in the know or owners of both cars?
I note that the 1.2 is based on the old FIRE engine that over 20 years old but it was a terrific engine in my old Uno (first car), outlasted the rest of the car. Now significantly undersquare though so is it still free revving? HJ used to say in his yearbook that this FIRE engine was good for three times round the clock if looked after.
|
I've actually owned both a 1.1 Active and the MJ diesel. Both great cars and great value, but quite different. The 1.1 was just a hoot to drive, as is quoted, very quiet refined engine, and very free revving. It was well suited to the Panda, as it was light, making the car very responsive to steer. It was quite nippy in gears 1&2, slower in gear 3, and it didn't so much accelerate in gears 4 and 5, as gradually increase speed. But once you had wound it up to 70/75, it would sit there happily on the motorway, as the engine was so quiet. Why did I get rid of it and get a MJ? - small engine working hard in a car is bad news for fuel economy, and it was so hard to drive that car with a light right foot, as it was such fun to drive briskly. But low 40's mpg was not viable.
The MJ is much more grown up - it is in the Dynamic trim, so has remote key and guages to look at (the Active had speedo and fuel only). It is also a bit more 'planted' on the road, being heavier at the front, so not quite as 'chuckable' as the Active. It has taken a while for the engine to run in - felt very lifeless at first, but now has quite a nice shove in the back at 1800 rpm, but nothing spectacular. But it is a 'revvy' diesel, with the power band going up to 4k rpm. It is good on M'ways, but although th engine can cruise at 85mph, the shape of the car isn't slippery, so mpg really does suffer at speed - as low as 50. It really scores on mpg, though - the worst tankful was 54mpg - and I was really caning it, the best 65 - and that's with a new, tight engine, so goodness knows what it will end up doing.
Hope this helps.
Peanut.
|
Hi Mattbod,
The Multijet does rev well *for a diesel* but its well over square and you appreciate the power more if its driven under 2,300 revs, surfing the torque, as it were.
I heard of one person who was regularly taking the Multijet to over 4,500 revs and then contrasting it with how a petrol engine felt at engine speeds above that....
The Diesels miles better all round, but all the satisfaction is in moving along at around 2,000 revs, until of course, increasing road speed in top gear takes it above that.
( I`m referring to the 1.3 Multijet in my Mk2b Punto van weighing just over 1,000kg)
Good luck with your choice ;)
Edited by oilrag on 28/04/2008 at 10:01
|
|
I rejected the Panda (and the Punto) because of a very awkward left foot rest - but maybe it was down to my size 11s.
|
SWMBO has a new 500 1.2 Lounge. I've taken it on a few long runs to help the running in.
Very refined engine, revs nicely (has loosened up a bit in 1,000 miles) and is a good motorway cruiser. I've had it up to 85 and it gets there fuss free and feels as if it would be happy there all day and doesn't IMO need a sixth gear. Top speed is quoted at 99mph but it feels like it would go faster. Not a lot of torque as you'd expect but it pulls ok only getting caught out a bit on long motorway inclines when a down change would help but at the moment we're trying to keep it to under 3.5k rpm.
Fuel consumption is good - we've averaged 48.5 mpg over the first two tank fills with most of the miles done on the motorway varying between 65 and 85 and the rest done around town or rush hour commute.
We thought about the diesel but as we'll only do 10K pa, the economics didn't stack up and the 1.2 drove so sweetly we didn't feel the need to try the diesel. Had the 1.2 been a buzz box and tricky to drive smoothly around town, we'd have looked at the diesel.
Only gripes so far are that the seat belt isn't height adjustable (can you buy after market solutions to this?) and the left foot rest is too steeply angled.
I'd think a Panda 1.2 with a big discount (easily achievable) must be a very difficult new car proposition to beat and if you do lots of miles the MJ would claw back the price difference in fuel savings.
|
Hello all- I Ordered a pre reg Panda 1.2 last week, its nippy enough and refined (had 1.1 in a rental a few times and it's great round town), but they have tinkered with the 1.2 in the 500 to get into the £35 road tax band, which you miss out on in the Panda. Don't know if this just alters the CO2 or impacts upon the performance. I too have size 11 shoes but I didn't find the foot rest (tiny) too irritating, just need to adapt and keep your boot on the floor. 500 styling is great, particularly inside, although its very much a fashion car, whereas the Panda is more utilitarian. Fantastic gearchange too. I need just a bit more space for carrying music gear and the Panda beats the 500 there, and my delivery miles Panda was six grand on the nose with a/c and bluetooth phone etc (360 spec ed), which takes you to a nine and a half grand 500 Lounge I guess.
As for the diesel, I had no opportunity to try one, but its certainly more cash than the petrol. Gather it's a very good example of a modern diesel, however read a few HJ letters in the Telegraph recently where he points out the complexity of modern diesels, the frequency of failure of major components and the resulting expense (Ford TDCi for example). End result is that with higher purchase price, higher per litre fuel cost, eventual costly repairs, you may be better off with a petrol.
Hope I will not be disappointed with mine when I get it in a few days. Big change from my old (much admired) w124 Merc estate.
|
|
Can't speak for the diesel; son's Panda 1.2 Dynamic is nice to drive and averages 45mpg on typical 4 mile journeys. Last year he was commuting nearer 10 miles and he was averaging 50. Allow that diesel is currently about 9% dearer than petrol, the car costs more and is potentially more expensive to maintain, and the petrol would probably make more sense at average mileage.
Edited by Manatee on 28/04/2008 at 20:41
|
|
We had a 1.3mj diesel in France a couple of years ago. I had concerns about the build quality of the car but the engine was impressive from an economy viewpoint. Performance with three up plus luggage wasn't exactly tyre-shredding but it cruised well in 6th gear on the autoroutes. The car only had a couple of hundred km on the clock.
|
If the majority of the mileage is about town I would go for the diesel. However if the mileage is going to be more mixed it has to be the petrol for the enjoyment of the revs and gears!
|
|
Its worth having a look at the FiatForum (www.fiatforum.com). Pandas seem to have a bit of a mixed reception on there. Looking at the first page there's problems with tracking, shocks and clutch. I know you only see the problem cases, but worth a look I would have thought.
|
|
|
|
Defin 1.2 i have had one will last for ever, much longer than diesel.
this engine suits the car perfectly. Same with the 500. The diesels will be fine during warranty period but costs will escalate after 3 years.
|
Panda, there are deals to be had. The 500 is to new to get a worthwhile discount. I am on my second Panda. ran a 1.2 eleganza for 2 years, no problems at all, number plate bulb and 1 wiper blade replaced. good on motorway, cruises at 70/80 mph with no problems. around town 36/38 mpg and on a run up to 58 mpg... worth going for an eleganza, climate control, larger tyres, electric mirrors, auto door locking. it,s got the kit.
changed to a 100 hp which is a riot.. much fun....
|
A vote for Multijet economy here - have been using ours for work this week. Not driving particularly gently, I have achieved 59 mpg brim-to-brim. The 100HP (which has done a fair amount of urban with Mrs B and a couple of bootings from me) has managed 36 mpg.
What is instructive is that we filled both of them up earlier with (as it turned out) almost the same quantity of fuel (22 litres) and the MJ had gone 106 miles further. Shame it still cost £27...
|
|
|
|
