 | |
Fiat 500
Cars Modifications Aspects of car modifications (tuning, styling) (uk.rec.cars.modifications)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Fiat 500 -
05-16-2009
, 08:59 AM
|
I think I would have the Panda, but that's because I'm pretty anti-fashion. |
The 500 is however a bit gorgeous but all things considered crapper than
a Mini.
I think you're wrong to imply that the Panda is not fashionable or less
fashionable than the 500. The Panda is an incredibly fashion-conscious
vehicle.
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
Bob Sherunckle <zilspeed (AT) beeteeopenworld (DOT) com> wrote: I think I would have the Panda, but that's because I'm pretty anti-fashion. I'd also the Panda (4x4) because it's a more practical car than the 500. The 500 is however a bit gorgeous but all things considered crapper than a Mini. |
It's only the retro styling which would arguably put them in competition
with each other.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
Alfa 156 TSpark Sportwagon Veloce Selespeed - Alfa 75 TSpark Lusso
Ducati 750SS - BMW R100RT - Company Hack Focus TDCI
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: Bob Sherunckle <zilspeed (AT) beeteeopenworld (DOT) com> wrote: I think I would have the Panda, but that's because I'm pretty anti-fashion. I'd also the Panda (4x4) because it's a more practical car than the 500. The 500 is however a bit gorgeous but all things considered crapper than a Mini. They are several thousand pounds cheaper than a Mini, though. It's only the retro styling which would arguably put them in competition with each other. |
cash.
i love my mini though and there's few small cars i'd part with it for realy.
although the 500 is LOADS cheaper than a mini. only good thing is i didn't
pay a lot for my mini and i expect it's value to hold out ok when i'm done.
defo like a cooper next or maybe a turbo'd cooper s if i could stretch.
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
DervMan wrote: "SteveH" <steve (AT) italiancar (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:1izry2q.ohbmje165ayq3N%steve (AT) italiancar (DOT) co.uk... Abo <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote: Remember, the Panda 100hp is even faster than a transit van... Cheapest 500 is a grand more than the cheap Panda. Still a sloooow car but it's mainly going to be used as a city car or on expensed work mileage. It's about £6000 plus my 306, less whatever else I can get off it. Not likely to get a big discount off one - if your 306 is 10 years old or more (I suspect it is), then you should get the scrappage off it at least. Don't worry about it being a grand more than a Panda, as they're holding their value much better - so the total cost of ownership shouldn't be much different. I'd exercise a little caution here. The 500 is *currently* holding its value well, but this may or may not continue. The Cinquecento originally held its value well, especially the Sporting, but after the first three years this very quickly dropped off. Fiats, even small Fiats, are not known for holding their value. If you want something with a better reputation for holding its value then that would point towards - yeuch - the Fox. Now there's a car that falls over its own wheels... You'd want to 1.4 version of the Fox unless a 0-60 time of 17.5 seconds floats your boat. And that results in a higher VED band and shite fuel consumption compared with the 500. And the 500 looks better. |
they're all not fun to drive. In some respects the lesser powered 1.2 is
the one to have, because the 1.4 is overpowered for the chassis poise and
grip. But as I say, they fall over their own wheels. The Fox manages to be
lumpy in the ride department but wallowly in corners and roundabouts. Oh
and they rattle. And air conditioning was something like £900 as an option.
So on and so forth.
I'm sure it would be no less painful to live with than any other car, but
eww, just eww.
But for those amongst the population that justify a car purchase on
depreciation, it is arguably the sub-B class car to buy, as it shouldn't
depreciate as quickly as the Fords, Fiats, Kias et al. I'd just not want
one full stop...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Abo" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote in message news:gum8j5$r5g$1 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net... DervMan wrote: "SteveH" <steve (AT) italiancar (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:1izry2q.ohbmje165ayq3N%steve (AT) italiancar (DOT) co.uk... Abo <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote: Remember, the Panda 100hp is even faster than a transit van... Cheapest 500 is a grand more than the cheap Panda. Still a sloooow car but it's mainly going to be used as a city car or on expensed work mileage. It's about £6000 plus my 306, less whatever else I can get off it. Not likely to get a big discount off one - if your 306 is 10 years old or more (I suspect it is), then you should get the scrappage off it at least. Don't worry about it being a grand more than a Panda, as they're holding their value much better - so the total cost of ownership shouldn't be much different. I'd exercise a little caution here. The 500 is *currently* holding its value well, but this may or may not continue. The Cinquecento originally held its value well, especially the Sporting, but after the first three years this very quickly dropped off. Fiats, even small Fiats, are not known for holding their value. If you want something with a better reputation for holding its value then that would point towards - yeuch - the Fox. Now there's a car that falls over its own wheels... You'd want to 1.4 version of the Fox unless a 0-60 time of 17.5 seconds floats your boat. And that results in a higher VED band and shite fuel consumption compared with the 500. And the 500 looks better. We looked at the Fox before we got the C1, it was utterly shite (only thing Nat liked were the funky seats). |
Okay the above is a bit harsh. I liked the simplistic dashboard arrangement
(presumably nicked from the original Ka). The interior was rattly in the
900 mile demo I tried, very dark and the ventilation system wasn't great
(needed air conditioning). But it was more the way it drove...
Quote:
|
Unfortunately the 500 was a bit too pricey for us at the time so didnt even go and have a look for fear of signing something. The C1 is the first new (or even newish) car we've owned, but I've been totally impressed and we havent regretted it at all. Obviously the 107 and Aygo and pretty much the same, but our local Peugeot salesman was an arse so didnt go with them. The Toyota dealership was the best out of all we looked at (VW, Hyundai, Skoda, VW, Citroen, Peugeot) but their finance deal couldnt match Citroen. Anyway, what I was trying to get to, is don't rule out the C1/107/Aygo. Yes they're a bit basic in standard form, but you can spec it up a bit to make things more comfortable, and they're actually a giggle to drive. |
to buy, cheap to run, outdrives the Fox (but not the Ka, Aygo or Mini), has
decent interior space and equipment.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:777oqmF1g7jnuU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net... "Abo" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote in message news:gum8j5$r5g$1 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net... DervMan wrote: "SteveH" <steve (AT) italiancar (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:1izry2q.ohbmje165ayq3N%steve (AT) italiancar (DOT) co.uk... Abo <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote: Remember, the Panda 100hp is even faster than a transit van... Cheapest 500 is a grand more than the cheap Panda. Still a sloooow car but it's mainly going to be used as a city car or on expensed work mileage. It's about £6000 plus my 306, less whatever else I can get off it. Not likely to get a big discount off one - if your 306 is 10 years old or more (I suspect it is), then you should get the scrappage off it at least. Don't worry about it being a grand more than a Panda, as they're holding their value much better - so the total cost of ownership shouldn't be much different. I'd exercise a little caution here. The 500 is *currently* holding its value well, but this may or may not continue. The Cinquecento originally held its value well, especially the Sporting, but after the first three years this very quickly dropped off. Fiats, even small Fiats, are not known for holding their value. If you want something with a better reputation for holding its value then that would point towards - yeuch - the Fox. Now there's a car that falls over its own wheels... You'd want to 1.4 version of the Fox unless a 0-60 time of 17.5 seconds floats your boat. And that results in a higher VED band and shite fuel consumption compared with the 500. And the 500 looks better. We looked at the Fox before we got the C1, it was utterly shite (only thing Nat liked were the funky seats). You liked it that much! ;-) |
Quote:
|
Okay the above is a bit harsh. I liked the simplistic dashboard arrangement (presumably nicked from the original Ka). The interior was rattly in the 900 mile demo I tried, very dark and the ventilation system wasn't great (needed air conditioning). But it was more the way it drove... |
a while, but a look through the brochure soon put us off anyway as it looked
crap, mpg was crap, performance was crap etc etc.
Quote:
|
Unfortunately the 500 was a bit too pricey for us at the time so didnt even go and have a look for fear of signing something. The C1 is the first new (or even newish) car we've owned, but I've been totally impressed and we havent regretted it at all. Obviously the 107 and Aygo and pretty much the same, but our local Peugeot salesman was an arse so didnt go with them. The Toyota dealership was the best out of all we looked at (VW, Hyundai, Skoda, VW, Citroen, Peugeot) but their finance deal couldnt match Citroen. Anyway, what I was trying to get to, is don't rule out the C1/107/Aygo. Yes they're a bit basic in standard form, but you can spec it up a bit to make things more comfortable, and they're actually a giggle to drive. Yes; I like the trio. In the class I also rate the Picanto, as it's cheap to buy, cheap to run, outdrives the Fox (but not the Ka, Aygo or Mini), has decent interior space and equipment. Picanto was knocked on the head as soon as I suggested it (well Kia in |
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
"DervMan" <thedervman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:4a0fdaa7$0$26149$da0feed9 (AT) news (DOT) zen.co.uk... "Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister (AT) yahoo (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:777oqmF1g7jnuU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net... "Abo" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote in message news:gum8j5$r5g$1 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net... DervMan wrote: "SteveH" <steve (AT) italiancar (DOT) co.uk> wrote in message news:1izry2q.ohbmje165ayq3N%steve (AT) italiancar (DOT) co.uk... Abo <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote: Remember, the Panda 100hp is even faster than a transit van... Cheapest 500 is a grand more than the cheap Panda. Still a sloooow car but it's mainly going to be used as a city car or on expensed work mileage. It's about £6000 plus my 306, less whatever else I can get off it. Not likely to get a big discount off one - if your 306 is 10 years old or more (I suspect it is), then you should get the scrappage off it at least. Don't worry about it being a grand more than a Panda, as they're holding their value much better - so the total cost of ownership shouldn't be much different. I'd exercise a little caution here. The 500 is *currently* holding its value well, but this may or may not continue. The Cinquecento originally held its value well, especially the Sporting, but after the first three years this very quickly dropped off. Fiats, even small Fiats, are not known for holding their value. If you want something with a better reputation for holding its value then that would point towards - yeuch - the Fox. Now there's a car that falls over its own wheels... You'd want to 1.4 version of the Fox unless a 0-60 time of 17.5 seconds floats your boat. And that results in a higher VED band and shite fuel consumption compared with the 500. And the 500 looks better. We looked at the Fox before we got the C1, it was utterly shite (only thing Nat liked were the funky seats). You liked it that much! ;-) They were multicoloured in a sea of dullness, so maybe that's why. Okay the above is a bit harsh. I liked the simplistic dashboard arrangement (presumably nicked from the original Ka). The interior was rattly in the 900 mile demo I tried, very dark and the ventilation system wasn't great (needed air conditioning). But it was more the way it drove... Dealer didn't have one to test drive and reckoned he couldn't get one in for a while, but a look through the brochure soon put us off anyway as it looked crap, mpg was crap, performance was crap etc etc. |
mpg!
The 1.2 doesn't feel as sluggish as the performance figures would suggest.
It's no ball of fire, but the engine has a decent usable spread of power,
broader than the 1.4 donk, which feels peaky by comparison. The 1.4 does
feel quicker on the open road where you can use the gears a bit more but in
the city it's wasted.
Quote:
|
Unfortunately the 500 was a bit too pricey for us at the time so didnt even go and have a look for fear of signing something. The C1 is the first new (or even newish) car we've owned, but I've been totally impressed and we havent regretted it at all. Obviously the 107 and Aygo and pretty much the same, but our local Peugeot salesman was an arse so didnt go with them. The Toyota dealership was the best out of all we looked at (VW, Hyundai, Skoda, VW, Citroen, Peugeot) but their finance deal couldnt match Citroen. Anyway, what I was trying to get to, is don't rule out the C1/107/Aygo. Yes they're a bit basic in standard form, but you can spec it up a bit to make things more comfortable, and they're actually a giggle to drive. Yes; I like the trio. In the class I also rate the Picanto, as it's cheap to buy, cheap to run, outdrives the Fox (but not the Ka, Aygo or Mini), has decent interior space and equipment. Picanto was knocked on the head as soon as I suggested it (well Kia in general was). Shame really. |
but isn't engaging as the Citroen 1.0 donk is. The cheapest Picanto was at
the time about a grand less than the cheapest C1 (at least list price wise)
at £5,995. The cheapest Fox was about about £6,500, the C1's list was
something like £7,000 as I remember as was the Ka. But as you know, wander
into most dealerships and they'll talk. I could have bought the basic Ka
for £4,995, Citroen love to offer deals. The Volkswagen dealer sniffed that
they don't discount in the same way as the pikey dealers _but_ instead
offered something like £200 off and the first two services free.
Kia offered freebies and a similar small discount but the warranty was much
longer.
Anyway, meh, I decided I'd miss my Saab too much so spent less on an older,
bigger 9-3 instead...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.