Off Topic Which car have you owned/driven proved the closest to the Fiat 500 ?

Currently reading:
Off Topic Which car have you owned/driven proved the closest to the Fiat 500 ?

Joined
May 15, 2011
Messages
3,769
Points
568
I was recently asked ‘how many cars have you owned’. When I listed them I realised that the earlier cars had similarities with the 500s.

For me the first 500 that I owned was very like the Fiat 127 Sport - they were both in black and had stripes. I had bought the 127 Sport coming from a 1.6 Twin cam to have cheaper running costs. It was the same with the 500 Sport coming from a 6 cylinder engine.

Some talk about the Twin Air having the ‘spirit’ of the original 500 2 cylinder engine but for me it was the 127 Sport 70HP with the 1050cc Twin Weber engine that proved the closest in character and temperament to the 500 1.4.
 

Attachments

  • Cars that I owned.jpg
    Cars that I owned.jpg
    138.2 KB · Views: 142
Last edited:
For me I guess it's the 100hp I testdrove along with the 1.2 Panda I testdrove as well.

My car ownership history is quite short!

1977 Fiat 131 1600 automatic
1979 Peugeot 2 litre automatic
Had a terrible Audi 80 1.8 for a couple of weeks, it was free so I couldn't complain.
R reg 406 1.9 turdo diseasel 2 x HGF meant it was exchange under the scrappage scheme
L reg Subaru Legacy Turbo which I used daily for about 3 or 4 months till the 500 arrived. It absolutely drank fuel but I was never late for work!

Nothing really similar to the 500 at all!
 
I once owned a black Renault 5 GT Turbo that had been modified, lowered, remapped(chipped) etc.

Was a small nippy car, great fun to drive on country lanes. Probably the closest thing to a 500 that I ever driven.

I was gutted when I wrote it off on the way to a rock venue in Cheadle called The Highwayman.

Looked very similar to this one but had a thin red trim on the bumpers.
n516426431_369730_6792.jpg
 
1987 mini metro

I'd like to agree with you, but my 1985 metro was a disgusting horrible little car which could never be compared in any way to the 500. Still, it didn't stop me from owning the useless piece of junk for six years, putting 100,000 miles on it before finally part exchanging it for a Volvo 440, which incidentally, wasn't a bad car considering it was really a Renault 21 in disguise. My Dad did own a Fiat Uno for a few years which I drove a few times, so I guess for me, that's about the closest I'd compare it with.
 
I'd like to agree with you, but my 1985 metro was a disgusting horrible little car which could never be compared in any way to the 500. Still, it didn't stop me from owning the useless piece of junk for six years, putting 100,000 miles on it before finally part exchanging it for a Volvo 440, which incidentally, wasn't a bad car considering it was really a Renault 21 in disguise. My Dad did own a Fiat Uno for a few years which I drove a few times, so I guess for me, that's about the closest I'd compare it with.

It reminded me of it because the Metro was under powered and handled like the 500. After driving expensive more powerful cars for the last few years getting in the 500 reminded me of be 17 again (when I had the metro)
 
It reminded me of it because the Metro was under powered and handled like the 500. After driving expensive more powerful cars for the last few years getting in the 500 reminded me of be 17 again (when I had the metro)

Oooh, I think the only thing I could say about the Metro versus 500 for comparison, is probably the interior space. As for the suspension, even though I know the 500's standard suspension set up may not exactly be the greatest, it's still much better than the hydrolastic set up on the Metro, that was just bouncy and horrible. My own Metro had the 1.0L engine and I think the 500 just manages to pull a little better with the 1.2.......Oh and the brakes on the 500 are so very much better!
 
Oooh, I think the only thing I could say about the Metro versus 500 for comparison, is probably the interior space. As for the suspension, even though I know the 500's standard suspension set up may not exactly be the greatest, it's still much better than the hydrolastic set up on the Metro, that was just bouncy and horrible. My own Metro had the 1.0L engine and I think the 500 just manages to pull a little better with the 1.2.......Oh and the brakes on the 500 are so very much better!

All of this may be true but a metro was last driven by me in 1993 and my memory is that the 500 is like the metro..but for the last few years I have been driving 155mph german cars so that my be why it feels like it.
 
All of this may be true but a metro was last driven by me in 1993 and my memory is that the 500 is like the metro..but for the last few years I have been driving 155mph german cars so that my be why it feels like it.

I couldn't agree more, anything two litre/turbo charged and above will always make anything else seem like peddling a push bike up Mount Everest, that's why I drive a Cadillac. Getting into the 500 after driving that is like, well, as above!
 
The closest car I've owned to the 500 in terms of driving experience and fun to drive was any one of the 3 Mini's I've owned (proper British ones not the BMW jobs). They have the same connection to the road and small car feel and good balance of power to handling which makes you have to engage with the car and think about driving. Cars I've owned:

1971 1000cc Mini Van
1974 Triumph Herald based Kit Car
1985 Mini Sprite 100cc 13" wheeled disc brake version
1991 Vauxhall Astravan 1.7D
1979 Chopped and 'rodded Citroen 2CV special
1994 Citroen Xantia 1.9D
1989 Mini Mayfair
1988 VW Polo 1100
1998 Renault Scenic Phase 1 1600 petrol
2004 SAAB 9-5 estate 2.2TiD
1997 Volvo V40 1.8i (scrapped during scheme for the 500)
2009 Fiat 500 1.2 Lounge
2010 Volvo XC60 Drive 2.0D 2WD

The most reliable so far were the Astravan (110K trouble free miles) and the SAAB (135K trouble free miles).
 
For me I think it would be an ancient canary yellow Citroen Diane I had as a student many moons ago. Not for its physical attributes but for the way it made me feel, for how I loved lavishing (unwarranted) attention on it, and the fun I had driving it.

I'm pleased to say that of the many ways in which the 500 is different from that car, one of them is that the 500 does not appear to be at risk of snapping in two if driven over a pot hole due to corrosion after twelve months' of my ownership (as happened to the Citroen after being parked up in a barn for one winter).
 
For me I think it would be an ancient canary yellow Citroen Diane I had as a student many moons ago. Not for its physical attributes but for the way it made me feel, for how I loved lavishing (unwarranted) attention on it, and the fun I had driving it.

I'm pleased to say that of the many ways in which the 500 is different from that car, one of them is that the 500 does not appear to be at risk of snapping in two if driven over a pot hole due to corrosion after twelve months' of my ownership (as happened to the Citroen after being parked up in a barn for one winter).

It's spelt Dyane :p My wife would be most annoyed at you for mispelling that :p
 
Ha ha, bringing Citroen's into the mix, I can't stop thinking about Roger Moore rolling down that hillside in a 2CV in one of the Bond films, classic stuff. Not many motors would be able to take abuse like that (yes, I know it's only a film) :p
 
Ha ha, bringing Citroen's into the mix, I can't stop thinking about Roger Moore rolling down that hillside in a 2CV in one of the Bond films, classic stuff. Not many motors would be able to take abuse like that (yes, I know it's only a film) :p

Whenever I see that I always laugh at the 504's sped up and almost appearing sporty. The 504 would be faster than the 2CV, but it's at home in East Africa on rough gravel roads, not twisty tarmac!
 
When i was studying in the UK my first car was a 2nd hand Audi A2 bought from the biggest stealer in the world. (it was my first car so understandably he cheated me pretty well)!


However, the car itself was amazing. Really light and practical (aluminum body), 4 doors and a 1.4 engine that was more than enough for a car so light. I had it for 2 years before i sold it when i left the uk and it did not break down on me once. I also drove it to Greece and back in this time with little regard for driving slow. It drank oil quite a lot and more often than not the oil light came on which required 1lt of top up! (it was 6 years old when i bought it). I drove it for about 30k and did nothing except normal service and maintenance.

The Fiat 500 is similar in that it is light and nimble, both for me are perfect city bachelor cars. I wish all cars were made with aluminum but i guess that is too expensive and that is why audi took the unfortunate decision to stop making A2's, they were simply too expensive to produce and make a profit on by selling it at a price people would actually buy a small car with.
 
I think the A2 was way ahead of its time in many respects.

I very much wanted one but it did not come as an auto and my wife only has an auto licence so it was ruled out.
 
I think the A2 was way ahead of its time in many respects.

I very much wanted one but it did not come as an auto and my wife only has an auto licence so it was ruled out.
Why didn't you tell the wife to learn how to drive a proper car? :p
 
Back
Top