Well new to me maybe:

I was considering the 2nd generation Panda to buy but recently had a 3rd generation 1.2 on hire for 6 weeks so I was wondering whether spending the extra was worthwhile!

Fundamentally it don't seem much different to the 2nd gen, just bent tin and formed plastics.

I'm disappointed that there is no bluetooth or aux input as standard. No exterior temp gauge....standard on virtually every other car these days, it gets hot here in southern Spain.

There is an incessant squeak (rubber rubbing noise) around the passenger "B"post as if the door is not shut or the body is flexing.

Brakes are violent....well compared to my Fiesta and Volvo V40.

It bounces all over the place on non tarmac roads but then it weighs no more than a bag full of shopping and a crate of beer!

Driving position limited comfort (telescopic column would help) but headroom counters this.

Shift light drives you potty and so does the incessant ding ding ding which I think you can turn down but not off.

I can pay 4K€ for a 2 or 6K€+ for an early 3.......1.2, don't trust diesels anymore second hand.

Worth the extra for a second car?

More then Happy with my 85 Lounge.

Panda heaven on here. They are what they are. On here they are loved & the best little cheap car ever. I'm certainly not going to lambast the panda, but it it is what it is, an affordable wee car cheap to run. Old & young drivers alike are happy with them. Obviously Bimmer you've done the right thing in a test drive, only you can make the choice.

We've got both in our family, essentially similar cars but with different character, to my mind. The 2 is definitely more basic - no frills about the driver information, and a little smaller, the boot is noticeably smaller, although you can squeeze a surprising amount in it. But it feels slightly better screwed together, the upholstery feels more hard wearing, and the seats are maybe more comfortable.

The 3 has the better interior space, probably better grip with the 175 tyres even on the base model, and feels more recent. But it's definitely more rattly (not sorted the dash squeaks and assorted rattles on ours yet), and there are annoyances like the shift light, side button handbrake (not a fan) and lack of spare wheel (rectified on ours).

You pays your money and takes your choice I guess. I was looking for a 2, and ended up buying the 3 because late 2s were overpriced comparatively. Having said that, I bought my 13 plate Pop in June for £2850, when 11 plate 2s were costing £2500 and upwards. Makes your quoted 6K€+ for an early 3 sound expensive, particularly when you can get a new Pop for £6995.

That dash rattle took fiat 2 days and the complete dash out to fix. However after 18 months i now have a very slight rattle on poor road surfaces.

Cheguava said:

Makes your quoted 6K€+ for an early 3 sound expensive, particularly when you can get a new Pop for £6995.

Click to expand...

That, to me is what the Panda is all about - a cheap but generally reliable car with no frills. It's true that it's built to that price, and it shows in the quality of some of the components, but it has no common major faults and the minor ones are both well known and easily mitigated. At £6995, it's good value and you can forgive it the odd minor rattle & premature part failure. Regular changing of all the appropriate fluids (which IMO isn't properly provided for in the service schedule) will go a long way to mitigating the common issues.

More expensive variants of both the Panda and 500 use many of the same cheap components, and that's where the expectation gap usually sets in.

If buying a new one today, I'd strip & lubricate the front brakes, paint the sump pan properly and rustproof the rear beam before it even saw the road. Most folks wouldn't expect to have to do that on a car they'd just driven out of the showroom, but most new cars don't cost £6995 either.

Yep, that about sounds the wee motor up.

I'd say the differences between the latest (actually Mk4) and previous (Mk3) Pandas are both greater and smaller than has been suggested. We've had MJ, 1.2 and 100HP Mk3s, and a 4x4 TA.

The external dimensions are within fractions of being the same and I can't detect any noticeable difference internally, including the boot. The ride quality is the main dynamic difference with a significant improvement. We've had very few reliability issues - true of several dozen Fiats over the years - but, if anything, the latest feels more solid.

babbo_umbro said:

I'd say the differences between the latest (actually Mk4) and previous (Mk3) Pandas are both greater and smaller than has been suggested. We've had MJ, 1.2 and 100HP Mk3s, and a 4x4 TA.

The external dimensions are within fractions of being the same and I can't detect any noticeable difference internally, including the boot. The ride quality is the main dynamic difference with a significant improvement. We've had very few reliability issues - true of several dozen Fiats over the years - but, if anything, the latest feels more solid.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but up to an hour ago both were sat on the drive, one behind each other, and I disagree. The Mk4 (if you wish) is 115mm longer - 4.5 inches, and that's a fair amount in a city car, ditto the 65mm wider - which is noticeable putting away in cramped modern garages. The luggage capacity is 225 versus 206, so 10% bigger, and when you're cramming in the shopping, trust me, that's noticeable.

Sounds like on the OP,s post he doesn't like the car. So why bother.
It's not a Lexus your buying, it's a honest no frills means of transport, yes it comes as standard with a few irritations but so does the Lexus, the Mercedes and the Porsche. So if you are looking for the perfect car, sit down and wait........... you could be waiting a very long time indeed.

Cheguava said:

Sorry, but up to an hour ago both were sat on the drive, one behind each other, and I disagree. The Mk4 (if you wish) is 115mm longer - 4.5 inches, and that's a fair amount in a city car, ditto the 65mm wider - which is noticeable putting away in cramped modern garages. The luggage capacity is 225 versus 206, so 10% bigger, and when you're cramming in the shopping, trust me, that's noticeable.

Click to expand...

There's no arguing with the numbers you quote, though the added length is all in the front and - particularly - rear overhang - the wheelbase is the same to within one mm. However, our Pandas also sit together - in tandem in a garage - and subjectively they both go in the same way as they did when we had two Mk3s. We've done two trips to and from Italy every year for decades, with the cars crammed with oil, wine, luggage, two people and - trust me - I find the difference in space between the latest two models of Panda negligible.

The current Panda certainly looks, subjectively, to have put on a fair bit of weight, but that doesn't translate to more space on the inside.

gar074 said:

The current Panda certainly looks, subjectively, to have put on a fair bit of weight, but that doesn't translate to more space on the inside.

Click to expand...

The ols Panda makes very effective use of the space available, as it is basically a small box van with windows & seats. Adding curvature makes for greater eye appeal, but increases the dimensions without providing any additional useful space.

The 500 is significantly less useful as a load carrier than the Mk3 Panda.

For an extreme example, look at the VW Beetle.

Hi.
I did consider a 500 but with two health issues that effect my mobility having just two doors and a tiny boot wasn't practical. I'd already looked at the older Panda but for me I preferred the dash and the overall styling of the current model. Of course the main thing was to get a car as new as my budget would allow.