although they share the same floor 500 is a euroncap 5 star car whereas panda is only 3, all those extra beams and stuff probably made front havier. you can easly tell the lack of balance between front and rear just by looking. (at least I can) so, that may well be one of the reasons.
General Speeds in Gears for 1.4 16v
- Thread starter John R Smith
- Start date
Currently reading:
General Speeds in Gears for 1.4 16v
although they share the same floor 500 is a euroncap 5 star car whereas panda is only 3, all those extra beams and stuff probably made front havier. you can easly tell the lack of balance between front and rear just by looking. (at least I can) so, that may well be one of the reasons.
Ive not driven the 100hp Panda. Just wondering if its geared differently to the 500 1.4... Maybe the Panda probably performs better than the 500 on motorways and the 500 performs better on smaller roads and corners as its wider. Only a guess though.
I find accelerating in the 500 1.4 perfect from 2500rpm then shifting at 4500rpm. Or if i really want fun i'll shift gear at 6000rpm.
The handling still puts a smile on my face every time i exit a roundabout in a 50mph zone.
I find accelerating in the 500 1.4 perfect from 2500rpm then shifting at 4500rpm. Or if i really want fun i'll shift gear at 6000rpm.
The handling still puts a smile on my face every time i exit a roundabout in a 50mph zone.
Let me assure you. As fun as a 500 is, the panda 100hp is way more of a laugh.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that a 1.4 lounge spec 500 in 6th gear at an indicated 110mph on 195/45 16" tyres is doing 25mpg.
500 is the more complete car i agree, but both infront of me for a wee blast on a B road and id take the Panda.
babbo_umbro
Established member
Very subjective, of course, but the current 500 is the only Fiat of that name that I wouldn't want to own - I've had 2 500As, a 500C, an early Nuova 500 with suicide doors, 2 500Ds, one with a BMW flat twin engine that I put in it, a Cinquecento SX and a Sporting. I find the styling of the current 500 contrived, inside and out, and it's too big for the proportions, it needs to be six inches narrower and chopped off round about the rubbing strip. There was an Abarth in the car park of Waitrose in Okehampton today and - though I'm sure it's fun - it doesn't appeal at all. Not sure how you can conclude that one or the other is better, though.
The discussion about whether or not it's possible to get a modestly-sized pram in the boot was just laughable, though not as laughable as the discussion that raged 40-odd years ago about whether or not it was possible to conceive a child in the rear-engined 500.
Ditto. I'll say it again, the 1.4 500 I drove felt limp compared to the 100hp and whereas the 1.4 500 handled a little better than my 1.2, the 100hp felt like a go kart. EVO rave about the 100hp being such good bang for your buck, but they don't go on about the 1.4 500. They're both decent cars, I just think that out of the box the 100hp is a better drivers car.
Funnily enough I agree. Something just doesn't sit right with me about the Abarth 500. If the opportunity came along I'd happily slap a t-jet in my 500 and the Abarth brakes and some decent suspension, but I just don't like the fact that it's called an Abarth. I'm not against the idea or the performance, it just doesn't for me justify the Abarth tag. To me an Abarth should be only a step or two removed from being a competition car, back in the day when you bought a 131 Abarth you put a cage in it and went rallying and the 500 Abarth just isn't the same kind of car.
This is an Abarth
This is a 500 T-jet
I had a 131 Mirafiori and I would be under no illusions that if I put a lampredi twincam in and modified it that it would be an Abarth. I miss my 131!
Attachments
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2010
- Messages
- 691
- Points
- 89
I hope I have not gone off topic but here goes...I just re-bought a 1.4 500 - ok - a 'newer one' after driving a number of 1.2s, TA, multijets, 1.4s and Pandas. The Panda 100bhp did really interest me as an interim car but I couldn't live with the interior after the 500 and also I was a little concerned about the 3 star safety. It also seemed a little thirsty - maybe due to the high frontal - but it is good value and can carry 'stuff'. The 1.2 suspension weakness is highlighted in the Twin Air and I found the handling a little ragged and with no ESP as a safety net as standard for an amateur driver - it was a concern. My memory of the multijet (it was last November before the snow - I had a good solo test drive ) was that it was a little nose heavy and the engine seemed a little heavy for the size of the car but if you're doing big mileage its 'your only man'. Impressive torque. I like the revability of the 1.4 and it's nice to know that servicing on it is cheaper than the 1.2 with the hydraulic tappets - at least it might help a little towards the extra juice that it uses . On the Abarth 500 this is the only car that I have ever driven to say afterwards that 'I want one' . I think the go faster bits and the double exhaust (& of course the back fires) add to the experience and the bulged front is there for a reason to house the turbo & intercooler. The 500 is probably the only car out there at the moment that can be customised 'authentically' than anything else and still not look 'cheap'.
) was that it was a little nose heavy and the engine seemed a little heavy for the size of the car but if you're doing big mileage its 'your only man'. Impressive torque. I like the revability of the 1.4 and it's nice to know that servicing on it is cheaper than the 1.2 with the hydraulic tappets - at least it might help a little towards the extra juice that it uses . On the Abarth 500 this is the only car that I have ever driven to say afterwards that 'I want one' . I think the go faster bits and the double exhaust (& of course the back fires) add to the experience and the bulged front is there for a reason to house the turbo & intercooler. The 500 is probably the only car out there at the moment that can be customised 'authentically' than anything else and still not look 'cheap'. babbo_umbro
Established member
I had a 131 Sport with hotter cams and 45DHLA Dellorto carbs, and nice adjustable Konis all round - phenomenal car.
Mine had Bilstein sports shocks on it and it handled really well
Still remember going rather sideways around this roundabout in the wet
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&l...d=frpdScPcF9uf_VTYeeDx8Q&cbp=12,81.48,,0,1.72
ahmett
Prominent member
You are right actually, it just feels weird going so far up the red line to hit the sweet spot in the next gear! What a screamer of an engine!
I hope I have not gone off topic but here goes...I just re-bought a 1.4 500 - ok - a 'newer one' after driving a number of 1.2s, TA, multijets, 1.4s and Pandas. The Panda 100bhp did really interest me as an interim car but I couldn't live with the interior after the 500 and also I was a little concerned about the 3 star safety. It also seemed a little thirsty - maybe due to the high frontal - but it is good value and can carry 'stuff'. The 1.2 suspension weakness is highlighted in the Twin Air and I found the handling a little ragged and with no ESP as a safety net as standard for an amateur driver - it was a concern. My memory of the multijet (it was last November before the snow - I had a good solo test drive
I agree with everything you say about the 1.2 and panda 1.4. After driving the 1.4 i didnt want anything slower - especially when its more expensive to service. The 1.2 felt good on small roads and in traffic, but when you put your foot down it feels like the brakes are on.
I also want an Abarth next.
It's a very common thing to do. In our Subaru if you want to get the best power in the next gear then sometimes you need to rev it till it's not really got anymore torque so you can be in the torque band for the next gear and be on boost
