General Is The 105 TA Engine Still Available?

Currently reading:
General Is The 105 TA Engine Still Available?

So what value are you going to put on protecting the safety of yourself and your loved ones?

The additional cost of buying a car with properly up-to-date safety built in might seem a waste of money... ...until something bad happens. Saving a few quid on your running costs might not look like such a good idea if you're spending the rest of your life contemplating your choice from the confines of your wheelchair.

I agree that passive safety is important, but cars have had good passive safety for a fair while now. That is what I value far more than driver aids, especially given how fallible they are.
 
I agree that passive safety is important, but cars have had good passive safety for a fair while now. That is what I value far more than driver aids, especially given how fallible they are.

The Volvo 940 was once held up as a car that had great passive safety.

[ame]https://youtu.be/qBDyeWofcLY[/ame]

Things have moved on and I’d rather be in a 500 or your Punto when crashing into a 940.

Now think about how things have moved on even further from the Punto and the Panda....
 
Of course Brussels will make electronic cock-washers mandatory soon. I'm afraid that you in the UK are going to miss such indispensable legislation in the near future.

"Electronics" sounds a bit bourgois. It's alright for the Continentals I suppose... but Brexit Britain will just mandate that every car should have a wire brush in the glove box... :D


Ralf S.
 
Very interesting discussions... and I suppose that it's true that a 500 or a Panda is relatively not as "class leading" in safety 2018 than it was in 2008... but that just emphasises the flaws with NCAP.

NCAP safety is only relative. It may be true that a 500 or Panda is relatively less "safe" compared to other cars now than it was in 2008. That does not (as NCAP now insinuates) make it less "safe" in absolute terms. Imagine Usain Bolt runs 100m in 9 seconds. Next year his cousin Bosain Nuts, using a legal supplement/new medical and nutritional technology runs 100m in 8.8 seconds. NCAP says that Usain is now a back-marking slow-coach. 100m in 9s clearly is not "slow". Panda managed 3 or 4 stars when it was Usain Bolt. It is not now suddenly unsafe. NCAP should add new stars to its system rather than revisit past results when the recent/past results were otherwise impressive.

Which brings me to my second problem with NCAP;

The NCAP scores are based on the possession of passive "aids" of often dubious relevance to the number of accidents they might prevent. If NCAP was properly serious then an automatic speed limit recognition system and speed limiter would be the "must have" accessory that should be worth a star all by itself... but it isn't. iDrive and any form of in-car "entertainment" should earn a de-merit just for being fitted... but they don't.

Let's say NCAP suddenly decides that hill-holders make a difference to the few cars who have another one roll back into them every year... reducing creased bumpers at a traffic lights is a noble objective but is it really the kind of accident that makes a difference to people..? Or does hill holders just reduce the statistics? Hint; "statistics" is how NCAP earns its funding. Panda without hill-holders suddenly loses a star. A newer car built with one, gains a star. That's how it works.

I'm not necessarily biased towards Fiat (although this is a Fiat Forum, not "Safety Vest World" so guess what...? :D ) but for me, if there is a car that earned 5 stars and then a few years later it gets zero just because it doesn't have certain gizmo's and features added (even though the consequences of not having them are in many cases of dubious value compared to the actual saftey benefit), then that implies to me that there is a defective evaluation and/or scoring system.

We should not just blindly swallow whatever comes out of NCAP. They risk confusing the consumers by their clumsy approach. NCAP... you had 4*... but this year I give you 1*.

Ralf S.
 
Very interesting discussions... and I suppose that it's true that a 500 or a Panda is relatively not as "class leading" in safety 2018 than it was in 2008... but that just emphasises the flaws with NCAP.

I'm not necessarily biased towards Fiat (although this is a Fiat Forum, not "Safety Vest World" so guess what...? :D ) but for me, if there is a car that earned 5 stars and then a few years later it gets zero just because it doesn't have certain gizmo's and features added (even though the consequences of not having them are in many cases of dubious value compared to the actual saftey benefit), then that implies to me that there is a defective evaluation and/or scoring system.


At the risk of continuing to derail this thread when there's a more appropriate one on the Panda forum, the Panda didn't get zero stars just for a lack of driver safety aids. The rear occupant safety score alone was enough to warrant the zero rating. I don't have any sympathy for Fiat, EuroNCAP make the industry aware of future test requirements a few years before they are introduced so there is manufacturer opportunity to improve vehicle performance.

Where I do agree is that the star rating is a moving target making like for like comparisons difficult for the buying public. There are vehicles contemporary with the Panda currently enjoy a higher rating because they have not yet been retested to the current EuroNCAP standards (eg VW Up!), potentially misleading consumers.
 
So, NCAP might decide that in 2019 an electronic cock-washer is mandatory
The anatomy or your assumption is slightly incorrect. In 2019 NCAP fully focuses on electronic <expletive deleted by moderator> support, because without proper support any <expletive deleted by moderator> in a car can cause a deadly accident.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very interesting discussions... and I suppose that it's true that a 500 or a Panda is relatively not as "class leading" in safety 2018 than it was in 2008... but that just emphasises the flaws with NCAP.

NCAP safety is only relative. It may be true that a 500 or Panda is relatively less "safe" compared to other cars now than it was in 2008. That does not (as NCAP now insinuates) make it less "safe" in absolute terms. Imagine Usain Bolt runs 100m in 9 seconds. Next year his cousin Bosain Nuts, using a legal supplement/new medical and nutritional technology runs 100m in 8.8 seconds. NCAP says that Usain is now a back-marking slow-coach. 100m in 9s clearly is not "slow". Panda managed 3 or 4 stars when it was Usain Bolt. It is not now suddenly unsafe. NCAP should add new stars to its system rather than revisit past results when the recent/past results were otherwise impressive.

Which brings me to my second problem with NCAP;

The NCAP scores are based on the possession of passive "aids" of often dubious relevance to the number of accidents they might prevent. If NCAP was properly serious then an automatic speed limit recognition system and speed limiter would be the "must have" accessory that should be worth a star all by itself... but it isn't. iDrive and any form of in-car "entertainment" should earn a de-merit just for being fitted... but they don't.

Let's say NCAP suddenly decides that hill-holders make a difference to the few cars who have another one roll back into them every year... reducing creased bumpers at a traffic lights is a noble objective but is it really the kind of accident that makes a difference to people..? Or does hill holders just reduce the statistics? Hint; "statistics" is how NCAP earns its funding. Panda without hill-holders suddenly loses a star. A newer car built with one, gains a star. That's how it works.

I'm not necessarily biased towards Fiat (although this is a Fiat Forum, not "Safety Vest World" so guess what...? :D ) but for me, if there is a car that earned 5 stars and then a few years later it gets zero just because it doesn't have certain gizmo's and features added (even though the consequences of not having them are in many cases of dubious value compared to the actual saftey benefit), then that implies to me that there is a defective evaluation and/or scoring system.

We should not just blindly swallow whatever comes out of NCAP. They risk confusing the consumers by their clumsy approach. NCAP... you had 4*... but this year I give you 1*.

Ralf S.

With all due respect you have no idea. iDrive is the industry standard that everyone aims for. Once you’re used to it you don’t find it distracting and it’s no more distracting or confusing than driving a 500 or a Panda.

NCAP is clear and not confusing at all. EURONCAP didn’t just spring this on the industry, it was known about for a years and years. Fiat had as much time as everyone else to prepare and chose not to upgrade in terms of passive or active safety to the point where their products would be class leading as they used to be.

You’ve got to question the mentality of people on here when they can’t comprehend how active safety features can be beneficial. You don’t need airbags and a strong shell if you don’t have the accident in the first place...
 
I'm reminding everyone about the forum rules on the use of inappropriate language.

I've already edited one post for this reason.

It's not necessary to resort to profanity to make a point.

Anyone continuing to use inappropriate language in this thread will be infracted; there will be no further warnings.
 
Last edited:
The Volvo 940 was once held up as a car that had great passive safety.

https://youtu.be/qBDyeWofcLY

Things have moved on and I’d rather be in a 500 or your Punto when crashing into a 940.

Now think about how things have moved on even further from the Punto and the Panda....
I get that things have moved on, I just don't feel that what was a very safe car 15 years ago is suddenly now a deathtrap, bearing in mind that the aforementioned 5* cars had to withstand pretty hefty impacts on order to gain that rating in the 1st place. The fact that you said an avoidance system was confused by a piece of litter gives me no reassurance on this tech at all. With regards to the fifth gear clip, I remember it terrifying me when I saw it 10 years ago, and it's worth bearing in mind that the improvements in passive safety from 1995 to 2005 are far, far greater than the improvements between 2005 to the present day.
 
Fiat have failed to update their models with the latest safety equipment and have been caught out, which is their silly fault. Considering the sales of the 500 and Panda they had no excuse not to maintain investment.

Where I feel NCAP are wrong however, is that each time they've awarded 0 stars, they've only re-tested Fiat models - the Punto and then the Panda. They've not bothered to re-test other cars launched around the same time. If they'd done that, we'd probably find that rival cars have their scores similarly reduced, especially at the cheaper end of the market that the Panda occupies, where models tend to go with out some of the electronic aids NCAP place weight on when scoring under the latest regime. This is misleading and people no longer know at a glance if one car is actually safer than another. For example you could be mistaken for thinking a VW Up! is now safer than a Panda as it scores more stars. However in reality the Up! might score just as badly as the Panda, if it were re-tested under the new regime that the Panda has been subjected to. The Up! could actually be even less safe than the Panda but if you look at the star ratings you'd be hard pushed to tell.

NCAP have turned into a joke. If I was Fiat I'd be asking serious questions regarding why NCAP have singled out their models over rivals when choosing which to re-test. To me this hasn't been explained by NCAP at all.
 
I hope ncap do retest the VW Up, to see how it fairs under the new testing, if only because the Up can be a bargain, in certain trim levels for cheap motoring.
 
I get that things have moved on, I just don't feel that what was a very safe car 15 years ago is suddenly now a deathtrap, bearing in mind that the aforementioned 5* cars had to withstand pretty hefty impacts on order to gain that rating in the 1st place. The fact that you said an avoidance system was confused by a piece of litter gives me no reassurance on this tech at all. With regards to the fifth gear clip, I remember it terrifying me when I saw it 10 years ago, and it's worth bearing in mind that the improvements in passive safety from 1995 to 2005 are far, far greater than the improvements between 2005 to the present day.

The system detected a metallic object passing in front of the car and it reacted accordingly. Missiles that cost tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds can also be confused by foil and other metallic items, it’s called chaff https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)

Standards move on, what was once exceptional is ordinary. Simple as that.
 
Fiat have failed to update their models with the latest safety equipment and have been caught out, which is their silly fault. Considering the sales of the 500 and Panda they had no excuse not to maintain investment.

Where I feel NCAP are wrong however, is that each time they've awarded 0 stars, they've only re-tested Fiat models - the Punto and then the Panda. They've not bothered to re-test other cars launched around the same time. If they'd done that, we'd probably find that rival cars have their scores similarly reduced, especially at the cheaper end of the market that the Panda occupies, where models tend to go with out some of the electronic aids NCAP place weight on when scoring under the latest regime. This is misleading and people no longer know at a glance if one car is actually safer than another. For example you could be mistaken for thinking a VW Up! is now safer than a Panda as it scores more stars. However in reality the Up! might score just as badly as the Panda, if it were re-tested under the new regime that the Panda has been subjected to. The Up! could actually be even less safe than the Panda but if you look at the star ratings you'd be hard pushed to tell.

NCAP have turned into a joke. If I was Fiat I'd be asking serious questions regarding why NCAP have singled out their models over rivals when choosing which to re-test. To me this hasn't been explained by NCAP at all.

NCAP retest cars after a time period... in the time Fiat have had the Grande Punto/Punto, VW for instance have had 3 different Polos, of course the Polo is going to do better. Ford have had 3 different Fiestas as well.. Renault 3 different Clios.

Stop blaming NCAP for retesting the dross that Fiat keep on producing.

Fiat are close to becoming a former car maker. A 0 or 1 star rating would kill the 500. They need to up their game or they will die.
 
As for the Up! Surprise surprise it’s 8 years newer than the Panda platform and can be purchased with AEB as an option. It’s almost as if VW knew that NCAP place importance on AEB and chose to fit it as an option to their smallest car. It probably isn’t a 5 star car, but it’ll do better than the 500.
 
All these safety devices drive me nuts, though!

Yes, I appreciate traction control and ABS (my Boxster only has ABS, so I need to treat it with caution on damp and cold roads) - but all the other stuff. Hate it.

The campervan has lane assist (it beeps like mad if you go near a white line) and I've had hire cars which additionally mess with your steering.

First thing I did was to learn how to turn it off!

Traction, ABS and airbags are all you need...

(What I find amusing is doing track days at Llandow - the 'Bus Stop' needs a very quick stop from close on 100mph in a decent car... all the lads in their modern hot hatches scream into it with the hazards flashing as they're relying on the computers to bail them out of the mess they're in)
 
With all due respect you have no idea. iDrive is the industry standard that everyone aims for. Once you’re used to it you don’t find it distracting and it’s no more distracting or confusing than driving a 500 or a Panda.


You think having an iDrive or any kind of infotainment system is not distracting *at all*, compared to having nothing to fiddle with at all....?? And you think driving a 500 is confusing..

Well, okay... Let's best leave it there. ;)

But I hope people will think about what the NCAP scores actually mean. My old dad always used to say if you can understand how something works, you can understand if you're being ripped off or not (he was talking about financial "products"... but it still holds up generally).

Hopefully any reader will be able to see the different arguments in this thread and think about it independently rather than just swallowing the Groupthink, and then make their own mind up.

Meanwhile, luckily with so many other "safe" cars out there with all the NCAP knee-trembler gizmo's and 6 out of 5 star NCAP ratings, I will rest assured that in the event of an accident, the other car will deploy it's self-inflating external impact-mattress or whatever and my tatty old (must be minus 10 stars) Stilo deathtrap won't be damaged at all, never mind reduced to a pile of old baked bean cans. :D

Drive safe! :)


Ralf S.




Ralf S.
 
Fiat have failed to update their models with the latest safety equipment and have been caught out, which is their silly fault. Considering the sales of the 500 and Panda they had no excuse not to maintain investment.

Where I feel NCAP are wrong however, is that each time they've awarded 0 stars, they've only re-tested Fiat models - the Punto and then the Panda. They've not bothered to re-test other cars launched around the same time. If they'd done that, we'd probably find that rival cars have their scores similarly reduced, especially at the cheaper end of the market that the Panda occupies, where models tend to go with out some of the electronic aids NCAP place weight on when scoring under the latest regime. This is misleading and people no longer know at a glance if one car is actually safer than another. For example you could be mistaken for thinking a VW Up! is now safer than a Panda as it scores more stars. However in reality the Up! might score just as badly as the Panda, if it were re-tested under the new regime that the Panda has been subjected to. The Up! could actually be even less safe than the Panda but if you look at the star ratings you'd be hard pushed to tell.

NCAP have turned into a joke. If I was Fiat I'd be asking serious questions regarding why NCAP have singled out their models over rivals when choosing which to re-test. To me this hasn't been explained by NCAP at all.


Somebody gets it.... :)

But to be fair, I guess NCAP would say they are re-visiting the oldest models still out there (and only Fiat really have such popular models that old... :D ) But my argument is still that they shouldn't really be wasting time/confusing the public doing it, and also with how they're doing it.

NCAP is based in Brussels... it's EU ... and if if I was mischievous I might hazard a guess that Italy is probably having some kind of barny with the EU over its proposal economic policies ... and EU could be turning the odd screw.... :D I doubt the Eurocrats are that sinister or clever... but it does highlight that there are potentially a lot of factors involved in any test, or rating system... It's best for us to remain vigilant, slightly cynical in a good way and think for ourselves.


Ralf S.
 
Hi everyone.

Back in 2014 my wife got a 500S with the 105 TA engine on a 4 year PCP and now nearly 4 years on she has the usual options. One obviously being get another EXCEPT that at the moment Fiat don’t seem to be offering the 105 version, only the 85 TA and the 1.2 69 (HP as then are now calling it).

Weirdly I took delivery of my Golf R in late July and if I had ordered just a little later I would still be waiting to take delivery of one that has 10 HP less due to the new WLTP requirements (as has the Audi S3) and was wondering if the 105 TA has suffered a similar fate. I’ve even read that BMW have dropped the M3 from their range due to the life cycle of the current model and the cost of compliance with the new regulations

I’ve Googled and searched here but can’t find any answers so was wondering if someone here can kindly shed some light on this?

Very many thanks in anticipation
The question would be how much power will de 105 loose to comply with WLTP.
I saw that (FIAT.it) the CNG TA has only 70 hp left with WLTP standards.
 
Back
Top