I've heard this before, and here it is again...
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/09/24/abarth-considering-fiat-500l-panda-versions/#aol-comments
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/09/24/abarth-considering-fiat-500l-panda-versions/#aol-comments
Tuning Abarth 500L on the way...
- Thread starter Ulpian
- Start date
Currently reading:
Tuning Abarth 500L on the way...
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 833
- Points
- 191
I think I agree with some of the comments in there.
An Abarth 500L just seems 'wrong' to me. Not only does it debase the Abarth 'brand' even more it takes the 500L in a direction that seems totally at odds with it's main function which is to move people and their paraphernalia comfortably and practically.
The Abarth brand suits the 500 very well IMHO but that is in the main because even the base car has a 'sporty' image, and whilst the L is a fine car it does what it does and is what it is but 'sporty' is not a tag you could put on it.
Personally for me a better idea would be take it further in the direction of the Trekking and give it a proper 4X4 drive system and even more of a 'rugged' look, that would give the car a broader appeal to it's target buyers.
yep bring it on, along with Panda Abarth 
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 833
- Points
- 191
yep bring it on, along with Panda Abarth
Still not convinced myself - but I can see the appeal for some.
Last edited:
Oh, it does look good though..... Four doors still, as well. I'm a little bit moist......
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 833
- Points
- 191
Oh, it does look good though..... Four doors still, as well. I'm a little bit moist......
I'm wondering if the alloys would be better in dark grey/charcoal to match the roof??
That was just a random pic. I plucked from the net after sticking 'FIAT 500L Abarth' into Google so TBH I'm not sure about any authenticity but it does give an idea of what one would/could look like.
Actually, Elsie has white wheel trims and they look great against the black body. Horses for courses, obviously, but I've had more comments about the 'white alloys (!)' than anyhting else.
But if you're clever you could photoshop the alloys to see how they look. Problem is, I'm not......
Looks fine to me.
I was thinking that since the early Abarths were things like 500s, with crap rear suspension and tiny engines, which were hardly obvious candidates for speed updates, why not a five door hatch?
It makes as much sense as anything else, and if it just had the American 160engine it could be a lot of fun, with the new Alfa 4C 250 engine it would be a lot more fun :devil:
But I'm thinking £30K
As a PS: I was wondering about engines and thinking how useful it might be if Fiat announced a tri-air engine. A c.1400cc version of the TA, without balancer shafts, might be both economical and relatively light - like the Ford engine in fact. Such an engine might bridge a big gap in Fiats engine range, between the TA and the 1.4 turbo ... just wondering, especially as there is a Jeep based on the 500L's modified floorpan, with 4x4 and 2x4, coming next year. That will be built in Italy and have the 1.6 Diesel, but a high torque, economical, light and powerful three cylinder might be near perfect.. http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Secret...s-Nissan-Juke-spotted-dressed-as-a-Fiat-2013/
I was thinking that since the early Abarths were things like 500s, with crap rear suspension and tiny engines, which were hardly obvious candidates for speed updates, why not a five door hatch?
It makes as much sense as anything else, and if it just had the American 160engine it could be a lot of fun, with the new Alfa 4C 250 engine it would be a lot more fun :devil:
But I'm thinking £30K
As a PS: I was wondering about engines and thinking how useful it might be if Fiat announced a tri-air engine. A c.1400cc version of the TA, without balancer shafts, might be both economical and relatively light - like the Ford engine in fact. Such an engine might bridge a big gap in Fiats engine range, between the TA and the 1.4 turbo ... just wondering, especially as there is a Jeep based on the 500L's modified floorpan, with 4x4 and 2x4, coming next year. That will be built in Italy and have the 1.6 Diesel, but a high torque, economical, light and powerful three cylinder might be near perfect.. http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Secret...s-Nissan-Juke-spotted-dressed-as-a-Fiat-2013/
Last edited:
Oddly enough, without having seen this thread, I posted something very similar in this section. There does seem to be something slightly schizophrenic about FIATs engine range. I know they're not alone, Ford kept the 1.3 in the KA that dates from the Mk1 Fiesta in the late '70s right up until they stopped making it and Vauxhall hung onto the 1.7 diesel from the first front wheel drive Cavalier until now.Looks fine to me.
I was thinking that since the early Abarths were things like 500s, with crap rear suspension and tiny engines, which were hardly obvious candidates for speed updates, why not a five door hatch?
It makes as much sense as anything else, and if it just had the American 160engine it could be a lot of fun, with the new Alfa 4C 250 engine it would be a lot more fun :devil:
But I'm thinking £30K
As a PS: I was wondering about engines and thinking how useful it might be if Fiat announced a tri-air engine. A c.1400cc version of the TA, without balancer shafts, might be both economical and relatively light - like the Ford engine in fact. Such an engine might bridge a big gap in Fiats engine range, between the TA and the 1.4 turbo ... just wondering, especially as there is a Jeep based on the 500L's modified floorpan, with 4x4 and 2x4, coming next year. That will be built in Italy and have the 1.6 Diesel, but a high torque, economical, light and powerful three cylinder might be near perfect.. http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Secret...s-Nissan-Juke-spotted-dressed-as-a-Fiat-2013/
But the diesels are very modern and so are the Twin Air and Multi Air, yet the 1.2 & 1.4 FIRE engines are either due a makeover or need to face the chop. 69bhp from the 1.2 and 77 from the 1.4 doesn't seem to be much of a difference to justify them both. Apart from the fact that they're cheap I can't understand why they're still in the range. Maybe they should be consigned to Brazil and South Africa. In their place could be the aforementioned TripleAir, or even a Multi version of the 1.2
I agree about the output from the old-school petrol engines, particularly the 1.4 (77bhp) unit. A Renault Clio I bought brand new in 2002 had a 1.4 with 95bhp, so 77bhp really isn't great.
However, I think the tiny gap in BHP between them could be partially due to the 1.2 being upgraded from 60 to 69bhp a few years ago - they obviously didn't bother doing the same with the 1.4 to keep the gap wider. However, I'm sure the 1.4 does feel like it has a bigger advantage in terms of size rather than bhp.
I also think the reason they soldier on alongside much more advanced MultiAir, TwinAir and Multijet engines is that the buying public across the World could be wary of things like MultiAir technology & be reluctant to buy a Panda, 500 or Punto as a fairly cheap car (in the grand scheme of car purchases), only to face an unknown in terms of long term maintenance. By offering a straightforward non-turbo 1.2 (in the Panda, 500 & Punto) and 1.4 8v (in the Punto & Qubo) Fiat continue to meet the needs of customers wanting a simple engine, whilst also offering MultiAir & TwinAir to those wanting more performance, who are not so wary of potential extra maintenance costs (like turbo's, MultiAir units etc).
I really think if they dropped the 1.4 and especially the 1.2 FIRE unit in favour of a more technologically advanced engine, they might lose buyers.
However, I think the tiny gap in BHP between them could be partially due to the 1.2 being upgraded from 60 to 69bhp a few years ago - they obviously didn't bother doing the same with the 1.4 to keep the gap wider. However, I'm sure the 1.4 does feel like it has a bigger advantage in terms of size rather than bhp.
I also think the reason they soldier on alongside much more advanced MultiAir, TwinAir and Multijet engines is that the buying public across the World could be wary of things like MultiAir technology & be reluctant to buy a Panda, 500 or Punto as a fairly cheap car (in the grand scheme of car purchases), only to face an unknown in terms of long term maintenance. By offering a straightforward non-turbo 1.2 (in the Panda, 500 & Punto) and 1.4 8v (in the Punto & Qubo) Fiat continue to meet the needs of customers wanting a simple engine, whilst also offering MultiAir & TwinAir to those wanting more performance, who are not so wary of potential extra maintenance costs (like turbo's, MultiAir units etc).
I really think if they dropped the 1.4 and especially the 1.2 FIRE unit in favour of a more technologically advanced engine, they might lose buyers.
I don't disagree, but there has to come a time when they have confidence in their new engines and drop the old ones.
And as you suggest, Fiats don't always offer much in the way of performance, while at the same time not offering necessarily the best economy either, especially right now as more and more makers are updating their powertrains.
I know Fiat has the lowest CO2 emissions in Europe, but I think this is a smoke and mirrors thing resulting from the unreal way fuel consumption is presently tested. Fiat has been clever here. When the new, supposedly more realistic tests arrive, Fiat will need to up the ante.
My hope is that a revised generation of engines will be both more powerful and more economical. I'm sure it can be done.
And as you suggest, Fiats don't always offer much in the way of performance, while at the same time not offering necessarily the best economy either, especially right now as more and more makers are updating their powertrains.
I know Fiat has the lowest CO2 emissions in Europe, but I think this is a smoke and mirrors thing resulting from the unreal way fuel consumption is presently tested. Fiat has been clever here. When the new, supposedly more realistic tests arrive, Fiat will need to up the ante.
My hope is that a revised generation of engines will be both more powerful and more economical. I'm sure it can be done.
When I were a lad, most engines of 1.0 to 1.3 were putting about 55 - 60 bhp, Vauxhall, Ford, Chrysler et al. They were almost all made of cast iron block and head with two overhead valves per cylinder.
Until Opel and later their Vauxhall kin brought out the so-called "Family One" engines. Short stroke with single overhead cam design meant the 1.3 S put out 75bhp. I know that doesn't perhaps sound that much, but 34 years later, for various reasons, the 1.2 Fire is not far behind, but the 1.4 is barely ahead. However, lurking in the background was the 1.3 FIAT engine as found in the 128 put out 65 to 75 depending on model. Both the Italian and German cars went like hot s**t in comparison with their competitors. They revved easily and high and after a good hard thrash (am I on the right forum for that kind of thing?) settled down to a nice smooth idle instead of coughing and spluttering like most did.
For comparison, the Mk5 Cortina and Mk1 Cavalier/Ascona with 1.6 engines also developed 75bhp.
With that in mind, emission controls not withstanding, we should be a little further on than 77bhp. So, there's a TA at 65 and a 1.2 Fire at 69 and then only another 8 horses from the 1.4. I think we could get rid of the 1.4 from Europe and either develop a 1.2 Triple Air or develop a Multi Air head for the 1.2 which would be cheaper.
Conversely, if doubling the size of an engine isn't guaranteed to double the power, halving the capacity should be capable of giving 50%, and 150bhp has been brought out of 2 litre units for over a decade, then an efficient 1 litre should be capable of producing 75bhp.
Somehow, I don't see a twin cylinder 850 having enough guts, despite what it may say on paper, to pull along cars the size of a Mito or Punto.
Until Opel and later their Vauxhall kin brought out the so-called "Family One" engines. Short stroke with single overhead cam design meant the 1.3 S put out 75bhp. I know that doesn't perhaps sound that much, but 34 years later, for various reasons, the 1.2 Fire is not far behind, but the 1.4 is barely ahead. However, lurking in the background was the 1.3 FIAT engine as found in the 128 put out 65 to 75 depending on model. Both the Italian and German cars went like hot s**t in comparison with their competitors. They revved easily and high and after a good hard thrash (am I on the right forum for that kind of thing?) settled down to a nice smooth idle instead of coughing and spluttering like most did.
For comparison, the Mk5 Cortina and Mk1 Cavalier/Ascona with 1.6 engines also developed 75bhp.
With that in mind, emission controls not withstanding, we should be a little further on than 77bhp. So, there's a TA at 65 and a 1.2 Fire at 69 and then only another 8 horses from the 1.4. I think we could get rid of the 1.4 from Europe and either develop a 1.2 Triple Air or develop a Multi Air head for the 1.2 which would be cheaper.
Conversely, if doubling the size of an engine isn't guaranteed to double the power, halving the capacity should be capable of giving 50%, and 150bhp has been brought out of 2 litre units for over a decade, then an efficient 1 litre should be capable of producing 75bhp.
Somehow, I don't see a twin cylinder 850 having enough guts, despite what it may say on paper, to pull along cars the size of a Mito or Punto.
You walked down the street in your short pants and socks round your ankles and could not wait to get home for that real baked bread (Hovis) smothered in real butter!!
How the hell did you know? Actually, what you don't know is that I used to walk to school with one of those confectionary cigarettes (basically a stick of white sugar with a red sugar end) hanging out of the corner of my mouth with one eye half closed.
I'd seen Robert Mitchum do it in a film once, and then I'd do my Harry Worth impression in the doorway of a gent's outfitter.
I'd seen Robert Mitchum do it in a film once, and then I'd do my Harry Worth impression in the doorway of a gent's outfitter.
Harry Worth.............thats a name from the past.....what a 'comic', puts a lot of the new crowd to shame.
Cheers Qube O.
Cheers Qube O.
Harry Worth was funny, but then our tastes change, not just as we get older, but as generations develop.
There will be members on here who used to think The Chuckle Brothers were the height of comic sophistication.....come to think about it, some of them still do, but by and large comedians have developed, most of it coming from either side of the Atlantic, but humour is also cyclical as we've gone from stand up comedians to comic actors; from the double entendres of Carry On films to the near fantasy of Monty Python and from the surrealism of Rowan & Martin's Laugh In to the ordinariness and everyday farce of Dinner Ladies.
There are countless points in between and for some, me included, humour has helped to shape our lives.
I've always liked Scousers, yet Liverpudlians have often been the architects of their own problems, but I have to agree with one Scouse truism, when things get tough - "Yer gorra laff."
There will be members on here who used to think The Chuckle Brothers were the height of comic sophistication.....come to think about it, some of them still do, but by and large comedians have developed, most of it coming from either side of the Atlantic, but humour is also cyclical as we've gone from stand up comedians to comic actors; from the double entendres of Carry On films to the near fantasy of Monty Python and from the surrealism of Rowan & Martin's Laugh In to the ordinariness and everyday farce of Dinner Ladies.
There are countless points in between and for some, me included, humour has helped to shape our lives.
I've always liked Scousers, yet Liverpudlians have often been the architects of their own problems, but I have to agree with one Scouse truism, when things get tough - "Yer gorra laff."
:yeahthat:
