Think part of the problem may be that the guy who did the photochops and original article thought it was a petrol not a turbo diesel and gave a 54bhp power rating off the 1.1 in the tech specs..
Last edited:
Today's deal between FIAT and Chrysler
- Thread starter Reaperman
- Start date
Currently reading:
Today's deal between FIAT and Chrysler
Think part of the problem may be that the guy who did the photochops and original article thought it was a petrol not a turbo diesel and gave a 54bhp power rating off the 1.1 in the tech specs..
I think the Panda the US will be getting will be the new, larger one, coming towards the end of this year - I believe. Team this up with the new twin 110bhp, or the 1.4 turbo cut back to about 120bhp but with enhanced torque (Multiair) and I reckon you have it. The Linea (called Chrysler) would be perfect: it is the saloon the Americans love, and apparently very comfortable and roomy. I've seen a few and they are good looking.
I too hate rebadging, and hope they don't do it too much. I believe they will get a Bravo (named Chrysler) built on the extended floorpan of the Lancia Delta, and then the GP and the 500, both in more powerful specs. There is no point in underengining the cars in the US, and really zippy entries will create a great first impression.
The Alfa Mito and Milano will also go west, and I believe the Milano is also built on the Delta floorpan - I'm guessing here, but I think the Bravo is too short for it to be the full five seater they are promising.
All of them will get the new Multiair engines, in the Mito and Milano's case applied to the new 1.7 engine and well as the 1.4.
I'm guessing all this by the way, but I can't see the point of introducing a range of new cars if they are obsolete models. The Americans wouldn't be impressed by that.
I too hate rebadging, and hope they don't do it too much. I believe they will get a Bravo (named Chrysler) built on the extended floorpan of the Lancia Delta, and then the GP and the 500, both in more powerful specs. There is no point in underengining the cars in the US, and really zippy entries will create a great first impression.
The Alfa Mito and Milano will also go west, and I believe the Milano is also built on the Delta floorpan - I'm guessing here, but I think the Bravo is too short for it to be the full five seater they are promising.
All of them will get the new Multiair engines, in the Mito and Milano's case applied to the new 1.7 engine and well as the 1.4.
I'm guessing all this by the way, but I can't see the point of introducing a range of new cars if they are obsolete models. The Americans wouldn't be impressed by that.
Last edited:
I don't think Chevrolet needs to rebrand the FIAT range, Chevrolet have an extensive range as it is. I'm reckoning the 500 will be of a more powerful specification, possibly the Abarth models could be the lowest in the range!
I don't see the GP in America to be honest, but it might work.
I don't see the GP in America to be honest, but it might work.
Reaperman
New member
I don't think Chevrolet needs to rebrand the FIAT range, Chevrolet have an extensive range as it is. I'm reckoning the 500 will be of a more powerful specification, possibly the Abarth models could be the lowest in the range!
I don't see the GP in America to be honest, but it might work.
Chrysler doesn't have a very large range, in any of its brands. They're all midsize and above, and the midsize cars already got themselves a huge thumbs down by the people over here. Meaning they need a, b, and c segment cars, which is exactly what they're getting.
Chevrolet on the other hand, is a GM product and they do have a bit more of a fair range. But they're not the ones in a deal with FIAT. I'm not really in a good spot to comment on FIAT's proposed deal for GM's Opel and Vauxhall lines.
As far as spec, I don't think anybody is going to release anything with less than 100hp here. Makes me wonder what the 4x4 panda will be getting then--I thought it only came in low-hp versions.
Last edited:
Although most car companies in most countries are having a hard time, some (all?) of the US makers only really have themselves to blame by not grasping the nettle of technology.
Last year I visited the Tank Museum at Bovington in Dorset, in the South of England and noticed an engine that was displayed in cutaway. I can't remember which vehicle it came from, only that it was one of 2 that replaced the M4 Sherman. I think it was a lighter model because by then makers were going for VERY big engines, including aero engines.
This one dated from 1946, and was a quad-cam, 32 valve V8 petrol engine. Even now the majority of large US engines, with the possible exception of the Cadillac Northstar and one of the Corvette options tend to be little different in basic architecture from the one Frank Bullit had in his Mustang, or, topically, the motor in the Plymouth/Dodge that he was following him. Nor for that matter Burt Reynolds' Firebird Trans am.
GM and Ford have had access to small-medium sized engines from their European arms for years, yet haven't taken advantage of them. GM went to Cosworth in the'70s for a version of the Vega, which, if I remember rightly, put out 140BHP which was quite a lot for a 2.3litre (140 CID?) 4 banger. Then they had a go with a version of the 'Vette using Lotus I think when they still owned that marque. More recently there was the Cadillac Cuterah (sp?) which was an imported Omega which didn't seem to work. There was also a version of the Holden which was also sold as a Vauxhall, but that went down over there like a lead balloon.
Maybe there's a lesson there for the new alliance. Our Cousins over the Pond don't like "their" American cars to be re-badged foreigners. Many also seem to yearn for a big, simple engine. The cry of "There's no substitute for cubes" still rings true. Sell FIATs as just that, Afas as Alfas then use re-engineered floor pans and versions of more up-to-date Italian engines in Chryslers. It needs to be remembered that towing weights and sizes are different over there. If you want to tow a boat in Europe with a 4X4 you are limited to something in the region of 26 feet in length. Someone with a Dodge RAM may well want to tow something bigger. Our Fast Fishers are about 17 feet long. A boat by Pursuit or similar could be 37 feet long with a pair of Mercury or Yamaha 300 hp outboards weighing between them half a ton. That's the engines, not the boat.
Last year I visited the Tank Museum at Bovington in Dorset, in the South of England and noticed an engine that was displayed in cutaway. I can't remember which vehicle it came from, only that it was one of 2 that replaced the M4 Sherman. I think it was a lighter model because by then makers were going for VERY big engines, including aero engines.
This one dated from 1946, and was a quad-cam, 32 valve V8 petrol engine. Even now the majority of large US engines, with the possible exception of the Cadillac Northstar and one of the Corvette options tend to be little different in basic architecture from the one Frank Bullit had in his Mustang, or, topically, the motor in the Plymouth/Dodge that he was following him. Nor for that matter Burt Reynolds' Firebird Trans am.
GM and Ford have had access to small-medium sized engines from their European arms for years, yet haven't taken advantage of them. GM went to Cosworth in the'70s for a version of the Vega, which, if I remember rightly, put out 140BHP which was quite a lot for a 2.3litre (140 CID?) 4 banger. Then they had a go with a version of the 'Vette using Lotus I think when they still owned that marque. More recently there was the Cadillac Cuterah (sp?) which was an imported Omega which didn't seem to work. There was also a version of the Holden which was also sold as a Vauxhall, but that went down over there like a lead balloon.
Maybe there's a lesson there for the new alliance. Our Cousins over the Pond don't like "their" American cars to be re-badged foreigners. Many also seem to yearn for a big, simple engine. The cry of "There's no substitute for cubes" still rings true. Sell FIATs as just that, Afas as Alfas then use re-engineered floor pans and versions of more up-to-date Italian engines in Chryslers. It needs to be remembered that towing weights and sizes are different over there. If you want to tow a boat in Europe with a 4X4 you are limited to something in the region of 26 feet in length. Someone with a Dodge RAM may well want to tow something bigger. Our Fast Fishers are about 17 feet long. A boat by Pursuit or similar could be 37 feet long with a pair of Mercury or Yamaha 300 hp outboards weighing between them half a ton. That's the engines, not the boat.
Last edited:
raton_laveur
Established member
A few observations...
Jeep Panda, LMAO!!! Too Funny. It needs a better name. It also needs a lot more under the hood. No way they'll take kindly to the 1.1 or even the 1.2. the gas engines will have to be the 1.4 including the Turbo Jet. The 1.3 75 JTD won't get anywhere in the USA either. Entry level for the 4X4 should be the 1.4/90 followed by the1.6/105/120/135, the last not yet in production. I think the 4X4 Cross is pretty cool, but it's not going anywhere in the land of wide open spaces with the smallest engines. I think the 59 MPG and 6.6 gallon tank figures are based on UK math. In the US it would be 50 MPG and 9.3 gallons. Either way, I don't believe the MPG figures, especially in the heavier 4 X 4 versions. And no automatic transmission = no sales in the USA. They'll need the Dual Logic six speed. And if they want n all new name for an SUV, Chrysler has none better than De Soto Adventurer. De Soto ceased production in 1961. It was just behind Imperial and Chrysler and ahead of Dodge and Plymouth in the line up.
Linea. We luv our trunks!!! This would probably do well.
Fiorino/Qubo. This has potential and no competition. As with the Panda 4 X 4, it has been desperately seeking more power since it was launched. Would also like to see the Scudo and Ducato sold in USA and they would make Ford and Chevy vans look like the dinosaurs that they really are with front engines and rear drive.
Alfa Milano? Not in the USA with that name. It was used for the 75 over there. Otherwise it will do well. GT? Porbabally a good bet and maybe with an exclusive soft top version. 159/Brera/Spider? Not likely as they are overweight and may not last their seven year lifespan before being replaced.
Bravo? Yes, but where's the Station Wagon or MPV they've been promising? Ford will have it's C-max in the USA before too long and Chrysler has nothing smaller than the Voyeur in that segment.
Multipla? You ARE joking, aren't you? Can you say "Edsel"?
Jeep Panda, LMAO!!! Too Funny. It needs a better name. It also needs a lot more under the hood. No way they'll take kindly to the 1.1 or even the 1.2. the gas engines will have to be the 1.4 including the Turbo Jet. The 1.3 75 JTD won't get anywhere in the USA either. Entry level for the 4X4 should be the 1.4/90 followed by the1.6/105/120/135, the last not yet in production. I think the 4X4 Cross is pretty cool, but it's not going anywhere in the land of wide open spaces with the smallest engines. I think the 59 MPG and 6.6 gallon tank figures are based on UK math. In the US it would be 50 MPG and 9.3 gallons. Either way, I don't believe the MPG figures, especially in the heavier 4 X 4 versions. And no automatic transmission = no sales in the USA. They'll need the Dual Logic six speed. And if they want n all new name for an SUV, Chrysler has none better than De Soto Adventurer. De Soto ceased production in 1961. It was just behind Imperial and Chrysler and ahead of Dodge and Plymouth in the line up.
Linea. We luv our trunks!!! This would probably do well.
Fiorino/Qubo. This has potential and no competition. As with the Panda 4 X 4, it has been desperately seeking more power since it was launched. Would also like to see the Scudo and Ducato sold in USA and they would make Ford and Chevy vans look like the dinosaurs that they really are with front engines and rear drive.
Alfa Milano? Not in the USA with that name. It was used for the 75 over there. Otherwise it will do well. GT? Porbabally a good bet and maybe with an exclusive soft top version. 159/Brera/Spider? Not likely as they are overweight and may not last their seven year lifespan before being replaced.
Bravo? Yes, but where's the Station Wagon or MPV they've been promising? Ford will have it's C-max in the USA before too long and Chrysler has nothing smaller than the Voyeur in that segment.
Multipla? You ARE joking, aren't you? Can you say "Edsel"?
Why do they need more power?
Is a requirement for all american cars that they must double as race cars during the weekends?
With a lower national speed limit than here for a lot of the country the smaller engines will be perfect.
Is a requirement for all american cars that they must double as race cars during the weekends?
With a lower national speed limit than here for a lot of the country the smaller engines will be perfect.
What's their petrol like? Isn't 95 ron like super premium?
chiefpontiac
New member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14
- Points
- 2
National speed limit on MOST of our 4+ lane limited access highway system is 65 mph, 70-75 in most rural areas, despite the roads having been engineered in the 1950's for 85 mph sustained speeds, only at teh time waiting on car technology to catch up. We never got there and instead had to weather a national 55 limit back in the 1970's. Without a certain amount of power a road full of 100 Km/hr max speed (downhill with a tailwind) original 500s with rubber band transmissions would never get around the 18-wheel trucks going 70 mph. yes, we hate vehicles that take longer than 10 seconds to go 0-62 (mph) but more importatntly we hate vehicles that take twice that long to go from 40-80 to get around traffic.
If our ass fits in a Fiat I would not consider it fat.They need more power cos wee european engines struggle to move their big fat asses.
If the citizenry of teh UK is deaed set against fast cars then why are some of the fastest (Jaguar, Aston-Martin) built there?
But a 1.3 diesel multijet has good 40-80. Nothing at all like an original 500.
Reaperman
New member
There are quite a lot of factors contributing, but I've been merciful and cut the size of this post down quite a bit. It seems like I'm not really answering it--and I'm not--but maybe for now, it's best to leave performance as a 'given.'
Fiat's not going to redesign their engines for us, and there's no need for them to, but I would expect nothing less than their 2-3 highest specced units for each platform, and for the diesels to mostly stay in europe for now. Without getting into American culture at all, every car (except the Fortwo) that the new FIATs will be going up against has at least 110hp. Performance is a really easy metric for people to wrap their heads around and instantly rule a car a total waste of money. It's not a wild bet that FIAT is going to be bringing mainly their hotter engines here for now.
I'm not saying this is going to remain a fact until the end of time, but as of right now, 110hp is about the minimum a carmaker can get away with. Yes, historically Americans have done with much less, but engine technology has progressed, and the weight of compact cars has increased. These new cars need a bit more engine to haul their weight around.
Since FIAT is new over here, they'll bring a lot of whatever has the best chance of selling. If all goes well, I think their range of engines could stand an increase. Either giving us smaller displacements, diesels, or even new upspecced engines made in chrysler plants just for our market. But that's all later on.
edit: I guess the one big variable is a question of price. If the smallest engined 500's can compete with the Fortwo's low $12k base msrp, they may be a very reasonable alternative in low volumes. I say the FIAT 500, since I haven't heard anything about non-4x4 pandas coming yet.
Last edited:
These are my feelings too.
It costs no more to fit the more powerful engines - the fuel economy does not suffer disproportionally - and Fiat needs a big positive for the public to get behind to help bleach out the obviously very lasting stain of the unreliability and rust issues of the past.
US drivers need to merge onto freeways comfortably, and a struggling engine doesn't add confidence.
No, I would be very surprised if Fiat doesn't bring only the more powerful engines to the US. None of the current Panda engines really suffices, not even the 100, which is why I'd expect a 120 turbo, and the 110 twin at the very bottom of the range. In a light car these will give decent performance.
Given this approach Fiat cars would immediately get a good reputation for performance and economy.
Often manufacturers here only fit small engines to give low insurance rates and fit in with cheaper tax bands; not to optimise performance.
It costs no more to fit the more powerful engines - the fuel economy does not suffer disproportionally - and Fiat needs a big positive for the public to get behind to help bleach out the obviously very lasting stain of the unreliability and rust issues of the past.
US drivers need to merge onto freeways comfortably, and a struggling engine doesn't add confidence.
No, I would be very surprised if Fiat doesn't bring only the more powerful engines to the US. None of the current Panda engines really suffices, not even the 100, which is why I'd expect a 120 turbo, and the 110 twin at the very bottom of the range. In a light car these will give decent performance.
Given this approach Fiat cars would immediately get a good reputation for performance and economy.
Often manufacturers here only fit small engines to give low insurance rates and fit in with cheaper tax bands; not to optimise performance.
Last edited:
Huh? Is there something different about American roads?
In the UK we need to merge onto motorways with traffic doing 70mph – faster than most American freeways. I've never lacked confidence in my 77 BHP Grande Punto.
That said, I fully expect Fiat to bring their best engines over.
Yes, but if the engine is giving its all you have nothing left in reserve, and wouldn't it be better to have a bit of wallop left just in case?
Fiat has to create a good first impression. They have only one chance.
Fiat has to create a good first impression. They have only one chance.
I have vivid recollections of adverts in Car and Driver, Road and Track and Car Craft showing people gazing in amazement under the hood of the latest Charger or Challenger as they looked at the latest 7 litre + (396?) Hemi V8. The fact that the rest of the range ran on nylon belted cross ply tyres and drum brakes was neither here nor there.
Performance sells.
About 4 years ago I rented a car in Baltimore. I was told it would be something like a Pontiac Grand Am or Dodge Intrepid. What I got was Focus; with a trunk. It was a 4 cylinder, probably a 2 litre and had a really powerful stereo and an even more powerful A/C and a slush box. What amazed me was that the Focus 1.6 Zetec I had at home had remote central locking, electric front windows, alloy wheels, remote boot release and electric mirrors. None of which its US cousin had. I don't know if this was a Hertz "special" or not, but after a friend and his family went to live in New York State for a year in the '70s and he came back with stories of their Cadillac Eldorado with its automatic headlights, wipers, auto dipping rear-view mirror, electric windows, central locking and electric seats; this came as a bit of a surprise. I know an Eldorado isn't a Focus, but 1975 wasn't 2005.
I don't think that "Longer, lower, wider, faster" is the important mantra it once was, but it's spirit is alive and well and living in the US.
As an aside, while sitting outside a hotel in Charleston South Carolina one evening, I heard the sound of a diesel pulling up a few yards away. Looking up I saw a guy getting out of a Dodge RAM pick up. On speaking to him he told me he'd just bought it and driven from Texas. He said it had the Cummins B series diesel and had had the engine management system "interfered with" to use his words. It was to marine spec, in other words, 425BHP. The only problem was that as it was a manual, the clutch kept slipping when he gave it full throttle. For those that might not know, the B series is a 5.9 litre straight 6 that is normally used in trucks up to around 18 tonnes. For that vehicle, putting a 2.4 JTD in it just wouldn't work and to put an IVECO engine it would be to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the American automotive psyche.
Performance sells.
About 4 years ago I rented a car in Baltimore. I was told it would be something like a Pontiac Grand Am or Dodge Intrepid. What I got was Focus; with a trunk. It was a 4 cylinder, probably a 2 litre and had a really powerful stereo and an even more powerful A/C and a slush box. What amazed me was that the Focus 1.6 Zetec I had at home had remote central locking, electric front windows, alloy wheels, remote boot release and electric mirrors. None of which its US cousin had. I don't know if this was a Hertz "special" or not, but after a friend and his family went to live in New York State for a year in the '70s and he came back with stories of their Cadillac Eldorado with its automatic headlights, wipers, auto dipping rear-view mirror, electric windows, central locking and electric seats; this came as a bit of a surprise. I know an Eldorado isn't a Focus, but 1975 wasn't 2005.
I don't think that "Longer, lower, wider, faster" is the important mantra it once was, but it's spirit is alive and well and living in the US.
As an aside, while sitting outside a hotel in Charleston South Carolina one evening, I heard the sound of a diesel pulling up a few yards away. Looking up I saw a guy getting out of a Dodge RAM pick up. On speaking to him he told me he'd just bought it and driven from Texas. He said it had the Cummins B series diesel and had had the engine management system "interfered with" to use his words. It was to marine spec, in other words, 425BHP. The only problem was that as it was a manual, the clutch kept slipping when he gave it full throttle. For those that might not know, the B series is a 5.9 litre straight 6 that is normally used in trucks up to around 18 tonnes. For that vehicle, putting a 2.4 JTD in it just wouldn't work and to put an IVECO engine it would be to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the American automotive psyche.
Last edited:
Reaperman
New member
Yep, that's a hertz special. One could probably order one from the Ford factory all stripped out like that, but it would be hard to find it on a car lot, except maybe as the low price one they advertize in the paper to get people to come in. Oddly I can't get the Ford website to list standard equipment on its most base Focus.
What's not a 'hertz special' is the trunk. They stopped making the hatch version in 2007--really ruined the styling after that too. Also, we never got a really hot focus here. I think the 170hp SVT version that we had for a few years was about the fastest, where 140hp is the current hot one. I guess it's not too big of a surprise though, hot 3-door focus models would directly compete for the exact same customers looking at the mustang line.
Last edited:
TBF the current Hot Focus with 300bhp would decimate most mustangs in the twisties like..
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 16,219
- Points
- 2,029
And everyone knows you cant have a car in america that goes round corners properly
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,694
- Points
- 322
In the UK anything between 12 and 10 seconds to 60mph is considered a "normal" everyday car. These are perfectly adequate at joining the motorway at 70mph.
