Agree that a Fiat 500 isn't a posh Panda - I've got a posh Panda called an Ypsilon TA.

Coming from a 100HP I'd say the Ypsilon is definitely more refined (much better sound deadening, nice cabin design and materials) and whilst obviously softly sprung compared to the 100HP, the extra 100mm of wheelbase makes it far less pitchy and more stable. The TA engine in the real world is quicker than 1.4NA of the 100HP due to the fact the torque is available from so low down and it's much better on the motorway despite only having 5 gears.

I still occasionally drive a MK3 1.1 Eco Panda (company pool car) and it does feel refreshingly 'pure' after driving the Ypsilon but for overall 'completeness' the Ypsilon is a better car IMHO.

jimbo118 said:

Agree that a Fiat 500 isn't a posh Panda - I've got a posh Panda called an Ypsilon TA.

Click to expand...

I don't think Ypsilon really closer to Panda Mk3. Its only vaguely similar in shape, but body is very different, and, while more comfortable, its a lot less practical, due to lost "boxiness" of Mk3.
Personally I think Ypsilon is kind of similar to Mk4 with relation to Mk3 - pricier, less practical, allegedly "better", but you'd keep having doubts if price hike really worth it. Interior is nicer, but this only brings it on par with good normal cars, its not what I'd call "posh".

Ingvarr said:

I don't think Ypsilon really closer to Panda Mk3. Its only vaguely similar in shape, but body is very different, and, while more comfortable, its a lot less practical, due to lost "boxiness" of Mk3.
Personally I think Ypsilon is kind of similar to Mk4 with relation to Mk3 - pricier, less practical, allegedly "better", but you'd keep having doubts if price hike really worth it. Interior is nicer, but this only brings it on par with good normal cars, its not what I'd call "posh".

Click to expand...

The "Posh" reference was in context to the Mk3 Panda - not 'normal' cars. Compared to our old 100HP, I have not found the Ypsilon any less practical as the boot is deeper which helps make up for the sloping rear tailgate.

Does feel very much like the MK4 which I test drove.

The boot on Ypsilon is slightly deeper, but Ypsilon is 20+cm longer overall. For this length increase, boot space is not nearly increased as much - hardly what I call efficient use of space.

Ingvarr said:

The boot on Ypsilon is slightly deeper, but Ypsilon is 20+cm longer overall. For this length increase, boot space is not nearly increased as much - hardly what I call efficient use of space.

Click to expand...

Official figures with seats up:-

Mk3 Panda: 215 litres
Mk4 Panda: 225 litres
Ypsilon: 245 litres

So I would argue the extra 20cm isn't badly used with an additional 30 litres of boot space (particularly as 10cm of that is between the wheel base giving better rear seat legroom). At the end of the day I've used both to capacity (camping with 2 adults and one child) and found them both practical for the size of car

Ingvarr said:

I don't think Ypsilon really closer to Panda Mk3. Its only vaguely similar in shape, but body is very different, and, while more comfortable, its a lot less practical, due to lost "boxiness" of Mk3.
Personally I think Ypsilon is kind of similar to Mk4 with relation to Mk3 - pricier, less practical, allegedly "better", but you'd keep having doubts if price hike really worth it. Interior is nicer, but this only brings it on par with good normal cars, its not what I'd call "posh".

Click to expand...

I don't know if you are 100% referring to the new Mk4 Panda or not, but I don't believe it is any less practical than the Mk3.

I have seen the size of the boot in the Mk3 Panda and to be honest the extra 11cm length of the Mk4 Panda does improve the size and usability. Of course some of that extra size has gone into the chunky design, but it still gives a bit more space.

Also, if you spec the folding passenger seat along with the cargo box, split/fold seats, it's a really practical car. I've just taken a 2 metre long dresser table up to the dump this week, how many people can fit one of those into a car (and a small city car at that!). Unless I am mistaken there was never a folding passenger seat option for the Mk3?

I accept the reasons why people don't like the Mk4 Panda, but the fact it is less practical is not one IMO.

Super Uwe said:

Also, if you spec the folding passenger seat along with the cargo box, split/fold seats, it's a really practical car. I've just taken a 2 metre long dresser table up to the dump this week, how many people can fit one of those into a car (and a small city car at that!). Unless I am mistaken there was never a folding passenger seat option for the Mk3?

Click to expand...

Admittedly, ours is second-hand: so I don't know (but that's my belief, too...). What I do know is that we struggled to fit a 2 metre Christmas tree in our Mk3 Panda (admittedly with a passenger, behind the driver...) -- and that the seat configurations available on the Mk4 (especially the one that turns the front seat into a table/footrest) would have been extremely useful...!

I don't accept arguments "yes, the car is bigger, but, hey, it gives you more space too!". If you accept this, what the point of small car? Get a bigger car, with more space! This ridiculous trend what leads to almost 4m-long "superminis" lately ;(

BTW Mk4 grew lot more on the outside than on the inside, that's a definite. All for the sake of this "inflated" roundy shape.

And boot space, width and crash protection

I just wish they had pushed the wheelbase out a bit within the new envelope, to allow more space in the rear seats with the sliding rear seat - which should be standard - pushed back.

Ingvarr said:

I don't accept arguments "yes, the car is bigger, but, hey, it gives you more space too!". If you accept this, what the point of small car? Get a bigger car, with more space! This ridiculous trend what leads to almost 4m-long "superminis" lately ;(

BTW Mk4 grew lot more on the outside than on the inside, that's a definite. All for the sake of this "inflated" roundy shape.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Except that the gains in space are marginal at best.

The boot sizes - in litres - quoted for Mark 3 and Mark 4 are:

Mk 3 - min 190-206, max 775-855
Mk 4 - min 200-225, max 845-870

I have to note that I don't understand the much bigger variation on the min and max figures for the Mk 3 but the general picture is that the Mk 4 has about 10-15 litres more capacity - between 5 and less than 2 percent - not surprised I wasn't overwhelmed by the difference when looking at the new model.

I regularly get eight foot lengths of timber into my 100HP by reclining the front passenger seat and pushing it back a bit.

Ulpian said:

And boot space, width and crash protection

Click to expand...

Certainly not crash protection. This often used "bigger car"="more crash protection" excuse is hogwash.
Mk4 is NCAP 4 now, kind of better, true, but then, Smart fortwo is NCAP 4 too, and its twice as small

kind of better, true

Click to expand...

That's what I said though, 'better'.

And the extra interior width makes a big difference, and the improved ride is also very noticable.

The Mk 4 is a more refined and better product, but I do think the price increase is a bit steep.

Ingvarr said:

I don't accept arguments "yes, the car is bigger, but, hey, it gives you more space too!". If you accept this, what the point of small car? Get a bigger car, with more space! This ridiculous trend what leads to almost 4m-long "superminis" lately ;(

BTW Mk4 grew lot more on the outside than on the inside, that's a definite. All for the sake of this "inflated" roundy shape.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the Mk4 Panda DOES give you more space

Maybe it is not as much as you would like (and I agree a lot of it is down to the chunkier design) but it still offers more boot space. That's a fact.

Also - your comment about buying a bigger car is bizarre! I don't understand that at all. I don't want to buy a bigger car as I like the convenience of a small car that is cheap to run and a doddle to park. The Mk4 Panda offers loads of space (as does the Mk3 Panda) in a small package. Surely this is good!

Anyway, I wish you a Merry Christmas! Hope Santa didn't buy you a Mk4 Panda, lol

babbo_umbro said:

Exactly. Except that the gains in space are marginal at best.

The boot sizes - in litres - quoted for Mark 3 and Mark 4 are:

Mk 3 - min 190-206, max 775-855
Mk 4 - min 200-225, max 845-870

I have to note that I don't understand the much bigger variation on the min and max figures for the Mk 3 but the general picture is that the Mk 4 has about 10-15 litres more capacity - between 5 and less than 2 percent - not surprised I wasn't overwhelmed by the difference when looking at the new model.

I regularly get eight foot lengths of timber into my 100HP by reclining the front passenger seat and pushing it back a bit.

Click to expand...

Well, the Mk4 Panda is 3% longer, so maybe it's not such a bad improvement after all...

Dacia Duster 4x4 boot capacity

Seats in place 408L
Rear seats folded 1604L

For various reasons I think I will need the extra space.
Won't be so easy to find a parking space, though.

Super Uwe said:

Yes, but the Mk4 Panda DOES give you more space
I don't understand that at all. I don't want to buy a bigger car as I like the convenience of a small car that is cheap to run and a doddle to park. The Mk4 Panda offers loads of space (as does the Mk3 Panda) in a small package. Surely this is good!

Click to expand...

Mk4 nowhere as easy to squeeze into tight spots as Mk3. It does not offer "loads" of space, both Mk3 and Mk4 offer pretty small amount of space, but Mk4 is a) bigger and b) expensive.

Merry Christmas!

I want the smallest car that will do what I want. I don't want more than enough space. The car must be big enough inside for 97% of the year and a bit of a squeeze when I spend 12 days going to and from Italy twice a year with a fair load on. Like many others, apparently, I don't want a car that's bigger than my Mark 3 Panda, thank you very much, Fiat - in fact I'd be quite happy with something the size of my old Cinquecento Sporting. Bigger is worse, flabby and ugly are worse, fussy interior is worse, heavier and slower and thirstier are all worse, more comfortable ride is better.

Ingvarr said:

Certainly not crash protection. This often used "bigger car"="more crash protection" excuse is hogwash.
Mk4 is NCAP 4 now, kind of better, true, but then, Smart fortwo is NCAP 4 too, and its twice as small

Click to expand...

you do realise that the whole ncap star thing means right? A 5 star small car does not give as much protection as a big 5 star car.

306maxi said:

you do realise that the whole ncap star thing means right? A 5 star small car does not give as much protection as a big 5 star car.

Click to expand...

And a Sherman tank gives even more protection so we should all drive one of those.

Of course, but I just wanted to make the point