I've been looking at a few other small 4x4s recommended by auto express and most of them require you to pay around £20k-25k to get them as 4wd and not 2wd. Other small SUVs that are around the same price as the Panda are crap on road or they use really poor quality materials. It may not be very big but the Panda 4x4 seems like an absolute bargain compared to some other competitors in terms of performance and spec/quality of materials.
General How off road capable is the 4x4?
- Thread starter ELL4EVER
- Start date
Currently reading:
General How off road capable is the 4x4?
Although I wouldn't call it a bargain, the 4x4 Panda does occupy the top of a very short list.
A real bargain in my book would be a 4x4 Panda using the MJ engine with a CVT auto transmission like the one on the Honda Jazz, or maybe even a 4x4 using the MJ engine with 6-speed manual transmission, for the price of the 4x4 TA.
A real bargain in my book would be a 4x4 Panda using the MJ engine with a CVT auto transmission like the one on the Honda Jazz, or maybe even a 4x4 using the MJ engine with 6-speed manual transmission, for the price of the 4x4 TA.
The vauxhall mokka seems like the worst small suv to buy. It is around the same size as a panda 4x4 but you have to pay £23k to get it with 4wd and according to reviews and a friend of the family it's not the nicest car to drive, even if you do get a few fancier gadgets.
babbo_umbro
Established member
I have very little experience of auto boxes but would one suit the 4x4? And what would you gain?
Putting the six-speed box on the MJ engine would make the turning circle even bigger than the previous 100HP, which (very occasionally) could feel like a battleship when manoeuvring.
The 6-speed manual gearbox used on the MJ is a theoretical setup.
I am aware that there might be issues with available space (if they can fit at all) and cost as both the MJ engine and the 6-speed manual are very expensive items. Plus, I doubt the torque coming out of the MJ can be handled by that 6-speed manual gearbox.
As to the CVT transmission, well, I had no idea myself until I tried it on a previous generation Honda Jazz. In fact the thing is so expensive to manufacture that Honda tried to drop it from the current version Jazz and replace it with a robotic joke gearbox, much like the one that Fiat sells.
This setup is theoretical as well, since the MJ probably produces too much torque for a CVT anyway.
In the real world, best version currently available is the 4x4 TA albeit a bit expensive for such a as-cheap-as-it-gets engine.
I am aware that there might be issues with available space (if they can fit at all) and cost as both the MJ engine and the 6-speed manual are very expensive items. Plus, I doubt the torque coming out of the MJ can be handled by that 6-speed manual gearbox.
As to the CVT transmission, well, I had no idea myself until I tried it on a previous generation Honda Jazz. In fact the thing is so expensive to manufacture that Honda tried to drop it from the current version Jazz and replace it with a robotic joke gearbox, much like the one that Fiat sells.
This setup is theoretical as well, since the MJ probably produces too much torque for a CVT anyway.
In the real world, best version currently available is the 4x4 TA albeit a bit expensive for such a as-cheap-as-it-gets engine.
Last edited:
babbo_umbro
Established member
Interesting.
I'm sure the TwinAir engine is cheap to manufacture and, of course, the technology has also been used in the MultiAir variants but the time it took to develop and its innovative nature presumably mean that Fiat spent a lot of money developing the technology.
doggydoctor
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2012
- Messages
- 95
- Points
- 75
I would love to see a cvt in a 4x4 panda. I don't think the torque would be a problem for the cvt as the Audi 2.7tdi is available with a cvt and I think that probably produces more torque.
The TA is using some innovative way of manipulating intake timing, but uses the cheapest way possible of doing it.
Manipulating intake timing is not new, other manufacturers have been doing it for ages, but using an electrical on-off device like a solenoid to do it is something new for sure, let alone how long these solenoids will last in there.
In fact, using an on-off device and trying to modulate that (quickly switch it on and off continuously) in order to achieve something that could resemble analog variation, which is what you would want to have in the first place, just shows that the primary system design limitation is something like "make it work (sort of) and cost next to nothing" because everybody else has it and we must appear to have it as well, although we can´t really pay for it.
And in the process of doing that, why not lose one camshaft as well, these cost money too, lose a couple of cylinders and all associated parts that also cost money, bring the displacement at exactly half that of popular 4-in-lines so parts are already available and cheap, add a turbo and we are done.
What I am saying is that Fiat could market this thing as "look at our new engine, it is so cheap and it still works". Instead, they seem to think that consumers do not know enough to tell the difference, and they price the car accordingly. Well, I just don´t like that.
Manipulating intake timing is not new, other manufacturers have been doing it for ages, but using an electrical on-off device like a solenoid to do it is something new for sure, let alone how long these solenoids will last in there.
In fact, using an on-off device and trying to modulate that (quickly switch it on and off continuously) in order to achieve something that could resemble analog variation, which is what you would want to have in the first place, just shows that the primary system design limitation is something like "make it work (sort of) and cost next to nothing" because everybody else has it and we must appear to have it as well, although we can´t really pay for it.
And in the process of doing that, why not lose one camshaft as well, these cost money too, lose a couple of cylinders and all associated parts that also cost money, bring the displacement at exactly half that of popular 4-in-lines so parts are already available and cheap, add a turbo and we are done.
What I am saying is that Fiat could market this thing as "look at our new engine, it is so cheap and it still works". Instead, they seem to think that consumers do not know enough to tell the difference, and they price the car accordingly. Well, I just don´t like that.
babbo_umbro
Established member
Can you say which Fiat four cylinder engine has twice the capacity and same bore and stroke as the TA?
We seem to be getting a little 'off topic' here as the original thread was how capable is the 4x4. Testing to limits is not something that your average driver would set out to do, especially in a small car costing the neck end of £14000. I am interested to know what kind of off roading you intend to do which warrants the question! Are you concerned with driving in winter conditions on normal roads - if so then the Panda meets those requirements in spades. They sell by the bucket load in Italy where the panda is designed with those conditions in mind.
We have a Panda 4x4 TA which we bought a few months ago and yes, the economy is an issue, but we are learning to adapt to the engine. We purchased the Panda to cope with the winter conditions we sometimes experience in North Yorkshire but also to cope with limited off roading in North Wales which we visit on a regular basis. I have driven quite a few 4x4's over the years, from stripped out Suzuki Jimnys to bog standard Land Rovers - serious off roaders will always out perform the Panda. But if you are looking for a small car with great on road manners, a car which is well specified and enjoyable to drive, a car which is probably more capable off road than your average driver then I would unreservedly recommend the Panda.
We have a Panda 4x4 TA which we bought a few months ago and yes, the economy is an issue, but we are learning to adapt to the engine. We purchased the Panda to cope with the winter conditions we sometimes experience in North Yorkshire but also to cope with limited off roading in North Wales which we visit on a regular basis. I have driven quite a few 4x4's over the years, from stripped out Suzuki Jimnys to bog standard Land Rovers - serious off roaders will always out perform the Panda. But if you are looking for a small car with great on road manners, a car which is well specified and enjoyable to drive, a car which is probably more capable off road than your average driver then I would unreservedly recommend the Panda.
Sorry if I led the discussion elsewhere, this is the last off topic comment from me.
Does not have to be a Fiat engine, just generic parts cheaply available. They didn't just throw the dice to come up with this exact displacement.
At the end of the day though, any "innovative" design must show results, what an engine does is convert thermal energy, from burning fuel, to mechanical (kinetic) energy, and guess what, the real world efficiency of that conversion (aka MPG) is the issue most TA owners complain about.
As to adjusting to the engine to get better MPG, it can be argued that any reasonably modern (innovative or otherwise) engine, when driven in a specific manner suited to that engine can achieve good MPG in any vehicle of similar weight.
So, the way I see it, the actual innovation here is the low cost of the TA engine along with its low weight and limited size, but achieving that was easy, as it is in fact half of an engine.
Just my 2c.
Does not have to be a Fiat engine, just generic parts cheaply available. They didn't just throw the dice to come up with this exact displacement.
At the end of the day though, any "innovative" design must show results, what an engine does is convert thermal energy, from burning fuel, to mechanical (kinetic) energy, and guess what, the real world efficiency of that conversion (aka MPG) is the issue most TA owners complain about.
As to adjusting to the engine to get better MPG, it can be argued that any reasonably modern (innovative or otherwise) engine, when driven in a specific manner suited to that engine can achieve good MPG in any vehicle of similar weight.
So, the way I see it, the actual innovation here is the low cost of the TA engine along with its low weight and limited size, but achieving that was easy, as it is in fact half of an engine.
Just my 2c.
Last edited:
babbo_umbro
Established member
Sorry for extending the discussion, earlier and now - but, apart from the obvious bit about economical driving, I think your writing nonsense.
pilgrim42
New member
I'll second that.
Mike.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 477
- Points
- 181
I think asextos is under the misapprehension that the TA is half the 1742 unit as used in the Giulietta etc. Not so. Very different unit.
I wasn't sure if that was a Standard TA panda / or a 4x4 , but either way it did VERY well,it was a virtually standard production car..!!
it was jan / feb this year if OP wants to search for it's blog links,
Charlie
it was jan / feb this year if OP wants to search for it's blog links,
Charlie
babbo_umbro
Established member
You might try this one as well:
http://tv.quattroruote.it/premiere/video/premiere-panda-4x4-mov/
The orange car is a Trekking MJ and the green one's a 4x4 TA. There's too much to translate but he says how surprised he is by the off-road capability and the quietness of the TA. Also remarks on how useful the sixth gear is on the 4x4 TA. By the way, Quattroruote's full test of the 4x4 MJ remarks on the lack of low-down torque and suggests an autostrada consumption of 36 mpg - which indicates how the lack of fifth gear affects consumption and also - I suspect - the relative loss of efficiency of the diesel at higher revs.
babbo_umbro
Established member
Should be lack of SIXTH gear
Bigredbus4468
New member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2013
- Messages
- 141
- Points
- 30
Personally I can't understand why anybody would want to spend this kind of money on a Fiat panda! At the end of the day, it's still a panda. Don't get me wrong, I love my 1.2 pop, but would spend any more money than I did on this cheeky little motor.
