Folks

Fiat quote a 0-62 time for the Panda 100hp of 9.5s (which would be about 9.3s to 60 m/h). I can find no pukka road test to confirm or deny this figure - Autocar have not tested the 100hp - or any independent times against the clock. Do any of you owners have reliable data, or can point me to test figures for the quickest Panda?

Many thanks

John

I think EVO timed theirs, although its now listed as 10.5 :S

100hpJames said:

I think EVO timed theirs, although its now listed as 10.5 :S

Click to expand...

issue 125, p163, has it listed at 9.3 secs for the 0-60, manufacturers figures though, can't find the issue where was featured on the front cover, but i don't think they did a proper timed run.

online: http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/221967/fiat_panda.html

9.5 secs

where's the 10.5sec coming in? btw: anyone notice how the fiesta has shot in to the top spot despite no fullblown shootout? commented on in the letters page, but looks like evo is following the media herd, and chowing down on the ford corporate nipple too

John, this is one of the better road tests I've seen and unsurprisingly it shames most of the tests in the British press (they're too busy trying to quantify how soft the plastics are and how acceptable the badge is). They are quoting 9.46s to 100kmh, which is about as good as it's going to get from the road tests I've seen; another Italian test put it at 10.2s...

You could always do what i did, get a mate and a stopwatch, do 3 or 5 runs or as many as you like from standstill to 60, add them all up and then divide the total number by the amount of times you did it to give you an average. I did it with the Multijet because i read in some places 0-60 was 12.5, and in others they said it was 13. I got 12.7 which i know is nothing to brag about but it's still an easy accurate test to do.

DraigFlag87 said:

I got 12.7 which i know is nothing to brag about but it's still an easy accurate test to do.

Click to expand...

Except it's hardly what you'd call accurate....

Schwenck, thanks for posting that. The torque curve on there looks more realistic than any I've seen elsewhere - that's exactly what it feels like through the arse when driving.

Schwenck said:

John, this is one of the better road tests I've seen and unsurprisingly it shames most of the tests in the British press (they're too busy trying to quantify how soft the plastics are and how acceptable the badge is). They are quoting 9.46s to 100kmh, which is about as good as it's going to get from the road tests I've seen; another Italian test put it at 10.2s...

Click to expand...

I've just looked at that review, and the sizes in the bottom right image are interesting. The top measurement is 102 and the bottom is 105, but the top measurement is clearly bigger than the bottom one in the picture.

Good spot there!

I'm surprised it takes 27 seconds to get to 95mph as it always feels much less than that - will have to go out with a stopwatch some time!

Chris

The Ugly Duckling said:

I've just looked at that review, and the sizes in the bottom right image are interesting. The top measurement is 102 and the bottom is 105, but the top measurement is clearly bigger than the bottom one in the picture.

Click to expand...

I hadn't spotted that, and me someone who does technical drawing for a living!

I suppose we could give them the benefit of the doubt and say the gap between the parcel shelf supports is indeed 30mm narrower than the gap between the wheelarches at boot level...

Could the '102' be in the foreground and be referring to the width of the tailgate opening?....

The measurements aren't superimposed on an actual Panda by the looks, just on a 'standard car picture'. The sizes are quite probably accurate.

The middle pic says it's 128 across the rear seat back....I can't see that it would be 26cm narrower across the parcel shelf....I'm going for the tailgate width....If I wasn't so lazy I'd go outside and measure it!

Schwenck

Thanks for the test, that's exactly what I was looking for. Interestingly, the 1.4 engine in the Panda 100hp seems to be making about 110 hp in standard trim, which is just what the 0-100 kph time would suggest.

John

Italian test's interesting.

The text beside the performance curves says:

"The Panda 100HP plays its strongest cards in acceleration, keeping below the ten seconds in 0-100 km/h. In (mid-range) acceleration/pick-up, however, the performance suffers from the long sixth (gear) and an engine that's not particularly rich in torque at lower revs. The maximum speed is 5 km/h less than the declared (figure), equivalent to 180.8 km/h, because of that rather long sixth (gear)."

Reflects what I'm finding - drop to fifth to pick up speed at almost any mph.

The comment beside the engine figures - top hp figure's interesting - says:

"The torque curve only delivers above 3200 rpm."

OK. So my interest (as a 1.4 500 owner) is why the Panda 100hp is just on a second quicker to 100 kph, and from the figures here, equivalently faster everywhere else, as judged by the figures in the Autocar test of the 500 and from my own road tests. Make no mistake - a whole second quicker to 62 m/h is a lot, a hell of a lot, when both cars are much the same weight and powered by an apparently identical engine with the same quoted power output.

Both cars have the same engine, the same gearbox with the same internal ratios and final drive. Panda is a tiny bit lower geared due to different tyres, but not enough to alter things by more than a tenth or so. The engines are identically specced with the same airbox, inlet manifold and throttle body. The only significant difference I can see is the ECU - the 500 has a Bosch, the Panda Marelli I believe. Are the ECU maps different, perhaps?

John

The engine in the 500 isn't the same as the Panda though is it? THought 500 has VVT and Panda had higher lift cams and no VVT ?

No, 500 is not VVT. It is a standard 16v FIRE engine. Same capacity, same CR, same quoted output at same rpms.

One possibility is that the 500 is ready for the forthcoming EURO 5 emissions standard, whereas the Panda may be EURO 4 compliant. Just clutching at straws.

John

This link gives a comparison between the two engines. Basically the same although some details are different.

http://www.fiat.co.uk/showroom/comp...,069&ses=true&hash=showroom/panda_4x4/compare

John R Smith said:

No, 500 is not VVT. It is a standard 16v FIRE engine. Same capacity, same CR, same quoted output at same rpms.

One possibility is that the 500 is ready for the forthcoming EURO 5 emissions standard, whereas the Panda may be EURO 4 compliant. Just clutching at straws.

John

Click to expand...

I own a 100hp and recently had a 1.4 500 as a courtesy car. The way in which both cars deliver their power feels quite different. In a way it seems that the mapping feels more aggressive in the 100hp whereas it all feels a bit more refined in the 500hp with a less peaky power delivery.

The 500 feels a bit more torquey, but driving it it feels slower than the 100hp, I think this is simply down to engine mapping.

Looking at the specs if they are correct the 100hp has a higher compression ratio, what is interesting though is that the 500 makes it power higher up the rev range, yet it feels less revvy.

I did mention all this to the dealer but typically he didn't really know what he was talking about and said that the 100hp has more power (which isn't actually the case!).. its strange because apparently the 500 is lighter than the 100hp, although it feels heavier to drive if anything.