thebiglad said:

Hi Longway, in view of the age of your car and your comments above, I would be getting the cam-chain and it's tensioner checked.

Dave

Click to expand...

Hi Dave, When I say rattly it sounds more like the typical diesel sound if you know what I mean, the car has just clocked 53k which I wouldn't think is a lot even for such a small engine, but I will certainly get it checked, thanks for the advice.

Longway

PS Can anyone recommend a decent Panda Diesel Mechanic in Wakefield area. Cheers

captainslarty said:

Didnt they also use a lower visc' oil and different tyres ?

Click to expand...

Most Easterly Pandas said:

Yep, was on all Panda's badged 'Eco' I believe.

Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

The lower viscosity oil & ecotyres came in with the 'eco' badged models around (IIRC) 2009 & got the Panda into the £30 RFL band. The Euro5 69BHP engine came later, in 2010, and enabled FIAT to fit alloys to the car & still keep it in the £30 band - something which wasn't possible with the Euro4 engine (the Eleganza with its larger, wider wheels & tyres never made the 119g/km cut).

I've got both 60 & 69BHP engines & my take is that the difference isn't worth worrying about if you're driving for economy - the VVT on the Euro5 engine doesn't come into its own below 2500rpm - but others have reported noticing the extra power when driving more enthusiastically.

By contrast, when I drove them 'back-to-back', I found the 1.1 significantly less flexible and thirstier than either of the 1.2 variants.

IMO for 'normal' driving, the later 1.2 Eco Panda is the one to go for, whether in 60 or 69BHP form; low initial cost, 55mpg & £30 road tax make this probably the cheapest Panda to run ever - and cheap motoring is, IMO, what the Panda is all about.

I downsized in 2011 from a 1995 2l Honda accord estate to a new 1.2 active and as well of the pleasure of vastly reduced fuel costs and £30 road tax I really enjoy driving the panda and the only thing I miss is the boot space.

Better half has a 2004 1.1 there is a bit of a difference in performance but I'd imagine a 2011/more recent 1.1 would be pretty similar to the 1.2.

273BeLow said:

Better half has a 2004 1.1 there is a bit of a difference in performance but I'd imagine a 2011/more recent 1.1 would be pretty similar to the 1.2.

Click to expand...

I dopubt there'd be any difference - the 1.1 never made it into Euro5 form & FIAT quietly discontinued it sometime in 2010. The last of the Mk3 Eco Pandas, from 2011 onwards, including the last of the Active Eco's, all had the 1.2 69BHP engine.

I test drove one of the very last 1.1's alongside a 60BHP Euro4 1.2; it was gutless in comparison and much less flexible; the 1.1 develops significantly less torque than the 1.2, so you need to use the gearbox to make much progress. Above about 28mph, you can put the 1.2 in 5th & leave it there, barring steep hills.

Another reason to favour the 1.2 is that A/C isn't available on the 1.1, not even as an option.

Don't be too put off the 1.1. It's a nice simple no-nonsense car.
It might not have a lot of torque but it produces it fairly low down the rev range. Certainly more flexible than the 1.0l Spark I replaced it with, which produces more torque but at 4,800 rpm.

My last panda was a 2010 1.1 Eco Active, (WITH Aircon!)
It was a little flyer.. I honestly cannot say there was much if any difference between that and my 2003 1.2 Dynamic.
They are all great, really good. The spec does change between countries though, so what you have in UK as opposed to here could and probably will be different.
drive them and see, you will be (nicely) surprised.

captainslarty said:

The spec does change between countries though, so what you have in UK as opposed to here could and probably will be different.

Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head Joe, as I said on our PM's, the LHD 1.1 Active I purchased had AC, but no UK spec'ed ones did. I assume possibly due to climate its deemed a necessity in Portugal?

Most Easterly Pandas said:

Hit the nail on the head Joe, as I said on our PM's, the LHD 1.1 Active I purchased had AC, but no UK spec'ed ones did. I assume possibly due to climate its deemed a necessity in Portugal?

Click to expand...

Absolutely Jon,
The 2010 Eco Active 1.1 had aircon, my 2003 1.2 Dynamic doesnt, In the north of Portugal it is optional (and not really needed), it is like a good summers day in the UK most of the time here - but, in the south - different story !! - anywhere from Lisbon south to the Algarve, you would struggle to buy a car WITHOUT aircon... they would laugh at you.
I think it is worse if you work, ie, have to dress in appropriate clothing to go to work, then you need aircon, appropriate clothing for layabouts on a Yacht like us is shorts and a tee shirt and crocs.. that is national dress in the summer so no aircon needed....
For some reason non uk cars seem to look better ??.. I dont know what it is, possibly the number plates ??.. Its hard to put your finger on...
Joe.

captainslarty said:

For some reason non uk cars seem to look better ??.. I dont know what it is, possibly the number plates ??.. Its hard to put your finger on...
Joe.

Click to expand...

Lets' see, could it be the climate (everything looks nice in sunshine), the lack of choked roads and huge conurbations maybe? In Spain I find even an old Puch moped looks appealing...

at a glance, the 69BHP motor has a screw-on oil filler, the 60 ( and 1108 cc engine) has a rubber bung - same as mk1 + 2 punto's.

good tough engines,
VERY little to go wrong,

fuel econopmy is going to be FAIR for a town / shopping car,
30 / 50 mpg depending on how and where you drive..,

build quality is excellent , just beware of previous owner neglect + abuse.. as some people see them as VERY cheap wheels and don't service / maintain them,

look for signs of Head Gasket failure,
and weepy shocks/ worn suspension.

that's about it for "problem areas" , and the parts are cheap too..!!,
we've had our 1.1 for 9 years and 70K,

I reckon I've spent @ £500 on parts in that time,
tyres are @ £30 , rear boxes the same,
did 1 head gasket + bolts set = £40,

Charlie - Oxford

I started with a 1.1 but found it quite sluggish and have recently upgraded to the 69bhp 1.2, which is noticeably more lively. It also has alloy wheels and and air conditioning. The ride is smoother and quiter as well.

varesecrazy said:

at a glance, the 69BHP motor has a screw-on oil filler, the 60 ( and 1108 cc engine) has a rubber bung - same as mk1 + 2 punto's.

Click to expand...

It's not quite that simple.

My 2010 60BHP motor has a screw on oil filler.

The VVT solenoid attached to the cam cover should be a giveaway that you're looking at a 69BHP lump.

varesecrazy said:

at a glance, the 69BHP motor has a screw-on oil filler, the 60 ( and 1108 cc engine) has a rubber bung - same as mk1 + 2 punto's.

Click to expand...

Nope, from 2008/2009 onwards they all (1.2's) have screw on. Our July 2009 1.2 Eleganza does, and that doesn't have VVT.

Phil1 said:

Hi, I'm thinking of buying a Panda, have always quite liked the square looks. I drive a big 3litre saloon at the moment but am looking at getting something cheaper to run.

Just a few questions;

- is the Panda fun to drive, even the 1.1?
- is there much difference between the 1.1 and 1.2? I quite like the black bumpers that come with the base 1.1 but not sure if it would be underpowered?
- does the 1.2 with alloy wheels (Eleganza I think) have wider tyres than the 1.2 with plastic trims or the 1.1
- did they update the model at all, I note the Fiat badges changed from blue to red but were there any other changes?
- has anyone traded down from a big saloon to a Panda, and if so how did they find it?

thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer.

Click to expand...

Just my 2p:

I find the Panda GREAT fun to drive! They're roly poly handlers but it makes you feel like you're going fast when you're not. I've had 2 1.2s and any modern turbo diesel will obviously blow it into the weeds but they keep up well with your average petrol hatchback, Focus, Astra etc, maybe not on paper but in real life driving.

I find it pretty quiet on the motorway/dual carriageways and they're excellent round town.

I previously had a Rover 75 v6 with 150 BHP and test drove my first Panda because I'd always liked the look of them and it was really fun to drive. The 75 was nice to drive, it was quick and had a great chassis but the Panda is brilliant too, just in a different way. The 75 was a bit too effortless and I like to be more involved. The best way I can describe it is... fun. I have a Metro GTa too and they're pretty similar to drive though the Rover is a hell of a lot faster than the Panda.

After my first Panda was crashed into and written off I was looking for another and tried an almost new euro 5 1.1. I wanted it because I prefer the more basic dash with massive speedo and petrol gauge, it reminds me of my first Punto. I don't know if it wasn't run in yet or if there was something wrong but it was unbelievably slow. I don't like this saying but it felt dangerously slow. It didn't even make any more noise with more throttle like most small engines do! That, and I'm not a full throttle everywhere kind of driver. It was a world away from the 1.2 I bought instead.

Don't think there were many changes other than dash colour, seat fabrics and the badge, though the last mk3s had the updated euro 5 engine. There were the bigger, better mirrors too (the small ones of the earlier models are pretty poor). My old Dynamic A/C has different equipment levels than the Dynamic I have now aside from missing A/C like the mirrors are now manual.

Anyone who gets in my car ends up getting out impressed, they usually say that there's a lot more room inside than they expected and they notice the average MPG display is high 40s/low 50s.

HHR said:

Just my 2p:
I previously had a Rover 75 v6 with 150 BHP and test drove my first Panda because I'd always liked the look of them and it was really fun to drive. The 75 was nice to drive, it was quick and had a great chassis but the Panda is brilliant too, just in a different way. The 75 was a bit too effortless and I like to be more involved. The best way I can describe it is... fun. I have a Metro GTa too and they're pretty similar to drive though the Rover is a hell of a lot faster than the Panda.

Click to expand...

I've been after a 75 for a while actually. I've had a drive of several and I've loved them all, but I never actually got one due to not being able to afford it!
I recall being told that the 75 was just a BMW 3 series with rover skin.

After my first Panda was crashed into and written off I was looking for another and tried an almost new euro 5 1.1. I wanted it because I prefer the more basic dash with massive speedo and petrol gauge, it reminds me of my first Punto. I don't know if it wasn't run in yet or if there was something wrong but it was unbelievably slow. I don't like this saying but it felt dangerously slow. It didn't even make any more noise with more throttle like most small engines do! That, and I'm not a full throttle everywhere kind of driver. It was a world away from the 1.2 I bought instead.

Click to expand...

I had the exact same problem with the 1.4 punto evo I had (and promptly sold to the old man). I'm told that it's because of the "run in" engine map fiats now use for the first couple thousand miles, which saves the driver from having to be gentle with their car until it's run in.
That 1.4 was absolutely awful for it. Even my mother (who is pretty notorious in the family and friends for being a super slow driver) commented on it being "really slow". Since then I've borrowed it a few times and it's loosened up nicely, it's much more perky than when I had it and better on fuel too. It helped my sanity as well! I utterly despised it when I owned it.


My 2p on the 1.1. I've got a 2009 1.1 active eco. The most basic car I have ever driven! No big deal, because I needed a cheapie but the lack of air con is a killer in the summer and not having the 12v socket (nor the wiring for it) is a pain. It's not particularly great on fuel and is a pain on the hills. I end up having to hammer the poor thing in 2nd gear just to get up Caerphilly mountain! It isn't quick, but it does decently enough on the flat.
I'd say go for the 1.2 if you can afford it, it's a much more flexible motor that you won't have to work quite as hard as the 1.1.

The Free(welsh)man said:

I've been after a 75 for a while actually. I've had a drive of several and I've loved them all, but I never actually got one due to not being able to afford it!
I recall being told that the 75 was just a BMW 3 series with rover skin.



I had the exact same problem with the 1.4 punto evo I had (and promptly sold to the old man). I'm told that it's because of the "run in" engine map fiats now use for the first couple thousand miles, which saves the driver from having to be gentle with their car until it's run in.
That 1.4 was absolutely awful for it. Even my mother (who is pretty notorious in the family and friends for being a super slow driver) commented on it being "really slow". Since then I've borrowed it a few times and it's loosened up nicely, it's much more perky than when I had it and better on fuel too. It helped my sanity as well! I utterly despised it when I owned it.


My 2p on the 1.1. I've got a 2009 1.1 active eco. The most basic car I have ever driven! No big deal, because I needed a cheapie but the lack of air con is a killer in the summer and not having the 12v socket (nor the wiring for it) is a pain. It's not particularly great on fuel and is a pain on the hills. I end up having to hammer the poor thing in 2nd gear just to get up Caerphilly mountain! It isn't quick, but it does decently enough on the flat.
I'd say go for the 1.2 if you can afford it, it's a much more flexible motor that you won't have to work quite as hard as the 1.1.

Click to expand...

The only BMW part of the rover 75 was the 2l diesel engine. Everything else was rovers own as far as I know. For example, the 3 series is rwd, and apart from the much later V8 version, the rover 75 was fwd.