General 169 vs 319, which is better?

[ThePandaFan131]

Hey there, I'm interested in getting a Fiat Panda as a first car. It seems to tick all of my boxes like cheap insurance and good practicality. But I can't decide between the 169 & 319.

Looking forward to your response!

 

[The Panda Nut]

169 is more fun. Smaller and cheaper but they have front brakes from the stone age that need constant fettling. 319 is still fun but improved in many ways. Insurance will be more as they are newer.
Due to time related degradation I would try and avoid 169, but there are still some super low miles cars in amazing condition to be had. These cars are basic and low powered but cheap to buy and run. Mechanical simplicity is a big bonus in terms of repairs and maintenance. Insurance is as low as it gets. Panda was rated lowest insurance cost by some insurance watch group 18 months back. Might have been a Company Car mag.

 

[Panda IIs]

Hey there, I'm interested in getting a Fiat Panda as a first car. It seems to tick all of my boxes like cheap insurance and good practicality. But I can't decide between the 169 & 319.

Looking forward to your response!

Looking like you are in the deepest South West so the "exclusion zones" (ULEZ etc) probably aren't relevant to you but EURO 5 v's EURO 6 might be a consideration?

 

[jrkitching]

Due to time related degradation I would try and avoid 169

With some sadness, I'd agree. The 169 Panda, especially in its 60HP Euro 4 form, was perhaps the best small car ever made for anyone wanting low cost no frills transport.

If you'd asked this question five years ago, I'd have said the 169 without a second thought. But they're just too old now to make owning one a cost effective choice for most.

Don't even think about buying a car that's 10+ yrs old unless you can maintain it yourself, or the garage bills will likely end up costing you more than if you'd bought a newer car in the first place.

 

[Pugglt Auld Jock]

With some sadness, I'd agree. The 169 Panda, especially in its 60HP Euro 4 form, was perhaps the best small car ever made for anyone wanting low cost no frills transport.

If you'd asked this question five years ago, I'd have said the 169 without a second thought. But they're just too old now to make owning one a cost effective choice for most.

Don't even think about buying a car that's 10+ yrs old unless you can maintain it yourself, or the garage bills will likely end up costing you more than if you'd bought a newer car in the first place.

I have a very soft spot for the 169, having had several in the family. but I must agree that the newer version is probably the sensible choice unless you're seriously into car repairs. Becky is now coming up on 15 years old and lots of bits are needing attention, not least of which being the back axle. I love the relative simplicity of her though. Next one will be a 319 but it has more by way of electronic "beasties" lurking in the depths. I tend to just stay "aware" of any Pandas for sale at local garages and, as I know most quite well, they don't mind if I want to take a look. Of course up here rust is quite a problem and I haven't really seen a 169 I'd consider buying in quite a while. Not seeing many in scrap yards of late either.

If we decide to replace Becky I'll be looking for a 1.2 up to when the cheap tax cut off in 2017. However they seem quite few and far between. Not as many 319s for sale as there were 169s at any one time is my perception. Unless you're looking for very new ones, but I'm suspicious of the new wee Global engine due to it's complexity.

 

[jrkitching]

If we decide to replace Becky I'll be looking for a 1.2 up to when the cheap tax cut off in 2017. However they seem quite few and far between. Not as many 319s for sale as there were 169s at any one time is my perception. Unless you're looking for very new ones, but I'm suspicious of the new wee Global engine due to it's complexity.

I'm suspicious of most of the cars built after the cheap tax cutoff; many manufacturers have chosen to lock down the CANBUS system, making them significantly harder for both DIY types and independent garages to maintain.

One consequence of this is that folks like us who have decent older, simpler cars are quite sensibly not selling them. Most of the ones that are currently out there on the used car forecourts are basically fit for little more than scrap, and likely to prove an expensive maintenance nightmare for whoever buys them.

 

[The Panda Nut]

With some sadness, I'd agree. The 169 Panda, especially in its 60HP Euro 4 form, was perhaps the best small car ever made for anyone wanting low cost no frills transport.

If you'd asked this question five years ago, I'd have said the 169 without a second thought. But they're just too old now to make owning one a cost effective choice for most.

Don't even think about buying a car that's 10+ yrs old unless you can maintain it yourself, or the garage bills will likely end up costing you more than if you'd bought a newer car in the first place.

In 1985, I bought my first new car. I had bee running cars or 5 years age or more. It cost a kings ransom by comparrison. It very rapidly became clear that with the more efficient engines, lack of repair bills and time saved ( was running atleast 3 jobs) it saved me quite a lot of money. A cheap new car is something well worth considering, especially if you can keep it in a garage and also do fettling so its in perfect order all the time.

 

[The Panda Nut]

I'm suspicious of most of the cars built after the cheap tax cutoff; many manufacturers have chosen to lock down the CANBUS system, making them significantly harder for both DIY types and independent garages to maintain.

One consequence of this is that folks like us who have decent older, simpler cars are quite sensibly not selling them. Most of the ones that are currently out there on the used car forecourts are basically fit for little more than scrap, and likely to prove an expensive maintenance nightmare for whoever buys them.

This for me is the really big barrier to EVs and even hybrid cars. You cannot do any maintenance or repairs any more. Hybrids are better, as the hybrid bit in many seems bomb proof, but It puts the cost of car ownership up by 100% for me. This rules a new car with the tech right out. I cant afford it full stop. Hence my absolute obsession with ensuring my Pandas are meticulously maintained and kept at full readiness for escape from nulcear holocaust at all times. If I absolutely have to have an EV is will have to be on a very short lease and with full maintenance, short enough term to ensure without exception that its replaced before anything goes wrong outside a warranty. This is utterly and completely mad and the very thought disgusts me to my core on environmental grounds, EVs a step forward??? Someone please explain exactly how.

Back to my view that smaller lighter cars, CHEAPER with the best economy via every available existing tech route must be the way forward. Smaller roads, smaller car park bays and compulsory parts back up for 30 years, and we might be moving forward. Reduced used of cars and using less fuel with less power and speed is what will move things the right way. We all know whats right, most just dont like it.

PS Does anyone know if Fiat Pandina is available in 4x4? Im seriously thinking of going and buying at least 1 and bringing it home and changing it to RHD

 

[rmjbn1]

Quick get a 169 before they become desirable classics and rocket in value!

My pick would be pre-2011 60hp 169
But they're all very appealing
60hp 1.2 is a gem of an engine
We got ours when it was 14 years old, 7 years later super happy with the wee thing

As long as:
You get one with no obvious rust (or underlying issues)
You're prepared to keep on top of the bits that will rust (rear axle, sump, coolant pipe, sills, strange shelf in the front wheel arches)
You're prepared for lots of consumables giving up as they reach end of life (brakes, suspension, clutch, exhaust, thermostat, cables...)
You're prepared to interrogate it with MES fairly regularly to find out what it's unhappy about this time

Bodies are galvanised so with tlc can keep on going, but a newer fresher car is likely to give you an easier life.

 

[ClassicZoo]

I have both as 4x4s and honestly, age aside, it's tough to call which is 'better'!

I'd say the 169 handles better, and seems slightly better built. The 319 is slightly comfier, and is a little more spacious. My 169 is mint and genuinely rust free, as is the 312 of course but that's not unexpected, so it's a fair comparison.

Based on my experience of various Pandas it leaves me thinking that if my 169 had air conditioning, the 1.4 from the 100hp, and a 6-speed gearbox that would swing it. As they are though, my 319 TA Cross is the easier car to live with on a daily basis.

They're both fantastic so you can't really go wrong!

 

[The Panda Nut]

It has me in mind a 319, 4x4, 1.4 100HP with the all important skydome suroof and trimmed in Italian leather with a good wilton carpet and properly fitted rubber mats and I would have my perfect car. Must have an eco button though......

When we had youngsters the Panda would really have been too small. That apart it not only fulfills everything that you could ask, cheaply and economically, its reported at the cheapest car on the road in the UK to insure. It does all this with a level a syle and brio that one could never anticipate. They do have a few issues but at the price these are not deal breakers and are all reasonably easily managed. I have owned and driven some 95 cars (total madness I know) and driven many hundreds over a really stupidly large milage. I am in no doubt that the Panda is right up thereas the very best of the lot. The only other car that gets near for me was the Bravo which I respected and then loved more and more as the miles increased. I have done over 250K miles in Pandas and they are above averagely reliable, dont adversly affetc my spinal issues and breakdowns on the road so far is nil. Thrwo in the low tyre and brake wear and there isnt really anything not to like. OK its no V8 luxury, but in my case its my choice. I do occasionally think about a large powerful luxury car ans then justthink about the difficulty parking, the speeding tickets, fuels and insurance costs, service costs and need for garage work, chuckmin vandalism and the tainted image that goes with the thing, the environmental issues and the fact that I have had nearly 20 years of still getting there, just as quickly and more enjoyably and Pandas still rule here. I might just be able to afford one more decent car, but there is not a single one on the market that I want. It seems that there isno chance this situation will change either. Is it JUST me thats sad or is this a sad situation.

I think Classiczoo has it summed up pretty well perfectly. 169 fractionally more fun and the 319 fracionally better engineered. Tyre wear being much improved on the 319 is the clincher.

 

[Peter Pick-Up]

Hey there, I'm interested in getting a Fiat Panda as a first car. It seems to tick all of my boxes like cheap insurance and good practicality. But I can't decide between the 169 & 319.

Looking forward to your response!

The 169 is made in Poland, the 312/319 is made by Alfa Romeo in Italy..

 

[rmjbn1]

The 169 is made in Poland, the 312/319 is made by Alfa Romeo in Italy..

Another point in favour of the 169

 

[Steveetee55]

I love my 4x4 319 never driven a 169 but i do like the 4x4 version and with its simplicity i would probably consider buying one if i needed another car