im Axle Specialists

General Clarkson didn't like the Qubo

Currently reading:
General Clarkson didn't like the Qubo

U

Ulpian

Ulpian
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
3,665
Points
553
Location
My flat mostly
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6028723.ece?&EMC-Bltn=QQZDGA



Actually, when I looked at one I really liked it, until I saw it only had 75bhp :( If they had put the 1.6 Diesel in it they'd have had a possible winner. Thing is, Citroen is selling it's version as well, and the Picasso C3, which only costs £2000 more and has better kit and the necessary 1.6 Diesel! Come on Fiat, fit this thing with the eco-1.6 and give us a proper car that can keep up with the traffic, and deliver better economy too!
And why electric mirrors? Save the money and put a decent motor in it....0-60 in 16 seconds!!!! No way.
 
Last edited:
Much as I like Clarkson, his car reviews tend to be fairly useless. Look on the Times site at his article on the Mazda 6 and you'll see what I mean.

Had a ride in a Qubo last week, it seemed quite comfy inside and the driver didn't appear to be thrashing it to make progress. Bear in mind it's more van than car and when was the last time a Berlingo impressed anyone with its performance?! I'm sure it had carpets as well...

Would be better to have the option of a beefier motor but it's not half as bad as Jeremy makes out. :)
 
Cars like the Qubo are quite pointless IMO, only 5 seats, poorer MPG etc due to crap aerodynamics and in the case of the Qubo in particular the worst paint finish I have ever seen on a 'car' not to mention its hopelessly underpowered and not even that cheap. I had a good poke around one in my local stealers and it was really quite poor, why bother when the Multipla exists?
 
Because its cheaper than the Multipla, and not as wide. The paint on the one I looked at was very good. I hope you aren't meaning that because there was painted metal inside the paint was no good?

But in this instance Clarkson is right. I have a Doblo with a decent amount of power, a shelf over the windscreen which I find invaluable, easy ingress and egress, and I get a very decent drive as a bonus. The Doblo actually has good aerodynamics too.

But you are right about the price; it should be at least £2000 cheaper with those pathetic little engines, and although the rubber floor is actually brilliant, it needs to be explained to idiot punters. Give me great storage, no electric mirrors (pointless and expensive to replace) and a decently powerful motor at a cheap price. It is basically a van, and therefore can be made and sold cheaply. The Doblo was launched with a gutless 1.2 petrol engine and an ancient non-turbo 1.9 Diesel. It seems Fiat has got the launch spec wrong a second time. Ahhh!!! :cry:
 
Last edited:
look at the paint finish on the front bumper in particular, its godawful. I just dont get the whole 5 seater little van thing...either a proper van, or an MPV with at least 7 seats. Or IMO the best family car ever, a Ford Tourneo, 8 seater and cheaper than a Galaxy etc.

But I do agree that whoever signed off the 75bhp Diesel was off their rocker, its only just adequate in the 500!
 
I just don't get the whole 5 seater little van thing
Click to expand...

But a lot of other people do. Not everybody needs eight, seven, or even five, seats; but a lot of people like to sit high, carry stuff, and have plenty of versatile space in a cheap sensible package. And don't want a regular van.

There is talk of a 1.3 Diesel 90bhp - but again, this is a revvy thirsty little thing, and there is an excellent 1.6 just sitting there not being installed.

C'mon Fiat, get your act together...

The paint in the one I looked at was fine by the way, but there you go.

I do get very cross at many things Fiat does: their advertising is now crap - remember the 'made by robots' Strada/Ritmo ad, and the Fiat Coupe ad, 'nobody in Italy grows up wanting to be an engine driver' - brilliant. And brilliant music - which captivated us all. And now?????

I'd like to take whoever signs off the spec of these cars and shake him, very hard, and then give him a very concise and unambiguous talking to...I wish :D
 
Original Multipla or Nuovo Croma are excellent family cars.
Click to expand...

So would the Qubo be if they got the spec right, at a sensible price. The Croma is dull as ditchwater to look at and does nothing the Qubo wouldn't do, if it had the right spec, for far lass money.

Also, the Qubo has a very comfortable seating position, something the Croma never had.

It looks good too ;)
 
Clarkson just can't cut it when it comes to road testing other than fast cars these days. I'd say bring in James May every time, he goes further than simply the performance figures. (It's not Top gear I know but I don't care, May or Hammond FTW).

auto_blanco said:
Or IMO the best family car ever, a Ford Tourneo, 8 seater and cheaper than a Galaxy etc.
Click to expand...

Except the Tourneo (Transit no?) Is too wide for daily use and connect version is way too expensive compare to the competition.

Then there's the Ulysee, ok it's not here in the uk anymore but it was a good car when it was here. We've had two (Mk1 then Mk2) in our family and loved them both. They exceeded our expectations (Especially when it came to reliability, we'd never buy Japanese or German ever!).
 
Ulpian said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6028723.ece?&EMC-Bltn=QQZDGA
Thing is, Citroen is selling it's version as well, and the Picasso C3, which only costs £2000 more and has better kit and the necessary 1.6 Diesel! Come on Fiat, fit this thing with the eco-1.6 and give us a proper car that can keep up with the traffic.. Save the money and put a decent motor in it....0-60 in 16 seconds!!!! No way.
Click to expand...

This isn't just Fiat screwing up the spec of this collaborative venture. Check out the Citroen Nemo Multispace, ie the Qubo but with Peugeot/Citroen's 1.4 HDi instead of the multijet. 70 bhp and 0-62 in.... 18.7secs! As for the Pug (Bipper Combi) I've seen nothing to suggest that it will get anything bigger than the 1.4 HDi when it eventually hits these shores. I suspect that they are all mesmerised by the CO2 ratings... the Qubo mjet just creeps in under the 120 mark and so qualifies for the £35 RFL.

I do agree with you though. The tremendous space efficiency of the Qubo/Nemo/Bipper, if actually to be USED cries out for something more than the existing mjet (great in a Panda) or the HDi (AOK in a C2) can offer.....
 
Fifth Gear didn't like it either. Not that their reviews are what you'd call "in depth".
 
Does Clarkson likes something ??? Excepting Lambos, top Audis, Mercs etc.

Don't bother about his reviews, I have a feeling they are more likely for some laugh and sarcasm rather than professional opinion and verdict

:(
 
Ulpian said:
But a lot of other people do. Not everybody needs eight, seven, or even five, seats; but a lot of people like to sit high, carry stuff, and have plenty of versatile space in a cheap sensible package. And don't want a regular van.

There is talk of a 1.3 Diesel 90bhp - but again, this is a revvy thirsty little thing, and there is an excellent 1.6 just sitting there not being installed.

C'mon Fiat, get your act together...

The paint in the one I looked at was fine by the way, but there you go.

I do get very cross at many things Fiat does: their advertising is now crap - remember the 'made by robots' Strada/Ritmo ad, and the Fiat Coupe ad, 'nobody in Italy grows up wanting to be an engine driver' - brilliant. And brilliant music - which captivated us all. And now?????

I'd like to take whoever signs off the spec of these cars and shake him, very hard, and then give him a very concise and unambiguous talking to...I wish :D
Click to expand...


I'm rather interested in one of these but not with the present 75 HP as the only diesel on offer. The 1.3 85/90 HP would be an improvement but it's a bit slow off the mark with pretty much nothing below 2000 RPM. The engine is just too small and is approaching it's limits at 90 HP. I figure if tuned like the better 1.9's (88 HP/litre) , it should be good for 110 HP but will have even less grunt down low. That leaves the new 1.6 in 90/105/120 HP with easy potential for 140. The existing 70/75 HP versions of the 1.3 are inadequate in the Idea and Doblo and barely sufficient for the Panda, which has also been crying for a bit more power in diesel since it was launched.


"'nobody in Italy grows up wanting to be an engine driver' "

I really can NOT understand that one at all. :p Fiat was very active in railway equipment until 2002 when they sold the business to Alstom. The 50 Chunnel Shuttle electric locomotives were a joint product of Fiat and Brush. Fiat has also built other locomotives, railcars and non-powered equipment over the years.
 
Um.... is everyone sure the 1.6 lump will fit in the Qubo? If its on a Panda/Punto-ish frame? Has the 1.6 been in anything smaller than the Bravo?
 
Well, if they can get the 1.9 in a GP they can fit the 1.6. The Qubo is built on the GP chassis.

But there is soon to be a 95 Multijet2 1.3 Diesel, and this will have masses more torque, far lower down the rev range, and better economy. This will be the engine to go for: it arrives on the market after September.

I also think Peugeot/Citroen and Fiat have signed a pact not to out-engine each other for the time being.
 
Historically if Clarkson doesn't like it I probably will!

I bought a 1.3 Trekking on impulse; my thought process was, "man that's ugly,I like it..." For a family of four who camp, climb and sail it's been brilliant! It survived the recent ice age in Scotland without missing a beat.
Under £200 to insure and £35 tax, suits me!

0-60 yeah it's no sports car but you can't have everything in one package. For us it ticks all the boxes and I can put up with the performance . (saved me 2 speeding tickets already)

At the end of the day if you like it - buy it, if you don't - don't!

:slayer:
 
I'm not that sure Mr. C. likes anything under £50.000. I like many bught the Qubo as it ticked all the required boxes.

True its not going to set the heather in fire with regards to performance, but it still manages 70+ with ease, plus a full load on the M/way journeys. To be honest I think the 75bhp unit does all thats asked of it, and I cant understand why all the fuss over the 95bhp??, as its not that much better.

Sorry Mr.C. I think you should have a reality check once in a while, sone of us are not vastly overpaid for being a media tosser.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Technical Fiat Qubo
Replies
5
Views
409
Danimurtgm
D
S
General Water coming into passenger footwell Qubo
Replies
3
Views
154
Noony
N
M
Technical Qubo Duologic problems
Replies
0
Views
308
MJakeM
M
E
General For Sale Qubo Roof Rack.
Replies
1
Views
295
Eastcoaststeve
E
N
  • Question
Technical Fiat Qubo 2013 auto clutch
Replies
0
Views
200
Neilsmith
N
Back
Top