General Greetings...and some questions.

[Punto MC]

Hi folks,I've not been on the forum for a while but now looking to get back into the Fiat fold.
I've previously owned a 2002 Punto 1.2 and a 2007 Panda 100HP. My mother still owns her 2010 Panda 1.1 Active ECO.

I've been reading through LOADS of threads to get a feel for the 2012+ Panda and I have a few general questions.

1) Having owned a 169 model, the interior space was good considering the size of the car BUT...it was a narrow cabin. My shoulders and head were always very close to the side. We've got a Peugeot 107 and it's much wider inside. Does the current model Panda feel noticeably wider inside the the old one?

2) Is there an overall feeling that any particular version of the 1.2 is the best? I've read all about the clutch switch thing and it seems that if it's going to be an issue, it can be unplugged etc. My old 2002 Punto had the 8v 60ps 1.2 engine and it was an absolute peach of an engine, smooth at any revs and economical too. As is my mams 1.1 actually but it does feel very weak, even compared to the 1.0 in the 107.

3) The twin air sounds intriguing. I'm aware that it won't return anywhere near it's quoted figures but id be willing to give one a try. Are there any reliability issues associated with that engine?

4) would a general rule of thumb be...a TA would return 38-45 mpg and the 1.2 mid to high 40s? I have a 10 mile commute including a bit of traffic but also some nice free flowing sections, bit of a mixture.

I'm not really interested in the diesel version, I don't think I do enough miles and I would imagine the small petrol engines are more fun to drive / keep on the boil etc.

 

[AB100]

1) Does the current model Panda feel noticeably wider inside the the old one?
- Not really. We have both though I can't say I've felt it anything but spacious anyway.

2) Is there an overall feeling that any particular version of the 1.2 is the best? I've read all about the clutch switch thing and it seems that if it's going to be an issue, it can be unplugged etc. My old 2002 Punto had the 8v 60ps 1.2 engine and it was an absolute peach of an engine, smooth at any revs and economical too. As is my mams 1.1 actually but it does feel very weak, even compared to the 1.0 in the 107.
- Drove a Waze yesterday with the Euro6D engine and I'd say the take off was peppier than our 2017 Euro6B. Forget disabling the clutch switch on this model. Quite lively like the Euro5 and very pleasing indeed.

3) The twin air sounds intriguing. I'm aware that it won't return anywhere near it's quoted figures but id be willing to give one a try. Are there any reliability issues associated with that engine?
- Marmite. Try before you buy would be my advice.

4) would a general rule of thumb be...a TA would return 38-45 mpg and the 1.2 mid to high 40s? I have a 10 mile commute including a bit of traffic but also some nice free flowing sections, bit of a mixture.
- We average 41mpg mostly shortish distances in the 1.2 but everyone's dfferent

 

[ambient white]

Hi folks,I've not been on the forum for a while but now looking to get back into the Fiat fold.
I've previously owned a 2002 Punto 1.2 and a 2007 Panda 100HP. My mother still owns her 2010 Panda 1.1 Active ECO.

I've been reading through LOADS of threads to get a feel for the 2012+ Panda and I have a few general questions.

1) Having owned a 169 model, the interior space was good considering the size of the car BUT...it was a narrow cabin. My shoulders and head were always very close to the side. We've got a Peugeot 107 and it's much wider inside. Does the current model Panda feel noticeably wider inside the the old one?

2) Is there an overall feeling that any particular version of the 1.2 is the best? I've read all about the clutch switch thing and it seems that if it's going to be an issue, it can be unplugged etc. My old 2002 Punto had the 8v 60ps 1.2 engine and it was an absolute peach of an engine, smooth at any revs and economical too. As is my mams 1.1 actually but it does feel very weak, even compared to the 1.0 in the 107.

3) The twin air sounds intriguing. I'm aware that it won't return anywhere near it's quoted figures but id be willing to give one a try. Are there any reliability issues associated with that engine?

4) would a general rule of thumb be...a TA would return 38-45 mpg and the 1.2 mid to high 40s? I have a 10 mile commute including a bit of traffic but also some nice free flowing sections, bit of a mixture.

I'm not really interested in the diesel version, I don't think I do enough miles and I would imagine the small petrol engines are more fun to drive / keep on the boil etc.

Our 4 year old Panda Trekking Twin Air does 47mpg, the newer City Cross 1200 does 45mpg but the latter has many less miles on the clock and is less than 12 months old.

 

[TheR]

I can only comment on question one but the new panda(312) is much roomier inside then the former model(169).
My friend has the 169 and I own the 312 and we are quite big guys and in the 169 we are sitting with our shoulders together and in the 312 the's plenty of room.

The twinairturbo is a little fun machine of an engine and a hoot to drive but it isn't very economical and the technic is more complicated with more things to go wrong(uni air unit and the turbo) luckely I haven't had any problems myself but I havecthe oil changed every 10000km(once a year) in stead of the official interval that once was 30000km or every 2 years.

 

[Punto MC]

Thanks everyone for your feedback so far I guess I'm not necessarily looking for something fast...But something that's fun to hustle around when not doing the daily grind.
I know Pandas aren't the last word in ride/handling finesse but they have character which is important!

 

[Al D]

Plenty of room this shape Panda. Jeremy Clarkson once joked that whenever James May gave him a lift in his Panda Eleganza, whenever he changed gear he'd touch his co presenter's leg. Bit more room than that. Current Panda heavier, but so much safer, more substantial and better screwed together. But that's 8 years progress. Twin Air fastest, but if I was having one beyond a 23 month PCP deal new I'd have the 1.2 am afraid.

Probably a 67 plate 1.2 Lounge. Saw my old one again the other day. I must be crackers.....

 

[babbo_umbro]

My wife's 60-plate 1.2 and my 13-plate 4x4 TA feel the same for space inside. Ride and general solidity of the later model are much improved. I get 40.something to the gallon. Done 70,00 miles with no engine issues (rear diff oil seal and battery replaced under warranty). TA performance is way ahead of 1.2 - in gear acceleration is virtually identical to my (much-lamented) 100HP, main road Alp climbing streets ahead of 1.2.

 

[Punto MC]

Thanks again everyone.


I'm gonna have to get a couple of test drives in.


I know neither the 1.2 or TA are going to be like my 100HP - as B_U said, it was some machine!
I will admit to eventually wearing of the very hard ride (although i was totally expecting it having done a lot of research.


Im up for something smoother/comfier now.


I use my mams Panda sometimes, and it's quite a fun little thing...(2010 1.1 Active Eco) but it skips around a bit and it's weak unless worked hard - i would reckon, having read lots on here, that the current version is more planted than the standard previous model.


Im not sure how much of a lifespan the current model has left, it came out in 2012..i wonder if there will be any uber-amazing deals around on the last ones?

 

[babbo_umbro]

Just measured the internal width at front passenger shoulder height - 60-plate 1.2 is 45 inches, 13-plate 4x4 is 48 inches - so the difference sounds useful but (as in previous post) can't say I've noticed it in practice.

 

[Punto MC]

Just measured the internal width at front passenger shoulder height - 60-plate 1.2 is 45 inches, 13-plate 4x4 is 48 inches - so the difference sounds useful but (as in previous post) can't say I've noticed it in practice.

Babbo, thank you for doing that, very much appreciated. I must admit, i did notice the narrowness of the 169 but i'm pretty broad shouldered and tall, so it might have been emphasised.


It's been useful my mam still having the 2010 one and SWMBO having a 2007 Peugeot 107 as i can compare the two


They compare like this -


Fiat has the much smoother, sweeter engine. You can be at any revs (and i dont know what they are as there's no rev counter) and the engine is absolutely sweet as a nut, no harshness, no vibration, it's a lovely thing.


It's a shame then, that the 54bhp engine, even in the 840kgs Panda, to me feels quite weak and weedy. In comparison, the 107 1.0 feels stronger and more flexible (granted it is a bit more powerful) It has a nice 3 cyl growl which is fun when you're in the mood but it can be wearing compared to the sewing machine like Panda!
The Panda also has the nicer gearchange, a slick shift with a nicely positioned nob, oo-er!
The ride is also possibly a bit smoother in the Panda - but not better....becuase the Panda kinda....jumps about when you're pressing on, and leans, too. It just feels a bit....nervous....skittish...unresolved.


The slightly more firm 107 feels much more planted and like.....stable.


It's suprisingly big inside the 107, i'm 6ft 2 and can just about sit behind myself, which is amazing. I struggle to do that in the Panda without really pushing the seat a long way forward.


However - at least the Panda has a useable boot. The 107 has a tiny opening and a small boot, The Panda is an actual, proper boot with a proper hatch - and that brings me to the main point of my post (sorry for the waffle) - the Panda (and i'm hoping the current model) feels like a normal car....but small....wheras the 107 etc etc feels like a....car....cut down to a budget...lots of cost savings....etc.


The Panda feels like a normal car, shrunk in the wash. The build quality is excellent! Clunk from the doors, tight handles, no creaks or rattles at all inside (which amazed me in the 100HP considering the pounding it gave us (oo-er missus again!)


Anyway...where was i.....erm...thanks!

 

[Herts Hillhopper]

Late to the debate, here's my ten-pennth-worth:
1) ...Does the current model Panda feel noticeably wider inside the the old one?
Yes - in all directions. (Moved from 2005 to 2013 4x4 and have 2018 4x4 now). More space - couple of inches or more in every direction (and as a result a little bigger outside too). Tad heavier as a result though.


2) Is there an overall feeling that any particular version of the 1.2 is the best?

If looking new (or less than 6 months old), you'll have no choice as the diesel was dropped across the whole range, and the TA dropped (owing to its dismal showing in the new, 'real' fuel consumption tests)from all Panda except the 4x4s.


3) The twin air sounds intriguing.

As above - don't believe the (old) quoted economy figures. now quoted as low as 39mpg in 'official tests'! But believe to be OK durability-wise, so long as properly serviced.


4) would a general rule of thumb be...a TA would return 38-45 mpg and the 1.2 mid to high 40s? I have a 10 mile commute including a bit of traffic but also some nice free flowing sections, bit of a mixture.

New official figures (via Spanish Fiat site as no figures at all on Fiat UK site!)
1.2 = 44.1 mpg and 146g CO2/km (on road tests)
0.9 = 42.8 mpg and 149g CO2


I'm not really interested in the diesel version, ...
Its gone anyway! (But I have 2018 one and its great - 52mpg with my driving)


Also: newer 312 model has much better ride, smoother drive and a bit quieter too.

 

[Punto MC]

Late to the debate, here's my ten-pennth-worth:
1) ...Does the current model Panda feel noticeably wider inside the the old one?
Yes - in all directions. (Moved from 2005 to 2013 4x4 and have 2018 4x4 now). More space - couple of inches or more in every direction (and as a result a little bigger outside too). Tad heavier as a result though.


2) Is there an overall feeling that any particular version of the 1.2 is the best?

If looking new (or less than 6 months old), you'll have no choice as the diesel was dropped across the whole range, and the TA dropped (owing to its dismal showing in the new, 'real' fuel consumption tests)from all Panda except the 4x4s.


3) The twin air sounds intriguing.

As above - don't believe the (old) quoted economy figures. now quoted as low as 39mpg in 'official tests'! But believe to be OK durability-wise, so long as properly serviced.


4) would a general rule of thumb be...a TA would return 38-45 mpg and the 1.2 mid to high 40s? I have a 10 mile commute including a bit of traffic but also some nice free flowing sections, bit of a mixture.

New official figures (via Spanish Fiat site as no figures at all on Fiat UK site!)
1.2 = 44.1 mpg and 146g CO2/km (on road tests)
0.9 = 42.8 mpg and 149g CO2


I'm not really interested in the diesel version, ...
Its gone anyway! (But I have 2018 one and its great - 52mpg with my driving)


Also: newer 312 model has much better ride, smoother drive and a bit quieter too.

Thank you very much for your information

 

[The Panda Nut]

My views. The inside of the new one is much better width ways and the drive is more grown up and the ride better. Its not as much fun to drive though. It is still a good drive.

Read this foorum regarding build quality and faults. There are quite a few and B expensive to sort. Back brake replacement costs look appalling and Ad D has just paid two grand for a new steering column.

The 169 was very well built and reliable and lasted well too. The build on the new car is not nearly as good, but overall its a reasonable thing.

We have a 1.2 169 as well as the Twin air 4x4. MPG on the twin air is 35- 45 but mostly around 37. The 1.2 does 48+

The twin air performs exceptionally well once run in but mine has water in the oil. It still runs fine and does not exhibit any signs of problems related, but I am replacing it very early to try another as this seems the only way to establish if its really a normal trait of this engine.

Bottom line is I totally love the Panda but I would NOT EVER recommend anyone else to buy one as I do not trust its reliability, My 100HP was mechanically bomb proof for over 100 thousand miles so I am very disappointed with the newer car.

Hope your decision works out well and that you join the Panda owners!

 

[R1NGA]

I use my mams Panda sometimes, and it's quite a fun little thing...(2010 1.1 Active Eco) but it skips around a bit and it's weak unless worked hard - i would reckon, having read lots on here, that the current version is more planted than the standard previous model.

The current 312 Panda is very well setup in my view and both rides and handles very well. Quite the best ride quality of any car I've owned for years. I do a lot of on-track driver training and we had an event at Cadwell Park a few years ago which was aimed at those new to track driving who wanted to learn, not just tool around. We used our own Instructor cars and I was asked to bring something 'unintimidating'.... so Panda it was.

My group consisted of a couple of 320 BMW's, an E46 M3, an Impreza, two Mini Coopers and an MX-5 and whilst I admit I know the circuit well, it was perfectly fast enough to keep the group working hard for the day. At one point I was asked to slow down as the immediate cars behind me were getting a bit ragged. I was asked quite what I'd done to the Panda to make it go so well (they were aware that I'd supercharged my previous 4x4), but were horrified to realise that the answer was nothing - just 875cc, two cylinders, less than 90hp and winter tyres to boot....

In truth the Eibach Camber bolts on the front make an enormous difference to front-end bit and add some much needed adjustability, but never underestimate the rate at which a current Panda can be pedalled if you need to....

 

[Punto MC]

Thank you both very much for your thoughts and experience!

 

[Punto MC]

Had a little go last night in a friend's 2005 1.2 Eleganza and it reminded me what is been missing. It's just a fun little car that doesn't pretend to be anything else!
One thing I really noticed was the much better driving position thanks to the height adjustment. It was lower than both the 2010 Active (no height adjustment) and also my previous 100HP which did adjust but didn't go this low - and it made a noticeable difference.
Was 'proper' height adjustment only standard on the Eleganza?

Great car.....now I need to try a current one.