KA just driven

[keeforelli]

hi guys-

500 just left at dealer for a day, picked up an 2010 KA as a courtesy car, and thought i would share my thoughts....

interior feels cheap but well built,
liked the sharp rake of the windscreen, the dials, and look of the thing
was the studio model so no equipment at all..
no height adjustment so felt REALLY high up...
but as an object to look at, and sit in, still not a patch on the 500..

but to drive????

a revelation stepping str8 out of the 500...and virtually driving them back to back

very good ride, flat, quieter engine, no pitching or bouncing, sharper steering and really stable...very different to drive-

a big thumbs up!!!- if this is EXACTLY the same set up on the improved 500, then it must be a much more rounded car now..

but the question is- was the lack of the anti roll bar the only difference between 500 and KA?....is the newer 500 now exactly the same?...or is the ford suspension still tuned differently???

 

[306maxi]

but the question is- was the lack of the anti roll bar the only difference between 500 and KA?

As I've pointed out many times you can't add an ARB to a car and not soften up the springs. So basically the rear suspension will be very different.

 

[keeforelli]

As I've pointed out many times you can't add an ARB to a car and not soften up the springs. So basically the rear suspension will be very different.

ok, my question being that now the 500 has the ARB is it the same as the KA?....or just one step closer?

cos the KA was a revelation compared to the 500...

 

[306maxi]

ok, my question being that now the 500 has the ARB is it the same as the KA?....or just one step closer?

cos the KA was a revelation compared to the 500...

I fail to see why Fiat would develop a car with different suspension settings just because. At the end of it all the Abarth and Ka may have a better suspension setup but it still doesn't make up for the fact that the chassis seems a bit primitive. If you saw the Trofeo Abarth on the TV at Cadwell Park on Motors TV recently and you're into your racing you'd have seen that the Abarth's are not particularly great handling cars.

 

[keeforelli]

I fail to see why Fiat would develop a car with different suspension settings just because. At the end of it all the Abarth and Ka may have a better suspension setup but it still doesn't make up for the fact that the chassis seems a bit primitive. If you saw the Trofeo Abarth on the TV at Cadwell Park on Motors TV recently and you're into your racing you'd have seen that the Abarth's are not particularly great handling cars.

so, MAYBE fords famous chassis magic has been worked here?....primitive doesnt necessarily mean bad...

to be absolutely sure i would have to drive the revised 500....
the KA also had steel wheels- no alloys...unlike mine..
but considering all the controls are in the same place, and most of them felt better...(clutch/brake/accelerator)..was quite a surreal experience...

like driving the finished version of my own car...

 

[306maxi]

so, MAYBE fords famous chassis magic has been worked here?....primitive doesnt necessarily mean bad...

to be absolutely sure i would have to drive the revised 500....
the KA also had steel wheels- no alloys...unlike mine..
but considering all the controls are in the same place, and most of them felt better...(clutch/brake/accelerator)..was quite a surreal experience...

like driving the finished version of my own car...

Meh, this Ford chassis magic thing is something that's been invented. Ford aren't that great with chassis', it's just that Fiat are so achingly **** at them.

Remember the 14" steel wheels that the 500 and Ka come with are lighter and therefore there's a lot less unsprung weight having its wicked way with the suspension. Remember also that on narrower wheels with lighter rims the car will accelerate quicker and basically just feel like a different car. When I put my car on its narrow winter tyres I was continually entering corners faster than before purely because of the lower drag on the drivetrain.

I've driven a 500c and yes it is better and I reckon if you put a solid roof in and put it on steelies it'd even better, BUT this is not a sophisticated chassis. It's got sod all travel before it's riding on its bumpstops, this is NOT good!

It's got a beam axle which is just terrible. It's basically the front wheel drive equivalent to the live axle which Top Gear quite rightly slag American cars off for. This whole ARB thing is a red herring tbh. Whether that extra metal on the bar is part of a seperate bar or part of the beam, the result is the same! The beam becomes more rigid.

If you think an ugly 500 is sophisticated then you feel to take something French and give it a good spanking through some corners and bumpy roads I think you'd be pretty darn impressed.

 

[Murano16v]

I fail to see why Fiat would develop a car with different suspension settings just because. At the end of it all the Abarth and Ka may have a better suspension setup but it still doesn't make up for the fact that the chassis seems a bit primitive. If you saw the Trofeo Abarth on the TV at Cadwell Park on Motors TV recently and you're into your racing you'd have seen that the Abarth's are not particularly great handling cars.

I saw videos of that and was amazed how easily the Abarths rolled over if they got anyway near the curbs.

 

[keeforelli]

Meh, this Ford chassis magic thing is something that's been invented. Ford aren't that great with chassis', it's just that Fiat are so achingly **** at them.

Remember the 14" steel wheels that the 500 and Ka come with are lighter and therefore there's a lot less unsprung weight having its wicked way with the suspension. Remember also that on narrower wheels with lighter rims the car will accelerate quicker and basically just feel like a different car. When I put my car on its narrow winter tyres I was continually entering corners faster than before purely because of the lower drag on the drivetrain.

I've driven a 500c and yes it is better and I reckon if you put a solid roof in and put it on steelies it'd even better, BUT this is not a sophisticated chassis. It's got sod all travel before it's riding on its bumpstops, this is NOT good!

It's got a beam axle which is just terrible. It's basically the front wheel drive equivalent to the live axle which Top Gear quite rightly slag American cars off for. This whole ARB thing is a red herring tbh. Whether that extra metal on the bar is part of a seperate bar or part of the beam, the result is the same! The beam becomes more rigid.

If you think an ugly 500 is sophisticated then you feel to take something French and give it a good spanking through some corners and bumpy roads I think you'd be pretty darn impressed.

mmm ugly 500?...you mean KA?!...did i say sophisticated?!

i have driven renaultsport clios, the megane R26 and my last car was french, also a megane...VERY comfortable....but im not comparing them...

i WAS comparing the 500 and KA to drive..rather than saying the KA was amazing against everything else on the road...

so i have to assume that ford have different suspension settings/dampers rates etc... and now despite the shared ARB with fiat, ford are still superior in their tuning...

 

[306maxi]

mmm ugly 500?...you mean KA?!...did i say sophisticated?!

i have driven renaultsport clios, the megane R26 and my last car was french, also a megane...VERY comfortable....but im not comparing them...

i WAS comparing the 500 and KA to drive..rather than saying the KA was amazing against everything else on the road...

so i have to assume that ford have different suspension settings/dampers rates etc... and now despite the shared ARB with fiat, ford are still superior in their tuning...

But have you driven a '10 plate 500 to compare them? Like I said I don't see why Fiat would have different suspension settings for the new 500 rear end and the Ka rear end.

All I'm trying to point out is that no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig it's still a pig

 

[keeforelli]

But have you driven a '10 plate 500 to compare them? Like I said I don't see why Fiat would have different suspension settings for the new 500 rear end and the Ka rear end.

All I'm trying to point out is that no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig it's still a pig

i havent.....apart from a 10 plate abarth..but that was still bouncy!...but better than mine....

im just going to have to make do with bouncy and enjoy my cars toys, looks and interior!....(and engine!)

 

[zanes]

Meh. When I test drove the ka before buying the 500 I realised the only way I would be happy with it would be to buy top of the range.

Did you notice any difference with the allegedly ford altered engine map? Can't say I did.

 

[eki]

IMO if you're looking at handling characteristics then your first choice shouldn't be a, *looks around before saying this* cheap stylish hatchback. The 500 is not a racing car. The 500 when it first came out handled perfectly fine. It still does compared to a lot of other cars. Before saying how much better the ARB will make the car handle, why not actually try going to the extent where it would be beneficial. The point being is that you'll probably end up never reaching it.

The sole purpose the ARB was introduced is all due to the fact they tried to make the rear less crashy and introduce softer springs as 306maxi pointed out. This in turn allows for the car to be more stable in cornering but also give that added comfort.

 

[RobW]

I saw videos of that and was amazed how easily the Abarths rolled over if they got anyway near the curbs.

remember they are running slicks so have huge amounts of grip

 

[Ms_Cinq]

The new 500 with ARB is not the same as the Ka - not as good a ride as the Ka.

Deffo slightly wider track to the Ka for a start and other differences I can't remember or didnae understand.

I guess no one will make their 500 as good at handling at the Ka
but no-one can make the Ka look as good as a 500 which is the only reason I stuck with the 500 - it looks good. How shallow is that :yum:

 

[306maxi]

The new 500 with ARB is not the same as the Ka - not as good a ride as the Ka.

Deffo slightly wider track to the Ka for a start and other differences I can't remember or didnae understand.

I guess no one will make their 500 as good at handling at the Ka
but no-one can make the Ka look as good as a 500 which is the only reason I stuck with the 500 - it looks good. How shallow is that :yum:

The Ka actually has a slightly narrower track at the rear and only 3mm more on the front. So very little difference basically. Such minute differences aren't going to make major differences in handling.

 

[Zakt]

A lot of the perceived handling "issues" with the 500's chassis are due to tyre pressures being incorrect. Also, I'm pretty sure that the over-stiff rear springs improve with age.

 

[jimbro1000]

One of the big differences between the 500 and the KA is that the 500 is built to be driven by italians and that means cornering speeds about 20% higher than the rest of the world. In order to achieve that you need suspension that bit stiffer and that in turn means less comfortable over the bumps.

Ford, like them or not, are supreme masters of suspension design and if there is one thing you can expect from any Ford is that it will handle well, be it riding bumps or going around corners. Ford aren't tuning the suspension to cope with the stereotypical Italian driving style though.

The Abarth model is setup to handle the track, first and foremost. You might complain that it isn't "that good handling" but in its native environment it is very good. I've done a few hundred miles on track in a regular 500 Abarth (not the SS) and it is really good, no two ways about it. On a par with the Clio Sport which is essentially the benchmark for comparison.

From my experience with handling issues I have to agree that the most common problem that comes up is dodgy tyre pressures. They are at the settings in the handbook for a reason - that isn't to say you can't improve on them but if you don't look after them and keep them where they are supposed to be the car will handle badly.

 

[jnoiles]

The Ka actually has a slightly narrower track at the rear and only 3mm more on the front. So very little difference basically. Such minute differences aren't going to make major differences in handling.

How is that narrow tracking achieved? Is it just wheel offsets/spacers? Or is there an actual difference in the dimensions of the chassis/suspension components bolted on?

 

[306maxi]

One of the big differences between the 500 and the KA is that the 500 is built to be driven by italians and that means cornering speeds about 20% higher than the rest of the world. In order to achieve that you need suspension that bit stiffer and that in turn means less comfortable over the bumps.

Ford, like them or not, are supreme masters of suspension design and if there is one thing you can expect from any Ford is that it will handle well, be it riding bumps or going around corners. Ford aren't tuning the suspension to cope with the stereotypical Italian driving style though.

The Abarth model is setup to handle the track, first and foremost. You might complain that it isn't "that good handling" but in its native environment it is very good. I've done a few hundred miles on track in a regular 500 Abarth (not the SS) and it is really good, no two ways about it. On a par with the Clio Sport which is essentially the benchmark for comparison..

I'm sorry but that's just rubbish, complete rubbish.

The 500 can NOT be driven at speed with as much confidence as say a Clio because it handles like crap. You hurtle into a corner and because of the fact that the suspension is too stiff and the dampers are crap it bounces you sideways. Even at fairly pedestrian speeds the rear end can step out a little.

The Abarth is rated as fairly average by most decent magazines in terms of handling. It's nowhere near the Clio.

As for Ford being suspension masters. Name a list of their cars which is held up as being one of the all time best handling cars? The Puma Racing is held in high regard but the others are just average to decent. If you want to buy a hot hatch which handles well there'll be a list of French cars and Honda CTR's in front of the Fords.

The suspension on pre 2010 500's is just fundamentally badly designed.

It's compromised by the fact it's a beam axle
It's compromised by the fact that the springs and dampers are mismatched.
It's compromised by the fact that the beam obviously isn't stiff enough so they've had to stiffen up the springs to stop it being all roly poly.

So to summarise.

pre 2010 500 = crap suspension
2010 500's have better but still not perfect suspension
Abarth's still aren't Rennosport Clio's or even Twingo's
Ford are better than Fiat but still no Renno.

 

[306maxi]

How is that narrow tracking achieved? Is it just wheel offsets/spacers? Or is there an actual difference in the dimensions of the chassis/suspension components bolted on?

Well at the front it could be wishbones (the Panda ones are differnt to the 500), at the back I don't know tbh. With Subaru's they use different length wishbones and longer/shorter track control arms at the rear