First impressions on a 2015 Pop. Just took delivery of a used 2015 Pop that's pretty good shape; private seller locally; $8K auto 6 speed; 1.4 naturally-aspired; checked out 100% mechanically from my local mechanic except for a possible alignment issue, but a minor body issue was found by mechanic (see below); don't know the color name; we're calling it copper; isn't a color on the new models; paint looks good; we really like the color which is what attracted us to the car, plus the wife has been begging me for one of these 500s or a Kia Soul for years; the Soul holds value better and is therefore more expensive (and I hate it), so we finally opted for a used 500 that we really liked the looks of that checked out; minor scratches here and there. Body issue--Rocker panels dented upward both sides about 6" rear of the front wheels from someone improperly jacking up or placing jack stands under them that neither I or the seller knew about, as the seller never registered the car nor did he ever put the title in his name; he bought it just to fix up a tad and sell; 41.3K miles. I believe the seller, because I didn't notice it either, and I walked around the car several times. My spouse will be the driver and is driving now, so I have not photo yet.
The first point of interest on this car that I've found is the same thing I've found since at or about 1982. Except for a couple of exceptions, every single small car I've owned or have driven way over exceeds the mpg estimation by the folks at ORNL's arm of the DoE. The bigger I go, except for a couple of exceptions, the more the estimation moves the other direction. I currently have a full size pickup that will exactly meet the EPA estimate but only if I'm very careful, because it's turbo charged, and so I have to be careful not to spool the turbos unless I really need the power. The last two full size pickups I owned would not come close to the estimation except on a long trip they might come close to the highway mpg rating if I kept them under 65, but those trucks would barely meet the city rating driving mostly highway. The current pickup I own is of the smallest variety; a regular cab, short bed, 2WD with the highest gearing and base wheels/tires, so maybe that's why I'm meeting the estimate. But except for a couple of Ford Escorts, every small car I've had from a 1978 Datsun B210, to a Jetta TDI diesel far exceeded the mpg rating. The Jetta TDI, for instance, achieved 46 mpg lifetime, hand calculated, and trip meter corrected against an estimate of 31/38/33 in mixed but favorable mpg rural commute along state highways.
So this Fiat 500 is for my wife and replaces a mid-sized Saturn Aura Hybrid, which the former averaged 29.5 lifetime in a very favorable commute against an estimate of 28/33/30 after the EPA changed to a more strict estimate in 2008. So this mid sized car only barely beat the city rating in a pretty favorable situation for driving and was far worse than the estimate that it had in 2007 when I bought it, which was then 28/35/31. The Aura weighs 3600 pounds. This Fiat is listed at 27/33/29, and right now, after a couple of round trip commutes, the trip computer is showing over 36 mpg. So is it going to be that the EPA estimate is a fantastic joke as it seems; that's it's going to far exceed 27/33/29? Or is it just that my trip meter has that much error? And keep in mind, we're still in pretty cool temperatures.
The second thing that intrigues me is the lack of "go" in the NA version of this power train. It seems to perform well for normal driving, much better than the Saturn for shift points and how it responds to gas pedal inputs and all of that, as the Saturn has that terrible GM software that keeps trying to keep their vehicles in a high gear, which is terrible on hills, because, in the Saturn, it'll wait too long to downshift starting up a hill; you have to keep pushing down on the pedal or actually speed up going up a hill to keep it in the gear it should stay in; and it'll often try to upshift in the middle of a 4% grade, and it's just a terrible experience to drive on the highway. You can go to "intermediate" mode on the transmission, but then that's over kill and it revs like crazy. Back to the 500, if I try to make it perform beyond normal acceleration or accelerate quickly beyond 70 mph, it just sort of rejects that idea and just makes lots of fuss without much real improvement over normal driving inputs.
I really like the power train though overall despite the fact that it doesn't seem to have any real performance beyond normal driving. The turbo charged version would have been nice, but the ones I found were either older than what I wanted or too expensive. I really like how the little engine seems to have some braking power, and I didn't expect that in an automatic version of such a small displacement engine. And I like how well and intuitive the paddle shift is for down shifting when I want to have some more engine/transmission braking power. Much better than pushing a button on a stalk like what I'm used to in my pickup truck. The "auto sport" mode, however, doesn't seem to help a whole lot in that regard, but the manual downshifting does. The "auto sport" is a lot like it is in my F150 in "sport mode"; it does a little bit but not much for decelerating for coming to a stop. But in the F150, that little 2.7 Ecoboost has almost no engine or transmission braking power even when manually downshifting. It just doesn't have the ability to slow the truck except making extreme manual downshifts. It's the one weakness of that amazing power train for a full size truck.
If we still like this car in a couple of years, I might be tempted to look at a 3 or 4 year old 124 Spider. Reviews are too good right now though; I need them to be more poorly reviewed, so the value will drop, and I can get one cheaper. I'm rooting for the competition, or for the main auto media giants to maintain their biases against the manufacturers they don't particularly like. Those biases are bad for sellers, but good for buyers looking for deals on great cars that the media hates!
The first point of interest on this car that I've found is the same thing I've found since at or about 1982. Except for a couple of exceptions, every single small car I've owned or have driven way over exceeds the mpg estimation by the folks at ORNL's arm of the DoE. The bigger I go, except for a couple of exceptions, the more the estimation moves the other direction. I currently have a full size pickup that will exactly meet the EPA estimate but only if I'm very careful, because it's turbo charged, and so I have to be careful not to spool the turbos unless I really need the power. The last two full size pickups I owned would not come close to the estimation except on a long trip they might come close to the highway mpg rating if I kept them under 65, but those trucks would barely meet the city rating driving mostly highway. The current pickup I own is of the smallest variety; a regular cab, short bed, 2WD with the highest gearing and base wheels/tires, so maybe that's why I'm meeting the estimate. But except for a couple of Ford Escorts, every small car I've had from a 1978 Datsun B210, to a Jetta TDI diesel far exceeded the mpg rating. The Jetta TDI, for instance, achieved 46 mpg lifetime, hand calculated, and trip meter corrected against an estimate of 31/38/33 in mixed but favorable mpg rural commute along state highways.
So this Fiat 500 is for my wife and replaces a mid-sized Saturn Aura Hybrid, which the former averaged 29.5 lifetime in a very favorable commute against an estimate of 28/33/30 after the EPA changed to a more strict estimate in 2008. So this mid sized car only barely beat the city rating in a pretty favorable situation for driving and was far worse than the estimate that it had in 2007 when I bought it, which was then 28/35/31. The Aura weighs 3600 pounds. This Fiat is listed at 27/33/29, and right now, after a couple of round trip commutes, the trip computer is showing over 36 mpg. So is it going to be that the EPA estimate is a fantastic joke as it seems; that's it's going to far exceed 27/33/29? Or is it just that my trip meter has that much error? And keep in mind, we're still in pretty cool temperatures.
The second thing that intrigues me is the lack of "go" in the NA version of this power train. It seems to perform well for normal driving, much better than the Saturn for shift points and how it responds to gas pedal inputs and all of that, as the Saturn has that terrible GM software that keeps trying to keep their vehicles in a high gear, which is terrible on hills, because, in the Saturn, it'll wait too long to downshift starting up a hill; you have to keep pushing down on the pedal or actually speed up going up a hill to keep it in the gear it should stay in; and it'll often try to upshift in the middle of a 4% grade, and it's just a terrible experience to drive on the highway. You can go to "intermediate" mode on the transmission, but then that's over kill and it revs like crazy. Back to the 500, if I try to make it perform beyond normal acceleration or accelerate quickly beyond 70 mph, it just sort of rejects that idea and just makes lots of fuss without much real improvement over normal driving inputs.
I really like the power train though overall despite the fact that it doesn't seem to have any real performance beyond normal driving. The turbo charged version would have been nice, but the ones I found were either older than what I wanted or too expensive. I really like how the little engine seems to have some braking power, and I didn't expect that in an automatic version of such a small displacement engine. And I like how well and intuitive the paddle shift is for down shifting when I want to have some more engine/transmission braking power. Much better than pushing a button on a stalk like what I'm used to in my pickup truck. The "auto sport" mode, however, doesn't seem to help a whole lot in that regard, but the manual downshifting does. The "auto sport" is a lot like it is in my F150 in "sport mode"; it does a little bit but not much for decelerating for coming to a stop. But in the F150, that little 2.7 Ecoboost has almost no engine or transmission braking power even when manually downshifting. It just doesn't have the ability to slow the truck except making extreme manual downshifts. It's the one weakness of that amazing power train for a full size truck.
If we still like this car in a couple of years, I might be tempted to look at a 3 or 4 year old 124 Spider. Reviews are too good right now though; I need them to be more poorly reviewed, so the value will drop, and I can get one cheaper. I'm rooting for the competition, or for the main auto media giants to maintain their biases against the manufacturers they don't particularly like. Those biases are bad for sellers, but good for buyers looking for deals on great cars that the media hates!
