Nope, just got the front fog switch, two switches on the right are blanks.
Panda My dad bought me a fiat panda eco active 1.1 2010
- Thread starter BambooPrincess
- Start date
Currently reading:
Panda My dad bought me a fiat panda eco active 1.1 2010
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2013
- Messages
- 457
- Points
- 165
Surely that'll be the rear fog then if it has no front lights fitted? And the rear fog only works with the headlights on.
Your car is absolutely normal and is as it left the factory. You have neither front foglights nor a switch for them; you most likely won't have the wiring either.
Correct. That is the switch for the (single) offside rear foglight. Turn on both the ignition and headlamps, and check it works (the bulb may have blown), as the car is technically unroadworthy without it; it's an MOT fail on cars manufactured after 1st April 1980.
The diagram in post #20 applies only to versions with front fogs; it's a known discrepancy in the user guide. There's a waiver in the guide saying that not all features are available on all models. For those without front fogs, the button marked C controls the rear foglight and the button marked D is blank, but the user guide doesn't make this clear. The buttons are, however, correctly labelled.
If you look carefully at the icon on button C, on your car, you'll see it has 3 horizontal lines (not pointing down), which is the approved marking for a rear foglight.
The telltale light in the instrument cluster (bottom right of the display) should come on with the rear foglight; it only works when the headlamps are on, and for any of the lights to work, the ignition must also be on. The telltale also (correctly) has 3 horizontal lines.
If they included knowing the meaning of all the possible functional icons in the driving theory test, I'll bet almost noone would pass!. It's worth taking the time to properly understand how the operation of all the controls works on your own car, however.
Correct. That is the switch for the (single) offside rear foglight. Turn on both the ignition and headlamps, and check it works (the bulb may have blown), as the car is technically unroadworthy without it; it's an MOT fail on cars manufactured after 1st April 1980.
The diagram in post #20 applies only to versions with front fogs; it's a known discrepancy in the user guide. There's a waiver in the guide saying that not all features are available on all models. For those without front fogs, the button marked C controls the rear foglight and the button marked D is blank, but the user guide doesn't make this clear. The buttons are, however, correctly labelled.
If you look carefully at the icon on button C, on your car, you'll see it has 3 horizontal lines (not pointing down), which is the approved marking for a rear foglight.
The telltale light in the instrument cluster (bottom right of the display) should come on with the rear foglight; it only works when the headlamps are on, and for any of the lights to work, the ignition must also be on. The telltale also (correctly) has 3 horizontal lines.
If they included knowing the meaning of all the possible functional icons in the driving theory test, I'll bet almost noone would pass!. It's worth taking the time to properly understand how the operation of all the controls works on your own car, however.
Last edited:
I've had a new from the factory 2003 Stilo that had colourcoded doorhandles (as it shoild have) on one side and plain black plastic ones on the other side.
Took me about a week to notice it and another two weeks for the dealer to correct it. They had to order new ones, have them painted and put them on my car. Must have cost Fiat Nederland a substantial amount to correct luigi-from-the-factory's mistake....
gr J
Nvm it is the rear fog switch on the bottom left However, it doesn't work (yes the headlamps were on ) and I've got the MOT in a couple of weeks! :bang: Better get cracking! If it wasn't for this thread I wouldn't have noticed!
However, it doesn't work (yes the headlamps were on ) and I've got the MOT in a couple of weeks! :bang: Better get cracking! If it wasn't for this thread I wouldn't have noticed!Start with the easy and obvious - is the bulb sound?
Remember also, you must have ignition on, and headlamps on, before turning on the rear foglamp.
Some vehicles also need the engine running, not just ignition on. Can't remember about the Panda, engine is always running whenever I need the rear fog, as vehicles coming up behind me on my drive is not generally an issue, there's a house in the way.:devil:
The Panda just needs the ignition and headlights to be on; it's not necessary to start the engine.
Have you seen the mess it makes if a house runs into the back of your car in fog?
Last edited:
Have you seen the mess it makes if a house runs into the back of your car in fog?
Come to think of it, I have noticed a lot of houses that are not lit when foggy.
Fogged up houses?
gr J
gr J
Fixed it, bulb holder had a fair bit of corrosion on it, some water must have got in at some point, took that back with some sandpaper and added a bit of copper grease to protect
A warm welcome from me too!
Yes, don't ever be afraid to post. The forum is a friendly and "nice" place to be. I have, very occasionally, seen some "silly" posts but it's been obvious that the people involved seem to "know" each other and are probably trying to wind each other up a bit. We are all happy to help if we can.
In much the same vein as MAX's advice above, My brother in law was a WW2 pilot - Coastal Command, I think he mostly flew Liberators out over the Atlantic - before becoming a civil pilot (BEA). He was a cautious and quite slow driver. I once asked him why he drove like this considering he flew planes which go at hundreds of miles an hour. His reply was "Yes, but we don't have closing speeds anything like you do on a road because we are all distanced and fly in corridors in the sky. anyway Jock, I just drive as if every other driver is actually trying to have an accident with me". He also once made another interesting comment which obviously had a deep impact on me because I have never forgotten it. I was sitting in the jump seat with him flying out of Athens going down to Larnaca (many years ago, now a days you can't do this anymore) when suddenly he became very concentrated, often looking at something down on his left side (later found out it was a radar screen of some sort) and I asked him what was going on. After a moment he pointed out of the cockpit window to the right and said "watch closely". Within moments another plane went flashing past, incredibly fast, in the opposite direction, but quite a long way away. He said "That was much too close for comfort, He shouldn't even have been flying at this height and we certainly shouldn't have been able to see him". Later, as we were driving out to Nisi Beach (which in those days was wild and beautiful, not the "party" place it is today) we were talking about it and I said how shocked I'd been at how fast the plane was travelling. He pointed out that it was because it was a closing speed so we were traveling in excess of 500mph and so was he. The relative speed between us therefore was probably over 1,000 mph. Think about that in relation to driving he said. As you are driving along your senses relate, in great part, to the countryside passing by outside and when you brake you are relating to this and the vehicle in front - and, being an experienced driver, you'll know that sometimes it can be difficult to pull up in certain circumstances. However what about the vehicle coming towards you? If you are going 50mph and he's doing the same, if something goes wrong between you it's like dealing with an incident where you are going 100mph and there are not many drivers that can cope with that - it halves your reacting time compared to the other things, trees, pedestrians, parked cars, etc around you which you are relating too.
Next time you can safely do it watch the vehicle in front of you as it passes some easily seen roadside feature - Lamp post, road sign, etc - and say to yourself, at a normal rate of speaking, "Only a fool breaks the two second rule" (which should take you roughly two seconds to say). If you have passed your reference point - the lamp post or whatever - before you complete this mantra, then you are too close to the vehicle in front to get safely stopped in an extreme emergency. It's worth remembering that if you run into someone in front of you you will nearly always be held responsible! Try it when on the motorway at 70mph, you'll be amazed at what the gap should be, but I can assure you that, having once come over the brow of a hill on a dual carriageway at approx 70mph only to find a serious accident completely blocking both lanes, you will need that distance and more - and if it's wet?
I like to make rapid progress where possible so I don't drive like a moving traffic jam, but by following these thoughts, like MAX, I'm now 74 and still here!
Kindest regards and stay safe
Jock
Crikey Jock
Yet another brilliant read. How great that your brother did his bit (utter whole-hearrted respect!) and thankfully survived what must have been incredibly awful years.
When I was in the ATC I somehow got myself involved with restoring a very large wooden model of a Maritime Wellington bomber and as a result turned my attention to learning about Coastal Command.
My first posting to RAF Brawdy in 1978 revealed that Pembroke Dock was the largest flyingboat station in the world, operating Sunderlands. A year later the designers of the Star Wars films used one of the old hangars to build a mock-up of the Millenium Falcon (I was never a fan of these films even though I really like Sci-fi)
Yes - I too remember that 'closing speed' thing being a real eye-opener when I was learning my road-sense (on motorbikes).
My dad put it rather more simply saying if youre doing 50mph and the guy coming the other way is doing 50mph and you hit head on, its the same as hitting a solid, completely imoveable object at 100mph - Goodnight Vienna!
...And what a lot of people don't appreciate is that exact situation is passing us just a few feet away with every oncoming vehicle
Yet another brilliant read. How great that your brother did his bit (utter whole-hearrted respect!) and thankfully survived what must have been incredibly awful years.
When I was in the ATC I somehow got myself involved with restoring a very large wooden model of a Maritime Wellington bomber and as a result turned my attention to learning about Coastal Command.
My first posting to RAF Brawdy in 1978 revealed that Pembroke Dock was the largest flyingboat station in the world, operating Sunderlands. A year later the designers of the Star Wars films used one of the old hangars to build a mock-up of the Millenium Falcon (I was never a fan of these films even though I really like Sci-fi)
Yes - I too remember that 'closing speed' thing being a real eye-opener when I was learning my road-sense (on motorbikes).
My dad put it rather more simply saying if youre doing 50mph and the guy coming the other way is doing 50mph and you hit head on, its the same as hitting a solid, completely imoveable object at 100mph - Goodnight Vienna!
...And what a lot of people don't appreciate is that exact situation is passing us just a few feet away with every oncoming vehicle
Last edited:
Fixed it, bulb holder had a fair bit of corrosion on it, some water must have got in at some point, took that back with some sandpaper and added a bit of copper grease to protect
Red battery grease or silicone grease on electrical connections
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Liqui-Moly...moly+red+battery+grease&qid=1605958733&sr=8-2
Just to be accurate Max, it was my brother in law, unfortunately recently deceased. He was a very quiet pipe smoking big man who seldom mentioned any of the remarkable stuff that he had done (like, for instance, the Berlin air lift) I don't think this was unusual though. My dad, who spent his war mostly in Burma, never talked about his war and neither did any of his friends.Crikey Jock
Yet another brilliant read. How great that your brother did his bit (utter whole-hearrted respect!) and thankfully survived what must have been incredibly awful years.
When I was in the ATC I somehow got myself involved with restoring a very large wooden model of a Maritime Wellington bomber and as a result turned my attention to learning about Coastal Command.
My first posting to RAF Brawdy in 1978 revealed that Pembroke Dock was the largest flyingboat station in the world, operating Sunderlands. A year later the designers of the Star Wars films used one of the old hangars to build a mock-up of the Millenium Falcon (I was never a fan of these films even though I really like Sci-fi)
Yes - I too remember that 'closing speed' thing being a real eye-opener when I was learning my road-sense (on motorbikes).
My dad put it rather more simply saying if youre doing 50mph and the guy coming the other way is doing 50mph and you hit head on, its the same as hitting a solid, completely imoveable object at 100mph - Goodnight Vienna!
...And what a lot of people don't appreciate is that exact situation is passing us just a few feet away with every oncoming vehicle
I too am a big sf fan and although I enjoyed the earlier Star Wars films I don't get the same "kick" watching the later ones, even though their special effects are far superior.
Regarding your last paragraph. I think the general standard of driving these days is pretty poor. I still frequently see people on their mobile 'phones - often in very slow moving traffic you can see the head of the driver behind bobbing up and down as they text away on the 'phone in their lap. Apart from that though I think the modern car insulates you too much. It's nice and comfy, often too warm and the "tech" just makes you feel too secure. People follow far too close in town and then carry that spacing onto the motorway with them. Driving through the midlands on the M6/M5 illustrates this only too well. Also there are too many distractions in modern cars, especially these screens which you control the radio - and loads of other functions with. I believe anything which tempts you to take your eyes or mind off the task of car control should be banned! I think also there is another problem which is that so many people today have their car because it lets them get from A to B quickly and conveniently but at the same time this group of people have absolutely no interest or pride in driving considerately or to a good standard. Also I think the level of car control which is attained by many is pretty low. This can be observed every day just watching people trying to park and, when the icy weather comes, It's truly frightening to see how some drive. All this could be probably addressed with education and compulsory skid pan sessions for all learners but what would be the cost?
Another wee niggle of mine is tyres (not surprising I suppose with having worked for Firestone) If I have to go shopping with Mrs J at the supermarket, or perhaps somewhere like Ikea, - she takes me to do the "heavy lifting - If I'm getting really bored I'll take a stroll round the car park and check out what tyres people are running (yes, I know, all a bit "sad", but infinitely more interesting than wandering around Ikea). I'm always interested in the weird and wonderful, mostly far eastern produced, tyre makes and tread patterns. However it's truely frightening how many must be boarder line illegal and not just due to lack of tread depth but sidewall and rim/bead damage too. I was involved, a long time ago now, in an extensive series of tyre tests at the factory for wet weather performance. One of the sequences we did involved back to back comparison tests between our products and the competition so we had a truck full of our competitor's products and our own. One thing that stood out consistently was that, with a moderately wet road surface such as you might get in the UK when it's raining "enthusiastically", almost without exception, once the tread depth went below around the 2mm mark wet grip reduced markedly and the possibility of aquaplaning became very much more likely. The problem for many people is that a tyre with 2mm, or even at the legal limit of 1.6mm, still looks really pretty good. If you've got a tyre that is starting to look in any way "bald" or "smooth treaded" It's almost certainly illegal and will not perform on wet or low grip surfaces. There are a couple of other things noone ever thinks about. Tyres age and the rubber oxidizes. As they do this the rubber substantially looses it's ability to grip. By the time it's five years old or so the grip factor reduction will be considerable. Also worth thinking about is that when a tyre is made the carcass with it's beads, reinforcing cords and rubberized fabric is constructed first and then a layer or band of rubber is laid around the middle where the tread will be. The rubber the tread is made from and the rubber used in the carcass is very different as they do different jobs. When the tyre is cured (cooked) in it's mould the carcass and tread rubber intermingles at this interface so the rubber at the very bottom of the tread pattern (so the rubber you will be running on if you wear your tyres right down) may not perform the same as when it was new with a good depth of tread rubber, Also this "mingled" layer will wear much more rapidly as the carcass rubber has little resistance to abrasion so wear will be rapid. Because of all these factors, age as well as the more technical aspects, I will be thinking of replacing a "good" tyre when it reaches or goes just below the 2mm mark.
For nyone that's interested here's quite a good video of what goes into making a tyre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLwsoM3WnuQ
As if we don't already have enough to worry about, tyres may be the next ecological nightmare. Some say that around 200,000 tonnes (that's a lot!) of vehicle tyres annually end up in the world's oceans in the form of microplastics. We may soon be buying tyres not just for their wet grip performance, but also for the quantity of nanoparticles they put into the environment as they wear.
Disposal of old tyres has long been a very big problem. It used to be common to see them burned but we now know this is extraordinarily polluting on many fronts. I rather liked a clip I viewed a while ago where they were shredding them and using the product as an ingredient for making road surfacing material.
That 200,000 tonnes isn't old tyres being disposed of (that's a much bigger number, and a different, also big, problem!); it's the rubber that wears off as microparticles whilst the tyres are in service.
Absolutely JR. Not a problem I'd ever given much thought to until my daughter did her degree in civil engineering. She wrote a paper and then went on to develop an actual real world removable/cleanable filter element which fits into the roadside drain to capture pollutants from fuel, oil, brakes and tyres. I know they actually made some, and trialed them I believe, but I don't know where it all went after that. Now you've caused me to remember, I really must ask her what the outcome was - my guess would be that it was too expensive to make and install and labour intensive to operate. I remember her "lecturing" me on how much pollutants come from cars in addition to what actually comes out of the exhaust pipe. A lot of this "stuff", especially tyres and brakes, will still be a problem with our new electric cars, so we shouldn't think of them as "clean".
