GTP Cool Wall: 2012(+?) Fiat Panda 4x4 TwinAir Turbo

2012+ Fiat Panda 4x4 TwinAir Turbo

  • Total voters
    99
  • Poll closed .
White & Nerdy

White & Nerdy

4,209
United States
Wasilla, AK
2012(+?) Fiat Panda 4x4 TwinAir Turbo nominated by The Stig Farmer

Fiat-Panda-4x4-2-310900.jpg


Stats:
Production: November 2012 onward
Style: 5-door hatchback
Engine: MultiAir 54 ci/875 cc turbocharged DOHC inline 2 (rated 84 ECE HP & 107 ft-lbs)
Transmission: 6-speed manual
Layout: Front-engine, All-wheel-drive
Related: Lancia Ypsilon, Fiat 500, Fiat Uno, Ford Ka
​
My take? Get this thing outta here. One of the tiniest passenger-car engines ever, and the rear wheels don't engage until the fronts slip (which is the exact opposite of how things should be).
 
Somewhere between uncool and meh. But I guess more uncool. The fact it has some sort of awd system keeps it out of the seriously uncool category, though it would make a great winter beater around town where I live.
 
Last edited:
White & Nerdy
My take? Get this thing outta here. One of the tiniest passenger-car engines ever, and the rear wheels don't engage until the fronts slip (which is the exact opposite of how things should be).
Click to expand...

Do the driven wheels even matter when it has 85 horsepower, though?
 
Would be good for a teens first otherwise useless. Makes very little power and would get stuck offroad very easily. AWD is pointless with only 85 horsepower, what amazes me even more is that I needs to be turboed to even make that kind of power and to top it off I find it ugly. Motorcycles make more power with air cooled N/A single cylinders. Thats laughable. It takes nearly double that amount of torque that engine makes just to tighten the lug nuts on my truck rims to spec. Wow. Its also probably slow as well. Looks like it woul be tiny inside too and I do not like cramped cars. Seriously uncool and you wouldn't find me touching one with a 10 foot pole. I feel for the fools who waste their money on one.
 
Last edited:
It..it's cool because, err...it's cuddly and it kinda tries to climb things but fails and cuddly and....and...I want to hug it and...

Oh wait, this is just another one of those underpowered small cars that handles kinda nicely - it doesn't make it special, I suppose...

But..but...NO. This one speaks to me. It says "Hi! I am Panda! I am so vewy small and cute and adowable!" And it also tries to climb things too!


....oh dear. What's happened to me? Why do I even post things like this.


Sorry cute little Panda. But I feel that you should be more than just very cute to be rated "cool". You should demonstrate more capabilities. You're just at the top-end of "Meh" now.
 
Let's ask an attractive young woman who couldn't give a toss about cars which car they'd rather own, this, or an E30 M3...
 
Oh dear, that would make it go into "cool" at least! Too bad I voted "meh" already.

I forgot about that TG magazine feature; I suppose I was carried away by the previous reiterations about it only having 85 bhp
 
Slashfan
I can't comment on that since I haven't owned one.
Click to expand...

Slashfan
Makes very little power and would get stuck offroad very easily.

Its also probably slow as well.

Looks like it woul be tiny inside too

I feel for the fools who waste their money on one.
Click to expand...

Aaaanyway.

It's a FIAT 500 for people who know what they're doing - and, though it shares an earlier model's name, it's unencumbered by needless "retro" styling. Though just like its forebear it is an epic, if humble, off-road machine.

After the apocalypse there will be only four cars remaining. The Peugeot 505, the Toyota Hilux and both generations of FIAT Panda.
 
Good: 4WD, ability to do some light off-roading and can tackle a bit of snow. Pretty cheap too.
Bad: Doesn't look nice, 2 cylinder engine drinks fuel like it's going out of fashion.

Verdict. Meh.
 
I like it and I think it's a fairly capable vehicle. It's not offensive or try to be retro which is a good thing, however it's only a 'meh'.
 
Would be meh, but went with uncool because of the <1 liter engine. That kind of power would likely get you killed in Chicago rush hour traffic. Not saying it needs a V8, (that would be nice!) but give it at least a 2 liter.

Looks like it would make a decent daily driver though.
 
Having been to Chicago during rush hour, I'm not sure why you would need any power at all. It's 2 hours of going 5mph on the Dan Ryan.
 
Joey D
Having been to Chicago during rush hour, I'm not sure why you would need any power at all. It's 2 hours of going 5mph on the Dan Ryan.
Click to expand...

Having lived here and driven in it, the power would be needed. It's not all 5 mph.
 
I have no doubt know it's a good great car, but it's just not cool. I can't rate it uncool, however, so I'll give it a rating of meh. It's on the higher end of meh, however.
 
Slashfan
Would be good for a teens first otherwise useless. Makes very little power and would get stuck offroad very easily. AWD is pointless with only 85 horsepower, what amazes me even more is that I needs to be turboed to even make that kind of power and to top it off I find it ugly. Motorcycles make more power with air cooled N/A single cylinders. Thats laughable. It takes nearly double that amount of torque that engine makes just to tighten the lug nuts on my truck rims to spec. Wow. Its also probably slow as well. Looks like it woul be tiny inside too and I do not like cramped cars. Seriously uncool and you wouldn't find me touching one with a 10 foot pole. I feel for the fools who waste their money on one.
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me that you lust over 5 liter V8s making 130 horsepower, but it's unacceptable with an engine that makes over forty horsepower less with less than a fifth of the displacement and one fourth of the cylinders? 84 horsepower from an 875cc engine sounds a lot more impressive than less than twice that from a nearly 5000cc engine with four times the cylinders.
 
Slashfan
Motorcycles make more power with air cooled N/A single cylinders.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you said, but I don't know of a single that makes more power than that.

Famine
Aaaanyway.
Click to expand...

Doesn't take someone owning one to know that 85hp is going to be dead slow.

Adamgp
Comparing 2 different engines from 2 different eras again are we?
Click to expand...

What?! No way someone would do something like that...


Still undecided on this car.
 
It's a Fiat. Cool. It's a 4x4. Cooler.

It's not a 500, and doesn't even pretend to be one, like the god-awful 500L.

Sub-zero.



Not that it'll matter to anyone, but the original Panda 4x4 could hit 30 mph in no time flat. Just drop the clutch at redline with 4x4 low engaged. It was the other 30 mph after that that took a dog's age.
 
Bopop4
Doesn't take someone owning one to know that 85hp is going to be dead slow.
Click to expand...
Indeed it doesn't. Nor does it prevent them from still being wrong, no matter how much they "know" it.
 
Famine
Indeed it doesn't. Nor does it prevent them from still being wrong, no matter how much they "know" it.
Click to expand...

It's 85hp in a 2500lb car.

It's going to be about as quick as a fat kid in gym class.


(Looking up he 0-60, it's the same as a 10 year old Accent with a motor run into the ground and 4 people in it.)
 
This is a two cylinder motor. Providing the same performance as most 1.4s, even with having to muck around with two extra differentials and drive wheels.

And it'll still run at 100 mph.

That's not terribly bad.

Although I am wondering why we're discussing speed in regards to an off-roader. The best off-roader I've ever driven did 62 mph in about fourteen seconds. Yet it still kicks Porsche Cayenne arse on the trail.

Bopop4
(Looking up he 0-60, it's the same as a 10 year old Accent with a motor run into the ground and 4 people in it.)
Click to expand...

Most sites simply copy past 0-100 km/h into the 0-60 mph box. Which is wrong, because many cars shift into 3rd gear between 60 mph and 62 mph. I've found the difference to be up to a second for cars this slow.

A 10 year old Accent with four on-board would go approximately two seconds slower than it would with just the driver. So... no. Not even with a fresh motor.
 
niky
Although I am wondering why we're discussing speed in regards to an off-roader.
Click to expand...
Because coolness is measured on the 1/4 mile, duh.

Either that or we have to permanently refer to it as the 2012 "Ferrari" FIAT Panda 4x4 TwinAir 54ci Turbo 85 in all communication.
niky
The best off-roader I've ever driven did 62 mph in about fourteen seconds. Yet it still kicks Porsche Cayenne arse on the trail.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing Suzuki SJ?
 

Latest Posts

Back