

Fiat 500c and 500
Fiat blames nascent dealer network on poor sales








Comments     Threshold


Price/efficiency suck on microcars!
By CharonPDX on 8/17/2011 1:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
Why the hell are these microcars so expensive, and have such crappy gas mileage?

A Hyundai Accent gets better mileage, has more space, and costs less. Wasn't the entire point of the Smart in Europe to be a very efficient, very cheap car? What happened in coming to the US? What is up with these microcars being pieces of stylish crap in the US?

RE: Price/efficiency suck on microcars!
By wookie1 on 8/17/2011 3:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
My '99 Honda Civic hatchback got about 32 city and 34 hwy MPG, and had plenty of room for groceries.

My '89 Suzuki Swift GTi was similar in size to the Fiat, but was sporty with the 100HP engine, and had plenty of room for groceries. It got about 36 city and 40-42 hwy MPG.

Why such poor mileage for the Fiat?

RE: Price/efficiency suck on microcars!
By Iaiken on 8/17/2011 3:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
Because testing standards have changed and cars weigh far more than they used to.

Fiat 500 is a small car, but it weighs 2363lbs while the '99 Civic hatches weighed only 2222lbs in spite of being significantly larger.

Seriously, this comes up every time someone brings up mileage and it's the same stupid statement every single time. I also find your numbers extremely suspect as everywhere I can find empirical data from Civic\Swift GTi owners, they all quote MPG figures that are 5-10 mpg lower than what you are stating here.

Why so much bull sh!t from the wookie?

By Philippine Mango on 8/18/2011 8:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
The '96-'00 civic hatchbacks had manual transmissions with taller gear ratios that other comparable civics which is what usually gave them better fuel economy. So when you hear about civic owners touting mpg in the mid 30s to low 40s, usually they're hatchback owners... Otherwise, aside from lots of highway driving or living in rural areas (no traffic), fuel economy in these cars is usually low to mid 30s. The autotragic versions get significantly worse so it just depends on who you ask.

By shiftypy on 8/22/2011 8:34:14 AM , Rating: 2
Thats the problem. You get tiny cars than weigh so much you get no savings at all. Mask it by getting an efficient engine and think nobody will notice? But for weight and smarts that go into it, the cost of the car is big as well.

What if you put this efficient engine in a light body?
I'm thinking Richard Hammonds Opel "Oliver" Kadett which weighs under 1800 pounds. Surely with modern parts and materials you can make it acceptable by todays standards without sacrificing much.
... And then "safety" people emerge and ruin everything

RE: Price/efficiency suck on microcars!
By Spuke on 8/17/2011 3:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
I remember those. Drove one once, fun car. The Swift is probably 500-600 lbs lighter than the 500 so it's 100hp would be working with far less weight.

RE: Price/efficiency suck on microcars!
By Iaiken on 8/17/2011 3:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
The 500 has 110lbs of air bags crammed into it.

RE: Price/efficiency suck on microcars!
By Spuke on 8/17/2011 6:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
The 500 has 110lbs of air bags crammed into it.
You don't really think that is it for safety equipment, do you?

By YashBudini on 8/17/2011 11:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
Can you elaborate?

