Fiat Panda recommendation?

I'm considering a Fiat Panda as a first time car for my young nephew who is learning to drive. They look a nice cheap option for a group 1 insurance car but I was wondering if anyone can recommend which model is considered better. From what I've read I believe the post 1992 models are a better option as they had a lot of mods done and improved the suspension. Do you think the later fuel injection cat engine cars to be a better option and are they more reliable than the carburettor models - Cheers.

Reply to
Mark
Loading thread data ...

lol, I thought you were on about the new Panda's. If you were going for a new Panda then the 1.2's a lot better than the 1.0, it's faster and has better fuel consumption :-o.

As for the old ones, they are VERY old and not really going to be in great condition. Most of the ones I've seen sound like they've got a chain saw under the bonnet. You could look at a more modern Fiat Cinquecento, or even more modern Seicento. The Cinq's are typically going to be £500+, but they're also group 1 insurance for the 899cc's or group 2 (I think) for the 1.1 sportings. If you can afford it I'd go for a Cinq. I've got an 899cc Seicento, but Sei's are probably gonna be over £1000. Oh, also if you get a Cinq/Sei SX you get loads of good stuff like, electric winodows, central locking, face off stereo and sun roof.

Good luck!

Reply to
Peter

There's bugger all wrong with the engine in my 1982 Mini, and the one in my

68 Triumph 1300 seems to run fine too. So why should a 10 - 20 year old car be a) Considered very old, and b) Automatically be shafted?

Havi said that one of the very few engines I've ever destroyed was a pushrod small FIAT lump :)

This is the bit that made me have to reply!

Your opinion is that the older cars are going to be fubar because, well, they're older, and yet for the last umpteen months you've been regaling us all with tales of how your Seicento is bolloxed!

FWIW, there's absolutely no reason to assume an older Panda is knackered just because of it's age, same as any car. They are rather basic though, and if you're into nanny state crash safety I'm not convinced it would be a good choice. However, they are cheap to insure, fairly cheap to run, quite spacious for the overall size, and should be dirt cheap to pick up. Like with any old car, having a bit of clue when it comes to checking potential buys over is a must, and it wouldn't be a bad thing to know one end of a spanner form another for when it does play up. Personally I wouldn't bother paying the premium of having a late fuel injection one, carbs are simple and plentiful in breaker's yards, and any insurance saving is eaten into the newer a car is too.

I've always wanted a 500 or 126, just because :)

Reply to
Stuffed

The message from "Stuffed" contains these words:

This is my mother's attitude to cars. She asked me a while ago when I was going to get a more reliable car. I asked her why she thought it was unreliable - and she said "Well, just look at it". OK, so it was rusty and dented - but it had never let me down. Unlike her brand spanking new car which had broken down twice in a month - but apparently that's OK.

Reply to
Guy King

I had one as a first car, and whilst I did enjoy driving it, and it was a bloody good laugh I'm not sure I could recommend it simply because it is made out of tin-foil so any crash above 5mph would probably kill you.

Try going for a cinq sporting, only group 2 insurance but it has a good engine and whilst it certainly doesn't offer state of the art crash protection at least it has an air-bag and side impact bars.

You should easily be able to find one for below a grand.

Reply to
Andrew Ratcliffe

Not many people specified the optional air-bag on a Cinq Sporting.

Any Sporting for under a grand will be absolutely shagged. I know, I've looked.

Reply to
SteveH

Surely you know a car's reliability depends on the way it looks, and letters on the numberplate?

Reply to
Stuffed

I was in one once that went head on into the side of something. Low enough speed, and I ended up driving it to the local garage (the driver was too shaken up). I was amazed at how such a fairly low impact had not only done the usual of pushing the bumper and bonnet, but had also written off an inner and outer wing. Having shunted old small cars once or twice myself with no real damage, I was quite surprised, not to say worried, about the structural integrity of the Fiat!

Reply to
Stuffed

The message from "Stuffed" contains these words:

That's yer crumple zone, innit. It's the safest way of absorbing impact. In a big car there may be enough metal in the front end to absorb the energy - but in a tiddlycar it'll spread further down the body. I'd suggest it was just doing what it was supposed to do.

Reply to
Guy King

It's a FIAT! As I said before, the engines tend to sound like chainsaws. We had a G reg Metro, did about 65,000 miles, but died a few years ago. It was probably almost 10 years old, had a history of rust and two (yes, two) cylinders were dead byt the end of it's life. The car was slow with 4 cylinders lol. We managed to give it away in the end.

Great, I've got a pushrod Fiat lump in my car :-(

lol, I think I must just be unlucky. Newer cars are (usually) less likely to be rusty and likely to be in better condition.

No, it's because it's a Fiat, it's a Panda and it's old.

Reply to
Peter

Almost a whole ten years?! My new to me car was 11 when I got it, and that's a baby.

clive

Reply to
Clive George

I'd hate to think what crumple zone there is in my seven series beemer. Me and four mates stood on the back bumper of my old beemer. I bet it would not flex under the weight ... the said otherwise. It didn't flex at all. I made 20 quid out of that !!!

I think my 1987 730i is a bit too strong around the bits where weakness is required.

Reply to
SDD

I'd agree if we'd hit the other car at speed, but it was a fairly light tap, didn't even lock the seatbelts IIRC. The amount of damage for the level of impact was silly, crumple zone or not.

Made me worry about just what would happen to one of those in a medium speed frontal, I can see engines in laps happening :(

Reply to
Stuffed

A baby lol. If we had a car which lasted 10 years it'd be pretty good. I don't think I know any in the family that have lasted that long.

Reply to
Peter

Peter (petermcmillan snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Looks out window at 38-year old van. Even my newest car is 8 years old now.

Reply to
Adrian

I've never had a car less than 8 years old. My first car carried on, after I sold it, until it was 17 years old.

And I think we've all got a pretty good idea why...

Reply to
Scott M

The message from petermcmillan snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Peter) contains these words:

What the hell do you do to them? Apart from company cars I've never had one less than ten years old - and never really wanted one either.

Reply to
Guy King

Guy King ( snipped-for-privacy@zetnet.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Look who posted it, then consider whether you needed to ask...

Reply to
Adrian

The message from Adrian contains these words:

Dunno - what's he famous for?

Reply to
Guy King

Assuming you have a strong will to live, try this thread for size:

formatting link
or

formatting link
Ian

Reply to
Ian Riches

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.