What Car would you buy

atrixblue.-MFR-.

50Twuncle wrote: »

My only experience of Fiats was an 1100cc 128 - over 30 years ago
NOT VERY GOOD - unreliability, rust, new engine etc etc..
So - unless they have changed dramatically - not interested !!

erm theres been allot of improvement of fiat since the fiat of 30yr ago. theres also alpha romeo under the umbrella of fiat aswell as chrysler now.

Tilt

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

erm theres been allot of improvement of fiat since the fiat of 30yr ago. theres also alpha romeo under the umbrella of fiat aswell as chrysler now.

And Lancia and Ferrari...

jase1

Tilt wrote: »

Obviously with all the 500s you see on the roads lately seems to back this up.

Numbers on the road mean nothing. If they did, the Escort would be the best car of the 1990s, when in reality it was pretty much the runt.

jase1

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

erm theres been allot of improvement of fiat since the fiat of 30yr ago. theres also alpha romeo under the umbrella of fiat aswell as chrysler now.

There is no Chrysler in modern Fiats.

There is Fiat in modern Chryslers, but that's just a badging exercise.

Not that that is a bad thing. Other than the GEMA engines (co-developed with Hyundai and Mitsubishi, and pretty solid), there is very little to recommend about the pre-Fiat Chryslers on sale in Europe.

Tilt

jase1 wrote: »

Numbers on the road mean nothing. If they did, the Escort would be the best car of the 1990s, when in reality it was pretty much the runt.

Perhaps. But it is highly likely that people could be trading them in for another one as well. I've spoken to at least six people recently who have done so and not one regrets doing so.

Tilt

jase1 wrote: »

There is no Chrysler in modern Fiats.

There is Fiat in modern Chryslers, but that's just a badging exercise.

Not that that is a bad thing. Other than the GEMA engines (co-developed with Hyundai and Mitsubishi, and pretty solid), there is very little to recommend about the pre-Fiat Chryslers on sale in Europe.

I couldn't agree more. In fact I was surprised when I heard that Fiat were interested in Chrysler in the first place. The company seems to have changed hands more times than Katie Price's husbands!

jase1

Tilt wrote: »

Perhaps. But it is highly likely that people could be trading them in for another one as well. I've spoken to at least six people recently who have done so and not one regrets doing so.

That's different though. Repeat purchases, and numbers on the road are two very different things.

A lot of the niche Japanese marques have very high repeat purchase levels, but because they are bit-players in the UK, don't reach critical mass. ISTR that upwards of 80% of Subaru buyers are repeat purchasers.

That is a good marker of how good a car is, but numbers on the road is pretty much irrelevant. I've owned a few Fords now, and won't be going back because I have found that they do give more trouble than the Jap cars I've bought in the past.

Prothet_of_Doom

Strider590 wrote: »

The only thing with those cars is the throttle, it seems to be either 40mph or zero, which can be a bit tricky past schools.

On the plus side they have automatic RID's (revenge illumination devices) that flash the headlights at all overtaking drivers.

:T:beer: I just spat out my coffee again.:T:j

Thank You.

If you are going short distances, then avoid diesel. But why not buy a 'Barge' Why buy a small nasty car. For example a 10 year old Honda accord 2.4 estate will be cheaper than Honda Jazz 1.4 of the same age. Fuel consumption is not that important, if you are doing low miles. Plus it will be better in a crash and GREAT on the odd long trip.

50Twuncle

jase1 wrote: »

There are no new cars currently available that suffer the same, almost total lack of reliability that most 1970s designs did.

One thing is for certain -- the chances are that whatever car you buy, be it a Proton or a Lexus, it will make it through its first three years without anything significant going wrong, and it will last for at least 10 years before the rust becomes problematic at MOT.

As it stands, the Fiat Panda is, by all accounts, a pretty solid little car. I wouldn't buy a 500 because I think they're overpriced for what they are, but the Panda can be bought very cheaply and it's as good a tin box as any really.

Am I correct in thinking that a Fiat 500 is basically a Ford Ka ?
- same floorpan etc ?

jase1

50Twuncle wrote: »

Am I correct in thinking that a Fiat 500 is basically a Ford Ka ?
- same floorpan etc ?

Yes.

I know where you're going here -- the original Ka was probably the last of the great rustbuckets.

The new one (which is a Fiat design as far as I know) should not suffer the same problems.

The 500 has no shared parts, architecture or design with the original, rust-prone Ka.