Fiat 500 Abarth

[biscuits]

Well if people assume gas mileage numbers that's their own fault, not the manufacturers. But I agree with you that the smaller econo cars like the base 500, Smart, Scion iQ, Yaris, Fiesta, etc. all seem to be stuck in the high 30 MPG range, which just doesn't seem to add up. I think with the CAFE requirements we'll see significant improvements in these cars to bolster the manufacturer averages.

Just out of curiosity, do you think an NSX would perform much better in a crash than the 500? The NSX has 20 year old safety tech, 1 or 2 airbags depending on the year and has a roofline 12 inches lower than the 500. I honestly think given the same collision the 500 would do better than the NSX. Its got 7 airbags, a higher doorline and better safety R&D in addition to more stringent regulatory requirements.

Good lord dude, if you love the ugly ass thing so much why don't you marry it? You're on an nsx board. No matter how many airbags it has your still gonna die in a head on if your legs are the crumple zones. I don't give two shits how safe you think that thing is it still looks like something larger just crapped it out.

 

[NsXMas]

Good lord dude, if you love the ugly ass thing so much why don't you marry it? You're on an nsx board. No matter how many airbags it has your still gonna die in a head on if your legs are the crumple zones. I don't give two shits how safe you think that thing is it still looks like something larger just crapped it out.

LOL that's pretty funny response.

I respect people who like this car, but I agree it is F-ugly with a capital F.

I've lived in Europe so I can see how it fits in with the narrow boulevards of Paris, but in the US it simply does not fit in.

 

[NSX_PrecisionTeam]

Hacky joke, I know but...Fixed

 

[Budweiser®]

Good lord dude, if you love the ugly ass thing so much why don't you marry it? You're on an nsx board. No matter how many airbags it has your still gonna die in a head on if your legs are the crumple zones. I don't give two shits how safe you think that thing is it still looks like something larger just crapped it out.

Classic response - "I don't like it, therefore its dumb/ugly/stupid/etc." Lots of logic there. All the major crash testing associations have tested it and rumors of it being a death trap are greatly exaggerated.

I wasn't trying to pick an argument with jond, just playing devils advocate. Obviously its an underdog going against an Infiniti QX56 in a crash but likewise an NSX would be the same, if not worse off.

 

[stevieray122854]

What I can't figure out is if Honda could offer 48/55 MPG in 1992 with the '92 Civic VX, why is not SOME manufacturer just clobbering those mileage figures 20 years later:

Not the greatest looking car in the world but I'd damn sure love to find one in mint condition.

 

[sahtt]

Yeah, no, my point isn't to cross shop them. I think they both suck.
Just making the point that given the size of this death trap, you would think it could beat normal small cars for mpg. Seems like a farce. Make it small so people assume it gets good gas mileage, yet it's no better than a properly engineered Civic.

2nd. I bought my current DD, a "fully loaded" 2005 civic SE, about three or four years ago. I am a statistics nerd and have kept detailed information about its fuel consumption. The average is 31.3 mpg with a standard deviation of only 1.6mpg (quite remarkable considering I take the car on road trips and other times use the entire tank in stop and go traffic). My worst tank ever was 27.6 mpg, my best 38.2 mpg. I have moderately performance oriented tires on it as well; dropping the coefficient of friction by going for low friction tires would probably bump it up an average of a mpg or two as well.

There just aren't that many non-hybrids averaging in the 30's in the city. My girl friend gets frustrated when I tell her mpg stats because I don't actually care about the mpg I just like to monitor it. I ride my RC51 about 5k miles a year and it averages 28mpg! In its defense, it does have more bhp than my DD does.

 

[nsxcoupe]

IMO people are terrible about estimating the true cost of a vehicle. Vehicle ownership is generally dominated by deprecation, running costs, insurance AND mileage.

Your Civic might get slightly better EPA numbers, but what about the higher MSRP (opportunity cost/investment potential loss), the higher depreciation, the generally higher insurance?

Not to mention the fact that heavier cars tend to burn tires and brakes much faster. Edmunds "true cost to own" isn't perfect, but it at least advances the discussion a bit beyond the "my car gets 1 better MPG on the highway, so I'm saving more money" non sense that gets tossed around a lot.

http://www.edmunds.com/smart/fortwo/2012/tco.html

http://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/2012/tco.html

http://www.edmunds.com/fiat/500/2012/tco.html

 

[jond]

IMO people are terrible about estimating the true cost of a vehicle. Vehicle ownership is generally dominated by deprecation, running costs, insurance AND mileage.

I agree. People make that mistake all the time when arguing how 'cheap' Hyundai/Scion/etc are. When you look at how much you can sell a 100,000 mile Civic for vs a 100,000 Hyundai, or in the this case a Fiat, there's no comparison. Who's going to buy a 5 year old Fiat with 100,000 on it? No one.