Capsule Review: Fiat Panda 1.2

by Martin Schwoerer

Published: April 30th, 2009

For the past 60 years or so, Fiat has had what amounted to a compulsive gambler’s business model: invest tons in one single car, cross fingers that it sells like hotcakes, and run the rest of the company with disinterest. This one-pony strategy has often delivered what, in the end, were the most desirable small cars of each decade. How else to describe the 1950’s 1100, the 1960’s 124, the 128 from the 70s or the Uno from the 80s? All, as well as the Punto from the 1990s and the Panda from the present decade, adhered to a simple but elusive formula: cheap to buy, brilliantly packaged, surprisingly robust, and a hoot to drive. (Most other Fiats, let’s not fail to mention, have been crap).

Around two million Pandas have been built since 2003. But it is still the minicar I most like to drive. You can get one for eight thousand Euros, which is around one third of the average price of a new car, yet it will seat four in acceptable comfort. The other day I spent a few hours driving a 1.2L model with just 60 horses. The engine is a gem: quiet at any speed, gutsy from 1200 RPM onwards, free-spinning to 6,000 RPM. The way it responds to gas-pedal pokes is faintly reminiscent of a carbureted engine.

Sure, it’s no sports car, but it felt lively and capable in any situation, and anybody who would claim it’s too slow for safety just doesn’t know how to drive a stick shift properly.

The standard, fun on-board computer seldom registered less than 39 MPG. The dashboard, as I observed in my 4X4 review, is an exemplary contemporary industrial design, meaning it does what it should do better than most, and still looks pretty. Also standard: a superassist button to make urban steering extra light. It may sound like a silly thing to have, but let me ask you this: with what other car, except for a Lancer Evo, can you induce and hold a four-wheel drift with your index finger?

From the Panda came two cubs: the Fiat 500 and the Ford Ka. Both are cuter, both are pricier, and neither are better. Due to nonsensical safety standards, I fear that America will never get the Panda, Chrysler hookup notwithstanding. That’s a pity.

Martin Schwoerer

More by Martin Schwoerer

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 16 comments

Davey49 on Apr 30, 2009

The Bravo is the Fiat I would be interested in, the Linea as well. The 500 and Panda are gimmick cars that people on blog sites like talking about but will never sell to Americans. Alfa 159 would be my ideal Fiat Group car sold in the US

Like Reply
Anonymous on May 01, 2009

@shaker: You misunderstand. It's not that the Panda don't conform to any safety standards or are unsafe 3rd-world crackerbox deathmobiles. It's that they conform to the international ECE standards (used throughout the industrialized world) rather than the U.S. standards. The U.S. standards are not better, they're just different. See this editorial. Motorways in continental Europe, Australia, the U.K. and many other places carry a vehicle mix including big trucks — some bigger than those you find on U.S. interstates — and cars like the Panda, often at higher speeds and with better safety than we have in the U.S.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Thankfully I don't have to deal with GDI issues in my Frontier. These cleaners should do well for me if I win.
Theflyersfan Serious answer time...Honda used to stand for excellence in auto engineering. Their first main claim to fame was the CVCC (we don't need a catalytic converter!) engine and it sent from there. Their suspensions, their VTEC engines, slick manual transmissions, even a stowing minivan seat, all theirs. But I think they've been coasting a bit lately. Yes, the Civic Type-R has a powerful small engine, but the Honda of old would have found a way to get more revs out of it and make it feel like an i-VTEC engine of old instead of any old turbo engine that can be found in a multitude of performance small cars. Their 1.5L turbo-4...well...have they ever figured out the oil dilution problems? Very un-Honda-like. Paint issues that still linger. Cheaper feeling interior trim. All things that fly in the face of what Honda once was. The only thing that they seem to have kept have been the sales staff that treat you with utter contempt for daring to walk into their inner sanctum and wanting a deal on something that isn't a bare-bones CR-V. So Honda, beat the rest of your Japanese and Korean rivals, and plug-in hybridize everything. If you want a relatively (in an engineering way) easy way to get ahead of the curve, raise the CAFE score, and have a major point to advertise, and be able to sell to those who can't plug in easily, sell them on something that will get, for example, 35% better mileage, plug in when you get a chance, and drives like a Honda. Bring back some of the engineering skills that Honda once stood for. And then start introducing a portfolio of EVs once people are more comfortable with the idea of plugging in. People seeing that they can easily use an EV for their daily errands with the gas engine never starting will eventually sell them on a future EV because that range anxiety will be lessened. The all EV leap is still a bridge too far, especially as recent sales numbers have shown. Baby steps. That's how you win people over.
Theflyersfan If this saves (or delays) an expensive carbon brushing off of the valves down the road, I'll take a case. I understand that can be a very expensive bit of scheduled maintenance.
Zipper69 A Mini should have 2 doors and 4 cylinders and tires the size of dinner plates.All else is puffery.
Theflyersfan Just in time for the weekend!!! Usual suspects A: All EVs are evil golf carts, spewing nothing but virtue signaling about saving the earth, all the while hacking the limbs off of small kids in Africa, money losing pits of despair that no buyer would ever need and anyone that buys one is a raging moron with no brains and the automakers who make them want to go bankrupt.(Source: all of the comments on every EV article here posted over the years)Usual suspects B: All EVs are powered by unicorns and lollypops with no pollution, drive like dreams, all drivers don't mind stopping for hours on end, eating trays of fast food at every rest stop waiting for charges, save the world by using no gas and batteries are friendly to everyone, bugs included. Everyone should torch their ICE cars now and buy a Tesla or Bolt post haste.(Source: all of the comments on every EV article here posted over the years)Or those in the middle: Maybe one of these days, when the charging infrastructure is better, or there are more options that don't cost as much, one will be considered as part of a rational decision based on driving needs, purchasing costs environmental impact, total cost of ownership, and ease of charging.(Source: many on this site who don't jump on TTAC the split second an EV article appears and lives to trash everyone who is a fan of EVs.)