The 2012 Fiat Panda is the Fiat 500's sensible sister, a small five-door hatchback that looks a little like a stylish domestic appliance that should be proudly displayed on a kitchen work surface. It's also the car from whose innards the 500 is derived, and a car that over 31 years and two generations has scored 6.4 million sales. So it's a big hit. And it won't come to the U.S.
This third iteration is as vital to Fiat's fortunes as Jeep is to Chrysler, which is why the Italian company has taken few chances with the styling and produced a car that will look familiar to anyone acquainted with the outgoing version. It has the same boxy silhouette, the same stylishly small third side window and the same vertically disposed tailgate. Not only that, but this new Panda rides on an updated and strengthened version of the previous model's platform — they have the same wheelbase — which is also shared with U.S.-specification 500s.
None of this means that this is merely a light makeover of the outgoing model — the 2012 Panda is bigger, every exterior panel is different, the suspension is revised, the interior is totally new and it now comes with more sophisticated equipment options and some unusually colorful interior finishes. The result is a car that looks fresh, functional and appealing, qualities that it will need to face the rising competition from Hyundai, Kia and Volkswagen, which has just launched a polished new competitor in the shape of the Up!.
More Usable
The 2012 Fiat Panda's extra length is mostly devoted to expanding a previously undersized trunk, while its girth expands the elbow room that was in short supply aboard its rather narrow predecessor. Extra rear knee room has been found by thinning the front seatbacks, and a sliding rear-seat option yields enough space to surprise a pair of average-size adults into realizing that they are comfortably housed aboard this small car. Those up front will discover the same, their vista all the more sophisticated thanks to an imaginatively constructed and pleasingly styled dashboard.
That dashboard contains many examples of what Fiat calls squircles. These are components whose perimeter is essentially a square with rounded-off corners, and you might be able to occupy a restless kid for at least two minutes by getting them to perform an inventory check. We won't bore you with the full list, but the more obvious squircles include the instruments, the steering wheel hub, the stereo and climate controls, the gearknob and — outside the car — the neat little side windows at its rear end. And on a grander scale, the rear half of the Panda's silhouette is pretty squirclelike, too.
Variety Under the Hood
A far more fundamental oddity, however, are the engine options. Besides the 69-horsepower and 85-hp (turbocharged) two-cylinder TwinAir mills, there's a 65-hp 1.2-liter gasoline engine and a 75-hp 1.3-liter turbodiesel — both four-cylinders. There's an automated manual available on the more powerful TwinAir in place of the standard five-speed manual.
The TwinAir is not quite a new engine, having been launched earlier this year in the 500, and indeed, twin-cylinder engines are not new to the Panda, either. The original 1980 edition was fitted with a 30-hp twin whose acceleration provided plenty of time for owners to regret not splurging on the four-cylinder.
It's a tiny car that's unexpectedly peaceful at speed.
But the TwinAir is the most technically intriguing Panda motor, especially in the turbocharged 85-hp form tested here. This engine features MultiAir technology in which the throttle butterfly is eliminated, the ingestion of mixture entirely controlled by electrohydraulically actuated inlet valves to produce a 10 percent gain in power, a 15 percent improvement in torque and a 10 percent improvement in fuel economy, according to Fiat. The inline layout has balance shafts to reduce vibration, and stop-start is standard. Despite its miniscule 875cc, this engine will speed the Panda to 62 mph in 11.2 seconds and power the little Twinkie on to 110 mph.
And it does this in a very distinctive way, the twin cylinders' warble producing a (mostly) cheery soundtrack that encourages you to rev the engine and generally drive the Panda as if you were late for everything. Which is not conducive to fuel-saving, but is a lot of fun. In fact, the twin only revs to 5,900 rpm, and there are times when you certainly know that the mechanism ahead of you is not entirely in balance as mild vibrations penetrate through both the seat and the wheel rim. But the TwinAir offers frequent moments of aural entertainment. It will get better, too, as Fiat plans to add a dual-mass flywheel to calm its shiverings.
Surprisingly Civil
Enthusiasm for the twin-piston song is heightened by a chassis that makes it easy to drive the 2012 Fiat Panda close to its limits, and on Italy's slippery Neapolitan roads, sometimes beyond those limits, too. Surprisingly, the Panda comes without standard stability control and on tight, wet bends where front grip is easily overwhelmed, it would be welcome. Even so, roll is usefully reduced compared to the previous model despite a slight height gain, its handling is predictable and on grippier roads the Panda is a fun thing to push. And that's despite electrically assisted steering that does not seem to provide the extra feedback Fiat is claiming for the revised front suspension, although it is accurate.
Hit the autostrada — not usually the favored habitat of European city cars — and you're in for a mild surprise. The TwinAir calms itself, there's virtually no wind noise and road roar is minimal. It's a tiny car that's unexpectedly peaceful at speed. Even more of a surprise emerges when you hit the streets of an Italian village. Drive a Fiat of the late 20th century and those pesky ancient cobbles make the car an unpleasant place to be.
Not so in this Panda.
We tried six of 'em, and every one was as tight as a drum. Excellent visibility, the boxy shape and a high seating position make this a handy machine to navigate through urban streets, as does an optional pod-mounted sat-nav. Further optional equipment highlights include a collision mitigation system (it emergency brakes below 19 mph), heated front seats and Bluetooth connectivity.
All of which makes this Fiat as convincing in the city as it is on the open road, especially as it rides more smoothly. The suspension is comfortably absorbent at speeds high and low. The 2012 Fiat Panda is more of a family machine than it looks with that roomy rear bench, and there's an acceptably dimensioned trunk, too. If that falls short, there are no fewer than 14 storage compartments in the cabin, the biggest of them a sizable shelf in the dashboard and the unexpectedly deep glovebox beneath it. Packaging all this storage space with an airbag and the air-conditioning was quite a challenge, say Fiat's designers.
The biggest challenge, though, is fending off the advances of a rampantly expanding Volkswagen, whose Up! is just as convincing as this rather pleasing Panda. The Fiat scores, for the moment, with its extra doors and it will likely cost less, too. But Fiat's best defense against the Up! is that it also offers buyers the chic 500.
Edmunds attended a manufacturer-sponsored event, to which selected members of the press were invited, to facilitate this report.
Add A Comment »
sailorbeavis says:
09:14 PM, 01/02/2012
al_bashir:
Europe and Japan say the same thing when we beg for them to end their import restrictions on things like the Ford F-150. After all, it's the world's best-selling vehicle; surely they'll sell to people who live in small medieval towns, where the street is about as wide as Shaquille O'Neal is tall.
The Panda is not the most ideal car for most of America as it was tested here, no. But it's far from junk. It's a good little economy car and certainly more intelligently designed than, say, the Nissan Sentra. Americans already buy too much car (because, well, we can). We are fooling ourselves by buying into the notion that Mercedes, BMW and the other Euro marques sell nothing but powerful luxury cars. Mercedes sells economy cars too, but selling them over here would dilute the brand name (even though the starting MSRP for an E350 in Germany is over $20,000 MORE than in the States).
I'd like to have a Giulietta myself, but I am sure that Alfa Romeo would price it far above the cost of a Mazda 3s hatch, should they ever bring it 'round. It won't drive or sound any better, nor will it be more fuel-efficient, nor more reliable. But it's an Alfa, so that's gotta be worth an extra $10k...
manousos says:
11:49 PM, 01/01/2012
Church 123,
Either you call it electro-hydraulic, or hydro-electric, or mechanical-electro-hydraulic, or cam-actuated-electro-hydraulic, the MultiAir is currently the only successful (and not "just successful") VVA among the hydraulic and the electro-magnetic VVAs, unless Fiat 500 TwinAir was not voted as the best engine of the year 2011 (Engine Expo, Stuttgart Germany, voters: 70 car journalists/testers from around the world), nor as the most fuel efficient gasoline engine.
Numerous pure electro-hydraulic VVAs (and electro-magnetic VVAs) have been proposed in the past decade, yet none was good enough to operate reliably and efficiently at an affordable cost (four-five five years ago Valeo received some100 million dollars boost/award, from the French Industrial Innovation Agency, for their "half cam-less" electromagnetic VVA; now it is "forgotten").
Instead of arguing about meaningless things like the correct "classification" of the MultiAir (is there a Fiat / Alfa-Romeo car owner who cares?), or about the adoption, or not, of the pattakon projects by the engine makers, it is better to argue about the potential of the MultiAir.
With one "Outgoing Air Control" mode (Miller cycle), the Nissan Micra DIG-S engine achieved similar fuel economy with the TwinAir Fiat 500.
On the same Miller cycle operates the engine of the Toyota Prius, too: the intake valve remains open long after the bottom dead center, allowing a good part of the mixture to return back to the intake manifold.
Both, Nissan Micra and Toyota Prius are based on a throttle-valve for the load control of the engine; this throttle-valve is more open than in a conventional engine, yet it is still there increasing the pumping (and not only) loss, especially at light and very light loads (typical urban traffic).
The PatAir provides a thousand different Miller cycles (or "Outgoing Air Control" modes / strategies) and eliminates the throttle valve; at the same time it provides all the available Fiat/MultiAir modes /strategies.
Reasonably the 95gr CO2 / Km in the combined cycle of the Fiat 500 TwinAir can drop below 75gr CO2/Km with the PatAir (all it takes for the modification of the MultiAir to PatAir is a different intake cam lobe profile and a reprogramming of the ECU); the pressures and the temperatures of the cycle drop a lot, reducing substantially the losses of all kinds (thermal loss, pumping loss, friction loss, exhaust loss etc). At the same time, the peak power at high revs can increase a lot.
Imagine a Nissan Micra DIG-S having, instead of the conventional throttle-valve, the PatAir on its cylinder head.
With the PatAir, a gasoline engine operating at light loads keeps and increases the heavy-load fuel efficiently, competing the Diesels.
Thanks
Manousos Pattakos
hwyspeeder says:
04:30 PM, 01/01/2012
This car certainly appeals to sensibilities of the men with an
"artistic preference and those women off that Sarah Jessica Parker
show with an above-average fashion sense," that have a total disdain
of conveyances of the American variety. Right now their limited to
the Minis, 500s, convertible PT Cruisers, and Hybrid Escalades. The
500 definitely has this car beat in that regard. Regardless these
tasteful sub-compact expressions are very limited over here, and they
need to expand and bring it over 85HP and all.
church123 says:
05:28 AM, 12/31/2011
Manolis I'm more than familiar with your stuff. Have you actually sold anything to any OEMs yet, or are you still just trolling various forums?
Regardless, the MultiAir setup is not electrohydraulic valve actuation. I'm quite aware of how it works and nothing you've said disagrees with my statement. Or were you just looking for a topical "in" to advertise your stuff?
manousos says:
09:42 AM, 12/30/2011
Church 123,
with the conventional cam shaft to drive the intake valve, and with the electro-hydraulic system to modify the motion of the valve (late opening, early closing. multi-lift, full lift, deactivation etc) you have most of the advantages of a "pure" electro-hydraulic system without its fatal disadvantage that allows the valves to strike on the piston in case of failure of a sensor or of the control unit.
The "not pure electro-hydraulic" MultiAir / TwinAir of Fiat has a built-in protection that prevents the intake valves from striking the piston even in the case of the worst failure of the control unit. This is so because for any angle of the crankshaft the intake valve lift is less or equal than the full lift at the same angle as defined by the camlobe (the valve cannot move outside the full-lift "bell").
At http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonHydro.htm you can see the real problem of the Fiat MultiAir / UniAir / TwinAir that can operate only according the "Ingoing Air Control".
In comparison, the new Nissan Micra DIG-S (1200cc, 3 cylinders, 97 bhp, 95gr CO2/Km) uses a limited Miller cycle and a simple valve train to achieve similar fuel economy with the Fiat 500 TwinAir (875cc, 85 bhp, 92gr CO2/Km).
The PatAir system, an improved MultiAir (no additional hardware cost, nor additional software cost, yet infinite additional "Outgoing Air Control" / Miller modes / strategies) combines both worlds.
The HyDesmo at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonHyDesmo.htm is a more extreme approach. Besides being as electro-hydraulic and as fully variable as the MultiAir, it is also desmodromic: it needs not valve springs, because it opens the valves positively and closes the valves positively too.
Thanks
Manousos Pattakos
300zxguy says:
04:13 PM, 12/28/2011
I anxiously await the special edition "Sexual Harrassment Panda".
quen47 says:
10:09 AM, 12/28/2011
@raysor-
Octane ratings are different in Europe. I believe 95 RON is the equivalent to our 91 Octane
rayzor says:
07:20 AM, 12/28/2011
Anyone else noticed that this little gem requires 95 octane...
mau19 says:
06:45 PM, 12/27/2011
As always people here un America hate small cars. Only time will tell if small cars will ever be appreciated. Let's face it folks Oversized rigs and limousine like sedans are not the future period. Another thing that I find funny is how everybody says that European cars are junk when local cars are just as bad and worse yet extremely cheap!XD Here is the comparison Euro cars: Expensive,Beautiful, Good material quality , Innovative, Not very reliable at times. Japanese cars: Cheap, efficient, Good value, Easy to repair, Well engineered, Very reliable. American cars: Good price(Expensive at times)Cheap material quality, Average reliability,Good engineering. So in other words Japanese vehicles are the most reasonable choice. American cars excluding Ford and some GM brands are just not the superior machines they used to be at the same time I think Substantial improvement is possible. It all depends on what your preferences are and what you can afford. People that can't own European vehicles should not buy them. They are very rewarding but can be a pain to fix.
rpvitiello says:
12:29 PM, 12/27/2011
thebiggestv
2 words...
Gas Prices