The chassis on the Riley Nine "worked perfectly well" in 1926 so why don't we still have flexible chassis and rigid semi-elliptic springs with solid axles? Everything spent on development since must have been wasted.
No-one has more liking for Fiat's smallest cars than I have - we've owned three Topolinos, 3 Nuova 500s, a Cinquecento, a Seicento, four original Pandas, and are on our second and third current Pandas (apart from numerous other Italian cars) - but you fall behind if you stand still. Fiat is always struggling to be profitable and the folly is illustrated by the current 500 - despite the appeal of its cutesy styling, Fiat can't charge Mini/VW prices because it's built on a Panda platform, restricting profits from what should be a non-price-sensitive sector. The same problems afflict the Lancia range.
Fiat has been at its most successful precisely when it has innovated - Topolino, 600, Nuova 500, 128.
The weight issue is particularly pertinent. I forget the precise numbers but something like 80% of the cost of making a mass-production car is in the cost of materials, and this can only go up as natural resources become more expensive. Losing weight brings all sorts of benefits - costs, performance, economy, handling - adding weight is just wrong. Fiat is spending huge amounts on R&D, though not as much as it should, and it's allowing itself to be crippled by low productivity and marginal profitability. It needs to to solve its labour problems and have the courage to innovate.
It's not Fiat's duty to make cars as cheaply as it can - Europe needs to leave that to the Far East - might mean your next Panda is slightly more expensive but it wouldn't be outclassed as the new one will be within a few years.
Would you rather be in Fiat's shoes or VW's?
