The new Fiat Pand(in)a

[SB1500]

I like 4x4 . if the new panda (the concept one) will be available I can about it. otherwise I will go for suzuki. the swift allgrip or the vitara/s-cross if I am looking foe something bigger.

for now I have a panda 1.3 multijet Antarctica 4x4 . I did some fixing and I will drive it until the destiny says otherwise.

I think the 4x4 is a given. In the past I think the 4x4 was always promised at launch but came a little bit later? It’s more than just a novelty or vanity feature. I think it’s the result of a huge demographic of people living in rural, mountainous / difficult terrain areas that depend on a car like the Panda 4x4. I think it’s safe.

The only thing I fear is that they take it from being genuinely simple, practical (great approach and departure angles) to some huge, heavy and not so practical or affordable model. You know, those gimmicky ‘all wheel drive’ sort of systems that might help in wet weather getting more traction, but can’t really help when driving on mud or uneven surfaces very well. They could do that and alienate loyal 4x4 owners like yourself. I don’t think they’ll ruin it though.

From what I hear the MultiJet can go on virtually forever so hope it serves you well. Probably a while before we see it again on sale here.

 

[The Panda Nut]

Nothing wrong with thw evs drive, its excellent. But the costs.... OMG.

Hydrogen is the way, but the electricity required to make it is KINORMOUS.

Battery manufacture is simply awful with the waste products and terrrible lithium mining. Some talk of new battery technology.
We need to use all options and hope technology will come and rescue the problems. For now I would still favour ice electric hybrids and plug ins. I dont rule out electric cars but cantaffotd one, and dont understand the depreciation curve or maintensnce cost long term. So you all buy them and I will watch for now.

After alI only bought a music cd player as they became obsolete.... Dont want to rush things.

 

[PuntoHowTo]

Nothing wrong with thw evs drive, its excellent. But the costs.... OMG.

Hydrogen is the way, but the electricity required to make it is KINORMOUS.

Battery manufacture is simply awful with the waste products and terrrible lithium mining. Some talk of new battery technology.
We need to use all options and hope technology will come and rescue the problems. For now I would still favour ice electric hybrids and plug ins. I dont rule out electric cars but cantaffotd one, and dont understand the depreciation curve or maintensnce cost long term. So you all buy them and I will watch for now.

After alI only bought a music cd player as they became obsolete.... Dont want to rush things.

I’d buy another diesel tomorrow if they still made them, or at least made them with a decent choice.

The most recent diesels are as clean as petrols but with much better economy as well as better driving characteristics such as way more torque and low down grunt.

I would by an EV if not for the cost. I begrudge paying the price of a luxury car for a run of the mill 5 door hatchback with added dullness. They’ve not really made an EV yet that really instils any sort of excitement, the Abarth ev could have been good has they made it a really interesting EV but instead they fitted speakers and tried to make it sound like an IC car, if I want a car that sounds like an engine then I’m going to buy an ICE car.

 

[kavinsanders87]

Nothing wrong with thw evs drive, its excellent. But the costs.... OMG.

Hydrogen is the way, but the electricity required to make it is KINORMOUS.

Battery manufacture is simply awful with the waste products and terrrible lithium mining. Some talk of new battery technology.
We need to use all options and hope technology will come and rescue the problems. For now I would still favour ice electric hybrids and plug ins. I dont rule out electric cars but cantaffotd one, and dont understand the depreciation curve or maintensnce cost long term. So you all buy them and I will watch for now.

After alI only bought a music cd player as they became obsolete.... Dont want to rush things.

I work as researcher in the field and believe me, hydrogen is not the answer and it will be not the answer to our issue for longtime.

Hydrogen is the most common molecule in the whole universe, guess where is one of the only few places were there is none, drumroll, planet earth.

( I do not go too deep with explanation but I am talking about hydrogen gas, there is hydrogen in other forms , stored as lithium hydride (solid) (or other hydrides of the other alkali metals). but you must produce H2 and synthetize the hydride as safe storage.

there are some research about using hydrides in fuel cells. very safe for storage, compared with gas h2.

The only way to make h2 in a sustainable way is exclusively using green energy ( that produce pollution but much less compared with fossil fuels , zero pollution doesn't exist ).

which is not possible and will be not possible for many years.

BUT MOST IMPORTANLTY follow this rational :

We must use ELECTRIC ENERGY to produce h2, and then store the gas (which is more than explosive) , to fill the tank of a car and use that h2 in a fuel cell to produce ELECTRIC ENERGY...... there is something wrong , especially because there is an efficiency loss around this system.

it is like we are thirsty and use water in a process to generate a "thing" that then will be used to produce water (just store that water and use it) .

I think it is more efficient use the energy to store in a battery and use it to run the electric motor.

The lithium in the batteries is fully recyclable, (like we do now for Lead batterie for normal cars) ( 90% of lead is recovered from recycling old batteries.)

Now we make pollution to extract lithium, but in the next 25/50 years all the lithium will be reused and no more lithium will be extracted. (studies confirms that even now , counting all the production and life cycle , the patrol car consume more and generate irreversible pollution , (chemical that will enter the water cycle and they will be never recovered).

In addition battery form cars are not recycled straight away, a battery that is dying will be not able to keep the original voltage (very high for car batteries usually) then those batteries will e used in solar farms (or similar activities) , and just then , when they will not be able to keep even 12v they will be sent to recycling the lithium.

I am not a fan of one side or the other, I just analyze statistics and make conclusion on data.

we had the technologies to start the green revolution back in 2000-2005 but there was no will to do it. if we had start 20 years ago we would have done such things.

To reduce pollution and be sustainable, we have to spend more, (we do not burn coal anymore for that reason , even if the coal is cheap compared with nuclear, natural gas, etc)

if we choose an electric vehicle for now , we did it out of a sense of duty for the environment.

another thing to take into consideration is that there is no "revolution" , we are now (at least in Europe) producing 40% of electric energy form sun, Eolic, and other renewables source and will be not possible to replce everything with renewables.

a mix of those will b always necessary. (in the future with more effort improving the renewable part of the mix.

 

[The Panda Nut]

I work as researcher in the field and believe me, hydrogen is not the answer and it will be not the answer to our issue for longtime.

Hydrogen is the most common molecule in the whole universe, guess where is one of the only few places were there is none, drumroll, planet earth.

( I do not go too deep with explanation but I am talking about hydrogen gas, there is hydrogen in other forms , stored as lithium hydride (solid) (or other hydrides of the other alkali metals). but you must produce H2 and synthetize the hydride as safe storage.

there are some research about using hydrides in fuel cells. very safe for storage, compared with gas h2.

The only way to make h2 in a sustainable way is exclusively using green energy ( that produce pollution but much less compared with fossil fuels , zero pollution doesn't exist ).

which is not possible and will be not possible for many years.

BUT MOST IMPORTANLTY follow this rational :

We must use ELECTRIC ENERGY to produce h2, and then store the gas (which is more than explosive) , to fill the tank of a car and use that h2 in a fuel cell to produce ELECTRIC ENERGY...... there is something wrong , especially because there is an efficiency loss around this system.

it is like we are thirsty and use water in a process to generate a "thing" that then will be used to produce water (just store that water and use it) .

I think it is more efficient use the energy to store in a battery and use it to run the electric motor.

The lithium in the batteries is fully recyclable, (like we do now for Lead batterie for normal cars) ( 90% of lead is recovered from recycling old batteries.)

Now we make pollution to extract lithium, but in the next 25/50 years all the lithium will be reused and no more lithium will be extracted. (studies confirms that even now , counting all the production and life cycle , the patrol car consume more and generate irreversible pollution , (chemical that will enter the water cycle and they will be never recovered).

In addition battery form cars are not recycled straight away, a battery that is dying will be not able to keep the original voltage (very high for car batteries usually) then those batteries will e used in solar farms (or similar activities) , and just then , when they will not be able to keep even 12v they will be sent to recycling the lithium.

I am not a fan of one side or the other, I just analyze statistics and make conclusion on data.

we had the technologies to start the green revolution back in 2000-2005 but there was no will to do it. if we had start 20 years ago we would have done such things.

To reduce pollution and be sustainable, we have to spend more, (we do not burn coal anymore for that reason , even if the coal is cheap compared with nuclear, natural gas, etc)

if we choose an electric vehicle for now , we did it out of a sense of duty for the environment.

another thing to take into consideration is that there is no "revolution" , we are now (at least in Europe) producing 40% of electric energy form sun, Eolic, and other renewables source and will be not possible to replce everything with renewables.

a mix of those will b always necessary. (in the future with more effort improving the renewable part of the mix.

I agree there is no zero emissions and its silly for anyone to say there is. You make some good pints that need to be seen and heard so we move on with an integrated policy with a variety of fuels. There is a project in Scotalnd where they use wave / tidal power to pump water to massive tanks to be used for electrical generation when the tides are not producing. They also use surplus to produce hydrogen for generation. Hydrogen would be clean and simialar to petrol in use for the user, but I agree its a long way off due to the high electrical cost of its production. I keep hoping that the discussions on the best overall mix of fuels will come more to the fore. I hope your information about lithium re-use turns out to be right. In truth we need to be improving public transport as well as in the UK its appalling, unreliable and in short supply. Its great to hear what you say based on your knowledge which is better than mine. Lets hope governments make policies that push improvements and home provision of sustainable generation. In the UK we should see greater use of hydro electric power too. At least things are progressing. Just not fast enough.

On the plus side I counted 164 solar panels in just one small area of our village while walking the dog yesterday. There must be at least 5 times this number in total. If the 164 all produce an average of 3.5kw/Hr I estimate a decent sunny day will see 3.65 megawatt hours of power. Its a worthwhile contribution. (c 3.5 tonnes CO2) Im going to do a survey of the whole village and also make the details of the power generated, and the savings I make from Solar Panels known here to encourage others to consider if they can afford to join in the savings. Im thinking of a small wind turbine as an addition to our generation.

 

[PuntoHowTo]

I work as researcher in the field and believe me, hydrogen is not the answer and it will be not the answer to our issue for longtime.

Hydrogen is the most common molecule in the whole universe, guess where is one of the only few places were there is none, drumroll, planet earth.

( I do not go too deep with explanation but I am talking about hydrogen gas, there is hydrogen in other forms , stored as lithium hydride (solid) (or other hydrides of the other alkali metals). but you must produce H2 and synthetize the hydride as safe storage.

there are some research about using hydrides in fuel cells. very safe for storage, compared with gas h2.

The only way to make h2 in a sustainable way is exclusively using green energy ( that produce pollution but much less compared with fossil fuels , zero pollution doesn't exist ).

which is not possible and will be not possible for many years.

BUT MOST IMPORTANLTY follow this rational :

We must use ELECTRIC ENERGY to produce h2, and then store the gas (which is more than explosive) , to fill the tank of a car and use that h2 in a fuel cell to produce ELECTRIC ENERGY...... there is something wrong , especially because there is an efficiency loss around this system.

it is like we are thirsty and use water in a process to generate a "thing" that then will be used to produce water (just store that water and use it) .

I think it is more efficient use the energy to store in a battery and use it to run the electric motor.

The lithium in the batteries is fully recyclable, (like we do now for Lead batterie for normal cars) ( 90% of lead is recovered from recycling old batteries.)

Now we make pollution to extract lithium, but in the next 25/50 years all the lithium will be reused and no more lithium will be extracted. (studies confirms that even now , counting all the production and life cycle , the patrol car consume more and generate irreversible pollution , (chemical that will enter the water cycle and they will be never recovered).

In addition battery form cars are not recycled straight away, a battery that is dying will be not able to keep the original voltage (very high for car batteries usually) then those batteries will e used in solar farms (or similar activities) , and just then , when they will not be able to keep even 12v they will be sent to recycling the lithium.

I am not a fan of one side or the other, I just analyze statistics and make conclusion on data.

we had the technologies to start the green revolution back in 2000-2005 but there was no will to do it. if we had start 20 years ago we would have done such things.

To reduce pollution and be sustainable, we have to spend more, (we do not burn coal anymore for that reason , even if the coal is cheap compared with nuclear, natural gas, etc)

if we choose an electric vehicle for now , we did it out of a sense of duty for the environment.

another thing to take into consideration is that there is no "revolution" , we are now (at least in Europe) producing 40% of electric energy form sun, Eolic, and other renewables source and will be not possible to replce everything with renewables.

a mix of those will b always necessary. (in the future with more effort improving the renewable part of the mix.

What a fantastic post and lays bare everything I have been reading around this topic, unfortunately there are people who like to jump on any negative press of electric cars and use that to write off the whole idea. Equally there are those that think hydrogen is the answer because it will be burned in the same way as petrol which simply isn’t the case, and future hydrogen cars even the hydrogen powered Toyota available right now, is still in essence an electric car.

Also people don’t realise the life cycle of electric car batteries includes a period of use in other areas such as mass storage of power, once they have reached the end of there useful life in cars. After car use they make very good batteries where weight is less of an issue.

I agree there is no zero emissions and its silly for anyone to say there is.

that’s why “net zero” is the current buzz word ie can we save as much pollution with this thing we are making to off set the pollution we created to build it. A prime example being a solar panel.

So to simplify it is making one solar panel creates one unit of pollution from the energy used to make it, but once in use it saves 10 units of pollution over the period of its life then it had completely offset the pollution it caused when made, it’s not that it has not caused pollution it’s just that the pollution used to make it is far less than what it saves.

As more and more people build houses with solar panels, and more wind turbines are built, more of the energy used to make more solar panels and wind turbines will come from renewable resources and so the pollution will go down in a theory for each new solar panel made (I’m only talking about emissions such as CO2 and not by products of chemical processed)

Technology has also made us so much better at finding uses for by products of manufacturing or waste such as plastic bottles being turned into home insulation

But the same old arguments will always come up, digging up lithium makes pollution, we burn fossil fuels to make electricity so why bother….. well one day we won’t

 

[SB1500]

That's a very good post above, and @kavinsanders87, you certainly know much more about it than I do! However, I don't think the likes of Toyota would have come as far to produce a production car and heavily invest in further research into Hydrogen if it was a total non-starter. There's obviously a lot of very real barriers to it as you mention - but folks like yourself, researchers / analysts / people in companies like Toyota, who lets face it, aren't exactly know for dipping their toes into fads to quickly ditch then (e.g. pioneering fuel efficiency in the US and then hybrids globally way before the average person cared as such).. There must be some glimmer of hope behind the investment from them.

Even in the EV battery field, for a company that doesn't believe in it, they're on the verge of coming out with solid state batteries that would show up the rest of the proper EV industry. They seem to know what direction or technology they think will pay off in the long term. Even BMW in the past, and recently, are dabbling in hydrogen.

No argument about electricity being a great way to spin the crankshaft / move the wheels - in a BEV or the likes of a Toyota Mirai, that part is elegant, reliable and so simple / reliable that it's mind blowing versus all the moving parts in an engine. It's the whole battery, how we make them, how we charge them, how long they'll be useful and how much they cost to replace / recycle that gets people choosing sides and falling out I suppose.

I suppose I have faith in these big companies putting their money where their mouthes are on things as a Hydrogen future

 

[kavinsanders87]

I agree there is no zero emissions and its silly for anyone to say there is. You make some good pints that need to be seen and heard so we move on with an integrated policy with a variety of fuels. There is a project in Scotalnd where they use wave / tidal power to pump water to massive tanks to be used for electrical generation when the tides are not producing. They also use surplus to produce hydrogen for generation. Hydrogen would be clean and simialar to petrol in use for the user, but I agree its a long way off due to the high electrical cost of its production. I keep hoping that the discussions on the best overall mix of fuels will come more to the fore. I hope your information about lithium re-use turns out to be right. In truth we need to be improving public transport as well as in the UK its appalling, unreliable and in short supply. Its great to hear what you say based on your knowledge which is better than mine. Lets hope governments make policies that push improvements and home provision of sustainable generation. In the UK we should see greater use of hydro electric power too. At least things are progressing. Just not fast enough.

On the plus side I counted 164 solar panels in just one small area of our village while walking the dog yesterday. There must be at least 5 times this number in total. If the 164 all produce an average of 3.5kw/Hr I estimate a decent sunny day will see 3.65 megawatt hours of power. Its a worthwhile contribution. (c 3.5 tonnes CO2) Im going to do a survey of the whole village and also make the details of the power generated, and the savings I make from Solar Panels known here to encourage others to consider if they can afford to join in the savings. Im thinking of a small wind turbine as an addition to our generation.

It all right , in theory. Like I said every renewable source ( like use sea tie energy to move turbines) must be used in the "mix" of course this mix is different from each country. ( Politics mix up a little things , sometimes they choose the alternative that gives more jobs rather than efficiency and sustainability. ) I am thinking about all Europe ( not just UK). Scientific processes improve during time , awareness about the environment as well.
In Italy , for example , gov and people was against European decision to update laws and processes to promote REUSE over RECICLE . Italy is specialized in recycle of many things ( recycling sites give lots of work and jobs to people) that why policts does not want to promote REUSE, which is the best overall.
Politics and science does not work together sometimes especially in places like Italy , where gov does not care about scientific advice.

 

[SB1500]

It all right , in theory. Like I said every renewable source ( like use sea tie energy to move turbines) must be used in the "mix" of course this mix is different from each country. ( Politics mix up a little things , sometimes they choose the alternative that gives more jobs rather than efficiency and sustainability. ) I am thinking about all Europe ( not just UK). Scientific processes improve during time , awareness about the environment as well.
In Italy , for example , gov and people was against European decision to update laws and processes to promote REUSE over RECICLE . Italy is specialized in recycle of many things ( recycling sites give lots of work and jobs to people) that why policts does not want to promote REUSE, which is the best overall.
Politics and science does not work together sometimes especially in places like Italy , where gov does not care about scientific advice.

Sometimes the government are right to hold off though, as sometimes science can advance so fast that to go 'all in' today, could be costly with minimal yields where in a decade there could be a much more cost effective, more efficient way to achieve the same output / goals. I don't think anybody here would deny the climate challenges in the world, but in fairness, the mainstream narrative on 'the main problem' has changed drastically from the 90s..early 2000s...mid 2010s, and now some research is suggesting that actually, Co2 can play a crucial positive role in the climate.. Thankfully science is open minded and able to admit when it gets it wrong, climate isn't a clear cut thing. And governments, with limited budgets, also have to worry about more urgent issues such as healthcare, education, security etc which can't be put on hold either. We all know governments can be ignorant and useless, but I do sympathise with them too as they have an impossible task, it's not like we know the clear way forward with these issues as climate. I always like reading findings from the research and the initiatives some countries / places do that turned out well. I don't like the articles with a finger-pointing narrative, telling usually working class people to feel guilty and pay more money to 'fix the problem'. There is unfortunately a lot of articles and speak like that these days and I think it works against the goal of solving climate issues in the minds of the general public.

It's interesting to hear about Italy. We get told that we in the UK are the fussy / ignorant ones when we had issues with the EU or disagreements over things, as if we were some sort of problem child. It's not surprising to hear that different member states equally have their issues with it. Hopefully it's a net positive for Italy and others to remain in it.

 

[The Panda Nut]

Development mule.

No its an old new picture of the Pandina test vehicle. Possibly taken 2 years back. New dash is evident although I believe this has changed again already, new steering wheel and yet another pointless rear bumper profile change. Why.


Now my rant....
It is getting a few of the useless and unnecessary electronic nannying aids to stop the dozy veering from a straight and narrow course. Im approaching 2 million miles now without any of this stuff. I dont need or want it or its cost now. Those who cannot accurtately steer and stop their car should not be behind the wheel of a car. The fact that they are, mostly driving too fast does in their so called safe cars does not make me feel safer. Most of this equipment is not safety positive its for people who are incapable of concentrating! I would make all drivers take a retest every five years, and ban the incompetent from driving high powerd high speed vehicles. This would sort out more safety issues than lane keepers etc,

My son drives £100,000 Audi equipped with all this stuff. On occasions it funtions well. Reliable? Well from what Ive seen not 100%, and not enough to better observation by a driver. So some of it is pretty pointless. There are some good things, particularly to aids driving in heavy traffic, and, may be autonomous braking is / are a good thing. Anyone however who thinks the absence of them on a little car like a Panda makes it unsafe is at best misguided. My main worry driving the Panda is someone in an oversized eurobarge running into the back of me because their brakes are less good and more than likely their tyres worn out and unreplaced, because they are too idle to check them, probably expecting their car to tell them it needs doing. If you want to be immune from road dangers you could always drive a tank then you could crush all cars and vans and you would be safe and life would be good.

In addition, change for the sake of change makes me sick. What exactly is the point of digital dashboards, and how do they contribute to anything that matters? Searching through screen menus while driving is insanity. Simple is best.

If we have new materials that are more environmentally friendly, lighter or stonger or with some other benefit, fine lets move on. Add safety features that add to overall safety, and that includes the safety of other road users who dont have the benefits of size and speed, lkike children and animals and deaf and disbaled pedestrians, as well as smaller and older vehicles and cyclists. Most of the things that drive people to keep changing cars are marketing fads and pretty poor ones at that. Bring back the vinyl roof for those that need such embelishments!

This stuff wont stop Panda (Pandina) still being an extremely sensible mode of transport. The big shame is the loss of the 4x4 Panda even though most are never necessarily tested, so just extra environmental impact for no real reason. But I'm expecting to use mine until the motor needs replacing and then convert it to electric power (reluctantly). In the case of the TA electric power might, just might, make it less polluting but I remain to be completely convinced on that score until more electicity is made from clean renewable sources. I am with EVO magazine on the Panda 100. "More fun than cars costing well over £100,000". and that quote is nearly 20 years old. The TA (at least while it works) is nearly as competent as the 100HP and the 4x4 punches way over its weight. I was shifting mowers garden tools and moving mountains of garden waste with mine for the last two days with a trailer, and while it was parked in the narrow residential road where I was working the only car it inconvenienced was a vast german thing that was nearly 2/3 of the width of the road. To wit I say hah hah hah. It actually had to slow down to a sensible speed to get past. There is nothing on sale I would rather have. They all cost far too much, weigh too much and use far too much fuel as well. Most are too big for the average parking space and ,many UK roads as well as most domestic garages, and many cant even out perform the TA 4x4 in the real world. If they do its at disgusting enviromnmental cost. The sooner Tax is properly levied according to that yardstick the better. I would put punative taxation on over sized and over powered machines and massively increase the penalties for the speeding they perpetrate with the unnecessary pollution they cause. Slap a 5 year 100% VED penalty for excessive pollution caused by over speed driving and I think we would on to something. Buy big heavy thirsty and fast, pay accordingly. And while your at it, abolish VED for seriously disabled people. ( and people over 67 lol)

The Pandas main fault? Its made abroad and we have to import it.

Ive had all sorts of junk as company cars and driven a huge range of cars. When we were ignorant of the consequences of excess there was nothing morally wrong with it. This is no longer the case. The little Panda does everything its asked to in style while also being enjoyable and responsive and while not being excessive. Throw in the excellent ride of the 4x4 and it makes a mockery most other vehicles.
Any that escape that it makes a mockery of in bad weather and at the fuel pumps. I hope that the new one really is better.

We shall be off on holiday soon and 4 will travel in comfort and at least at a tolerable environmental cost. We intend going a few places that the Panda will muller, narrow roads and diffcult access. Anyone we encouter stuck in the mud, driving a euro barge, will only be eligible for a shove off the road and nothing more.

 

[SB1500]

The Pandas main fault? Its made abroad and we have to import it.

I reckon it's the price. £14,750. I looked on the Italian site, 9,700 EUR for the current Panda Hybrid. That's just £8,200.

Nearly double in the UK market! Importing doesn't make it that much more expensive. It's a choice they're making. No idea why. It's solely responsible for why I haven't opted for one as the new (and subsequently, used prices) are just too much to justify compared to the alternatives. At £8,200 on the other hand... I'd take a shiny new Panda over my Lexus and pocket the multiple thousands difference every day of the week. Why won't Fiat let me? Bitterness after Brexit? I thought we were all past that now.

The EU will force Fiat to slap all of that 'safety' tech on to it. I agree with your sentiment re: the audi, I had it on a rental Mercedes too and it cut in randomly and scared the sh** out of me! Slamming on the brakes because it thought I was about to crash going 60mph on a narrowing but A-road. In their defence, I am appalled by the state of driving all the same, so many people on their phones now in traffic and turning corners in the city, it's like they don't try to hide it anymore. We genuinely need police walking down footpaths alongside busy traffic jam spots at peak times doing a CyclingMikey level job of filming and catching phone drivers before anybody will seriously stop. Funny, when I spoke to friends who have had automatic cars for a few years now when I got mine in January, you know what the single most important thing to them was? "Oh it's so much better for texting and driving", not even being sarcastic or ashamed of it, that's it, that's why they drive autos. That's how integral the young generation nowadays view texting and driving, like it's a non negotiable part. With this being the case, maybe 'nanny tech' has it's place. Sadly. Even if all it does, is stop them driving into the rest of us in our basic cars, having to use our senses to stay safe.

I love the current Panda model. Despite the criticism it and Fiat gets, it's a testament to how strong that car is that it can sell as well as it does with minor revisions for 12 years. I couldn't even see a much loved car like a Golf selling as well or being as loved by it's followers had VW kept the 12 years ago model on sale up until today.

The 4x4 is a product of Italy (and select other nearby countries sharing the same geography) of rough terrain, hilly mountainous districts and families needing to move between areas in cheap, reliable and capable transport. We've talked a lot on here about how much Fiat may or may not control in terms of Stellantis (will it be a minimal effort rebadge, few panels and sent out to fourcourts job like Vauxhall) - or will they get proper, serious input into platform development and getting something to fall out of the tree that would be at home in a new Panda 4x4...or in some new Jeep model which has to sell in the US too.. or in some Alfa model that needs to appeal to the more affluent, demanding customer on the higher end. Hopefully it is the latter. Otherwise I think the best we'll get it another Suzuki Ignis: quirky looking, relatively simple car for sure, with a 4x4 option that can't do much more than give a tad more traction in light ice with the right tyres, but that nobody would be able to take to an off road track day. I fear we're getting another Ignis so far. I hope Stellantis can prove me wrong and we get a worthy successor.

That being said, with current Fiat pricing on the existing model, I do not expect an all new model to be any more affordable, and because of that they are pricing themselves out of my acceptable budget for a simple, small car.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

No its an old new picture of the Pandina test vehicle. Possibly taken 2 years back. New dash is evident although I believe this has changed again already, new steering wheel and yet another pointless rear bumper profile change. Why.

So not a development mule, but rather a test car on which several things have already been changed over the following 2 years since the picture was taken.

 

[The Panda Nut]

So not a development mule, but rather a test car on which several things have already been changed over the following 2 years since the picture was taken.

Im pretty sure I saw that picture around then, and it was the mule or development vehicle for the Pandina. I think its more likely the test mule for the new Panda thing is a Citroen C3 sadly.