I just thought I would post some pictures of Fiat style 4x4 offroaders I took a couple of summers ago. Those of you in the US may not be aware of their small vehicle 4 wheel drive programme. These pictures were taken driving down a ski run at Val d'Isere in France (in the summer so no skiers around!!). I run one of these alongside my diesel Patriot, both are great fun. None of these bottomed out while a JEEP Commander behind kept grounding and burying his nose.....
FIAT are coming.......
greenfintry
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
Front and rear clips are astonishingly easy for automakers to design and install. I wouldn't lose any sleep about the vehicles having the "Jeep look." The Caliber doesn't look like a Jeep, but we all know what the Patriot (sharing a platform and powertrain, made in the same factory) looks like, no?
It's way too early for people to panic. A Panda sized mini-cute-ute would probably sell decently well. Some folks might like the idea of a Wrangler but don't need either the capability or the size and want some better efficiency- look at how well the 2 door Geo Tracker/Suzuki Samurai sold back in the early 90s. That would do well. The Patriot is a bit larger, and apparently Fiat has platforms in the appropriate size range.
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
Small, but with body on frame construction and a real transfercase with low range, it was more truck than car/cute-ute. It's small size was a plus for some, but for most, the major selling point was that it was a real 4x4 at a low price.
Joined
·
8,881 Posts
That is truly what is missing in the current market. Small simple tough 4x4. Those Suzukis would last too. Most of them rusted away before they stopped working. Of course, simple stuff usually does last pretty well.
Joined
·
575 Posts
And is a damn good off roader to boot. My buddy had one and that Samurai was a tough little vehicle. They didn't last well in the winter with the salty roads though. It just rusted away.
Joined
·
96 Posts
What they will do is make it out of ****ty parts, so no more reliable wrangler. This is what fiat told Chrysler. They want you to buy a new car every so how many years and making cars that last a long time works against them. This is also why the lifetime powertrain warranty got scrapped. they want like those little clown cars you see driving around in argentina.
These clown cars will fail for the exact opposite reason hummer is failing. People want the real thing. Think J8, Humvee, Unimog, that's the benchmark. they don't want clown cars regardless of their capability. You might as well put wrangler axles on a smart car.
No but I'll bet there are more then a few wranglers that would see them as an obstacle to negotiate. crunch!Would anyone care for a 4x4 "off-road" Smart-Fart?
The Panda will sell well to the younger set, right up until they realize you can't support a family with one, and then sell it some other single person and buy an SUV that can two kids, mom and dad, groceries and cars seats and all the things a family needs.
I doubt they will be that stupid. Fiat was brought in to develop small cars for Chrysler, and they can learn how to build quality trucks from Chrysler, so its a good marriage. So far they seem to be expanding the Jeep line overseas -- we've got a couple threads on that.
However, if they screw up on quality with the Jeep line, or anywhere for that matter, they're out of business in the US. Cheap throw-away cars will ruin any company. GM still cringes whenever someone mentions Vega -- it was a 50,000 mile car. Nissan (Datsun), Toyota and Honda made cars that went 3 times as far and cost about 10% more. That's how they captured so much of the American market. Did any Vega owners rush out to buy another? I wonder how many Vega owners ever bought any other Chevrolet? Buying a Vega was just an expensive bus ticket to the Japanese dealerships!
If Fiat/Chrysler want to stay in business they will have to build cars equal to or better than the competition and that cost equal to or or less than the competition.
If they screw up Jeep, I'd go to Honda or Toyota. Considering how congress is embarassing us by trying to embarass Toyota, it makes me want to go out and buy a Toyota just to stick it in their faces!
Hmm, can I quote myself??
Seriously, I ran across these quotes in the Fiat/Chrysler business plan posted at Allpar:
•Quality improvements will continue and extend to dealer service.
•Neither Fiat nor Chrysler can survive with expertise and products only in half the segments. This partnership is essential for both companies.
http://www.allpar.com/corporate/chrysler-group/five-year-plan.html
Obviously Chrysler has been working on a lot of upgrades, and their engines & drivetrain are pretty much impeccable already; there's no talk of cheaper components to improve short-range profitability. So far I still believe in them and I'm eager to buy another Wrangler when Wifey's wears out. It'll be a couple more years, and I'll probably have to cope with some minor repairs, but overall Jeep quality is what gets me back again.
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
I had a 75 Vega. It was a nice little car, not just my opinion, but those of my import driving friends who took it for a spin. I bought the car with minor collision damage and after I repaired it, I was going to flip it. After living with it for a few days, I sold my 69 Bel Air and kept the Vega. I sold it a few years later during one of the energy "shortages" for more than I paid for it. The car was still in fine shape with about 80,000+ on the clock. Never burned any oil.
I knew several other owners and they were mostly happy with their Vegas. Our neighbor, a fleet mechanic for NY Telephone, bought his daughter one after checking out all the cars in the economy class. One girl I knew had a 71 and the engine did puke. The early models had some teething issues that were quickly and effectively addressed.
Back then, it was common practice for car guys not to buy the first year of a new model because in reality the car was still in development in it's rush to the market. This was especially true for cars like the Corvair and Vega which brought new technologies to production cars.
GM faltered again with the Fiero. My brother unwisely bought a first model and had more than his share of troubles. The later models were much improved, but GM had shot itself in the foot again by rushing it's introduction and pinching pennies in development and production and squandering dollars on fixes.
GM excelled in engineering and marketing, much less so in labor relations and ultimately build quality. We all know the rest of the story. Still, the Vega and Corvair were, for the most part, pretty good cars at the time. As long as you didn't buy the model's first year
I knew several other owners and they were mostly happy with their Vegas. Our neighbor, a fleet mechanic for NY Telephone, bought his daughter one after checking out all the cars in the economy class. One girl I knew had a 71 and the engine did puke. The early models had some teething issues that were quickly and effectively addressed.
Back then, it was common practice for car guys not to buy the first year of a new model because in reality the car was still in development in it's rush to the market. This was especially true for cars like the Corvair and Vega which brought new technologies to production cars.
GM faltered again with the Fiero. My brother unwisely bought a first model and had more than his share of troubles. The later models were much improved, but GM had shot itself in the foot again by rushing it's introduction and pinching pennies in development and production and squandering dollars on fixes.
GM excelled in engineering and marketing, much less so in labor relations and ultimately build quality. We all know the rest of the story. Still, the Vega and Corvair were, for the most part, pretty good cars at the time. As long as you didn't buy the model's first year
Joe, honestly, you're the first person I've even heard defend the Vega. I drove my girlfriend's mother's Vega for a few weeks, and I agree it drove pretty well but the engines were notorious. I'm thinking of 3 people I knew (including her) who all blew engines around 50,000. One was a kid who probably drove it too hard, but hey, it was an entry level car. The others were responsible adults. By contrast, I only know one other person who blew any engine so early on any other car.
My Dad had been a Chevy mechanic in the '50s and said something about the Vega's engine's faulty design early on -- something like "It'll never work." I think it was to do with the mixed use of aluminum. As a typical high school student who thought I knew far more than my father, I reminded him that his experience was 20 years earlier, this was now the 1970's. Gotta admit, Pop turned out to be right.
Anyone know the % of Vega engine failures under say, 100,000 miles? An engine should go that far under any reasonable circumstances.
My Dad had been a Chevy mechanic in the '50s and said something about the Vega's engine's faulty design early on -- something like "It'll never work." I think it was to do with the mixed use of aluminum. As a typical high school student who thought I knew far more than my father, I reminded him that his experience was 20 years earlier, this was now the 1970's. Gotta admit, Pop turned out to be right.
Anyone know the % of Vega engine failures under say, 100,000 miles? An engine should go that far under any reasonable circumstances.
I think you've forgotten why the lifetime powertrain warranty existed in the first place. It was NOT because they had greater confidence in the running gear. It was because everybody knew Chrysler was hanging on by the skin of their teeth and they had to do SOMETHING to get buyers in there. Note that the lifetime warranty is NOT transferable; they know full well that most folks only keep vehicles for about 5-6 years and maybe 120,000 miles or so, then trade them for something else. Precious few of the vehicles with that warranty will still be covered by it ten years down the road. I know mine probably won't be; I expect I'll have it for another few years, but I'd be surprised if I'm still driving my Patriot in five years (had it almost 2.5 so far).
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
The Vega silicon aluminum block was unconventional to say the least, but Porsche, and I believe Daimler, used the technology with success for years after GM abandoned it. Early Vegas had faulty valve stem seals that caused excess oil consumption and the cooling system was low capacity because the aluminum block was thought to dissipate heat quite efficiently. If the coolant and/or oil were down by too much, the early blocks weren't long for this world. There was a fuel pump cut out in mine if oil pressure was too low. After the valve stem seals were improved and coolant capacity increased, it was very much improved. The car still continued to sell well and I think the engine warranty was increased to 50,000 or 60,000 miles. Then myth eclipsed reality and all Vegas were tarnished and that peculiar aluminum block emerged as the culprit. Sales started falling after all the improvements. It just shows how many people buy cars on perceived impressions and hearsay rather than facts. Most people wouldn't try to understand that oil/coolant issues with neglected maintenance caused Sally's early Vega to die young. Their perception more likely was car engines shouldn't be made of "cheap" aluminum because it is as durable as cast iron and they don't want their engine to melt. Yes, I heard that more than a few times that Vega engines overheated and melted.
It always surprises me that even car guys buy into these myths. I had a 59 Chevy with the large, horizontal tailfins. I would say at 70% of the people who wanted to talk about my car at shows and cruises told me how these cars could experience liftoff from the pavement at highway speeds due the fin's surface area. If they were with their family or girlfriend, I'd usually just smile a bit. If they were alone, I'd have tell them that Junior Johnson won the Daytona 500 in one averaging around 125 mph. I had to keep an old magazine article in the car to show some of them because the myth was so ingrained, they wouldn't believe me. For the record, I took mine up over 90 without any ill effects.
It always surprises me that even car guys buy into these myths. I had a 59 Chevy with the large, horizontal tailfins. I would say at 70% of the people who wanted to talk about my car at shows and cruises told me how these cars could experience liftoff from the pavement at highway speeds due the fin's surface area. If they were with their family or girlfriend, I'd usually just smile a bit. If they were alone, I'd have tell them that Junior Johnson won the Daytona 500 in one averaging around 125 mph. I had to keep an old magazine article in the car to show some of them because the myth was so ingrained, they wouldn't believe me. For the record, I took mine up over 90 without any ill effects.
Joined
·
8,881 Posts
There is a customer we have who has a Vega with a 350! He says he gets great mileage because the engine never has to work very hard. Yet it is devilishly fast.I had a 75 Vega. It was a nice little car, not just my opinion, but those of my import driving friends who took it for a spin. I bought the car with minor collision damage and after I repaired it, I was going to flip it. After living with it for a few days, I sold my 69 Bel Air and kept the Vega. I sold it a few years later during one of the energy "shortages" for more than I paid for it. The car was still in fine shape with about 80,000+ on the clock. Never burned any oil.
I knew several other owners and they were mostly happy with their Vegas. Our neighbor, a fleet mechanic for NY Telephone, bought his daughter one after checking out all the cars in the economy class. One girl I knew had a 71 and the engine did puke. The early models had some teething issues that were quickly and effectively addressed.
Back then, it was common practice for car guys not to buy the first year of a new model because in reality the car was still in development in it's rush to the market. This was especially true for cars like the Corvair and Vega which brought new technologies to production cars.
GM faltered again with the Fiero. My brother unwisely bought a first model and had more than his share of troubles. The later models were much improved, but GM had shot itself in the foot again by rushing it's introduction and pinching pennies in development and production and squandering dollars on fixes.
GM excelled in engineering and marketing, much less so in labor relations and ultimately build quality. We all know the rest of the story. Still, the Vega and Corvair were, for the most part, pretty good cars at the time. As long as you didn't buy the model's first year
I have predicted for the last 3 years or so, the next round of American collector vehicles will be Vega, Pinto and Gremlin. Small, cheap to rebuild and at this point some what rare.
Chrysler never jumped into that pool. They stuck with the Dart/Valiant until the Horizon/Omni which I would consider the 2nd generation of American economy cars.
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
I guess I get a little passionate and nostalgic about the Vega having enjoyed owning one. I hope my defense didn't offend you, Ignatz.
It's a shame GM sold their little 215 cu.in. aluminum V-8 to Rover. That would have been a great option to put in the Vega/Astre. The 225 odd-fire V6 sold to Kaiser and then bought back would have been pretty good too, but perhaps a bit rough for some motorists. If GM had played it cheap and safe, they could have just popped in the proven, low tech Nova 4 banger and the Vega might have been remembered much more fondly today. Then again, without any controversy, it might be barely remembered at all.
It's a shame GM sold their little 215 cu.in. aluminum V-8 to Rover. That would have been a great option to put in the Vega/Astre. The 225 odd-fire V6 sold to Kaiser and then bought back would have been pretty good too, but perhaps a bit rough for some motorists. If GM had played it cheap and safe, they could have just popped in the proven, low tech Nova 4 banger and the Vega might have been remembered much more fondly today. Then again, without any controversy, it might be barely remembered at all.
No no, Joe, I'm not offended. Just havin' fun here on the website. Thinking back and reading up a little, I think it was the combination of iron & aluminum that concerned my Dad, and I think that was one of the issues -- different reactions to heat that caused the head gaskets to leak coolant. Likely the bad reputation got out there, and despite addressing the problem, the public was once burned twice shy as they say.
I grew up with one of those '59s you mentioned. I've heard the myth, but ours had the small 6 in it and it wasn't capable of any radical speeds to test the stability. You mentioned the 215 V8. If that's the engine I'm thinking of, a friend of mine had one of those in an F-85. Thing really flew being a small car with a light engine that still punched out some horses. I was driving a humble Ford Falcon at the time with the 144 CID 6 cyl. It was easy on gas, but I think I had about half the horses he did.
Ya know, doing a little math, I think the Patriot 2.4 is about the same displacement as my old Falcon's engine, but my Pat gets about the same fuel economy with twice the HP. Isn't technology wonderful? Also shows how far ahead of its time the 215 was.
Thinking back and reading up a little, I think it was the combination of iron & aluminum that concerned my Dad, and I think that was one of the issues -- different reactions to heat that caused the head gaskets to leak coolant. Likely the bad reputation got out there, and despite addressing the problem, the public was once burned twice shy as they say. I grew up with one of those '59s you mentioned. I've heard the myth, but ours had the small 6 in it and it wasn't capable of any radical speeds to test the stability. You mentioned the 215 V8. If that's the engine I'm thinking of, a friend of mine had one of those in an F-85. Thing really flew being a small car with a light engine that still punched out some horses. I was driving a humble Ford Falcon at the time with the 144 CID 6 cyl. It was easy on gas, but I think I had about half the horses he did.
Ya know, doing a little math, I think the Patriot 2.4 is about the same displacement as my old Falcon's engine, but my Pat gets about the same fuel economy with twice the HP. Isn't technology wonderful? Also shows how far ahead of its time the 215 was.
Joined
·
8,881 Posts
GM loves to spend millions developing a motor and then sell it off the the competition.I guess I get a little passionate and nostalgic about the Vega having enjoyed owning one. I hope my defense didn't offend you, Ignatz.
It's a shame GM sold their little 215 cu.in. aluminum V-8 to Rover. That would have been a great option to put in the Vega/Astre. The 225 odd-fire V6 sold to Kaiser and then bought back would have been pretty good too, but perhaps a bit rough for some motorists. If GM had played it cheap and safe, they could have just popped in the proven, low tech Nova 4 banger and the Vega might have been remembered much more fondly today. Then again, without any controversy, it might be barely remembered at all.
I love the odd fire 6 in the Kaiser Jeepster! What a great sound. pum-pum...pum-pum...pum-pum.
Pontiac's 4 banger in the 80's never got good feedback from AMC eagle fans. I'm not sure if it was just the fact it was a GM motor in an AMC, or if the motor was actually weak. I might find out if I can ever get my 151ci in the SX4 to stay running.
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
