OT: Does Italian design flair make it easier to accept functional compromises?

[RPS]

Is it easier to overlook functional compromises when our eyes are drawn to beauty, or maybe just more pleasing shapes?

Example: In the paper this morning they reviewed the new Fiat 500, and one attribute for all models is a 1.4-liter 101 HP engine – at least for now. My first thought was that very few Americans will buy any 4-seat automobile with 100 HP. But will the average buyer ignore the HP ratings and be sold strictly on looks?

I can’t use myself as a judge for two reasons: I don’t find the Fiat 500 that attractive an automobile (or “cute” as reviews often state), plus I’ve purchased cars and trucks with 100 HP or less before. Although this issue is very general and off topic it reminds me of many Shimano versus Campy threads where Campy panache sneaks in as a tie breaker between excellent products. And for the record I’m not suggesting Campy doesn’t function as good as Shimano, just that like Japanese cars have a reputation for function and value, Italian cars are better known for style and performance. Reliability and durability in the past not so much.

So what do you think? Will enough Americans overlook the lower power they won’t accept in a “bland” American or Japanese auto and justify the 500 mostly on style or Italian flair? And do we do the same with other products, including bikes? Do looks blind us to flaws?

[johnnymossville]

Looks do blind flaws for awhile. Live with something long enough and flaws have a way of taking their toll. The question is, are the looks good enough to overlook the flaw? There are some cars (bicycles, clothing, shoes,.. etc,...) I just wouldn't buy based on looks alone.

The 500 for me at least has the looks down, so there's one positive it has going for it, which is a leg up on a lot of other cars.

[Louis]

Italy has some incredible design houses, automotive and otherwise. My ALFA Spider (Pininfarina) was sex on wheels.

The Fiat 500 looks stupid; unlike the Mini, which is also tiny, but looks very cool IMO.

[flickwet]

That's pretty good output for a 1.4, man my Sirocco only made due with 74, and it was still fun. 'muricans wont buy F.I.A.T.s, but look at the success that manufacturers are having with small cars now that are considered "hip", and a Fiat can be real hip, as an Alfa owner I may be biased

[goonster]

Is it easier to overlook functional compromises when our eyes are drawn to beauty, or maybe just more pleasing shapes?
Yes.

Life is not an accounting exercise, and things should be appreciated as a whole, which includes appearance, history, and other things that are intangible and not easily quantified as subjective attributes.

Exhibit A: English sportscars from the 60's. People loved them, but they all left many things to be desired in the "function" department.

But will the average buyer ignore the HP ratings and be sold strictly on looks?
I hope so, but with "looks vs. horsepower" you are setting up a false dichotomy.

Horsepower is a poor and totally overrated indicator of how much fun a car is to drive. I have owned a 90 hp car that was heavier than the Fiat 500, and it was plenty fun to drive.

Exhibit B: '01 Mini Cooper, 1.6L SOHC, 114 hp. Enough Americans bought it and liked it to be considered a resounding commercial success. Marketing and "design" had a lot to do with it, but the bottom line is that it's a good car.

[AngryScientist]

its absolutely about passion of some kind.

let's face it, anyone who drives a 2-seater bmw is making a compromise somewhere.

if it were all about practicality we would all be driving honda fits, and then we would all be dead inside.

[AngryScientist]

p.s. - i'm seriously looking at a 500 for our household.

[Louis]

p.s. - i'm seriously looking at a 500 for our household.

Get the Abarth !!!

[goonster]

At 2200 lbs, EPA rating of 30/38/33, the new cinquecento is like a mini-Mini.

[rwsaunders]

My '81 VW Diesel Rabbit put out 52hp on a good day....a real chick magnet, only in terms of mileage. 40mpg city, 50mpg highway. The mileage figures essentially matched the top speeds. I think that an Italian engineer designed the fuel filter mount...it was slick. :cool:

[rice rocket]

Helluva lot better than the piece-of-sh*t Smart car that people snap up.

[oldpotatoe]

Yes.

Life is not an accounting exercise, and things should be appreciated as a whole, which includes appearance, history, and other things that are intangible and not easily quantified as subjective attributes.

Exhibit A: English sportscars from the 60's. People loved them, but they all left many things to be desired in the "function" department.


I hope so, but with "looks vs. horsepower" you are setting up a false dichotomy.

Horsepower is a poor and totally overrated indicator of how much fun a car is to drive. I have owned a 90 hp car that was heavier than the Fiat 500, and it was plenty fun to drive.

Exhibit B: '01 Mini Cooper, 1.6L SOHC, 114 hp. Enough Americans bought it and liked it to be considered a resounding commercial success. Marketing and "design" had a lot to do with it, but the bottom line is that it's a good car.

Well said. I think saying a small car that has 100hp 'flawed' is over reaching.

Do americans want a small, efficient, safe small car. You bet.

I think the US car makers could learn something from the Europeans in terms of fuel efficiency or they will learn the hard way when gas is $5 per gallon($8 per gallon in Europe now).

OBTW- Chrysler/Fiat will sell everyone of these that arrive, or are built here.

[sg8357]

[QUOTE=oldpotatoe
I think the US car makers could learn something from the Europeans in terms of fuel efficiency or they will learn the hard way when gas is $5 per gallon($8 per gallon in Europe now). [/QUOTE]

I drove a new Fiesta for a week while my Focus was in the shop.
Very hi spec for the money, handling was pretty good,
steering was not as connected as the '01 Focus. Car felt like a rolling
bank vault compared to a Fit, then again all the structure results in about
half the cargo capacity of a the Fit.
Ford & GM are European, they just sell us the crap we like, 6000lb barges
with faith based steering.

[fiamme red]

Ford & GM are European, they just sell us the crap we like, 6000lb barges with faith based steering. :D

[goonster]

Chrysler/Fiat will sell everyone of these that arrive, or are built here.
It looks like a NAFTA car: engine built in Michigan, car assembled in Mexico.

I new the car was coming, but I hadn't researched it seriously until RPS' thread here. Now I think that this looks more and more like a really neat car, although I'm not sure it can save Chrysler all by itself.

Here's an excerpt from a recent review (http://www.speedsportlife.com/2011/01/28/speedsportlife-first-drive-the-2011-fiat-500/):

The Fiat is just as at home as the Mini on tight mountain roads, providing great steering feedback and entertaining chassis dynamics, but gets the job done with a degree of serenity that the British-themed bimmer just can’t touch. At one point, I found myself winding out third gear in a downhill straight and nosing into the limiter without even realizing it.

And that was somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 miles per hour. This is not just a cheap city car here, folks.


(I should mention that, if anything, I have a bias against Italian cars, e.g. I don't even think that the Alfas of the last twenty years are particularly good looking)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/4760837266_c77512f18b_z.jpg

[rice rocket]

Wow, that really puts it into perspective how narrow the car really is, maybe too narrow for us fat 'mericans. ;) I'd be afraid to clip a wheel w/ that hanging off the back.

[goonster]

maybe too narrow for us fat 'mericans.
The American version has different seats, and they've made some changes to "ease entry and exit". No joke. :p

[Louis]

There was a story on the BBC the other night - the rest of the world is catching up to us on the obesity scale also. Good to hear that we're not the only fat folks on the planet.

[Kirk007]

Do looks blind us to flaws?

Are we not men?

[572cv]

is my tip of the chapeau to my car, a 1957 Citroen 2cv. It has a fire breathing 435 cc air cooled front wheel drive mill, cranking out a whopping 18 hp. It does however get 60 mpg. It leaves smiles in its wake and always reminds me of cycling, as it struggles to keep speed over hills. It is a hoot to drive. My bike fits inside! (with wheels off).

There is a burgeoning movement in small/micro cars. To get yourselves used to looking at them in a group:

http://bubbledrome.com/mmclassic_10/uday_10.html

This great event is in Massachusetts, there are many others.

The FIAT looks terrific

[Nil Else]

Do looks blind us to flaws?

High heels?



I think the US car makers could learn something from the Europeans in terms of fuel efficiency or they will learn the hard way when gas is $5 per gallon($8 per gallon in Europe now).

We still live in a different universe yet than the rest of the world. Spotting American cars among the "normal sized" cars in many overseas countries used to be like seeing some kinda optical illusion/vehicles for giant beings from different universe, ie, until even more humongous monster sized American vehicles of the pre-global economic collapse became fashionable and flooded the global market.

[drewski]

High heels?





We still live in a different universe yet than the rest of the world. Spotting American cars among the "normal sized" cars in many overseas countries used to be like seeing some kinda optical illusion/vehicles for giant beings from different universe, ie, until even more humongous monster sized American vehicles of the pre-global economic collapse became fashionable and flooded the global market.

Amen....


62% of americans are obese and I guess they need a larger
vehicles to keep them safe + warm...

[buck-50]

Figure most of us live in the US. Which means we have mostly 55 mph speed limits, and in town, figure more like 45mph. So horsepower doesn't mean jack. And a big car with lots of horsepower stuck in stop and go traffic is the very definition of suck.

A small, light car with just enough power is a blast to drive. they cut through SUVs like a motorcycle. They feel like you're driving flat-out even when you're just going to the grocery store. They're fun. When you manage to carry 10 bags of mulch home in one you feel like a super genius (ask me about the time I fit my tandem INSIDE my Subaru Imprezza).

We've all gotten so used to the idea that you have to have BIG to be safe. But small and agile has it's own safety- it's harder to hit. I learned this countless times on my motorcycle.

Now, I'd no more consider driving a fiat 500 across country than I would a Ducati superbike. But then, that's not what it's designed for. It's designed to be a small, practical and fun to drive short range car. Figure more than 4 hours and you are going to be wishing for the cavernous space of a civic.

So I think your basic question is wrong- the fiat 500 isn't compromised, it's absolutely perfect for what it's designed for. It's more a question of, can we readjust our priorities for what's important in a car?

I've driven a big SUV. Fun? no. Cushy, yes. Same with sports cars- fun, sort of, though you always feel like 90% of your performance is going to waste, and when you push it, you just know there's a cop around the next corner that's gonna spoil everything.

So small, reasonably comfortable and fun to drive, with low enough power that you can really push it to the limit without risking your license? how can that be bad?

[FlashUNC]

I'm always of the mind that good design should support functionality, not restrict it.

That being said, my partner's looking for at a Fiat 500 as her next car pretty soon, and if it drives half as well as the Mini, I think its going to be a fantastic little hatch. She's leaning towards waiting for the Abarth version, since she wants something a bit zippier.

And while I love the American muscle car as much as the next guy, others have made a good point. How much horsepower do you need for cruising the highway a steady speed, driving around town or sitting in traffic?

Probably nowhere near as much as most people have/want.

[RPS]

I hope so, but with "looks vs. horsepower" you are setting up a false dichotomy.

Horsepower is a poor and totally overrated indicator of how much fun a car is to drive. I have owned a 90 hp car that was heavier than the Fiat 500, and it was plenty fun to drive.

Exhibit B: '01 Mini Cooper, 1.6L SOHC, 114 hp. Enough Americans bought it and liked it to be considered a resounding commercial success. Marketing and "design" had a lot to do with it, but the bottom line is that it's a good car.
At 2200 lbs, EPA rating of 30/38/33, the new cinquecento is like a mini-Mini.
Goonster, I don’t see a false dichotomy at all; I’m merely questioning to what extend our subjective judgment in other areas is influenced by beauty and/or other unrelated qualities.

I agree fully that some small cars can be fun to drive with only 100 HP, but that’s not the issue. My question centers more about why we say things like a Mini Cooper with 114 HP (as in your example) is fun to drive and rarely mention that it’s underpowered; and then turn around and say that a Toyoto Echo/Yaris or a Honda Fit is grossly underpowered. I think generally people like the Mini more so they are not as critical of the lack of “power” while they are critical of that same “power” level when installed in a stodgy car of similar power-to-weight (more or less, I don’t want to split hairs).

Similarly, your mention of the 30/38/33 EPA rating is interesting because, while good, its nothing spectacular for a car that size. Some small American and Japanese cars that are bigger, heavier, and more powerful get equal or better MPG. Do we see the Fiat 500’s EPA rating in a different light than say a Cruze Eco because it looks better? On a purely objective basis we could almost be critical of the Fiat not having higher fuel economy ratings.

[Peter P.]

Let's see; Fiat bought Chrysler, so now Fiat products will be marketed in the U.S. with advertising that will convince us we want them.

The Fiat 500 is designed for smaller, Italian roads, not the expansively wide tarmac in the U.S. that can accommodate whale fins and grilles as wide as a city block!

However, I think there is a profitable market in the U.S. for the Fiat 500-as circus clowns cars! With so many clowns in Washington, you'll likely see the Beltway jammed with Fiat 500s soon!

[daylate$short]

Does Italian design flair make it easier to accept functional compromises?
Absolutely. Just like placing undue emphasis on practicality and reliability makes it easier to accept boring design in Toyotas and Hondas. :cool:

[jlwdm]

I had a great looking red 1974 Alpha Romeo 2000 GTV with not much more than 100hp and it was nothing but fun to drive.

Jeff


http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m617/6ridge9/Bike%20Parts/AlfaRomeo.jpg

Not my actual car.

[572cv]

[QUOTE=Peter P.]........

The Fiat 500 is designed for smaller, Italian roads, not the expansively wide tarmac in the U.S. .......

So, if we can get slightly smaller cars to take hold in the US, then we could slim down the mandated Lane Width by a foot or two, devoting the now-extra width of our expansive pavement to more space for cyclists, a very sensible use of an available resource.

Therefore, all cyclists should support the introduction of these cars, yes?

[HenryA]

Fix
It
Again
Tony

On mine you just bumped your knee real hard on the dashboard and the lights would come on (or off) maybe. Never knew for sure 'til you tried.

[Nil Else]

So, if we can get slightly smaller cars to take hold in the US, then we could slim down the mandated Lane Width by a foot or two, devoting the now-extra width of our expansive pavement to more space for cyclists, a very sensible use of an available resource.

Therefore, all cyclists should support the introduction of these cars, yes?

Yes. Sure makes sharing the road a whole lot more difficult when you're driving a behemoth... Our right to own, and to drive, American sized cars and owing the roads is at the heart of Road Cycling being intrinsically incompatible to American "psyche" thus far.

[Louis]

I had a great looking red 1974 Alpha Romeo 2000 GTV with not much more than 100hp and it was nothing but fun to drive.


Those GTVs are probably in my top three as far as automotive design goes.

I'd hate to have to maintain one, but would love to have one. One of these days I'll probably decide "I have to have one" and start looking. Mechanical fuel injection, here I come...

[Polyglot]

I have driven a version of the newest 500, plus every single one of the previous versions. If you know how to drive a stick, 100 HP is more than sufficient given the size and weight of the car. My former personal Fiat 500C left the factory with 16.5 HP and after some massaging was up to 20 HP (larger valves, twin carbs with Abarth collector, acceleration cam, domed slightly larger pistons). You could not possible drive it without having a smile from cheek to cheek. Go to the toniest of restaurants and you will be allowed to park right in front. :D

[rugbysecondrow]

[QUOTE=Peter P.]........

The Fiat 500 is designed for smaller, Italian roads, not the expansively wide tarmac in the U.S. .......

So, if we can get slightly smaller cars to take hold in the US, then we could slim down the mandated Lane Width by a foot or two, devoting the now-extra width of our expansive pavement to more space for cyclists, a very sensible use of an available resource.

Therefore, all cyclists should support the introduction of these cars, yes?


Roads are typically built in context. Sure, there are standards (interstate commerce relies on these), but they are designed based on their surroundings. Compare Eastern PA or New England to Central Illinois. Even on the same road (I-70 through PA, vs. I-70 through Ohio and Indiana). Different roads, different purpose and different challenges. Italy has approx 116,000 square miles of land, compared to the United States which as 3,790,000 square miles...You can compare our land size to other European Countries referenced in this thread. Frankly, many decisions in European countries regarding vehicles, roads etc. are driven out of necessity rather than an altrusitic purpose, so lets not confuse the point. Less land, higher density cultivates an environment different than many, dare I say most parts of the United States. That is not to say that we can't learn from them, but lets not be unaware about what is driving the decisions. Space is typically not a problem in the US...we have the space for bike lanes and accomodations, folks choose not to. That is a different discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_land _area





We still live in a different universe yet than the rest of the world. Spotting American cars among the "normal sized" cars in many overseas countries used to be like seeing some kinda optical illusion/vehicles for giant beings from different universe, ie, until even more humongous monster sized American vehicles of the pre-global economic collapse became fashionable and flooded the global market.
Yes. Sure makes sharing the road a whole lot more difficult when you're driving a behemoth... Our right to own, and to drive, American sized cars and owing the roads is at the heart of Road Cycling being intrinsically incompatible to American "psyche" thus far.

I think that our standards, both collectivly and individually, are changing. The smaller, efficient cars we had in the US was crappy for a long time. We now have a good variety of options and I think many people are looking into those options. SUVs were sold primarily because they are wicked cheap to build. Trucks and SUVs had some of the largest profit margins and so they were marketed to the hilt.

In addition, our purchasing decisions are often based on options and conditions. If I live in Indiana, have open roads with abundant space for both parking and manauvering, and an SUV suits my needs, why go smaller? Sure, an SUV as an urban car might not make sense, but neither would a smart car in Northern Wisconson.


The Fiat seems alright, I don't find small cars like that terribly attractive. Nor do I think it provides much utility. I drive a mini-van and I think it is the ultimate utility vehicle (no sport there). If I had cars like I have bikes (one for each purpose), then this might be a "fun" car, but I choose to no buy cars like that. My frugality kicks in at that point.

[goonster]

Similarly, your mention of the 30/38/33 EPA rating is interesting because, while good, its nothing spectacular for a car that size.
Well, yes, but the Fiat and Mini will effectively be the only cars in this size class that will be offered for sale in the U.S. (Hello VW: Bring the Polo!)

Some small American and Japanese cars that are bigger, heavier, and more powerful get equal or better MPG.
Which ones? The only USDM cars with a conventional drivetrain at "equal" mpg would be the Fiesta and the Cruze. They are bigger and heavier, but I think the Fiat brings enough to the table that it can compete with more than just being pretty.

To get back to your original point though, I think that "design" is something that goes well beyond appearance and is integral to what today's consumer perceives as "value". It is widely accepted in the auto industry, for example, that a lot of VW/Audi's recent success (since the late 90's) can be attributed to the use of high-grade, soft-touch plastics in the interiors. That may not contribute to "performance", it's not even something you can really see in pictures or on the dealer's lot, but it made a big difference in how drivers feel about the cars.

[TMB]

There was a story on the BBC the other night - the rest of the world is catching up to us on the obesity scale also. Good to hear that we're not the only fat folks on the planet.

There was a story on the news the other night out of Vancouver.

They are putting a new roof on the stadium so doing an internal re-curb at the same time.

When it is finished it will seat 4000 fewer people because that are putting in wider seats to accommodate wider people.

Sad.

[cmg]

if in 5 years the Fiat 500 proves to be a reliable (toyota/honda), easy to fix, low cost to fix auto it will have a chance to succeed. no remove the drive axle to change an alternator kind of thing. But at 1oohp the auto review shows will lable it under powered and gas isn't at a high enough cost per gallon to force the public to rethinks it's driving habits. Americans value horsepower, comfort and scale. I don't think it will find many buyers. A honda fit, toyota yaris are better options not to mention the korean cars.

[Charles M]

Roads are typically built in context.


I think it's the context of time as much as space...

This is a pretty new country in general terms, but go Boston etc and "American" roads are pretty dang skinny.


The roads in the US and lots of other Euro coutries being developed now are all a lot wider than the stuff that came before it. but the length of time people have been moving around in an area seems a bigger indicator of the amount of narrower roads developed for feet and horses...

[markie]

I do not think anyone has pointed it out yet, but the 1.4 engine in the FIAT is something pretty special:

http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2010/11/fiats-multiair-engine-wins-popular-science-award

I am hoping gas hits $5 a gallon and that there will be more of these on the road than SUVs.

[Louis]

I am hoping gas hits $5 a gallon and that there will be more of these on the road than SUVs.

I think it would take $10 / gallon for that to happen. Folks just love their Tahoes / Suburbans and F-150s, even though most of the time they really aren't using the carrying capacity these behemoths offer.

[markie]

I think it would take $10 / gallon for that to happen. Folks just love their Tahoes / Suburbans and F-150s, even though most of the time they really aren't using the carrying capacity these behemoths offer.

I dunno, last time gas hit $4 I saw less new SUVs on the road, as soon as the price went down I saw a bunch of new SUVs... Maybe I just imagined it.

[cmg]

no camshaft
"Normally, engine valve opening and thus the amount of air let into the cylinder is controlled with direct action from the camshaft. With Multiair, the actual opening of the intake valves is controlled by using hydraulic fluid running through narrow passages controlled by a dual-action electronic solenoid."

Great, an electronic hydraulic solenoid to replace at 61k miles after the rubber band time belt fails. wonder where they'll locate it. someplace inaccessible i bet, inside the driveaxle, crankshaft, nothing short of an engine overhaul to replace. also the sensors will have to be replaced and located else where to make it more costly.

[buck-50]

no camshaft
"Normally, engine valve opening and thus the amount of air let into the cylinder is controlled with direct action from the camshaft. With Multiair, the actual opening of the intake valves is controlled by using hydraulic fluid running through narrow passages controlled by a dual-action electronic solenoid."

Great, an electronic hydraulic solenoid to replace at 61k miles after the rubber band time belt fails. wonder where they'll locate it. someplace inaccessible i bet, inside the driveaxle, crankshaft, nothing short of an engine overhaul to replace. also the sensors will have to be replaced and located else where to make it more costly.
And these danged fuel injectors are the devil's plaything!

[michael white]

I'd personally be more inclined toward the Mazda2, which seems to be really impressing reviewers, who think it's the best driving hatch out there (and it has 100 hp too, which makes no difference--it's power to weight that matters). Actually I'd be more inclined toward the 2012 Focus 5 door . . . can't wait to drive it. I think that might be my next.

[Louis]

And these danged fuel injectors are the devil's plaything!

If a carburetor was good enough for Henry Ford it ought to be good enough for you. :)

[RPS]

Are we not men?
So if a guy falls for what he thinks is a smart, confident, outgoing, and athletic Dolphin cheerleader, it’s probably his imagination because she’s hot, right?

[RPS]

I have driven a version of the newest 500, plus every single one of the previous versions. If you know how to drive a stick, 100 HP is more than sufficient given the size and weight of the car. My former personal Fiat 500C left the factory with 16.5 HP and after some massaging was up to 20 HP (larger valves, twin carbs with Abarth collector, acceleration cam, domed slightly larger pistons). You could not possible drive it without having a smile from cheek to cheek. Go to the toniest of restaurants and you will be allowed to park right in front. :D
Cool car. I wish they would make more modern rear-engined cars similar in concept to the original VW Bettle and Fiat 500. The Smart is OK but a little too small. I’d also prefer a compact Boxer twin installed like engines in Beetles and Porsches.

[buck-50]

If a carburetor was good enough for Henry Ford it ought to be good enough for you. :)
4 wheels, independently bolted to the frame. That's a suspension.

[rugbysecondrow]

I think it's the context of time as much as space...

This is a pretty new country in general terms, but go Boston etc and "American" roads are pretty dang skinny.


The roads in the US and lots of other Euro coutries being developed now are all a lot wider than the stuff that came before it. but the length of time people have been moving around in an area seems a bigger indicator of the amount of narrower roads developed for feet and horses...

I agree with this as well, good point. Many towns have finite structures that inhibit growth (many new england, mid-atlantic or european towns), that differs from the midwest for instance. Many eastern towns have downtown comprised of a "main street" as opposed to a town square. The squares of the midwest are often wider and more spacious by design, contrasted with a main street in eastern PA for instance that has the home directly on the street and zero room for growth. The design of the downtown itself is different.

This is all obviously a tanget, but it is important to note, IMO, that the car, physical development, infrastructure as well as commerce (read about the death of the trolly cars and 1905s public transportation) all work in concert to create the system we have now. Our variables are very different than other countries, actually our variables are different from one part of the US to another, so it is really not an apt comparision to contrast what the US does to what Belgium does or Italy. It is not apt to compare what Boston does to what Springfield, Illinois does or New Orleans...The US is remarkably diverse and we often forget that.

[RPS]

To get back to your original point though, I think that "design" is something that goes well beyond appearance and is integral to what today's consumer perceives as "value".
Very true; but is it real or falsely perceived (and does it make a difference?). I just wonder to what degree we are honest with ourselves and accept that visual appearances influence our perspective of the whole. I’m certain we are generally less critical of lower performance when looks are great and bias our judgment. To put it in cycling terms, when was the last time someone reviewed a great looking new bike with beautiful welds and paint and deemed it to ride poorly? It just about never happens – don’t recall a single one. Statistically that’s not likely unless our judgment of its ride quality is influenced by the weld smoothness and paint that have nothing to do with ride.

[rugbysecondrow]

Very true; but is it real or falsely perceived (and does it make a difference?). I just wonder to what degree we are honest with ourselves and accept that visual appearances influence our perspective of the whole. I’m certain we are generally less critical of lower performance when looks are great and bias our judgment. To put it in cycling terms, when was the last time someone reviewed a great looking new bike with beautiful welds and paint and deemed it to ride poorly? It just about never happens – don’t recall a single one. Statistically that’s not likely unless our judgment of its ride quality is influenced by the weld smoothness and paint that have nothing to do with ride.


For many vehicles, the consumer is ignorant regarding specs and how they impact the vehicle. They like it visually, then they drive it, then they either buy it or not. Take mini-vans. I assume that, with in reason, they all do about the same thing, will drive about the same, and will have a similar quality of ride. I will drive first the one I think is most visually appealing. If it falls in line with my expectations, then we are in business. If not, I will move on to the next one. A compromise will be made, either on design or on performace, individually we will make that decision based on our tolerances.

Intersting thoughts though.

[RPS]

I do not think anyone has pointed it out yet, but the 1.4 engine in the FIAT is something pretty special:

http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2010/11/fiats-multiair-engine-wins-popular-science-award

I am hoping gas hits $5 a gallon and that there will be more of these on the road than SUVs.
I wonder why the objective results don't reflect claims? :confused:

[RPS]

For many vehicles, the consumer is ignorant regarding specs and how they impact the vehicle. They like it visually, then they drive it, then they either buy it or not. Take mini-vans. I assume that, with in reason, they all do about the same thing, will drive about the same, and will have a similar quality of ride. I will drive first the one I think is most visually appealing. If it falls in line with my expectations, then we are in business. If not, I will move on to the next one. A compromise will be made, either on design or on performace, individually we will make that decision based on our tolerances.

Intersting thoughts though.
I’m very different in that I approach the decision opposite from you. I got a minivan too, but I start with what I want it to do, like have seats that easily fold flat, removable, etc… plus reliability, durability, etc… and then I weed the best out only if it’s so ugly that I can’t stand to own it.

I know I’m not typical in that I’m driven more by substance and functionality than looks.

[rugbysecondrow]

I’m very different in that I approach the decision opposite from you. I got a minivan too, but I start with what I want it to do, like have seats that easily fold flat, removable, etc… plus reliability, durability, etc… and then I weed the best out only if it’s so ugly that I can’t stand to own it.

I know I’m not typical in that I’m driven more by substance and functionality than looks.


You are likely not as unique as you think. In your example, you mention things that are pretty common as most all mini vans have collapsable seats, seats that are removable, most are reliable and durable. I know that is just an example, but the point holds true. I think most people think that Toyota, Honda, Dodge and other makers are relativly comperable and that individually, we each have a tolerance for looks, price, percieved quality, ride comfort, amenities etc. If somebody likes the looks of the Fiat, feels comfortable with the quality and it rides/drives well for them, they will likely be unconcerned with whether the HP is 60 or 140.

[buck-50]

I’m very different in that I approach the decision opposite from you. I got a minivan too, but I start with what I want it to do, like have seats that easily fold flat, removable, etc… plus reliability, durability, etc… and then I weed the best out only if it’s so ugly that I can’t stand to own it.

I know I’m not typical in that I’m driven more by substance and functionality than looks.
So, I'm guessing that applies to your bikes as well, right? No Dura ace or Record, nothing but 32 spoke open pros with ultegra hubs, aluminum frames...

We all want to believe we're special and that superficial crap doesn't affect us. It does, for all of us, one way or another. You just care less about cars.

I'm the same way. I want a wagon, mostly for the practicality, but there's a part of my brain that really wants one just because they're nigh-impossible to get anymore, and thus having one would show the world that I don't care what they think AND that I can find obscure stuff. The human brain is fabulous at rationalizing things.

[rugbysecondrow]

So if a guy falls for what he thinks is a smart, confident, outgoing, and athletic Dolphin cheerleader, it’s probably his imagination because she’s hot, right?

I feel I would need extensive field research to be able to answer this question confidently. You might not hear from me for a few years as I probe this, ahem, "issue", but I promise to take copious notes, research photos and Audio/Video so I can adequatly document my findings.

[RPS]

So, I'm guessing that applies to your bikes as well, right? No Dura ace or Record, nothing but 32 spoke open pros with ultegra hubs, aluminum frames...

Exactly. Everything correct but the aluminum frame. I gave that away -- except for an old aluminum tandem I still own.

[Kirk007]

I feel I would need extensive field research to be able to answer this question confidently. You might not hear from me for a few years as I probe this, ahem, "issue", but I promise to take copious notes, research photos and Audio/Video so I can adequatly document my findings.

Rugby - way to offer up to take one for the forum on such serious research. I think though that at a minimum a second opinion would be required (although this would be a bit more of a transgression than forgetting to mention the new bike in the basement).

[rugbysecondrow]

Rugby - way to offer up to take one for the forum on such serious research. I think though that at a minimum a second opinion would be required (although this would be a bit more of a transgression than forgetting to mention the new bike in the basement).


My wife is no stranger to research studies, I am sure she would understand it is about science. I have my subject selected, you should choose from the following:

[Germany_chris]

Ya know..the Fiat 500 is cool and I'd buy one the Abarth is even better.

The Smart is not a POS the are excellent cars that hold their value well..I just looked at an 02 for 3300 euro.

The Polo is not the little car you imagine..it is the size of a Golf II..the Comparable VW is the Lupo.

The Gas milage claims quoted are simply not that good..my 1.6 Opel Vectra gets almost 45 MPG while cruising at 100-110 MPH on the way home every week.

If I lived in the states in a place like Boston/NYC etc. which is defiantly the target market for these cars I wouldn't own a car.. If I lived in a smaller city i.e. Atlanta it's not really big enough..

To the OP...Schopenhauer held that art offers a way for people to temporarily escape the suffering that results from willing...industrial design is art

[goonster]

The Polo is not the little car you imagine..it is the size of a Golf II..the Comparable VW is the Lupo.

Believe me, in the US the Polo is considered a very small car. I know that the Lupo is analagous to the 500, but the smallest VW available here is the Golf. VW has announced plans to bring the Polo several times, but management for the US division was just reshuffled again recently, so it may never happen.

my 1.6 Opel Vectra gets almost 45 MPG while cruising at 100-110 MPH on the way home every week.
This is a diesel, yes? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but none of the (diesel) Vectras I've ever driven got anything close to that at those speeds. I always got low 40's in the 80-90 mph range.

[Germany_chris]

Nope it's gas..

I'll run the numbers again when I come back to work on Tuesday and see..

You may be right

**Edit**

I am American and I have lived in the States as recently as 2008..the Polo is a small car if you grew up driving big ones..My generation brought the sport compact scene into being...My list of cars before 18

64 MGB
71 Fiat Spider
78 Fiat x19
83 GTI
81 Porsche 924

[Nil Else]

In addition, our purchasing decisions are often based on options and conditions. If I live in Indiana, have open roads with abundant space for both parking and manauvering, and an SUV suits my needs, why go smaller? Sure, an SUV as an urban car might not make sense, but neither would a smart car in Northern Wisconson.


If you compare, for example, say semi trailer sizes of Europe and Asia to ours they are simply in different scale. Country folks in other countries drive trucks and SUV etc too but they are just much cuter and efficient and does pretty much the same job. We simply do things in much bigger scale and that pleases us. We are simply used to it and are resistant to change... however "the times they are changin~"... slowly but surely we are gettin more attracted to "cuteness"... like it or not.

[Polyglot]

Cool car. I wish they would make more modern rear-engined cars similar in concept to the original VW Bettle and Fiat 500. The Smart is OK but a little too small. I’d also prefer a compact Boxer twin installed like engines in Beetles and Porsches.

The Fiat 500C was front engine water cooled, not the later 500D with air-cooled rear engine. The other car in my photo is however a rear engined car.

[jh_on_the_cape]

I am living in Italy right now and drive a Fiat Punto. It's not all about the numbers. Drive one. HP numbers are peak power output at max revs.
The Cinquecento is light and drives well.

I hope they export the Alfa 159 wagons to the states.

[RPS]

If you compare, for example, say semi trailer sizes of Europe and Asia to ours they are simply in different scale. Country folks in other countries drive trucks and SUV etc too but they are just much cuter and efficient and does pretty much the same job. We simply do things in much bigger scale and that pleases us. We are simply used to it and are resistant to change... however "the times they are changin~"... slowly but surely we are gettin more attracted to "cuteness"... like it or not.
I think there are two separate issues here for the most part.

Generally there is efficiency in larger cargo vehicles when fully loaded. Larger trucks, airplanes, and ships are more labor and energy efficient compared to their smaller counterparts when used on long routes. Similarly, a minivan with 6 passengers is more fuel efficient than 3 Smart cars with 2 passengers each when traveling long distances. The same can be said for a tandem bike – requires less energy per rider to travel the same distance. Big is not necessarily bad if size is fully utilized.

The problem we have in the US is that we drive larger personal vehicles than is required. Driving a 4,000 to 6,000 pound vehicle to move a couple of 200-pound bodies is highly inefficient compared to what it could be. A Fiat 500 is definitely going in the right direction for two passengers, but even its “required” size is left up to our judgment. As I recall a few years ago an engineering study determined a workable high-tech 4-passenger car could be built in the 800 pound range if needed. By that standard the Fiat is inefficient.

[goonster]

As I recall a few years ago an engineering study determined a workable high-tech 4-passenger car could be built in the 800 pound range if needed.
Not one that will meet federal highway safety standards, I'll bet, and not without using something like a carbon fiber unibody.

The Lotus Elise weighs around 2000 lbs, and "adding lightness" is pretty much their corporate philosophy.

[daylate$short]

no camshaft
"Normally, engine valve opening and thus the amount of air let into the cylinder is controlled with direct action from the camshaft. With Multiair, the actual opening of the intake valves is controlled by using hydraulic fluid running through narrow passages controlled by a dual-action electronic solenoid."

Great, an electronic hydraulic solenoid to replace at 61k miles after the rubber band time belt fails. wonder where they'll locate it. someplace inaccessible i bet, inside the driveaxle, crankshaft, nothing short of an engine overhaul to replace. also the sensors will have to be replaced and located else where to make it more costly.

I should probably recuse myself, but....
Yes there is a camshaft. Driven by a proper chain, not a belt. Solenoids easily accessable right under the valve cover. Yes a couple extra solenoids, unfortunately, most fuel economy improvements now will require more complicated technology. It is a pretty tough little engine and I don't see any inherent reason that it should not be reliable. I would recommend following the oil change schedule however.

Most people don't know that Fiat Powertrain Technology actually invented the common rail diesel technology. At the time the company was having financial problems and sold it to Bosch who comercialized it and got most of the credit. I work directly with FPT and must say, they are some pretty sharp guys. I don't think they took the short bus to school - (maybe just a small car) :)

More info on MultiAir here (http://www.fptmultiair.com/flash_multiair_eng/home.htm) for the technically inclined.

[RPS]

I should probably recuse myself, but....
Yes there is a camshaft. Driven by a proper chain, not a belt. Solenoids easily accessable right under the valve cover. Yes a couple extra solenoids, unfortunately, most fuel economy improvements now will require more complicated technology. It is a pretty tough little engine and I don't see any inherent reason that it should not be reliable. I would recommend following the oil change schedule however.

Most people don't know that Fiat Powertrain Technology actually invented the common rail diesel technology. At the time the company was having financial problems and sold it to Bosch who comercialized it and got most of the credit. I work directly with FPT and must say, they are some pretty sharp guys. I don't think they took the short bus to school - (maybe just a small car) :)

More info on MultiAir here (http://www.fptmultiair.com/flash_multiair_eng/home.htm) for the technically inclined.
Thanks for the great information – I’m glad you didn’t recuse yourself. In my opinion this information is a great example of what I had hoped this thread would have evolved into -- our willingness to question things about products we like.

The claims associated with this new engine technology are indeed impressive; and I agree there is a lot of potential there particularly for partial-load applications. However, the issue for me remains why don’t the objective numbers support the claims?

The video and other information claim 10 percent improvements in power and reduction in fuel consumption, and 15 percent improvement in torque. Based on the numbers, I have to conclude that these “improvements” only apply to narrow and not the entire operating range, right? At peak power and torque the Fiat 500 engine ratings are less than many others from Ford and GM, including new V-6 and V-8 engines in Mustangs which are putting out about 80 HP per liter. If anything the Fiat numbers seem substandard by comparison, so can you explain what this improvement is relative to? Are they comparing against other manufacturers’ state of the art or against some old and obsolete Fiat engine they’ve discarded? Context is badly needed.

Also, why the emphasis on the ability to control “cylinder by cylinder”? Is this meant as one cylinder versus another as if they are different on the same engine, or in reference to time, as if from one stroke to another at a different time? But they covered stroke by stroke separately, so it suggests the former; which in all honesty seems more like marketing hype than significant engineering.

Like I said, I like the potential because it can help bridge the fuel-economy gap with hybrids in city driving, but many of the quantifiable results that can be measured don’t seem to support many of the claims. That part is a little disappointing.

[daylate$short]

Their percentage improvements in power, torque and fuel economy are compared with an equivalent engine without the MultiAir system. The 500 engine is pretty simple otherwise, no Direct injection or turbo on the base model. Also the 1.4L in the 500 is the 1st generation MultiAir engine, may not have all the features/modes shown in the FPT site. The newest engine is the .9l 2 cylinder TwinAir (http://green.autoblog.com/2010/07/09/fiat-debuts-two-cylinder-85-hp-twinair-engine-in-fiat-500/) which shows what the technology can do.

The Abarth (turbo) engine is rated at 135hp, and there is another version coming (not for the 500) supposedly rated at 170hp (1.4), that should be competitive. More Here (http://www.allpar.com/mopar/14.html). Don't know what the fuel econ on these will be but typically boosting power by turbo doesn't affect the EPA ratings much.

As for individual cylinder control, not a marketing gimmick, but used for more subtle things like torque control for shifts and integrated traction control(normally limited by misfire and temperature if you use spark retard to reduce torque) and obviously multi displacement running.

[Louis]

To any out there who may know:

When (if ever) will the Alfa Giulietta be available in the US? I can't wait forever.

TIA

[jlwdm]

Louis:

I just did a quick google and one story said 2014.

Jeff

[SEABREEZE]

Amen....


62% of americans are obese and I guess they need a larger
vehicles to keep them safe + warm...


Nope, they need some Italian redesigning, to make the lines and curves more appealing... or maybe a good road bike, and ride, ride, ride...

[SEABREEZE]

Originally Posted by Polyglot
I have driven a version of the newest 500, plus every single one of the previous versions. If you know how to drive a stick, 100 HP is more than sufficient given the size and weight of the car. My former personal Fiat 500C left the factory with 16.5 HP and after some massaging was up to 20 HP (larger valves, twin carbs with Abarth collector, acceleration cam, domed slightly larger pistons). You could not possible drive it without having a smile from cheek to cheek. Go to the toniest of restaurants and you will be allowed to park right in front.


Poly all you need now is some bling factor, say a set of 20'' wheels with low profile performance tires, and then you really have continental flair.

All kidding aside, beautiful ride, my man... I'm sure you get a lot of rubber neckers looking at it as you pass them...

[Louis]

I just did a quick google and one story said 2014.

Thanks Jeff. I looked around a bit, but didn't seem to find much.

2014 is too long for me. My '97 Integra is still a reliable car, but three more years may be asking a bit too much.

Louis

[RPS]

...snipped.....
The newest engine is the .9l 2 cylinder TwinAir (http://green.autoblog.com/2010/07/09/fiat-debuts-two-cylinder-85-hp-twinair-engine-in-fiat-500/) which shows what the technology can do.

For basic transportation that's more to my liking. And if it can get close to 57 MPG the better. Acceleration of 0-62 MPH in 11 seconds is plenty for normal driving, and a top speed of over 100 MPH is more than adequate for a small car. I’d take those kinds of numbers over a hybrid any day.

As before, we can't really know to what degree any of these numbers are due to the new technology versus the smaller engine. Power wise many other manufacturers are offering turbocharged engines with over 100 HP per liter. Same goes for torque. My gut tells me that most of the economy gain with this .9L twin is due to smaller engine; however, I will keep an open mind until I see comparative data for similar vehicles.

[bshell]

I happen to be hugely influenced by beautiful shapes and design. The cool thing is that there are so many options one rarely has to forgo quality. You just have to be willing to pay for it. I choose to live with things that excite me AND perform. When it comes to forking over the dollars I remember some phrases I've come to live by. The simplest one is "Cry once".

[RPS]

I happen to be hugely influenced by beautiful shapes and design. The cool thing is that there are so many options one rarely has to forgo quality. You just have to be willing to pay for it. I choose to live with things that excite me AND perform. When it comes to forking over the dollars I remember some phrases I've come to live by. The simplest one is "Cry once".
Great point; and I agree with what you stated except that unless one has unlimited funds to spend, I view paying more for an item a form of compromise. Compromise doesn’t have to be limited to quality and/or performance in my opinion.

Assuming equal quality, performance, safety etc… (i.e. -- except for more beautiful shape and design) would you rather have an expensive car or one a little “plainer” and have enough left over for a motorcycle or jet ski (or other toy of your choice)? Or how about a beautiful high-end road bike versus one a little plainer and enough left over to buy a basic mountain bike that you may not be able to afford otherwise?

With unlimited funds all decisions are easy; but when having to “pay” incrementally for beauty then something else has to be sacrificed – directly or indirectly.




P.S. – I know cost doesn’t fall directly under the OP’s “functional” intent unless one includes the value of what has to be given up to pay for that beauty. ;)