The General Car Thread - The Facelift.

[Petrolheadia]

I just realized something is Peugeot owned by Fiat or vice versa? Because I randomly checked online and the Peugeot Bipper and the Fiat Fiorino looks exactly the same.

(Image)

(Image)

Sevel joint venture. They also produced midsize (Expert/Jumpy/Scudo) and fullsize (Boxer/Jumper/Ducato) vans, as well as midsize minivans (806/807/Evasion/C8/Ulysse/Zeta/Phedra).

[Petrolheadia]

Repost because of bottompaging:

The modern Fiat 500 is in Europe what the original Ford Mustang was in the US.

I saw a 500 driving down a street the other day, and I was hit with this idea. I knew there must be some reasons for that, so I started thinking and came to see a few parallels:

- Upmarket version of a practical economy car. Just like the Mustang was a descendant of the Falcon, the 500 took the humble Panda's chassis and sold it under bodywork that did not have such low-end associations.

- High and not necessarily expected popularity - Both of the cars were big sales success in their markets, going high up in the sales charts and having a great positive financial impact on their manufacturers.

- Image of a car for women and young people - Few people remember it, but the Stang was sold as exactly that. While the 500's reputation comes less from ads and more from traditional perceptions of small cars, it is a fact that it is very similar.

- Mediocre performance as stock, but an ability to be much faster - The ordinary 500 and the ordinary Mustang were both non-performers, having engines from garden-variety economy cars. However, the Shelbies and Abarths soon came onto the scene, making the machines much faster and getting quite wild at the top end.

- Creating a new segment - The Mustang gave rise to the pony car, a compact with increased sports and luxury appeal. While the A-premium segment, largely started by the 500, did not get as big, Opel got into it with the Adam, Renault and Smart attempted it with the Twingo and Forfour, and Mini and Citroen were both considering getting into it.

- Spawning higher-end counterparts - Mustang owners with higher aspirations could buy a Mercury Cougar, an upmarket version of the Stang's chassis. Fiat 500 owners have the same opportunity, provided by the 500L and 500X.

- Having a controversial replacement - Both cars get on with the changing times by undergoing radical changes. The Mustang II got a lot smaller and less powerful, while the next Fiat 500 is going to be all-electric.

Do you agree with me on that?

[Militant Costco]

Repost because of bottompaging:

The modern Fiat 500 is in Europe what the original Ford Mustang was in the US.

I saw a 500 driving down a street the other day, and I was hit with this idea. I knew there must be some reasons for that, so I started thinking and came to see a few parallels:

- Upmarket version of a practical economy car. Just like the Mustang was a descendant of the Falcon, the 500 took the humble Panda's chassis and sold it under bodywork that did not have such low-end associations.

- High and not necessarily expected popularity - Both of the cars were big sales success in their markets, going high up in the sales charts and having a great positive financial impact on their manufacturers.

- Image of a car for women and young people - Few people remember it, but the Stang was sold as exactly that. While the 500's reputation comes less from ads and more from traditional perceptions of small cars, it is a fact that it is very similar.

- Mediocre performance as stock, but an ability to be much faster - The ordinary 500 and the ordinary Mustang were both non-performers, having engines from garden-variety economy cars. However, the Shelbies and Abarths soon came onto the scene, making the machines much faster and getting quite wild at the top end.

- Creating a new segment - The Mustang gave rise to the pony car, a compact with increased sports and luxury appeal. While the A-premium segment, largely started by the 500, did not get as big, Opel got into it with the Adam, Renault and Smart attempted it with the Twingo and Forfour, and Mini and Citroen were both considering getting into it.

- Spawning higher-end counterparts - Mustang owners with higher aspirations could buy a Mercury Cougar, an upmarket version of the Stang's chassis. Fiat 500 owners have the same opportunity, provided by the 500L and 500X.

- Having a controversial replacement - Both cars get on with the changing times by undergoing radical changes. The Mustang II got a lot smaller and less powerful, while the next Fiat 500 is going to be all-electric.

Do you agree with me on that?

It's a lot to agree.

As an American, the concept of the 500 just never made sense to me, unlike the Mustang.

We take a car manufacturer who can't make reliable cars if a gun was pointed at them, then tell them to make a small, underpowered, impractical, expensive car???

You basically end up with a car that has the cons of all its sums, but the pros of none. It's not practical like a compact car should be cause its unreliable and expensive, its not a good "average" car cause its too small and has no rewarding features and its not a good "fun car" cause its underpowered.

It's almost like a Mini gone wrong basically. Cause the Mini is literally everything I said above, but it was at least a fun car to drive and somewhat large enough to be practical.

Compare this to the Mustang, and it's basically the opposite. A (decently) reliable manufacturer making a decently powered, large, cheap and fun automobile. Whereas the 500 couldn't do anything right, the Mustang could do everything "ok-ish", which is why I think one is a success and the other is a joke.

Although of course, this is from an American POV. I know in Europe cars like the Fiat 500 are a lot more popular, especially compared to the Mustang.

[Petrolheadia]

Repost because of bottompaging:

It's a lot to agree.

As an American, the concept of the 500 just never made sense to me, unlike the Mustang.

We take a car manufacturer who can't make reliable cars if a gun was pointed at them, then tell them to make a small, underpowered, impractical, expensive car???

You basically end up with a car that has the cons of all its sums, but the pros of none. It's not practical like a compact car should be cause its unreliable and expensive, its not a good "average" car cause its too small and has no rewarding features and its not a good "fun car" cause its underpowered.

It's almost like a Mini gone wrong basically. Cause the Mini is literally everything I said above, but it was at least a fun car to drive and somewhat large enough to be practical.

Compare this to the Mustang, and it's basically the opposite. A (decently) reliable manufacturer making a decently powered, large, cheap and fun automobile. Whereas the 500 couldn't do anything right, the Mustang could do everything "ok-ish", which is why I think one is a success and the other is a joke.

Although of course, this is from an American POV. I know in Europe cars like the Fiat 500 are a lot more popular, especially compared to the Mustang.

The OG Mustang was neither powerful nor large by 1964 US standards, and it wasn't cheap for a compact. It wasn't also that much more fun than a Falcon.

[Novus America]

It's a lot to agree.

As an American, the concept of the 500 just never made sense to me, unlike the Mustang.

We take a car manufacturer who can't make reliable cars if a gun was pointed at them, then tell them to make a small, underpowered, impractical, expensive car???

You basically end up with a car that has the cons of all its sums, but the pros of none. It's not practical like a compact car should be cause its unreliable and expensive, its not a good "average" car cause its too small and has no rewarding features and its not a good "fun car" cause its underpowered.

It's almost like a Mini gone wrong basically. Cause the Mini is literally everything I said above, but it was at least a fun car to drive and somewhat large enough to be practical.

Compare this to the Mustang, and it's basically the opposite. A (decently) reliable manufacturer making a decently powered, large, cheap and fun automobile. Whereas the 500 couldn't do anything right, the Mustang could do everything "ok-ish", which is why I think one is a success and the other is a joke.

Although of course, this is from an American POV. I know in Europe cars like the Fiat 500 are a lot more popular, especially compared to the Mustang.

The OG Mustang was neither powerful nor large by 1964 US standards, and it wasn't cheap for a compact. It wasn't also that much more fun than a Falcon.

It had better performance than most standard cars of its day.

Regardless the Fiat 500 might work for Europe but it is completely unsuited for the US market.

[Petrolheadia]

The OG Mustang was neither powerful nor large by 1964 US standards, and it wasn't cheap for a compact. It wasn't also that much more fun than a Falcon.

It had better performance than most standard cars of its day.

Theoretically on par with Low-Priced Three fullsizes. Slower on average in practice, because most fullsizes were bought with V8s and most Mustangs were bought with I6s.

[Militant Costco]

It's a lot to agree.

As an American, the concept of the 500 just never made sense to me, unlike the Mustang.

We take a car manufacturer who can't make reliable cars if a gun was pointed at them, then tell them to make a small, underpowered, impractical, expensive car???

You basically end up with a car that has the cons of all its sums, but the pros of none. It's not practical like a compact car should be cause its unreliable and expensive, its not a good "average" car cause its too small and has no rewarding features and its not a good "fun car" cause its underpowered.

It's almost like a Mini gone wrong basically. Cause the Mini is literally everything I said above, but it was at least a fun car to drive and somewhat large enough to be practical.

Compare this to the Mustang, and it's basically the opposite. A (decently) reliable manufacturer making a decently powered, large, cheap and fun automobile. Whereas the 500 couldn't do anything right, the Mustang could do everything "ok-ish", which is why I think one is a success and the other is a joke.

Although of course, this is from an American POV. I know in Europe cars like the Fiat 500 are a lot more popular, especially compared to the Mustang.

The OG Mustang was neither powerful nor large by 1964 US standards, and it wasn't cheap for a compact. It wasn't also that much more fun than a Falcon.

The Mustang could at least move with pleasurable place unlike the 500 which is borderline dangerously slow in some situations. And the Mustang never was meant to compete with compacts, that was the Falcon's job. The Mustang was to be a performance car that young people could afford, which it did admirably. And it was definitely more fun than the Falcon.

The sales number speaks for itself, the Mustang crushed the Falcon's sales number. Cause it could do pretty much everything a Falcon did, but also some extra's. The Fiat 500 was and is a city car, that's it.

Again, this is from an American POV.

[Auzkhia]

After 2020: the Dodge Grand Caravan will be discontinued and the new Chrysler Voyager will be its replacement as a cheap alternative to the Pacifica, which will focus more on luxury as its higher trims sell better.

For those who care about minivans, at least lol.

[Nolo gap]

the general's car runs on narrow gauge rails and is powered by stored and clean energy.
that is the car of the future if we want there to be a future.
it is of generally mini-van proportions and capable of multiple unit operation.

non-rail vehicles do not require extended range except in truly remote areas,
where of necessity they must be designed with enhanced ground clearance,
and double as earth moving and road building machines for ariculture and small scale forestry and mining industries.

the future of the car as we know it, will terminate when the full impact of the eco-pocalyps it has been instrumental in precipitating has become manifest.

[The Two Jerseys]

After 2020: the Dodge Grand Caravan will be discontinued and the new Chrysler Voyager will be its replacement as a cheap alternative to the Pacifica, which will focus more on luxury as its higher trims sell better.

For those who care about minivans, at least lol.

I think Chrysler forgot how brand architecture works...

[Auzkhia]

After 2020: the Dodge Grand Caravan will be discontinued and the new Chrysler Voyager will be its replacement as a cheap alternative to the Pacifica, which will focus more on luxury as its higher trims sell better.

For those who care about minivans, at least lol.

I think Chrysler forgot how brand architecture works...

It's changed since Fiat got into the mix, since they're more mingling than Mercedes ever was.

Dodge is muscle cars, Jeep is SUVs and 4x4, Chrysler is still kinda cheap luxury cars, Fiat is the economy brand, Alfa and Maserati are the sport luxury brands, and Ram is truck and vans.

[Novus America]

I think Chrysler forgot how brand architecture works...

It's changed since Fiat got into the mix, since they're more mingling than Mercedes ever was.

Dodge is muscle cars, Jeep is SUVs and 4x4, Chrysler is still kinda cheap luxury cars, Fiat is the economy brand, Alfa and Maserati are the sport luxury brands, and Ram is truck and vans.

The problem is FIAT is basically dead in the US.

FIAT is therefore completely unsuitable fit the role of being the US economy brand.
FCA just needs to admit, FIAT is not working in the US.

[Auzkhia]

It's changed since Fiat got into the mix, since they're more mingling than Mercedes ever was.

Dodge is muscle cars, Jeep is SUVs and 4x4, Chrysler is still kinda cheap luxury cars, Fiat is the economy brand, Alfa and Maserati are the sport luxury brands, and Ram is truck and vans.

The problem is FIAT is basically dead in the US.

FIAT is therefore completely unsuitable fit the role of being the US economy brand.
FCA just needs to admit, FIAT is not working in the US.

It's a shame really, but most people going to their dealers want a Joop, truggghh, some sort of retail muscle, or a minivan, in that order.

[Bread Herbert]

I want a Yugo. Those were the best cars.

[Auzkhia]

I want a Yugo. Those were the best cars.

Best at being super cheap, it's kinda a meme car, and you do get people saying "Is that a YUGO?!" when you drive along.

[Bread Herbert]

I want a Yugo. Those were the best cars.

Best at being super cheap, it's kinda a meme car, and you do get people saying "Is that a YUGO?!" when you drive along.

That's what it is

[Cannot think of a name]

I want a Yugo. Those were the best cars.

Best at being super cheap, it's kinda a meme car, and you do get people saying "Is that a YUGO?!" when you drive along.

The word "meme" has become the smurf of the internet.

[Novus America]

The problem is FIAT is basically dead in the US.

FIAT is therefore completely unsuitable fit the role of being the US economy brand.
FCA just needs to admit, FIAT is not working in the US.

It's a shame really, but most people going to their dealers want a Joop, truggghh, some sort of retail muscle, or a minivan, in that order.

Well more than that FIATs are simply not great cars and do not have the brand name.
You can overcome the lack of brand recognition by offering really exceptional product but FIAT does not do that.
Even if you want a small underpowered vehicle there are better options out there.

And that is what sells these days. People want big vehicles with some ummph.
Even in the economy market. Which is generally the way the American market has been for a very long time.

You have to offer a product that meets the market.

Also the FIAT 500 relies on nostalgia in its looks. But nostalgia for late 50s/early 60s Europe.
Although nostalgia for that time exists in the US, people at that time in the US drove completely different cars. FIAT’s look does not translate.

[Petrolheadia]

It's a shame really, but most people going to their dealers want a Joop, truggghh, some sort of retail muscle, or a minivan, in that order.

Well more than that FIATs are simply not great cars and do not have the brand name.
You can overcome the lack of brand recognition by offering really exceptional product but FIAT does not do that.
Even if you want a small underpowered vehicle there are better options out there.

And that is what sells these days. People want big vehicles with some ummph.
Even in the economy market. Which is generally the way the American market has been for a very long time.

You have to offer a product that meets the market.

Also the FIAT 500 relies on nostalgia in its looks. But nostalgia for late 50s/early 60s Europe.
Although nostalgia for that time exists in the US, people at that time in the US drove completely different cars. FIAT’s look does not translate.

I think you overestimate the nostalgia value. Most 500 buyers wouldn't recognize the old one if it hit them.

The problem is FIAT is basically dead in the US.

FIAT is therefore completely unsuitable fit the role of being the US economy brand.
FCA just needs to admit, FIAT is not working in the US.

It's a shame really, but most people going to their dealers want a Joop, truggghh, some sort of retail muscle, or a minivan, in that order.

What's wrong with those? The Charger is a great budget sports sedan, and the Ram is likely the best truck out there.

[Auzkhia]

Well more than that FIATs are simply not great cars and do not have the brand name.
You can overcome the lack of brand recognition by offering really exceptional product but FIAT does not do that.
Even if you want a small underpowered vehicle there are better options out there.

And that is what sells these days. People want big vehicles with some ummph.
Even in the economy market. Which is generally the way the American market has been for a very long time.

You have to offer a product that meets the market.

Also the FIAT 500 relies on nostalgia in its looks. But nostalgia for late 50s/early 60s Europe.
Although nostalgia for that time exists in the US, people at that time in the US drove completely different cars. FIAT’s look does not translate.

I think you overestimate the nostalgia value. Most 500 buyers wouldn't recognize the old one if it hit them.

It's a shame really, but most people going to their dealers want a Joop, truggghh, some sort of retail muscle, or a minivan, in that order.

What's wrong with those? The Charger is a great budget sports sedan, and the Ram is likely the best truck out there.

No problem there, it's just that what sells better, Chrysler and Dodge couldn't sell well in the small and medium car segments, but the Charger and 300 are good value. Truth be told, if I had one, I'd want an R/T at least, since it has the V8, and V8 big sedans are hard to find, unless you get high end luxury like Mercedes or Audi or BMW.

The Ram pickup outsells the Silverado and Sierra, still doesn't beat the F150, I can see why, Chevy's redesigned truck is quite ugly.

[Elwher]

If I ever get too old for my sports cars:

https://jalopnik.com/the-most-interesting-car-toyota-makes-is-too-luxurious-1836026347

[Petrolheadia]

If I ever get too old for my sports cars:

https://jalopnik.com/the-most-interesting-car-toyota-makes-is-too-luxurious-1836026347

You have 180 grand laying around?

[Petrolheadia]

I think you overestimate the nostalgia value. Most 500 buyers wouldn't recognize the old one if it hit them.


What's wrong with those? The Charger is a great budget sports sedan, and the Ram is likely the best truck out there.

No problem there, it's just that what sells better, Chrysler and Dodge couldn't sell well in the small and medium car segments, but the Charger and 300 are good value. Truth be told, if I had one, I'd want an R/T at least, since it has the V8, and V8 big sedans are hard to find, unless you get high end luxury like Mercedes or Audi or BMW.

The Ram pickup outsells the Silverado and Sierra, still doesn't beat the F150, I can see why, Chevy's redesigned truck is quite ugly.

The truck guys actually like the new Chevy Silverado. A lot of the criticism of it by Jalopnik and their ilk can be summed up in Bob Dylan's words - "don't criticize what you can't understand"

The problem might actually be low-rent interiors.

Also, the V6 Charger is not a bad deal. Nearly 300 horsepower from a quite reliable engine, all for just shy of $30k (closer to $25k with incentives).

[Novus America]

No problem there, it's just that what sells better, Chrysler and Dodge couldn't sell well in the small and medium car segments, but the Charger and 300 are good value. Truth be told, if I had one, I'd want an R/T at least, since it has the V8, and V8 big sedans are hard to find, unless you get high end luxury like Mercedes or Audi or BMW.

The Ram pickup outsells the Silverado and Sierra, still doesn't beat the F150, I can see why, Chevy's redesigned truck is quite ugly.

The truck guys actually like the new Chevy Silverado. A lot of the criticism of it by Jalopnik and their ilk can be summed up in Bob Dylan's words - "don't criticize what you can't understand"

The problem might actually be low-rent interiors.

Also, the V6 Charger is not a bad deal. Nearly 300 horsepower from a quite reliable engine, all for just shy of $30k (closer to $25k with incentives).

Yes, the design is based on early 60s Chevy trucks which had a similar look.
And yes it is aggressive looking.
But most Silverado drivers do not necessarily want a cute or understated vehicle.

For those not understanding the history of Chevy trucks and the clientele they appeal to it is like you said more a matter of not understanding what they are going for and thus a misplaced criticism.

[Auzkhia]

No problem there, it's just that what sells better, Chrysler and Dodge couldn't sell well in the small and medium car segments, but the Charger and 300 are good value. Truth be told, if I had one, I'd want an R/T at least, since it has the V8, and V8 big sedans are hard to find, unless you get high end luxury like Mercedes or Audi or BMW.

The Ram pickup outsells the Silverado and Sierra, still doesn't beat the F150, I can see why, Chevy's redesigned truck is quite ugly.

The truck guys actually like the new Chevy Silverado. A lot of the criticism of it by Jalopnik and their ilk can be summed up in Bob Dylan's words - "don't criticize what you can't understand"

The problem might actually be low-rent interiors.

Also, the V6 Charger is not a bad deal. Nearly 300 horsepower from a quite reliable engine, all for just shy of $30k (closer to $25k with incentives).

Interiors have always been an issue for GM.

---

Is Nissan OK?