Fiat? Thoughts?

[skygear]

I have a neighbor looking for another 300D! He has a bright RED one and had it restored recently. 5mph rd in front of my house and he hits some serious speed there just because he can.

In my area, theres a lot of people looking for them to convert into the bio fuel vehicles.

[ratfrink]

Yeah they run on biodiesel with no modifications (except, I think, some natural rubber seals used in the fuel system).

They also run on vegetable oil, just about. However, if you want to do a proper conversion, they need a heated vegetable fuel tank - because at normal operating temperatures, vegetable oil has too high a viscosity and it'll overload the injector pump, eventually. Some people have an auxiliary diesel fuel supply for cold starts, too. And you'll need a water filter too.

People running waste cooking oil without doing any conversion work beforehand is killing many old diesel vehicles.

[MediumD]

Originally Posted by ratfrink

Lol D, you accuse Townie of making a strawman argument, and then pick up on 'work van' in your next post.

You're missing the point. A car doesn't have to be a)fast or b)performance-oriented to be fun to drive. It helps, but it's not a prerequisite.

And you're missing my point. You're right, if you're having fun driving something, anything can be fun to drive. But it would be more fun to drive if it were capable of being faster. Unless you're class/bracket racing, the faster car and driver wins, right?

Your work van fun has nothing to do with a straw man argument, btw, unless you're interpreting something I'm not seeing.

Originally Posted by Township Rebellion

I'm determined to at least make you understand the concept of driving fast in a "slow" car.

I will agree that there are definitely more exhilerating cars than a Fiat 500 for fast driving. I again will point out, the 500 and most cars like it in general do not appeal to me. I will "defend them", however, for the simple means of educating your ass. Fiat actually builds a fast version. Have you completely forgotten about the concept of hot hatches again???

I'm not saying a damn thing about the concept of driving fast in a slow car. I'm saying this Fiat 500 sport is a slow car, and as such, would be less fun to drive than a faster car. Take a 500 Abarth, for example, I'd bet that would be more fun to drive, because it's faster. I didn't forget that they make the Abarth version, in fact I mentioned it earlier, but apparently you forgot that this Fiat 500 sport is NOT one of them and is a hatch but is nowhere near "hot."

[Township Rebellion]

Originally Posted by MediumD

And you're missing my point. You're right, if you're having fun driving something, anything can be fun to drive. But it would be more fun to drive if it were capable of being faster. Unless you're class/bracket racing, the faster car and driver wins, right?

Your work van fun has nothing to do with a straw man argument, btw, unless you're interpreting something I'm not seeing.

I'm not saying a damn thing about the concept of driving fast in a slow car. I'm saying this Fiat 500 sport is a slow car, and as such, would be less fun to drive than a faster car. Take a 500 Abarth, for example, I'd bet that would be more fun to drive, because it's faster. I didn't forget that they make the Abarth version, in fact I mentioned it earlier, but apparently you forgot that this Fiat 500 sport is NOT one of them and is a hatch but is nowhere near "hot."

Well I couldn't tell you if the 500 Sport is any fun at all, it being slow and all. But as it happens there are lots of low powered cars with similar weight and size that are quite fun. So perhaps the OP's sister will find it fun, especially if she's not a huge car nut like some people.

While you're sort of right that some cars are more fun than others, this point is still somewhat subjective. Why, hell, there are some "slow" cars I consider to be more fun, partially because they're slow; due to the reasons of them working better on the roads I describe.

[ratfrink]

Originally Posted by MediumD

And you're missing my point. You're right, if you're having fun driving something, anything can be fun to drive. But it would be more fun to drive if it were capable of being faster. Unless you're class/bracket racing, the faster car and driver wins, right?

No no no no NO!

You said "But nothing that is THAT slow to accelerate is going to be especially exciting to drive". This is why I said you're missing the point - my work van/the Fiat would not be more fun to drive if it were faster! Having a more powerful engine would not make it more fun to drive at all - there's no challenge in making a fast car go fast, and on the right roads your speed is limited by your chassis, not your engine!

[MediumD]

Originally Posted by ratfrink

This is why I said you're missing the point - my work van/the Fiat would not be more fun to drive if it were faster! Having a more powerful engine would not make it more fun to drive at all - there's no challenge in making a fast car go fast, and on the right roads your speed is limited by your chassis, not your engine!

Uh huh. Wouldn't make it more fun to drive at all. So I suppose every road you have over there is the equivalent of a parking lot autocross. No straight parts of the road, no big sweeping curves. I guess Fiat is wasting quite a bit of effort bothering to stick a turbo engine in the Abarth over there.

[ratfrink]

They would be wasting quite a bit of effort if they were using the standard chassis. But since they've uprated the suspension and brakes, then they can afford to put a more powerful engine in there. Jesus, D, why don't you understand this?

And yes, most of our country roads are like that. Even more so in mountainous Italy.

[MediumD]

I double clicked your country about a dozen times, ended up at 53.141519,-2.282066. 140hp is gonna be more fun to drive than 100hp on any road on your map. BTW, ever consider driving uphill with a severely underpowered car like a Fiat 500 Sport? It doesn't do you much good to have the perfect chassis and suspension setup to take a particular curve at 40mph if you can't fucking get the car to 40mph in time to do it.

Your suspension and brakes upgrade point is null as a response to what I posted. I said "stick a turbo engine in the Abarth." IE, everything else the SAME, except for the higher HP turbo engine.

And you're saying you could buy an Abarth version from a dealership showroom and drive it hard for a month. Then you could set it on jackstands, swap N/A manifolds and PCM on it, bin the turbo, and have the exact same amount of fun driving it every time you drive it.

And I supposedly don't "get it." If your idea of fun is driving the Flintstones car with 15" carbon ceramic brakes and a 42 link dodeca-wishbone suspension, I guess that will do it for discussing this topic.

[ratfrink]

No, bro. The Abarth clearly has a good enough chassis to handle the extra power; that is, it is underpowered. I'm absolutely not saying that the Abarth Turbo would be less fun/just as much fun as a standard Abarth - because the chassis can take it! I really am repeating myself here.

The standard 500 chassis can't handle the same power as the Abarth; all you'd do is fade the brakes out. You can't say the standard 500 is underpowered when the chassis is out-performed by the engine! It's under-chassied, not underpowered!

There are very few roads so steep that you can't accelerate up them. With 100-odd horsepower and 900kg weight, a standard Fiat will out-accelerate its own chassis quite easily, if you get what I mean. You're forgetting that I have actually driven on the roads that I'm talking about.

My basic point is this: a car whose speed is limited by its chassis, not by its engine, will not be more fun to drive if given more power without uprating the chassis. If a car has to slam on the brakes to take a corner, what's the point in adding a larger engine?

Furthermore, you can't judge how fun a car is simply by horsepower and lateral-G tests. Fun isn't objective in that sense, although it is generally a good indicator. You're forgetting that, generally, the preferred European hot hatches are actually the ones with smaller, lighter engines, favoured because of better handling. For example - enthusiasts famously prefer the 1.6l Peugeot 205 GTi over the 1.8l version, because firstly the brakes can't handle the extra power, and secondly because the extra weight affects the handling. The same thing goes for the Alfa Romeo 156, Golf GTi, Suzuki Swift, Fiesta XR2, Fiat Uno Turbo... the list goes on.

[MediumD]

Originally Posted by ratfrink

For example - enthusiasts famously prefer the 1.6l Peugeot 205 GTi over the 1.8l version, because firstly the brakes can't handle the extra power, and secondly because the extra weight affects the handling. The same thing goes for the Alfa Romeo 156, Golf GTi, Suzuki Swift, Fiesta XR2, Fiat Uno Turbo... the list goes on.

Except that EFI gasoline engines have what's called a throttle body. If anything can't handle the extra power of the 1.8, it's not the brakes, it's the brain that controls the accelerator pedal and brake pedal. If you're hard on the brakes and the throttle at the same time, it's not the engine's fault and it's not the brakes fault.

A 1.8L engine is not inherently heavier than a 1.6. (Please keep in mind that I'm not specifically talking about this Peugeot.) In fact, if the 1.8 is simply a larger bore with the same block, the 1.8 will have less cylinder wall weighing it down. If it's a longer stroke, yeah, you might add a couple dozen grams to the crank.

I'm not talking weight. I'm not talking chassis/unibody. I'm not talking suspension. I'm talking power, and assuming all other factors are the same. Which is why I came up with the example of a 500 Abarth with a much less powerful engine swapped in; to take everything but engine output out of the equation. And you're either saying that other factors than power are an issue, despite my asking to ignore other issues to focus on a single point, or you're actually arguing that a lack of acceleration is fun and beneficial to an enthusiast's driving experience.

If you're the standard Euro (or Japanese for that matter) elitist looking down on a rather well-rounded enthusiast from somewhere that had roads built to be roads instead of 500 year old cow paths, then please continue talking about everything but power...

Originally Posted by ratfrink

There are very few roads so steep that you can't accelerate up them. With 100-odd horsepower and 900kg weight, a standard Fiat will out-accelerate its own chassis quite easily, if you get what I mean. You're forgetting that I have actually driven on the roads that I'm talking about.

Side note, I drive a car that would out accelerate the 500 Sport (and it's by FAR my least fun car to drive.) And I encounter hills daily that I can barely maintain speed by dropping 2 gears and putting my engine over 4000rpm, between peak torque and peak HP. Britain must not have any hills, so now I have a good counter when people say that every road where I live is essentially the Bonneville salt flats.

[ratfrink]

Originally Posted by MediumD

Which is why I came up with the example of a 500 Abarth with a much less powerful engine swapped in; to take everything but engine output out of the equation.

I'm repeating myself:

Originally Posted by ratfrink

I'm absolutely not saying that the Abarth Turbo would be less fun/just as much fun as a standard Abarth - because the chassis can take it! I really am repeating myself here.

I know you're ignoring all factors other than engine power - but unless you're drag racing, there's a load of other factors that play just as important a part in the overall experience of driving. What's the point in ignoring all the other factors? Do you think a Model-T with a 600bhp LS1 would be more fun to drive than a standard Miata?

All I'm saying is:

Originally Posted by ratfrink

My basic point is this: a car whose speed is limited by its chassis, not by its engine, will not be more fun to drive if given more power without uprating the chassis. If a car has to slam on the brakes to take a corner, what's the point in adding a larger engine?

There is no point in adding more power to a standard 500 without uprating the chassis. It wouldn't be more fun to drive; it would be uncontrollable.

[ratfrink]

Originally Posted by MediumD

Except that EFI gasoline engines have what's called a throttle body. If anything can't handle the extra power of the 1.8, it's not the brakes, it's the brain that controls the accelerator pedal and brake pedal. If you're hard on the brakes and the throttle at the same time, it's not the engine's fault and it's not the brakes fault.

Wrong end of the stick, bro. You may not know this, but sometimes you need to brake before taking a corner. If there's a set of corners that can only be taken at 25mph, and you need to brake from 50mph at each corner, you're going to overheat the brakes very quickly, so you end up going slower in the first place. Adding a bigger engine won't make you go faster, nor will it be more fun.

Originally Posted by MediumD

A 1.8L engine is not inherently heavier than a 1.6. (Please keep in mind that I'm not specifically talking about this Peugeot.) In fact, if the 1.8 is simply a larger bore with the same block, the 1.8 will have less cylinder wall weighing it down. If it's a longer stroke, yeah, you might add a couple dozen grams to the crank.

Not inherently, no, but I'm not talking about theoretical engines, I'm talking about real cars. These hatchbacks were initially designed for 1.0-1.4 litre engines which can't be stroked or bored further. The 1.8 Pug engine was out of their saloon cars; the same is true of V6 Golfs and the V6 Alfa. The big engined XR2 used the heavy Pinto engine out of the Ford Sierra, not the svelte Kent engine.

Originally Posted by MediumD

Side note, I drive a car that would out accelerate the 500 Sport (and it's by FAR my least fun car to drive.) And I encounter hills daily that I can barely maintain speed by dropping 2 gears and putting my engine over 4000rpm, between peak torque and peak HP. Britain must not have any hills, so now I have a good counter when people say that every road where I live is essentially the Bonneville salt flats.

And how heavy is that vehicle? My Merc accelerates fine (well, it's slow, but it does only have 65hp) on the flat, but due to its enormous bulk it struggles up steep hills - but I can still take the 15% hill on my commute at 40mph. I think a car that weighs half as much with almost twice the horsepower would be fine. Anyway, I don't think I've ever seen a long, straight, steep hill - most steep hills in Europe are either very short or very twisty, or both.

[skygear]

You guys hear there are offering an espresso machine in the center console of the "L" model? Similar setup to a Kuereg coffee machine with the cartridges.

[ratfrink]

This does not help my argument

[skygear]

lol. sorry, i just heard it offered on the radio. its only on the luxury model

[MediumD]

Originally Posted by ratfrink

Wrong end of the stick, bro. You may not know this, but sometimes you need to brake before taking a corner. If there's a set of corners that can only be taken at 25mph, and you need to brake from 50mph at each corner, you're going to overheat the brakes very quickly, so you end up going slower in the first place. Adding a bigger engine won't make you go faster, nor will it be more fun.

Three quick points.

Not every part of a road is a corner, even in a parking lot autocross.

You may not know this, but cars have an accelerator pedal, bro. This means that is there's a set of 25mph corners, don't try going into them WOT constantly. If you overheat your brakes, it can't be blamed on having more power, it can only be blamed on the driver.

More power = more challenging. More power ≠ OMG uncontrollable. Damn near anything is controllable in the right hands.

[ratfrink]

It's less challenging because you can balls up in the corners but still keep up on the straights. Like Townie said, in a hot hatch, the fun comes from keeping the little engine on the boil, not from taking the corners slowly and flooring it on the short straights. If the 500 Sport would be 'more fun' with more power but no chassis mods, why have Fiat uprated the chassis for the Abarth?

[MediumD]

...and if the Abarth would be 'more fun' with less power, why did Fiat bother uprating the engine?

I think I can say that we both agree that suspension, chassis stiffness, braking, etc are important factors in whether a car is either fun or fast. You refuse to say the same about engine power, I guess that'll do it for the discussion.

/thread

[Akagi]

Originally Posted by Zok Jr.

Unless she is fat and nasty, there is no way in hell that is true. That simply does not happen unless you are in some Islamic country or something.

It's rare, but not unheard of.

Especially amongst fundamentalist Christians/Jews.

[ratfrink]

Originally Posted by MediumD

...and if the Abarth would be 'more fun' with less power, why did Fiat bother uprating the engine?

I've never said that a car would be more/equal fun with less power. I've said that four or five times now; you're trolling.

Originally Posted by MediumD

I think I can say that we both agree that suspension, chassis stiffness, braking, etc are important factors in whether a car is either fun or fast. You refuse to say the same about engine power, I guess that'll do it for the discussion.

/thread

I don't know how you can go from "ignoring all other factors other than power" to "suspension, chassis, braking etc are important factors" in two posts.

My basic point remains unchanged: a car whose speed is limited by its chassis, not by its engine, will not be more fun to drive if given more power without uprating the chassis. On the kind of roads the 500 was designed for, your speed is limited by your chassis, not your engine.

[Malice]

KOTH: Fix It Again, Tony - YouTube

KOTH: Fix It Again, Tony - YouTube
Video: click to display

[MediumD]

Originally Posted by ratfrink

I don't know how you can go from "ignoring all other factors other than power" to "suspension, chassis, braking etc are important factors" in two posts.

Ignoring other factors means that I wasn't fucking arguing against you regarding those factors. The second part you quoted there is why: we agree on the factors that are NOT engine output (possibly excepting driving skill...)

Originally Posted by ratfrink

a car whose speed is limited by its chassis, not by its engine, will not be more fun to drive if given more power without uprating the chassis. On the kind of roads the 500 was designed for, your speed is limited by your chassis, not your engine.

Ok, and mine is that not all roads are the roads you say the "500 was designed for." Because the 500 is a commercial product and was actually designed for pretty much every paved road there is, and will be used as such. Almost every road in every place will have at least a few places that are NOT "chassis limited." My secondary point is that driving skill is a factor that drastically affects what "chassis limited" means.

You argue against more power, yet say that you're not arguing for less. There is no chance that Fiat magically picked the precise power level that will make the car the most fun for most drivers on most roads, this is simply nonsensical. I can't comprehend it, much less try to legitimately contest it.

[ratfrink]

Not all roads are twisty country lanes or incredibly narrow city streets, but a European city car will be on these roads for the vast majority of the time. You can stick a bigger engine in if you want, but then you end up with a worst-of-both-worlds vehicle; you have the added expense, complication and weight (detrimental to handling, remember) of the more powerful engine, but 90% of the time it's no faster/more fun than a stock 500; a bigger engine doesn't help you go round corners faster - and it may even slow you down. The remaining 10% of the time you're rolling in 70mph motorway traffic regardless of which engine is fitted (you may notice a fraction of a second's improvement when overtaking a lorry, but if that's your idea of fun, I think this debate is over). Since you understand that many factors affect a car's speed, then surely you understand that with limited resourced, you'd be better off uprating the chassis than uprating the engine? For the same outlay, the car will be faster for 90% of the time.

Your recent consternation that 'handling is limited by the ability of the driver' is weak; if driving an uprated chassis, a crummy driver will notice just as much improvement as a good driver; perhaps moreso (law of diminishing returns, and all that). Hence why everybody's grandma can drive twisty a-roads at 50mph in a modern hatchback, whereas I have to wrestle with my ancient work van to keep up with them.

"There is no chance that Fiat magically picked the precise power level that will make the car the most fun for most drivers on most roads, this is simply nonsensical."
No, that is exactly what Fiat did, and what all car manufacturers do. They didn't use magic, they weighed up the advantages and disadvantages of available engines/engine variations and selected the one that best fits the prevalent roads/drivers/other practicalities of the design. I'm not saying that the engine is perfect to the exact horsepower, but probably within 10 or 20 horsepower.

[MediumD]

You know as well as anyone that a more powerful engine does not necessarily have to weigh more, be more complicated, or be more expensive.

And you know as well as anyone that every driver will eventually encounter straights and hills where more than 100hp would benefit the Fiat 500. You also know that a driver doesn't have to use the extra power where it wouldn't be warranted.

Very few manufacturers pick the MOST FUN power level in very few cars. Which is what the discussion is about. Not about what's cheapest to design or integrate and manufacture, not about emissions standards, not about fuel economy, not about warranty coverage, etc. And 100hp isn't the magic fun number for a Fiat 500.

Your OMGuncontrollableBBQ fallacy is wholly erroneous and is, as such, irrelevant. My driver skill "consternation" was posited merely to counter that perturbation of the discussion.

[ratfrink]

More powerful engines don't necessarily weigh more or cost more, nor do they necessarily use more fuel etc. But in a real-world situation, they almost always do. Hence why hot-hatch enthusiasts almost always prefer the small-engined versions of their cars.

Fiat certainly did factor in 'fun' when designing the 500; it's designed to be a fun car. It's not bloody magic! If it wasn't supposed to be fun, they wouldn't have made the Sport or Abarth versions at all. There's no point in saying 'well, more power would be better in this magical bubble world where fuel economy doesn't exist and people take their 500s to the drag strip...' because we're talking about a real car.

Once again, we're talking about a real, actual car with limited resources in terms of design, construction, running costs etc - if, 90% of the time, the car is used on city streets and very twisty lanes, why would you upgrade the engine and not the chassis? Like you say, you wouldn't use the extra power when it's unwarranted, so why would you spend any resources on it? 90% of the time you'll have a big, unusable white elephant of an engine, but you'll still be on the verge of overheating your brakes and grabbing your door handles to stop you falling out of the seat on tight corners. How is that not uncontrollable? How is that more fun?

If you honestly think that 'damn near anything is controllable' then you clearly haven't driven a twisty road at any speed. Having Nicki Lauda at the wheel isn't going to cool the brakes any faster, or magically make a bucket seat appear.