Fiat Coupe 2018

[Yardjass]

Originally Posted by guybo

It's nice that there's some anecdotal evidence from one person, but I'm not talking about past as in far back. Read up on the new Fiat 500 once it landed on US shores this time around. It has been the LEAST reliable vehicle by the stats from companies that track this sort of thing. I'm not going to do the work for you since it takes nothing to do a 5 min google search. That's not anecdotal evidence, it's numbers from many sources that you'll find. That's not even to mention the failed safety IIHS rating- FCG is an irresponsible company that is good at marketing and not much else.

And none of that has anything to do with the multiair engine in this car, so why bring it up? I wouldn't be caught dead buying a Fiat 500 but that's for more reasons than just because they are poorly built.


I still don't see any solid evidence on google or anywhere else that it is a bad engine, which is probably why you haven't cited sources. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.


In general, even the "unreliable" engines of today are more reliable than the best ones from the 90's due to improved designs and machining/assembly practices. Those reliability ratings are also a lot less spread apart than you think and a lot of them are published by idiots who weigh the radio dial malfunctioning as equivalent to the transmission falling out. They don't mean a whole lot anymore when the difference between the worst car and the best car on the road is "good" and "great".

[venturaII]

Yeah, so far it's "I heard the new 500s were bad" and "I had a 70's 124, so the 2017s must be bad too". Again, if I went entirely by the complaints I read on this forum alone, I wouldn't be driving an FR-S right now. And the 70's were 40+ years ago..

Grassroots Motorsports narrowly picked the Fiata (I just made that up...lol) over an identically prepped Miata, based solely on the better motor. Considering the rest of the new 124 is Mazda-sourced, that doesn't sounds like a bad choice...

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by venturaII

Yeah, so far it's "I heard the new 500s were bad" and "I had a 70's 124, so the 2017s must be bad too". Again, if I went entirely by the complaints I read on this forum alone, I wouldn't be driving an FR-S right now. And the 70's were 40+ years ago..

Grassroots Motorsports narrowly picked the Fiata (I just made that up...lol) over an identically prepped Miata, based solely on the better motor. Considering the rest of the new 124 is Mazda-sourced, that doesn't sounds like a bad choice...

GRM was not measuring reliability.

These people are: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...ar-brands.html

But I do not really care. All I said was based on MY experience and recent research, I would not purchase a FIAT, not even if it looks as good as the one in the original post.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by Rampage

GRM was not measuring reliability.

These people are: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...ar-brands.html

But I do not really care. All I said was based on MY experience and recent research, I would not purchase a FIAT, not even if it looks as good as the one in the original post.

Sadly I agree. Sure, the old Fiats we're unreliable, but all the statistics on the new Fiats show that the brand is way below average even now. The Fiata probably has the best chance of being reliable since it's made by Mazda, but would I risk it and spend 30k on one? Probably not. I'd be happy to buy a used one after the depreciation hits though.

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by Rampage

GRM was not measuring reliability.

These people are: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...ar-brands.html

But I do not really care. All I said was based on MY experience and recent research, I would not purchase a FIAT, not even if it looks as good as the one in the original post.

Rampage, come on man... That's a blog post that points to a Consumer Reports predictive reliability index by BRAND. That's your research? Impressive. Didn't even bother to drill down did you? Here's the report the blog post is sourcing.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-...y-survey-2016/

Here from the same report:

Lesson 1: Don't Just Shop by Brand
Not all vehicles in a brand lineup are created equally. In fact, most are a mixed bag. Infiniti, for instance, has products that stretch from a best score of 91 for the Q70 sedan down to a lowly 33 for the QX60. Ford’s Expedition SUV is impressive, but the Fiesta and Focus have persistent reliability issues. And Audi is in the top five brands, but its small A3 ranked below average.

Looking at the models of note on the same page how about this list? Funny because I don't see the same handful of haters who have probably never owned, driven or even talked to a real owner jumping to parrot some old meme about the makes noted below but for some reason there's a sort of in-bred hate for Fiat. It shows especially when people parroting this message won't cop to having no first hand experience with the car.

Consumer Reports (in the same report), notes the following:

No Longer Recommended
Models with declining reliability
Audi A3
Chevrolet Volt
Dodge Durango
Ford F-150
Honda Civic*
Lincoln MKX*
Mini Cooper
Subaru WRX/STi
Volkswagen GTI
Volkswagen Jetta
Volkswagen Passat

Subaru dropped out of the top 10 reliable brands because of multiple problems in the Legacy sedan and Outback wagon, which now have average reliability. The drop was compounded by the WRX/STi falling to below average reliability.

So umm... where's the WRX hate in every WRX/STi post?

I actually did a qualitative in-depth research on the car before leasing one. What I found was that most of the poor quality scores for the Fiat 500 line came from quality indexes that lumped together small issues like dashboard rattles, defective trim pieces, stereos, and tires with major defects like engine and transmission problems. If it went back to the dealer, the defect was counted in the same bucket. Minor issues are typically covered with the standard 2-3 year bumper to bumper warranty on most new cars. Powertrain warranties cover the rest. Guess what... that lumping together of issues is exactly what the CR reliability report you referred to does as well...

2. Reliability
We analyze more than 740,000 vehicles owned by our subscribers as part of our 2015 Annual Auto Survey—regarding every aspect of vehicle reliability. It includes any problem, from electrical gremlins to transmission replacements, that might require a trip to the dealership or mechanic for a repair. That information helps consumers see how troublesome a particular model might be.

Then again, that was in TFA which apparently was too much to read during said exhaustive research process. I'm being harsh, sorry, it's late.

For a 2016 model, the new-car reliability prediction is calculated by averaging reliability scores for the most recent three years of production, provided the model did not change significantly during that time. If we lack data, we predict its reliability based on the brand’s overall history of building good- or poor-quality vehicles, as well as the previous generation of that particular model’s reliability.

WTF? Vehicle manufacturing is iterated as a policy to improve reliability. Why would CR's index predict based on a model's previous generation? And why would that not ring a blaring alarm in the mind of any objective person who knows 5 dimes about cars? Simple, CR is trying to say "We've analyzed years worth of data to come to the most accurate model possible." and the person who buys into a quality index like this simply likes having their bias confirmed. Holy balls this is dumb!

Oh wait... how about the inevitable contradiction?

Buick moves into the top three brands this year. Its core product line is mature, with most problems having been ironed out. But Buick has introduced several new vehicles, which could have an impact on future brand performance.

You'll have to excuse my heat there, but I've found that there's a weird sort of affliction some have when it comes to hating on Fiat. It's especially peculiar when it comes from people who've never owned one or those who were to young to have ever experienced the kind of poor reliability in the 70's and 80's which was essentially the same for nearly every German, British, Italian, and American make, but also Datsun, Mazda, and even Honda's were pretty shit at the time. Hell, almost all cars were mechanically shit back then. Everything broke.

What's sad is the lack of objectivity in this forum devoted to the 86/BRZ. A car that also had shit reliability (as this index defines it) for the first 4 years of production. Guess what though, that same Consumer Reports Report has that covered too....

Lesson 2: Wait a Year or Two Before Buying a New or Redesigned Model
It’s true that a few brands, like Lexus and Toyota, have lines that are consistently reliable, but even they can launch a few clunkers. The redesigned Tacoma pickup was unreliable in its first year, and it took three years after being redesigned for the Ford Escape to improve to average reliability. It can take years for an automaker to work out the kinks. When a car model is brand new or “completely redesigned,” that can mean new parts, new systems—and new problems.

How long ago did Fiat bring the 124 Spider to market? Yeah, 2017. So if you're going to go along with this report, it's reasonable to expect some issues. Then also follow its' recommendations. HOWEVER, the engine in the car was brought to the North America in 2012. This is not the same engine configuration that is in the standard Fiat 500. It's the Turbo engine that was in the North American 500 Abarth model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_500_(2007)#Engines

So if you're going to quote reliability studies or indexes when talking specifically about the engine supplied for 124 Spider, I really hope you took the time to research the 1.4L Turbocharged North American Abarth and didn't just lump all 500's together (Abarth, Turbo, and naturally aspirated models) before making up your mind and then shitposting here. I'll call it that because, it pretty much is even though you seem like a nice guy. The situation isn't how you discerned or described it brother.

Cheers

[venturaII]

Excellent breakdown. There's no way I'd have had the patience to type all that out. Lol.

[bcj]

The twins got hit with a downgrade shortly after they came out as well if I recall correctly.
Mostly for squeeks, rattles and sticky windows.
Toyo and Buru actually got different ratings. WTF???

[mazeroni]

It absolutely needs the 1.7 from the 4C.

I'm sure the 1.4 is adequate, but holy crap the 124 deserves more - like Aston Martin. When an Aston rolls up, you think posh and luxury, then you hear the V8 / V12. It blows your mind.

The 124 desperately needs that kind of personality where its all suit and tie, then Jay-Z comes in and its all bam-boom-wtf was that?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsUsVbTj2AY"]Justin Timberlake - Suit & Tie (Official) ft. JAY Z - YouTube[/ame]

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by mazeroni

It absolutely needs the 1.7 from the 4C.

I'm sure the 1.4 is adequate, but holy crap the 124 deserves more - like Aston Martin. When an Aston rolls up, you think posh and luxury, then you hear the V8 / V12. It blows your mind.

The 124 desperately needs that kind of personality where its all suit and tie, then Jay-Z comes in and its all bam-boom-wtf was that?

The 4C 1.7 would be bananas. I'd love it. Actually I think chances are better that it'll get the new "Hurricane" 2.0L i4T that's going into the new Wrangler and many other FCA products starting in 2018.

http://www.off-road.com/jeep/tech/20...tos-54449.html

"Recent reports suggesting that FCA will launch a new four-cylinder turbo-charged engine appear to be true, as we’ve recently uncovered images of this new power plant. Referred to as the “Hurricane,” the four-cylinder engine is said to help the new Wrangler meet more stringent fuel economy standards for the next-generation JL Wrangler.
Photographs were captured of the engine in a Wrangler test mule, possibly the same one we posted earlier today. The photographer was able to identify the inline four-cylinder engine due its cam cover with oil fill cap in center of engine. The air intake ducting helps ID the fact that it’s a turbo-charged engine as it is routed over the top of cam cover. There also looks to be a turbo mounted high in the engine compartment.


Since the engine is mounted in a longitudinal fashion in this 2018 Wrangler test mule parts would likely need to be rearranged or redesigned if it is also used (which is likely) in the Cherokee or other front-drive FCA models; but this layout also suggested the powertrain would be ideal for future rear-drive models in the family such as Alfa Romeo, Dodge and Maserati vehicles.




The turbocharged 2.0-liter engine is expected to make up to 300 horsepower in the Wrangler, which could offer a more fuel-efficient option to the 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 engine.We expect the engine will be paired to the ZF 8-speed automatic for the JL Wrangler. The Hurricane is also likely the base power plant if a plug-in hybrid version of the Wrangler is released, as has been reported."

Hell yeah, I'd be happy with a 300BHP Fiata if it looks like the coupe in this thread. Wouldn't ditch the FR-S for it, but one would get full time track tuning and the other Saturday canyon carves.

[mazeroni]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

The 4C 1.7 would be bananas. I'd love it. Actually I think chances are better that it'll get the new "Hurricane" 2.0L i4T that's going into the new Wrangler and many other FCA products starting in 2018.

Jalopnik ran an article on Friday speculating the turbo-4 would produce 368 hp in the Wrangler.

https://jalopnik.com/the-new-jeep-wr...r-l-1819212703



Not sure the validity of this. The AMG 2.0 produces 375hp, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

But a TT V6 would make more sense, especially given the added torque of the larger motor, and the need to replace the 5.7 at some point.

But yea, 1.7 is a shot in the dark.

[nextcar]

There is pretty wide speculation that the chart is in error/a typo and the actual number is 268... Whereas it is not technically impossible to be 368, such an engine would be all high end and practically useless on a Jeep - where all that really matters is low end torque.

Originally Posted by mazeroni

Jalopnik ran an article on Friday speculating the turbo-4 would produce 368 hp in the Wrangler.

https://jalopnik.com/the-new-jeep-wr...r-l-1819212703



Not sure the validity of this. The AMG 2.0 produces 375hp, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

But a TT V6 would make more sense, especially given the added torque of the larger motor, and the need to replace the 5.7 at some point.

But yea, 1.7 is a shot in the dark.

[Allch Chcar]

I haven't heard this rumor either and a brief search shows it made the rounds last year. The Fiat website mentions nothing so I'm guessing they were floating the idea and subsequently canned it.

[Yardjass]

Originally Posted by Rampage

GRM was not measuring reliability.

These people are: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...ar-brands.html

But I do not really care. All I said was based on MY experience and recent research, I would not purchase a FIAT, not even if it looks as good as the one in the original post.

That study means almost nothing. That's like saying our cars are boring because everything that Toyota and Subaru make other than the WRX and the twins is a boring transportation appliance, and all Dodges and Chevys are a riot because theres an SRT/SS trim on nearly everything. Also, it says 2 cars right there. That would be the 500 and that big ugly thing that I think shares the platform with the jeep renegade. They haven't even published results for the fiata yet.




DAEMANO, it won't let me quote you but I agree 1000%. My father just about flipped his lid when I went to buy my first new car and it was a Golf 6 TDI. Why? Because his bible is consumer reports, a publication that regularly points out the fact that nearly all Volkswagens are garbage. To ease his mind, I flipped to the high efficiency section of CR and right there at the top as the diesel Golf, above the Hondas and Toyotas that everyone always talks so highly about, including the Pruis, which is actually a very good car other than being a soul sucking transportation appliance.


Turns out the Golf is one of the best vehicles made even though VW otherwise can't build a car to save their lives. Five years and 87,000 miles later, I sold my car back to VW for 6 grand less than I paid for it, and they also threw in another grand in "we're sorry" cash for their emissions scandal. The only trouble I ever had the whole time I owned it was on one cold day, it didn't start. There was a slug of ice in one of the intercooler pipes; A design defect that was replaced with a revised part free of charge and was never a problem again, even years later.


Bottom line: There was some luck involved but still, that was the best car I ever bought, and probably ever will buy. If I still had it today, I have no doubt that it would still be providing trouble free service. I'm glad I didn't restrict myself to stereotypes about manufacturers or I never would have owned it.