Fiat panda problems/reliability?

Stevie Dakota

Anyone know if the 1.2 Panda suffers the same issues with head gasket failure or powersteering failures that blighted the Punto?

Old dear is considering one under the scrappage scheme but she has had problems with Puntos in the past and is very wary.

BrianD3

Don't know but as usual the ADAC breakdown stats are a help. The Panda appears to be very reliable. The stats cover 32 small cars and the Panda is in the top 5 every year since it was introduced. From about 2004 onward the Punto is also very good and far improved from earlier years. The Aygo/C1/107 appears to be the best car overall.

The most common problems that have been encountered with the Panda
are

Sicherungen der Kraftstoffpumpen durchgebrannt (2006/07)
Kraftstoffpumpen defekt (Benziner, vor allem 2004)
Wegfahrsperren defekt (bis 2006)
Störungen im Motormanagement (bis 2005)

colm_mcm

the power steering is the same story alright.

The 1.2 8 valve engine is the same as fitted to the Punto too.

Also, the cheap Panda for 6999 is 1.1 - the 1.2 is €1000 more.

Noffles

Our Panda has just had the power steering issue... also the heating is touch and go too... otherwise it seemed ok, has done a 100k... 1.1 version.

Stevie Dakota

If it is the same piece of junk 8V engine in the Punto then forget it! Two Puntos, 2 headgasket failures later she won't be making that mistake again. Unless the design was modified in some way.

ianobrien

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

If it is the same piece of junk 8V engine in the Punto then forget it! Two Puntos, 2 headgasket failures later she won't be making that mistake again. Unless the design was modified in some way.

I think (and I'm open to correction here) that all Panda's have the 16Valve engine

zinzan

Thanks for the heads up re the steering on the Panda - had been looking into one given how cheap they are now with the scrappage/eco bonus (God help anyone trying to sell one second hand...)

After experiences so many problems with a Punto - all the 'common' ones - steering, wipers, head, engine management etc. etc. I think I'll hold off...

Had thought that maybe the Panda might have improved on these things but once bitten and all of that..

macroman

They've the 1.1 & 1.2 8V FIRE Engine fitted - although it can suffer from Head Gasket failures, they are otherwise pretty reliable and strong. For instance, if the Timing Belt were to snap no damage would be done to the engine as it is a non-interference set-up.

Keep them serviced and watch the temperature on them and they shouldn't throw up any major issues. They're a budget car, built to be maintained on the cheap and not be clocking up motorway mileage everyday.

Eco-plus bonus is a good deal, but bear in mind it's for the bog-standard 1.1 Active. Anything aside from the car and radio is an extra

ytareh

Have a 100hp version now a couple of months ...these are by and large an astonishingly well built car .Very solid in most important areas eg door slam ,most interior fittings (apart from maybe fan switch )etc Recommend you get one at that price!

L1011

Its the same engine block but the problem has been mitigated by minor redesign over time. The 1.1 doesn't have the issue at all, the 1.2 can.

The PAS motor is the most common problem I've seen with them by far.

ianobrien wrote: »

I think (and I'm open to correction here) that all Panda's have the 16Valve engine

Only the 100HP has a 16v (1.4 SuperFIRE).

Bombardier wrote: »

Eco-plus bonus is a good deal, but bear in mind it's for the bog-standard 1.1 Active. Anything aside from the car and radio is an extra

Bearing in mind the basic design of the car is now seven years old (!), the Active spec was actually very high for its time - mp3 CD player, power steering, dual airbags, front electric windows etc in 2003 wasn't the norm for an entry level car. It stands up fairly well now, bar the interior being a sea of grey plastics.

macroman

I've driven the 100HP a few times. Lovely car for city driving and can go like a scolded cat when it wants to. Astonishing car for money and size - tried to persuade the girlfriend to buy one to no avail :rolleyes:

BrianD3

The only issue I would have with the Panda is safety. It is a 3 star EuroNCAP car and the design is a few years old. I know the 500 shares a lot with the Panda but it manages to get a 5 star rating.

With very small cars it is important for the car to have as high a rating as possible. A 5 star small car is probably less safe than a 3 star large car so where does that leave a 3 star small car?

macroman

BrianD3 wrote: »

The only issue I would have with the Panda is safety. It is a 3 star EuroNCAP car and the design is a few years old. I know the 500 shares a lot with the Panda but it manages to get a 5 star rating.

With very small cars it is important for the car to have as high a rating as possible. A 5 star small car is probably less safe than a 3 star large car so where does that leave a 3 star small car?

The Opel Agila and Ford KA are based off the Panda chassis too. I'd say there's a new generation Panda around the corner, considering they just face lifted the Grande Punto for the 3rd time!

pburns

BrianD3 wrote: »

The only issue I would have with the Panda is safety. It is a 3 star EuroNCAP car and the design is a few years old. I know the 500 shares a lot with the Panda but it manages to get a 5 star rating.

With very small cars it is important for the car to have as high a rating as possible. A 5 star small car is probably less safe than a 3 star large car so where does that leave a 3 star small car?

I don't think the star rating changes with different classes of car. If it's 3 stars it's 3 stars, whether it's a Range Rover or a Put-Put (I think)

I was up in the Alps a few weeks ago and have a hankering ever since for one of those Panda 4x4s. Lovely little yokes.

L1011

Bombardier wrote: »

The Opel Agila and Ford KA are based off the Panda chassis too. I'd say there's a new generation Panda around the corner, considering they just face lifted the Grande Punto for the 3rd time!

The Panda had a facelift four months ago. You'd find it hard to tell the difference though! Redone the front grille a bit and thats realistically about it.

macroman

MYOB wrote: »

The Panda had a facelift four months ago. You'd find it hard to tell the difference though! Redone the front grille a bit and thats realistically about it.

Bit like what they did with the GP - different headlights and changed the engine range around a bit!

BrianD3

pburns wrote: »

I don't think the star rating changes with different classes of car. If it's 3 stars it's 3 stars, whether it's a Range Rover or a Put-Put (I think)

I was up in the Alps a few weeks ago and have a hankering ever since for one of those Panda 4x4s. Lovely little yokes.

Lets assume the "average" car weighs 1300 kg. If you were going to collide with that car, would you rather be in a 2000 kg Range Rover with a 3 star rating or a 950 kg Fiat panda with a 3 star rating.

The answer is obvious, that is why EuroNCAP cautions that ratings should not be compared between different classes. EuroNCAP is great but physics needs to be taken account of as well.

alias no.9

BrianD3 wrote: »

Lets assume the "average" car weighs 1300 kg. If you were going to collide with that car, would you rather be in a 2000 kg Range Rover with a 3 star rating or a 950 kg Fiat panda with a 3 star rating.

The answer is obvious, that is why EuroNCAP cautions that ratings should not be compared between different classes. EuroNCAP is great but physics needs to be taken account of as well.

It depends on what the I collide with, against a stationary object I'd take my chances in a Panda because there's much less energy to be dissipated. If it was one into the other then it's the Range Rover without doubt because the structrual strength in the Range Rover is much higher in its body and sould most likely rip the roof off the Panda. For this reason, there should be a push to standardise the contact height for new cars.

Bombardier wrote: »

The Opel Agila and Ford KA are based off the Panda chassis too. I'd say there's a new generation Panda around the corner, considering they just face lifted the Grande Punto for the 3rd time!

The Agila is based on the Suzuki Splash, I don't think it's related to the Panda at all apart from the 1.3 diesel engine which they share.

BrianD3

alias no.9 wrote: »

It depends on what the I collide with, against a stationary object I'd take my chances in a Panda because there's much less energy to be dissipated.

That's true about the energy. However a heavier car would generally have a stronger and/or larger crumple zone capable of dissipating the extra energy.

Also the IIHS have stated before that heavy cars may be safer than light cars in real life collisions with "immovable" objects. Because objects may move when hit by the heavy car but not when hit by the light car

If it was one into the other then it's the Range Rover without doubt because the structrual strength in the Range Rover is much higher in its body and sould most likely rip the roof off the Panda. For this reason, there should be a push to standardise the contact height for new cars.

Range Rover was probably a bad example. A 2000 kg car with the same height as a Panda, will also be safer, not just because of the mass but because of the crumple zones that are likely stronger.

There's no easy solution to this. It has been suggested that EuroNCAP could test heavy cars at a slower speed than light cars but this would be far from ideal.

BTW I'm talking about modern NCAP rated cars here. Even with its 3 star rating, a Panda is probably far safer in any type of collision than a much older but much heavier car.

garyh3

My 2005 Climbing 4x4 108,000 kil needs a head gaskit change

same ol same ol Fiat ...

Alanstrainor

garyh3 wrote: »

My 2005 Climbing 4x4 108,000 kil needs a head gaskit change

same ol same ol Fiat ...

Old thread is old. You can start a new one if you want to discuss