Had I the money to indulge in “fun” cars I might have had a few of those along the way. But my budget has always been limited so even when young I’ve always bought just a bit less car than tempted to, looked at long term reliability, comfort, and maintenance costs, etc. Some of you here thought me loony when I even factored in the difference in cost of replacing tires when choosing which vehicle and its trim level. But by doing so, I’ve never traded in a vehicle and ended up in debt for even longer years just because I couldn’t afford new tires like someone I know has done three times. So yes, a fun sports car or such would be fun, but for those of us on limited incomes who still want to drive a reasonably nice, reliable, safe vehicle, the plan to save up and buy outright without debt a bit less car than the budget allows, put aside that extra money for unexpected needs, do proactive maintenance, and enjoy the car for many years has worked well. I appreciate when car makers produce vehicles that meet those needs even if the choices are sometimes a mite “boring.”
I haven’t had a lot of experience with the PT but the one I used was a piece of junk. Looked nice on the outside but that’s about it.
I’ve never understood why some are so attached to PT’s but guess it works for them.
I’ve test driven multiple Mopar cars over the years and thought all of them inferior to other available cars. Can’t really speak to the trucks as I’ve only ridden in Rams, not driven them.
I’m thinking those markups were for when they first came out. No more markups on Autotrader, some huge discounts on left over 2017s.
@Marnet. I am of the same mindset as you about cars. Actually, the VW Beetle for its time period was fun to drive and cheap to buy and run. It was attractive to younger people, but seemed to attract older people as well.
My parents went through the depression and their spending habits rubbed off on me as well. Anything we purchase should serve a function and if a less expensive item serves that function just as well, I’ll take the less expensive item. When I was in college, my aunt gave me a watch that belonged to her late husband. When it quit running, I took it to a jewelry shop and was told it would cost $65 to repair. This was in 1960 and I didn’t have $65. Instead, I bought two Timex watches for about $15. I would wear one watch until it stopped, then put the other watch in service and send the first watch and $3.50 to Timex for “reconditioning”. I did this system for years. About ten years ago, I was talking to a jeweler that I’ve known for years. I just happened to mention the watch my aunt gave me that had been in my dresser drawer for years. He asked me to bring it in so he could see it. He was so fascinated that he asked if he could send it to a watchmaker that he had gone to watchmaking school with some years earlier. He sent the watch to his friend and called me a week later and said that it would cost $275 to have the watch repaired. He then said, “Before you say no, the watch was appraised at $4000”. I did have the watch repaired and I am almost afraid to wear it. I wear a watch that cost me $5 at Big Lots and the $5 special keeps better time than the $4000 watch.
It’s the same with cars. If an econobox does the job, why buy something more expensive?
Bunky Knudson is the same guy who headed the Chevrolet division before he was elevated (?) to the same position at Pontiac. Before he left Chevrolet, he was asked if there had been any design mistakes on the '57 models, and his response was, “Yes, we should have included a net underneath those cars to catch the parts that fell-off”.
After that honest response, I am amazed that GM retained him, and actually promoted him.
Perhaps they appreciated his honesty?
He sounds like a car guy, not a bean counter. I like him already.
Well he’s been dead for about 20 years so past tense.
Interesting article though.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20030616/SUB/306160764/bunkie-knudsens-big-gamble-never-paid-off
Thanks for the link. His name was a familiar one, but I did not know his story.
The 500 has been around for ages. Since even the new ones remain popular in Italy and possibly around Europe too, I wonder if the ones sold in the USA are different somehow? Maybe in the USA they are more fully equipped with all the gadgets and gizmos they can fit in, where the Europeans are able to buy a more basic model. I’ve liked the looks of the new 500 since they appeared, but the talks I’ve had with owners indicate they have quite a few electrical system and dashboard gadget & gizmo problems. One neighbor of mine was an early adopter, and she had to have the entire dashboard replaced, and more than once.
The dealer can’t easily deliver a custom ordered car. The order to Italy is easy enough, but then the car has to wait for a boat load of exports from the local port and then there is the voyage from Italy to Baltimore, then the truck to your dealer. They order what they think the customer will want, and dealers are pretty good at predicting that.
George is correct that there are much more basic versions of most European cars available over there, along with much smaller engines. US buyers typically don’t want a 1.0 L engine.
I think the 500 was originally given that title b/c it sported a 500 cc engine.
True, but I’m talking about current cars in Europe. They typically come with a wide range of engines, often starting around 1.0 L.
I just checked - the smallest engine for the current 500 is a 900cc two-cylinder!
My buddy bought a 1960 Fiat station wagon in the early 1970s. It had an inline 6 cylinder with column shifted 4 speed. Build quality was very good and he had no mechanical problems. I had to search to find out exactly what it was. A 2100 only made 1959 to 1961. He later bought a 1978 128 2 door sedan. Again quality was very good with zero mechanical problems. My only “Fiat” was a 1981 Bertone (X/19 continuation car). Only repair over 3 years was a $15 voltage regulator. Apparently Fiat is capable of building decent vehicles but far to frequently chooses not to.
Correct, but that’s a diesel (2 cyl)
But still 85 hp. Quite impressive. 50 years ago a 900 cc diesel wouldn’t be able to pull the skin off of a cup cocoa.
I’ve heard one of those engines at idle. It gave me blisters in my ears, it sounded terrible.
According to this it’s a gasoline turbo engine:
Huh. You are right about the gasoline engine, but here (dk) we only get the 2 cyl. with a 900 cc turbo diesel.
Didn’t know about the gasoline model so thanks for the info.