• expired

Fiat 500 POP Now $14,000 Driveaway

1130

Hard to ignore this for value vs anything out there at this price. There's no website obviously but here's a review.

$14000 Driveaway Price for Fiat 500 POP
http://www.fiat.com.au/fiat500

Related Stores

fiat.com.au
fiat.com.au
CarAdvice
CarAdvice
Third-Party

closed Comments

  • -1

    Automatic transmission only.

    • incorrect, Manual transmission comes standard , Auto is Extra

      • +1

        I was about to say, if this is auto this is awesome. Auto usually add $2-3K to the price for most small cars. Seems like to auto jumps to $15,500 in this case.

        • +1

          You do not want the auto on these things.

        • Why's that?

        • You never want auto.

        • +2

          On very small cars like these, autos always feel sluggish but CVT auto would be alright as it is reasonably smooth and doesn't have much power loss. However in particular with the Fiat it's even worse, because they went with a weird semi-auto system that is extremely slow to change gears in response to you putting down the pedal.

          What you end up with, is a grocery run car that is not smooth to ride.

        • +17

          Here comes the manual pride vs auto debate.

        • +33

          Probably get negged by all the 'real men' who drive manual, but I prefer auto. I am lazy and I like to eat while I drive :)

        • +12

          if you have to drive in stop-start traffic every morning and evening, you're not going to enjoy a manual box much..

        • +1

          im not sure why anyone would think that it will be any more sportier if it is in manual

        • +8

          My grandma will accelerate across the living room to get to the remote faster than you take off at the lights ;)

        • +7

          @t25 The manual would be lighter and therefore sportier. With the manual you can hold or change gears at the optimal time as you can see the road ahead and anticipate the right gear, this would also help with the sportiness. The autos also result in power loss through the gears, so technically it will not be as sporty and generally as a consequence uses more fuel.

          In simple terms PHYSICS would state that a manual is in fact sportier than an automatic.

          In general, manual is better, but auto is more practical and nicer in stop start traffic.

          (I am not a manual fan boy, just an automotive engineer. I actually drive an auto myself, but the loss of power is acceptable with my 6lt V8)

        • If you buy a nice car, you generally want to enjoy the associated experience with driving it.

          Manual is a fun and engaging experience, where as auto is a care-free and boring experience.

          If you drive purely to get from A to B, buy a reliable Toyota. If you want to feel, and control the vehicle and appreciate its power etc. consider a manual.

        • +2

          haha … there is a discussion going on about manual or automatic on ozbargain. Noooo … isn't is pretty clear that auto uses more petrol? So why would any ozbargainer even start discussion about this … no way …

        • +1

          Definitely need auto, else you won't be able to check Facebook and send texts.

        • +2

          ^ exactly. In this day and age we don't have time for dangerous distractions such as a gearbox requiring your constant attention.

        • +2

          The other great benefit of a manual is, you can turn your engine off downhill, coast in gear and with clutch pedal pressed down.

          Angel gear is a great way to meet your maker…I wouldn't recommend it. It's also false economy: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/news/c...

        • Well I drive a manual and i shit you not when i say i have drifted through a wet intersection (deliberately) with a bowl of cereal in my hand and not spilt a drop.
          It can be be done in a manual too if you are enough of an idiot :(

        • +2

          ^ are you trying to win some kind of award?
          http://tinyurl.com/kav3bot

        • They claim you save money with engine off after sitting for 8 seconds at a set of lights. So I've got news for Popular Mechanics. One road I did it on, I could travel 8 km with the engine off, using zero fuel.

          I read in the article:

          Almost all vehicles show a pulse width of zero when coasting while in gear. Zero, as in there is no fuel injected at all. Yes, the engine is turning over, the pistons are going up and down, the water pump, alternator and a/c compressor are working, so technically you can say the engine is running, sort of. But it's not consuming any fuel. And that goes for automatic or manuals.

          So the guy is basically saying an engine doesn't use ANY fuel while coasting downhill and your foot is off the accelerator. Well if that were true, then you could cut the fuel supply entirely at the injectors (or carby) and the engine would still run - or a car could coast downhill with the engine running on an empty fuel tank - or an engine can start without fuel. All of which of course, are rubbish, LOL.

          Injectors may show zero pulse on idle, but of course fuel is still being burnt. Injectors still spray fuel at idle in order to run the engine.

          He also conveniently neglects to mention you rarely remove your foot completely from the accelerator even when coasting. Because the engine itself (especially on an automatic) creates drag. So even when coasting - still in gear and engine running - you usually need some accelerator pedal. Thus the car does use fuel where he implies the engine does not use any because the injectors are not receiving a pulse.

          Oh - and he says it's dangerous. Riding a bike, crossing the road, or using a steak knife is also dangerous - if you're an idiot deserving of a Darwin Award. But many things are no more dangerous if people are simply aware of their surroundings and understand the limitations of what they're doing.

          For example, our previous car didn't lose vacuum for quite a number of full pumps on the brakes. About 6 or 7 actually. The steering also (amazingly according to PM!?) still operated with the engine off. So with all driving functions including blinkers still available, there was no difference with or without the engine.

          Our current car loses vacuum quickly. So I rarely turn off the engine now, unless it's a long, straight stretch of road with no traffic.

        • +1

          Some cars you lose steering when you turn the engine off - even locks it, not just no power assisted steering. That would be dangerous.

        • who the hell drives with a bowl of cereal in their hand?

        • +4

          Mr Bean?

        • +3

          So I've got news for Popular Mechanics. One road I did it on, I could travel 8 km with the engine off, using zero fuel.

          Yeah, my uncle could do that too…til he found that he had no brakes right when he needed them & ran up the arse of a truck & decapitated himself…true story!

          The $64k question is, is your life & your family's life worth more than the capful of fuel that you might save by coasting in angel gear???

        • Manual gives you more control, allows you to hold gears whenever you like, use gears to slow the car, improves driving ability and overall know how of a car. Small cars without too much power are god awful as autos. They kick down far too much… Yuck.

        • Some cars you lose steering when you turn the engine off - even locks it, not just no power assisted steering.

          Even at dash-lights position!? Ouch.

        • The $64k question is, is your life & your family's life worth more than the capful of fuel that you might save by coasting in angel gear?

          Yep, as I said - you have to not be a Darwin award candidate waiting to happen. Our last car gave several pumps on the pedal before weakening. I also had the ignition on, clutch pedal down and manual in gear. Just lifting my left foot slightly, instantly gave full brake vacuum again. In reality, I never fully had my foot off the brake, so I could "feel" plenty of brake vacuum was left.

          Can't do it with our current automatic though. Power steering drops out immediately. So can only do it on straight roads with no traffic - and I usually forget anyway because it's so rare that happens.

        • Manual gives you more control, allows you to hold gears whenever you like, use gears to slow the car…

          That's it. You reminded me you also still have an engine brake with a manual, even on a non-running car.

        • Injectors may show zero pulse on idle, but of course fuel is still being burnt. Injectors still spray fuel at idle in order to run the engine.

          The author is correct, you are wrong. A modern EFI car will use no fuel when coasting down a hill with no throttle.

          Fuel injectors open and close using square wave pulses. When the pulse width is zero the injector is closed. No fuel is burnt.

          When the car is idling, the pulse width is not zero, and fuel is still burnt. You have conflated these two ideas.

          The engine still runs because it's still connected to the wheels, which are still connected to the ground and turning.

          It's a ridiculously stupid idea to turn off your engine for any reason while the car is moving - especially when you mistakenly think you're saving a few cents.

        • -1

          Yes, injectors spray fuel at idle to turn over an engine… because there is no other source of power to turn the engine over.

          However, coasting down a hill you have inertia working with gravity to foce the wheels to be turned (ie. over a ton of metal rolling down hill at speed), which turns the diff, the gearbox, and the crank…. turning the motor in the process.

          Yes… on flat road you'll never 'coast' without throttle input as you don't have gravity contributing, only inertia…. and the friction of the road will be slowing you down and sapping that inertia.

          BUT, I can assure you that in a manual car you will actually get zero fuel injected when you are in gear and off throttle. The experience is also known as 'engine braking' as the compression of the motor will be resisting the turning of the crank, and slowing the car faster than friction alone.

        • BUT, I can assure you that in a manual car you will actually get zero fuel injected when you are in gear and off throttle.

          Wrong. A lot of cars will only shut off the injectors above a certain RPM and after varying amounts of time when there is no throttle input.

          The experience is also known as 'engine braking' as the compression of the motor will be resisting the turning of the crank, and slowing the car faster than friction alone.

          Wrong, shutting off injectors is not called engine braking. The compression strokes still exist whether or not the injectors are shut off. Part of the "engine braking" effect is also due to friction and resistance in the engine & drivetrain.

        • Don't think anyone is going to check your 'real man' credentials when you're driving this car manual or auto…

      • The automatic on this thing is a joke. In the US model Fiat 500, they offer a proper 6-speed automatic. We get a crummy robotic manual.

  • +62

    Are males allowed to buy this car? Seems like a good price.

    • +3

      Sure just get the right color. Not pink and purple striped.

      • +5

        Not that anythings wrong with that

      • Pink with purple stripes is the way to go to securing your manhood.

        • +1

          ah yes, that famous James May stripey jumper :D

    • +32

      i think it's a bit like riding a scooter or doing a fatty

      it's all fun and games 'till your mates find out

    • +1

      Their ad on TV currently airing shows a guy driving it… The colour of the car was red.

      • +3

        haven't you noticed all the tv ads for ultra-compact have good-looking, guys driving them? the story is usually they are on their way to see the girlfriend (cue suzuki swift), as if to underscore their heterosexuality

    • +3

      I'm a guy and think they look awesome. Bet they're fun to drive.

    • +2

      sure, why not? i wouldn't think you're less of a man for doing so :)

    • +8

      come on guys.
      real males buy whatever car they want, in whatever colour they want.

      • -2

        Until people start giving you shit for it (admit it, its bound to happen)

        • +2

          if they're random plebs on the street, who cares?

          if they're friends, then get new ones.

    • +2

      Yes, get it in black and it's one stripe away from looking like an Abarth.

    • Depends what kind of guy you are. I'm 6ft, 90kg, gym junkie… It's easier for me to get away with it than if you're a thin bloke, wearing a scarf and skinny jeans with highly manicured hair. Unless of course you just don't give a damn… then you win either way.

  • +11

    Fiat cars arent reliable, plus the pricey services and spare parts

    • +32

      More reliable than a VW.

    • +16

      Fiat is actually an acronym: Fix It Again Tony! ;)

    • +10

      Yeah but it's not the 80's anymore, all cars are reliable these days.

      • +12

        Funny how people still judge Fiat and Alfa Romeo on 30 year old issues. At present VW are the company to worry about.

        • +11

          20 years ago, you wouldn't drive a Hyundai. the games are changing

        • -5

          http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/fiat/500/reliability

          Not good, and for me, not a surprise. I don't believe the Italians can make anything reliable. Is that racism? ok I'm a racist.

          Although I am capable of changing my ancient prejudices. This is is not bad at all.

          http://www.reliabilityindex.com/top-100

        • That is a moronic statement, cars roll off the line in every part of the world. And are engineered in various parts of the world also. Your fiat 500 is hardly Italian made. Assembly plants in Poland, Serbia, mexico and soon china etc.

          http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fiat_Group_assembly_s...

        • Hyundai seems to have picked up the game in the last 10 years. do not own one but lot of friend and relatives do and they couldnt be happier.

        • +1

          As far as I heard, Fiats are like a lottery, you may get a really reliable car, however you may not.

          I know of 1 friend who loves their Fiat, no issues at all.
          However the other friend has heaps of issues and hates their Fiat, every time they go service they have to pay a high bill, and it keeps having strange issues come up on him.

          So it really just depends on who you speak to.

      • +17

        Yeah but it's not the 80's anymore, all cars are reliable these days.

        Tell that to the guy who was broken down at a set of traffic lights while test-driving a brand new Great Wall ute. lol

        • +10

          you would be stupid enough to buy a great wall, that guy deserve it

      • +1

        Another unjustified statement by #Aids: "all cars are reliable these days". There are so many examples of unreliable cars, probably more these days than in the 80's. There are more electrics in the modern cars that stuff up and can not be fixed up in the simple garage. Good ol 80's cars were reliable and easily tuned.

        • Exactly. I know a mechanic, and nearly every time I visit him at his workshop, there's a commodore or falcon getting a new head fitted.

        • that's why i stick with 80's and early 90's cars…fewer electrics, fewer problems. all these little gadgets manufacturers stick in their cars these days are well and good until it inevitably stuffs up and costs a crapload to fix.

        • -1

          80s cars are deathtraps - the lack of any airbags for one.

      • A bad generalisation as others have pointed pointed out.

        One example I'm most familiar with is Honda. In the 80s they were all made in Suzuka, Japan.

        In the last ten years or so we've started getting their Thai built crap. With apologies to Thai Honda owners, but this is an iron-clad safe generalisation:
        Thai built Hondas are a joke.

    • +3

      I've got to agree with dragon, at least in the past Fiat have not been the most reliable.

      But also the availability and cost of parts should be considered along with how labor intensive servicing may be, might be one of those cars that everyone hates to work on, then again it may be really basic.

      • -2

        classic case of talking without knowing any facts, ahhhh the Internet, dontchya love it?!

        • +4

          Merely a word of caution, sometimes a good deal can wind up rather costly.

          Perhaps you could shower us all with your knowledge.

    • +5

      I had a 500 for over 2 years after owning a Punto before that, both were faultless. You would be very naive to judge these modern Fiats based on stereotypes and assumptions.

      • +44

        I agree as it's better to judge them on car stereo types and fuel consumptions.

    • Well they do own Alfa. They must do everything they possibly can to not let Alfa take the POS unreliability crown! Its the Italian thing to do.

  • +2

    Price actually shows here 14K:
    http://www.fiat.com.au/fiat500

  • +12

    If it was the Abarth I'd think about it.

  • +4

    Sounds cheap, but what is the usual price?

    • +2

      It's the base model that wasn't previously available in Australia AFAIK.

  • +17

    So many zeros, I nearly had a heart attack

  • +5

    It's OK if you don't mind arriving yesterday.

    Seriously though, for $14K there are many better value low km used cars. FIAT doesn't have the best reputation for reliability or resale value.

  • +4

    $14k good deal for something a little different.

    Good for new buyers, existing owners would be unhappy about their resale value from a year ago, down by $10k:

    http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/fiat-500-price-slashed-by...

    • Good article

      Summary of facts included

      On sale June
      Pricing The Pop model kicks off at $14,000 driveaway (add $1500 for the auto, plus on-road costs); Sport from $16,900; Lounge from $20,300; Gucci from $23,200
      Engines 1.2-litre 4-cyl petrol, 51kW/ 102Nm, 5-sp manual or 5-sp automated manual, 5.1L/100km and 119g/km CO2 (manual); 1.4-litre 4-cyl petrol, 74kW/ 131Nm, 6-sp manual or 5-sp automated manual, 6.1L/100km and 140g/km CO2 (manual); 0.9-litre 2-cyl turbo petrol, 63kW/145Nm, 5-sp automated manual, 3.9L/100km and 90g/km CO2
      What's new Base model now thousands cheaper than before; new engines and trim levels enter the range THE Competitors Toyota Yaris, Mitsubishi Mirage, Volkswagen Up, Nissan Micra, Kia Rio, Hyundai i20

      • +1

        1.2L with 51 kW is terrible… VW's 1.0L engine puts out about that much power.

        • +1

          VW UP!
          '55kW of power and 95Nm of torque'
          jap cars has similar efficiency to this fiat i think.
          yaris 1.5L only outputs 77kw ish
          1.4tsi golf does 118kw..

    • +11

      I bought my optioned up 500 for $25k, sold it 2 years and 15,000km later for $21.5k. I considered that pretty good resale…

  • +1

    I'm a fan of this car. The Abarth and 500e have good reviews. If I was looking to buy a car in this class this would be on top of my list.

  • +9

    Does it start up with a rip cord?

    • +4

      has a giant key in the boot

  • +4

    This is just advertising

    • +3

      this isn't the ABC

  • It is $10K under the price of what was the entry level 500 before. This is about how the car is marketed in most OS markets. It always looked a little odd that the 500 was price above C-segment cars like the Corolla and i30, which are way bigger.
    Also, it is unusual to see a drive away price that does not end in '995'.