From £9,9157
More potent TwinAir engine is both usable and entertaining, but performance and economy shortcomings could weigh heavy over time

Our Verdict

Fiat 500

The Fiat 500 is a deserved success story for the brand, offering bags of style, a fine drive and low costs

What is it?

It’s the Fiat 500 hatch, updated for 2014 with a new engine and a fresh range-topping trim level.

Fiat would be crackers to curse the 500 with a full-on facelift; although it’s seven years since the modern 500 was launched, its market share was the same in 2013 as during the car’s first full year on sale. When it comes to styling, the 500 definitely ain’t broke. So cosmetic changes to the existing trim levels are limited to new paintwork, alloy wheel and upholstery choices.

But there is a new flagship 500 in the form of the Cult model. It’s expected to cost around £1500 more than the plushest existing trim, Lounge, when it goes on sale in April.

The premium adds gloss black trim around the rear lights and on the door mirrors (which can be chromed instead at no charge), 16in alloys to replace the Lounge’s 15s, rear parking sensors, seats finished in Frau leather and a colourful new 7-inch TFT screen directly ahead of the driver in place of analogue dials. The Cult model also boasts climate control, which is only included with TwinAir Lounge variants (Lounge four-pots get conventional air-con as standard).

Bigger news for the likes of us is the introduction of a pokier, 104bhp version of the 0.9-litre TwinAir turbo that ekes an extra 20bhp from the tiny trooper of an engine and will be available with all trim levels for a premium of around £700 over the 84bhp variant. Torque remains at 107lb ft, but 0-62bhp takes a second less at 10.0sec and top speed rises by 9mph.

The addition of a sixth gear means claimed extra urban economy improves by 2.2mpg to an impressive 80.7mpg, but the urban cycle uses around 15 per cent more fuel than the lower-powered car at 51.4mpg – a bit of a worry given our road test of the original TwinAir barely managed half its official combined economy figure. The 104bhp model also gets uprated brakes: newly ventilated discs up front and solid discs in place of the 84bhp car’s rear drums.

What's it like?

The Cult’s interior party tricks are generally welcome. The leather seats are firm-ish and grip well around the thighs, but up close, the printed ‘tobacco’ pattern on our car looked a tad low-tariff. The TFT screen (which will also become standard with sporty S trim) is a tidy installation, and shows a pumping vertical bar-chart boost gauge (as well as turning from white to red) in the TwinAir’s sport mode.

When you fire up the Fiat you’re in easy-going Eco mode by default, meaning the 104bhp maximum drops to 97bhp and torque falls to 89lb ft, which is fine for bumbling along. If you’ve any room to play, you’ll want to tap up Sport mode right away. So configured, you’ll feel the engine pause for a moment then shoot up the rev range as the turbo kicks in, accompanied by a sound of a dirty harmonica from the engine bay.

It’s great fun, and makes the 500 feel much quicker than its 0-62mph stat would imply, but before you know it the rev limiter cuts in (at 6000rpm in third, even lower in first and second), prompting a (slightly obtrusive) upshift that drops you into a torque trough. Pause, surge, repeat. For some, this routine might wear thin.

There’s no actual torque steer, but the wheel does firm up with throttle, becoming unnaturally weighty just off-centre. Like the steering, the largely accommodating ride is comfort-oriented rather than sporty, but roll is checked nicely – a happy compromise that contrasts with the overly firm Abarth models.

Should I buy one?

If anything, Fiat's 104bhp TwinAir is even more a niche choice than the 84bhp version, its joys and frustrations being that much more pronounced.

Then there’s the worry of potentially lowly economy for users that drive more in town than anywhere else. My instinct is that luxury-loving buyers of Cult spec would prefer to pair it with a less frenzied drivetrain, such as the impressively refined 1.3 MultiJet diesel.

But younger drivers tempted by the cheapest Abarth model could save around £700 – plus a chunk of insurance premium – by speccing the 104bhp TwinAir with sporty S trim, and be rewarded with a more usable proposition that entertains in its own way.

Fiat 500 Cult 0.9 TwinAir 105

Price £15,000 (est); 0-62mph 10.0sec; Top speed 117mph; Economy 67.3mpg; CO2 99g/km; Kerb weight 940kg; Engine 2 cyls, 875cc, turbo, petrol; Power 104bhp at 5500rpm; Torque 107lb ft at 2000rpm; Gearbox 6-spd manual

Join the debate

Comments
8

1 March 2014

Fiat need a new engine. The Twinair has too limited appeal. in their range of small cars we get the underpowered 4, the expensive diesel, or the bizarre twinair with its economy and refinement shortcomings.

This version might be fun for a road tester, but i wouldnt want to own one

1 March 2014
artill wrote:

Fiat need a new engine. The Twinair has too limited appeal. in their range of small cars we get the underpowered 4, the expensive diesel, or the bizarre twinair with its economy and refinement shortcomings.

This version might be fun for a road tester, but i wouldnt want to own one

This review gives hope that the journos may be beginning to realise that the only people likely to get any real world advantage from two (and dare I say three) cylinder futter pops are the makers who can thus turn out something cheaper to make and tweak it to give artificial results for CO2 and fuel economy. There are fewer appreciative comments about three cylinder "thrum" (i.e. coarseness) nowadays.

1 March 2014
Flatus senex wrote:
artill wrote:

Fiat need a new engine. The Twinair has too limited appeal. in their range of small cars we get the underpowered 4, the expensive diesel, or the bizarre twinair with its economy and refinement shortcomings.

This version might be fun for a road tester, but i wouldnt want to own one

This review gives hope that the journos may be beginning to realise that the only people likely to get any real world advantage from two (and dare I say three) cylinder futter pops are the makers who can thus turn out something cheaper to make and tweak it to give artificial results for CO2 and fuel economy. There are fewer appreciative comments about three cylinder "thrum" (i.e. coarseness) nowadays.

We have owned a Citroen C1, Smart Fortwo and VW UP!, all with three cylinder engines and all returned a genuine low to mid fifties mpg without too much effort. The VW is the best so far (Smart the worst), will hit 60mpg on a run, and there are no refinement issues. I would choose a three cylinder engine in a small car over a four because, in my experience, they are more free revving and feel more sprightly than they really are as a result. You may have a point when it comes to two cylinder units though. I drove a 500 Twin Air once and loved it but cannot comment on the fuel economy, which may well have been dire.

2 March 2014
Shrub wrote:

We have owned a Citroen C1, Smart Fortwo and VW UP!, all with three cylinder engines and all returned a genuine low to mid fifties mpg without too much effort. The VW is the best so far (Smart the worst), will hit 60mpg on a run, and there are no refinement issues. I would choose a three cylinder engine in a small car over a four because, in my experience, they are more free revving and feel more sprightly than they really are as a result. You may have a point when it comes to two cylinder units though. I drove a 500 Twin Air once and loved it but cannot comment on the fuel economy, which may well have been dire.

Glad you were fortunate. I had a colleague who sold a new three cylinder Polo because it "vibrated through the pedals" and went for a four cylinder version (instead of changing manufacturer in protest) which cost him a lot of money. Because of the funny balancing issues with three cylinders they may well age less gracefully. Bit puzzled at your remark "feel more sprightly than they really are as a result". That sounds like a refinement issue to me.

2 March 2014
Flatus senex wrote:
Shrub wrote:

We have owned a Citroen C1, Smart Fortwo and VW UP!, all with three cylinder engines and all returned a genuine low to mid fifties mpg without too much effort. The VW is the best so far (Smart the worst), will hit 60mpg on a run, and there are no refinement issues. I would choose a three cylinder engine in a small car over a four because, in my experience, they are more free revving and feel more sprightly than they really are as a result. You may have a point when it comes to two cylinder units though. I drove a 500 Twin Air once and loved it but cannot comment on the fuel economy, which may well have been dire.

Glad you were fortunate. I had a colleague who sold a new three cylinder Polo because it "vibrated through the pedals" and went for a four cylinder version (instead of changing manufacturer in protest) which cost him a lot of money. Because of the funny balancing issues with three cylinders they may well age less gracefully. Bit puzzled at your remark "feel more sprightly than they really are as a result". That sounds like a refinement issue to me.

No, not a refinement issue but a reference to the willing, free revving nature of the engine which gives the impression that the car is more responsive than the figures suggest.

1 March 2014

Had a look at the 500 recently when car shopping. I really like the still, but the interior is starting to need updating. For instance, there isn't a glove box, just a shelf. I'd like a shot of twinair, think it sounds like a cracking wee engine, even if the economy is no where near expectations

1 March 2014

As much I am a fan of downsized engines, it is a shame that they are powering overweight cars, even the TwinAir 105 should be in a car that is at least 100-200 + kg lighter then the current Fiat 500.

The same applies for Ford's 1.0 EcoBoost and others.

2 March 2014

...in the economy of operation. Even though claimed economy is higher in town. I suspect that in actual driving. The difference will be minute if at all noticeable. But more power ought to mean, you should on the average need less throttle in order to scoot the car into brief openings in traffic. More or less negating the claimed difference. The need to use less throttle, ought to imply that the more powerful version, is also more refined in daily use.

Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week

  • Audi S5 Sportback
    First Drive
    19 January 2017
    The Audi S5 Sportback is more bruising GT than practical sports car, but it makes sense for those wanting a fast executive saloon in coupé get-up
  • First Drive
    18 January 2017
    Despite receiving a cosmetic and mechanical refresh, Lexus's compact executive saloon still fails to provide much driving involvement
  • 2017 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV 5h review
    First Drive
    18 January 2017
    Big-selling plug-in SUV gets a light refresh in the face of new challengers to offer decent economy but only average driving dynamics
  • Mini Countryman Cooper S
    First Drive
    18 January 2017
    All-new bigger Mini continues to make a curious, flawed crossover hatchback, though it’s more compelling to drive than some and more practical than it used to be
  • Porsche Panamera 4 E-Hybrid
    First Drive
    17 January 2017
    Plug-in petrol-electric Panamera makes a better case than ever to supplant the diesel best seller, but it still appeals more to the head than the heart