Topic: Test Drive: 2017 Fiat 500X Lounge AWD

[AutoTrader.ca]

Not quite a little blue pill
Read more...

[Noto]

The Good
funky and original
UConnect is the bomb
easy to drive

The Bad
engine is a tad harsh bomb

Just teasing. I still love your intros, Jacob. Keep em coming.  I get the sense while reading this piece that the 500X is yet another 'ute, and 'nuff said. "steering is decent, driving is decent," etc.

Good to hear the ride is better without Herculean tire pressure.

I remembered thinking that the 500X was kind of like the earlier Korean offerings: feature rich, but lacking for quality. It'll take some time and perhaps FCA will improve.

[EV-Light]

LOL! $40k...I am wondering who's the fool that will pay that for a Fiat 500X.

Actual value in my opinion: $31k


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rupert]

   Yeah...too high price for volume I think and making in Mexico and China is too late now seemingly. If the two wheel drive came in at $18,5k with nicely equipped 2WD at $20k it might be a go. Especially for fixed income seniors. And steel wheels with nicely styled covers are quite acceptable without down sized tyres. Have these Multi Aire engines proven to be reliable. I note the economy is not remarkable but not bad either. Is there an ordinary Mechanical CVVT available.

   Still a lot to like here...easy entry and egress ...nice size and shape...4 practical seats. Pity about the seat fold down...half way seemingly. Leaving a sloping seat back that might be ok for soft luggage. It's all to do with upholstery squeezing...if they put a step in the fold down and hinged the rear seat back higher....a flat horizontal surface would result that would be more practical altogether...just a bit higher. Probably would not have to fold the head rests either. With these caveats addressed might be a great buy for me after the Micra...If my Caravan is still around. Ahh well.

   I know people like the blue but not for me. I like more reserved colours personally. Nice report and photo's.

[mlin32]

Good writing 

......on a rather mediocre car. Seriously, how far down the long "raised hatchback" list does one have to go, to settle on "Yes, the 500X is the best car for me." The Tigershark motor doesn't really do anything well. 2400cc of nothing.

[dirtyjeffer]

The Tigershark motor doesn't really do anything well. 2400cc of nothing.

it's a pretty dated powertrain (with a few tweaks over the years)...the 2.4L dates back to GEMA days when these engines were built by, and used in, Hyundai, Mitsubishi and Chrysler products.

EDIT: typed too fast, had wrong "by" in there.

[tooscoops]

the 2.4 has had quite an overhaul to become the 'tigershark'... forget the actual % wise, but it was a large majority of changed parts... then again, they probably counted every wire as one item, etc. to be honest though, never really had a problem with those "world engines" that came out back in 2007 or so... the chrysler versions weren't the best for fuel economy, but were solid otherwise.

just grabbed an awd trekking one for my used lot... gets some attention... have it on for 23950... at that spot, i can understand it, but new... tough sell without some strong incentive.

[dirtyjeffer]

the 2.4 has had quite an overhaul to become the 'tigershark'... forget the actual % wise, but it was a large majority of changed parts... then again, they probably counted every wire as one item, etc. to be honest though, never really had a problem with those "world engines" that came out back in 2007 or so... the chrysler versions weren't the best for fuel economy, but were solid otherwise.

Hyundai/Kia still use the 2.4, although it to has been revised...the original version (GEMA) was called the Theta...the current models are the Theta II.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Theta_engine#Technical_details

i'd imagine all 3 companies newest versions are all updated, and certainly better than the original versions, but i don't think anyone would say these engines are stand outs in the market...they aren't bad, just aren't class leaders...of course, it likely doesn't help (in some cases) where the engines end up...for example, the 2.4NA engine in Sorento is likely a bit of a dog.

[84im]

just grabbed an awd trekking one for my used lot... gets some attention... have it on for 23950... at that spot, i can understand it, but new... tough sell without some strong incentive.

And that's this is a very foolish new car purchase.  Comparable to buying a Nissan Leaf at full sticker. 

[Rupert]

The (multi air) is Fiat Chrysler with a new method of operating the valves is it not.

[Fobroader]

How do you say hell to the no in Italian 

[Noto]

How do you say hell to the no in Italian 

[Fobroader]

How do you say hell to the no in Italian 

 
Thanks buddy

[Noto]

...they aren't bad, just aren't class leaders...

I'm not sure how I exactly feel about such assertions.

This goes back to the Subaru 3.6L H6 debate - no, it's 256 horsies do nothing compared to the what, 295 in the pentastar 3.6L, nor is it as powerful as most 3.5L or even Hyundai's 3.3L.  Hell, don't even get started on FI motors - the Golf R's 2.0L I4 makes more power than it.

...but what does it exactly mean to be a "class leader"?  Numbers on paper?  A relevant engine is a relevant engine.  Time and time again there's the conundrum: "I like car A better, but car B has a better engine.  Which do I choose?"

I like the newest tech as much as the next guy, and I remember drooling over the Juke's 1.6T (and it's whopping 188hp) back in the day of its debut.  Now?  1.5Ts make more power and offer better fuel economy.

How about Toyota's new 2.5L?  Nobody who drives it will be hella excited by it, yet its engineering is untouched in terms of thermal efficiency.
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/atclen/news_en/15mk/121301018/

FCA's 2.4L is a fine engine, it's just nothing exciting (I'd rather it not be called "Tigershark" because that sounds cool or something...).  That's not the reason I wouldn't buy the 500X.

[mlin32]

FCA's 2.4L is a fine engine, it's just nothing exciting (I'd rather it not be called "Tigershark" because that sounds cool or something...).  That's not the reason I wouldn't buy the 500X.

What is there to like?

It's coarse, it's thirsty, it's not particularly smooth, it's not very powerful, and it's not very advanced. It only makes 180PS, which is what the Europeans can make from a pencil sharpener*.

*one of my favourite Clarkson sayings.

[conwelpic]

the pricing on this and the same for the Renegade is totally wrong for the Canadian market, no wonder they don't sell many.  2016 - 766 (500x); 3,962 (Renegade)

[tooscoops]

FCA's 2.4L is a fine engine, it's just nothing exciting (I'd rather it not be called "Tigershark" because that sounds cool or something...).  That's not the reason I wouldn't buy the 500X.

What is there to like?

It's coarse, it's thirsty, it's not particularly smooth, it's not very powerful, and it's not very advanced. It only makes 180PS, which is what the Europeans can make from a pencil sharpener*.

*one of my favourite Clarkson sayings.

181hp out of a non turbo 4 cyl i always thought was pretty darn good. i don't have any info in my head and am too lazy to google, but are their many normally aspirated 4 cyl engines putting out more hp?

[EV-Light]

FCA's 2.4L is a fine engine, it's just nothing exciting (I'd rather it not be called "Tigershark" because that sounds cool or something...).  That's not the reason I wouldn't buy the 500X.

What is there to like?

It's coarse, it's thirsty, it's not particularly smooth, it's not very powerful, and it's not very advanced. It only makes 180PS, which is what the Europeans can make from a pencil sharpener*.

*one of my favourite Clarkson sayings.

Yeah tell that to VW with a 2.0 turbo that puts out 189hp!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mlin32]

FCA's 2.4L is a fine engine, it's just nothing exciting (I'd rather it not be called "Tigershark" because that sounds cool or something...).  That's not the reason I wouldn't buy the 500X.

What is there to like?

It's coarse, it's thirsty, it's not particularly smooth, it's not very powerful, and it's not very advanced. It only makes 180PS, which is what the Europeans can make from a pencil sharpener*.

*one of my favourite Clarkson sayings.

181hp out of a non turbo 4 cyl i always thought was pretty darn good. i don't have any info in my head and am too lazy to google, but are their many normally aspirated 4 cyl engines putting out more hp?

They ought to just downsize and use a turbo, like a 1,6T. Better midrange torque to boot.

I think the 2 litre Skyactiv motor from Mazda makes 165PS internationally, so good for 82,5/litre. Even the old Ford motor used in the North American Focus is good for 160 PS or 80/litre.

[draghon]

FCA's 2.4L is a fine engine, it's just nothing exciting (I'd rather it not be called "Tigershark" because that sounds cool or something...).  That's not the reason I wouldn't buy the 500X.

What is there to like?

It's coarse, it's thirsty, it's not particularly smooth, it's not very powerful, and it's not very advanced. It only makes 180PS, which is what the Europeans can make from a pencil sharpener*.

*one of my favourite Clarkson sayings.

181hp out of a non turbo 4 cyl i always thought was pretty darn good. i don't have any info in my head and am too lazy to google, but are their many normally aspirated 4 cyl engines putting out more hp?

2.0L in the 8th generation civic si and all rsx type-s
2.0L in the 1st gen s2000