Talk:Fiat Panda

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fiat Panda article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Successor

Panda has no successor, it's still in production. Cinquecento was a radically different car, compact and far less sturdier, with another target. 500e as well is not a successor, panda aimed at rural and ecomonical areas while 500e is a fashion city car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.31.185 (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic is 5 speed

I should know, I drive one. It is a dualogic roboticised semi auto/auto box with 5 forward speeds and 1 reverse.

Validity of the New Panda article

Please try not to pollute the original Panda article with 2003 onwards items as that is all in a different article. I've removed two incredibly confusing entries. (This unsigned comment was left by 86.214.7.110 on 23 April, 2006.)

You have got to be kidding... "Old Fiat Panda"?! "New Fiat Panda"?! Whose bright idea was it to separate them (and give them such unencyclopedic titles)? If Wikipedia can incorporate 10 body styles of Ford Mustangs spanning 40 years in a single article (and get it featured), or seven generations of Mitsubishi Minicas spanning 44 years, how do a pair of Pandas require their own pages?

Nothing to do with me ( 86.214.7.110 on 23 April, 2006.) ). Frankly I couldn't give a stuff whether the articles are seperate or not. However, whatever is set up should be adhered to, or altered entirely. At the time of the edit above, there was the "New" and "Fiat Panda" articles kept seperate and "New" items kept appearing in the "Original" article.

I'm going to discuss a merger of the two at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. I hope to see you there if you'd like to contribute to the discussion. -- DeLarge 18:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the two as your right there is no reason to keep the two articles seperate. Regards, Signature ^brendel 04:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just got through cleaning up the article. What do you guys think? --ApolloBoy 06:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some minor clean-up after merging as this article was in great need of a major revamp. The Article looks Much Better Now! Great work everyone! Regards, Signature ^brendel 18:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish police buy blue & white Panda Actuals

If only the British police would do the same, then they'd be "Actual Pandas"! (A "panda car" being a British term for a local — non-high speed use — police car, which were once painted blue and white in many forces.) ;-) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, me too, it would be the culmination of a lifetime pondering, as I always thought this was a literal description when I was younger (hey, if they have a contingent of Fiesta Populars, why not Pandas?)... much disappointment when I found it wasn't :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panda Super windows

This is a super-trivial point, and the article isn't wrong in what it says just now, but it may be misleading by omission. And since there's the impetus for a cleanup just now...

Whilst I'm certain about the fact that the 1986 "Mark II" had full-size front side windows without quarterlights, which I've added to the article, and that the original 1980 Pandas didn't (as you can see in the photos in the article), I'm curious about the 1983 "Super" which came with a front-grille facelift but not the main mechanical changes under the skin. I'm pretty sure it didn't have the new windows. But I can't prove it from any of the brochures I've got. Anyone? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help on that in any way other than to back up the point about the 1986 ones; my mother's old 1000CL was an '86 and had one-piece windows. Didn't have contact with a car that had cheap, quarterlight-based windows until buying a '91 Polo much later. And, for that matter, where's mention of this model in the lineup? Not all 998cc ones were Supers! (CL.. 4-speed box, a second external mirror, a stronger rear bench, a cheap radio... and that's your lot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The door redesign was definitely part of the '86 "Mark II" overhaul: My folks had a 1983 "A-Reg" Super from new, and it had the quarter light door windows, (and a strong tendancy to rust: poor thing fell apart within a few years). Later on my brother's "D-Reg" 1987 Super and my own much loved "G-Reg" 1990 CL both had the revised galvanised body shell (my CL's bodywork was completely rust-free except for the base of the door sills when I parted with it in 2001) and proper roll down windows. Have amended the article accordingly noting these structural changes as being part of the 1986 revision Splateagle (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MPG in US gallons

The table at the bottom give the fuel performance in US gallons with imperial and l/100km in brackets, should it not be in l/100km first with mpg figures in brackets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.251.40 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with this. This is a car made by an Italian manufacturer and popular mainly in Europe, and therefore an article of international rather than US-specific interest. Both the top speed and fuel consumption data should be in metric first as per Wikipedia's style guide. The data is also not referenced. RedGreenInBlue (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renault 4 & Citroen 2CV comparison

Recently this has been repeatedly edited with no comment to change one or other of these comparisons (usually the less well known Renault) to VW Beetle - since justifying the revert in comment isn't stopping the edits I thought it'd be worth starting a discussion here on the comparisons.

The comparisons chosen reflect the Panda's "utility car" role which both the Citroen and Renault shared, being designed with versatility in mind for more varied uses than simply carrying four passengers - unlike the VW Beetle.

I'm looking for a source on this from the original Panda's launch but in the meantime (barring a well argued/sourced rationale for the change of course) please could whoever it is stop switching in the Beetle every few days? Thanks.Splateagle (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6.5 million, not 10.5

From Fiat Press " Panda è tutto questo e qualcosa di più: un brand ricco di valenze razionali ed emotive, che ha saputo conquistare oltre 6,5 milioni di automobilisti " ! http://www.fiatpress.com/press/detail/11327

Width?

Measurements given obviously do not include mirrors. As of 2015 the vehicle measures 1,882 mm (74.1 in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.4.62.79 (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fiat Panda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fiat Panda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4x4 on version 141A

Until 20 years ago I'd owned (for a couple of years) an old 1987 4x4 with the 999cc FIRE engine, so presumably a 1st revision of the

"first small, transverse-engined production car to have a 4WD system." Article continues:-

"The system itself was manually selectable, with an ultra-low first gear. Under normal (on-road) conditions starting was from second, with the fifth gear having the same ratio as fourth in the normal Panda." "Austrian company Steyr-Puch supplied the entire drivetrain (clutch, gearbox, power take-off, three-piece propshaft, rear live axle including differential and brakes)"

"January 1986, the Panda received a substantial overhaul and a series of significant mechanical improvements."

I came here because I can't quite remember everything, but my car (purchased from a local farmer who'd had loads of them) had permanent diff lock whenever 4wd was selected - so presumably didn't actually need a 'differential' as such on the rear axle?

It went very well up very steep ploughed fields etc, the single gear it was in while 4wd was selected must've been quite low (compared with the original Freelander where 1st gear isn't very low really) but in normal road driving mode it seemed to have a normal five speed gearbox as far as I remember?

It was of course necessarily a primitive system but extremely effective - if you were in an actual truly off road situation where no ordinary road car was going to be of any use then the single 4wd mode offered gave you just what was needed, so I remember it fondly & would love to see it well documented before it's forgotten about... 86.148.15.134 (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image current generation

I changed the infobox-image of the third Panda generation, since I think in my suggested picture the vehicle is in a better angle, the background is better and the contrast between vehicle and background is higher. Also there are no dices on the rear-view mirror and there is no sticker in the windshield. My edit was reverted, since the reverter finds it too reflective. Which image is prefered by the others? Cheers--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander-93That white photo has been a long-standing image and if people were complaining about it should of been removed ages ago, it didn't need to be changed. It not the fact whether the picture isn't good or not, the fact is you are trying to replace photos because they were taken by me. Why is it now you seem to be siding with Charles01, looks to me you are favouring his photos and planning to replace any long-standing photos only because they were taken by me, this is completely unacceptable. --Vauxford (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vauxford This is the first time I think, I'm using a photo of Charles. It was uploaded a week ago, so there was no possibility to change this image with yours in the recent months/years. If I replace an image, I do this because I think the new one is better. And if other users think different, we can discuss. That's what I'm doing. And now we should stick to the topic!--Alexander-93 (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The red car photo is at a very nice angle, I think it's is an improvement. And "long-standing image" is not something that should matter, I think this is an quite obvious improvement, and your seeing it as the work of conspiratorial forces trying to take you down is not a good thing for collaborative editing, when you start seeing others improving on your work and think that it must be some plot, rather than being happy that Wikipedia has been improved, nothing good comes of that. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toasted Meter Fine... It was a old photo after all and I wasn't as considerate what stuff a car would have inside and out. It just too much of a coincident after the other one he did on the Audi Q3 so I thought he might of been influenced by what Charles01 been saying about me and started using his image over any others, can you see that can be easily misinterpreted? I'm just fed up and drained of this cycle, someone making a talkpage discussion and getting waves of personal remarks by Charles01 rather then the actual photo. Undo the revert I done, but I'm still oppose to how the Audi Q3 discussion resulted in. --Vauxford (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Under the 2nd generation Panda section, the following quote raises some questions:

"Traditionally, Fiat have ranked at the lower end of this table, showing that the Nuova Panda is reversing the trend and suggesting a rise in quality standards for Fiat"

Unless this gets sourced by some non-biased articles, indicating that the 2nd gen Panda does indeed have historical significance in a sort of "turning point" for Fiat perceived quality among the public, then I can only interpret that as a blatant attempt at promoting the brand. In which case, it should be removed. Interested in reading what others have to say before jumping the gun and go straight for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raven-14 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New infobox image

I want to proposed a change of image on the Fiat Panda article because there a duplicate image on both the infobox and the third generation section. I could make the edit myself but the recent revert by Charles01 over a mistake edit I did added some tension. So to play it safe and put to bed the false assumption that I'm up to something, I want to discuss it with other users. --Vauxford (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Without sounding disrespectful the whole image discussion thing has become tedious and repetitive so I've gone ahead and replaced one of the images anyway. To be fair you were only reverted because you replaced one duplicate image with another - You weren't reverted because Charles didn't like the image so this discussion was probably unneeded but fair play to you for playing safe. Just sometimes lengthy discussions really arent needed. –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Davey2010, I knew it was a little overkill, I really wasn't up to get into another messy situation. --Vauxford (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vauxford, No worries mate, Don't blame you. It's always best to be safe than sorry. I've created a fare few "unneeded" discussions/RFCs to avoid silly situations so we all do it and it's certainly the best option!, Anyway thank you for coming here. Take care, –Davey2010^Talk 23:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no mention of the motorsport racing pedigree for the panda step it up wiki vols

wanted to know what the most successful accolades the 80s rally teams were awarded. Some on here will know it to this level of depth.

Thank you all very much 86.6.236.167 (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grande Panda

Why the "Grande Panda" redirect here? Is a totally new model from third little FCA Panda with different name, chassis, mechanical (PSA origin) and engine, it is more like as segment B car and a Crossover SUV. I will split the article. 91.80.22.67 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's part of the Panda family. Does the 1980 Panda had anything to do with the 2003 Panda? It has a different chassis, mechanical, engine, production plant, size etc. And both are still Fiat Pandas. The 2003 one was even supposed to be a Fiat Gingo. Every now and then of course there's a generation that would be totally different than the previous one. Andra Febrian (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. In fact it is not clear why there are no separate ancillary items for the three generations which are all different from each other, as is done for example with the Jeep Cherokee, 911, Series 3, Golf, Polo or Fiesta and more others. Of a car later sold in millions of copies and taken from numerous authoritative sources [1][2] as a "icon of automotive". Your union was made without consent for prior discussion or any argument and was instead annulled with good reason and with fair judgment. And isn't the first time what you make a "not good bold" union without preventative discussion. 93.150.217.195 (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just scribble some opinion in the talk page without anyone replying and claiming there's a "discussion", that doesn't count. What do you mean "union"? You mean merge?

"In fact it is not clear why there are no separate ancillary items for the three generations which are all different from each other, as is done for example with the 911, Series 3, Golf, Polo or Fiesta." Yes, there's no real reason. But this is what we call convention and if you want to question it, kindly visit the project talk page. My opinion, they share the same name and lineage and there's no real reason to separate them either. Andra Febrian (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that Fiat Grande Punto was merged into Fiat Punto with no objection. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The case of the Punto will at most be addressed in another discussion. The conventions that you argue in your favor do not exist, denies reality. Here we are talking about a segment A city car of approximately 370 cm made entirely on a Fiat base and mechanics and another 4-meter segment B crossover SUV made entirely on a Peugeot base. They are different things. The conventions that you argue in your favor do not exist; the reasoning and way of doing things are wrong in terms of method and motivation. The cars are different and only share the brand and part of the name. Shall we put Jeep Grand Cherokee and Cherokee together? Even the Focus C-Max with the Focus because it had the similar name? even the Focus has a voice for each generation.a consensus had already formed, now you wait for another one to form in your direction. you cannot posthumously dispute a discussion on which you did not write before. Read it WP:BOLD. The prior discussion to make this change and restore and cancel your merge was made 5 days before and no one objected; these are the facts. Now come up with an argument that confirms that they go together; now it's your turn to find another consensus. 109.114.38.0 (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see.

14 June 2024, Fiat Grande Panda was created. This article creation had no consensus.
17 June 2024, I merged Fiat Grande Panda to Fiat Panda, meaning I objected to the new article. This merge had no objection even from article creator @(G)jabz:.
23 June 2024, another editor @HJUdall: added a category to Fiat Grande Panda. You can say they do not object to the move.
15 July 2024, you asked why was Fiat Grande Panda a redirect. You did not attempt a consensus, you just said "I will split the article." No one replied.
21 July 2024, you split it back to Fiat Grande Panda. At this point the status quo of the merged article was 34 days.
21 July 2024, I reverted the split, and made a comment at the talk page against the split.
22 and 23 July 2024, edit war ensues.

You do realize it's ridiculous of you to feel like you have every right to split it, even when an editor vocally objected? Do you realize the status quo (held for 34 days) was to have the article merged? Whether it was 5 days, 1 day or 5 months, you do not automatically gain a "silent consensus" or even approval for an edit. If another editor objected to that edit, discuss not edit war. Andra Febrian (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No and I already answered. For creating a new article no prior consent is required. Second, according to silent assent in discussion is a form of consent and is expressly prohibited only in discussions to draft new or modify guidelines or criteria. You merge without discussing, the restore are bolding. The discussion was open and if you haven't seen it it's not a problem. it was an act of "courtesy" because it was neither obligatory nor necessary to start a prior discussion. the discussion took place within a reasonable time of 5 days, there were no objections, so we proceed with the outcome of the discussion. Do you want to alter the outcome of this discussion? you discuss it again, but you cannot change the outcome nor do you find any other consensus on your "unionist" thesis. The edit in crono and the changes in chronology are not tacit consent in your favor, the consent is questioned and had been made last 5 days ago. Third, there isn't the same car and is not part of the same "family". Fourth, the entry is already large in size, reaching 92 kb. 109.114.38.0 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also argue that the article should be merged, citing the Fiat Punto / Grande Punto pages, where a similar thing happened. (jabz) 14:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning by analogy is deprecated because each item has its own story (case-by-case evaluation). Off topic: all other wikis have the page for Punto and Grande Punto; and specifically it wasn't a good example to follow, union had been made without discussion or motivation in the object field Fiat for make Grande Punto created a new platform. The all indipendent source say that was different. 109.114.38.0 (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying as if the discussion is absolutely final and there's no changing the "outcome". Let me reiterate: nobody answered until I came. The discussion only started after I joined the talk page. No one closed the discussion, therefore the discussion is open to other outcomes.

92 kb is standard length. A single-generation article can go about 78 kb such as the Golf Mk7. The Panda is a four-generation article and it should've been longer. Andra Febrian (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, in spite of the IP's unpleasant demeanor (I guess language barriers, but still) I agree with them that the Grande Panda is not similar enough to keep it on this page. The size and genetic differences are not enough on their own, but when the name is also different, it becomes easy and clear for me. Thank you, Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]