Come on Fiat...Abarth NOW!!!

[Small Car Lover]

Thanks for the link.  Good review.  Interesting the Abarth SS is about 230lbs heavier than the regular 500, in european trim.  I wonder if the US model is going to gain that much?  Hmm.

No shortage of power in the SRT4

[CaliberSRT4]

Small Car Lover wrote

Thanks for the link.  Good review.  Interesting the Abarth SS is about 230lbs heavier than the regular 500, in european trim.  I wonder if the US model is going to gain that much?  Hmm.

No shortage of power in the SRT4

I wonder about that too. If the engineers couldn't fit a 6-speed into the regular 500 without cutting into the safety structure, will they also have trouble fitting the turbo plumbing and intercoolers into the Abarth? If they shaved off some of the structure they could save some weight and increase the workable space, but maybe that wouldn't be considered a fair compromise. They could also take out some of the sound-deadening on the Abarth model to save weight.

[sketch]

Considering some of the rumours I've heard about power output for the Abarth, they might be doing a significant amount of reworking on it for the US market.  I also vaguely remember hearing the Abarth will actually be an introduction to the next generation car?

[Small Car Lover]

I was having a hard time reconciling the evo test results in my head, so I re-read that review again and noticed at the very bottom of the page, after of all the performance results it notes "Conditions: Wet".  I suspect that impacted the results of both cars.  For example I have seen the Cooper S given a 6.2 sec to 60 here versus the 6.6 in the evo review.  I'm still thinking the Abarth SS might be a little quicker to 60 then the 6.9, at least in the dry.

[CaliberSRT4]

Small Car Lover wrote

I was having a hard time reconciling the evo test results in my head, so I re-read that review again and noticed at the very bottom of the page, after of all the performance results it notes "Conditions: Wet".  I suspect that impacted the results of both cars.  For example I have seen the Cooper S given a 6.2 sec to 60 here versus the 6.6 in the evo review.  I'm still thinking the Abarth SS might be a little quicker to 60 then the 6.9, at least in the dry.

That's a very good point, I didn't catch that when I read the article. Dry conditions should shave a couple of tenths off the 0-60 times.

Out of curiosity, where did you see the Cooper S as having a 6.2 seconds 0-60? I've seen 6.5 and 6.6, but nothing as low as 6.2. Are you sure you aren't confusing the S with the John Cooper Works?

[CaliberSRT4]

Oh sorry, I missed the link in your post at first. I see that the link goes to Car & Driver but the link doesn't seem to work for me?

[Small Car Lover]

The link came out of this comparo, then scroll to the downloads and click on "Powertrain Chart".  I had to use Internet Explorer because the Powertrain Chart would not open in Chrome for me.  Hopefully that will work for you...

[CaliberSRT4]

Small Car Lover wrote

The link came out of this comparo, then scroll to the downloads and click on "Powertrain Chart".  I had to use Internet Explorer because the Powertrain Chart would not open in Chrome for me.  Hopefully that will work for you...

I was using Chrome on Mac Snow Leopard, so it definitely didn't work lol. No matter, I can see they claim 6.2 seconds in the article text.

Other publications seem to be getting 6.5 seconds, for example:
http://www.insideline.com/mini/cooper/2007/full-test-2007-mini-cooper-s.html
http://www.edmunds.com/mini/cooper/2009/

And there are some other places getting 7 seconds or more 0-60.

It's possible that Car & Driver had a very good driver on a very well-prepped drag strip in order to set such a good time. Based on this brief video, that appears to be the case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ3xJL2JQBs

It seems like the differences between the cars could be consistent, whether faster or slower overall. So perhaps Car & Driver could have achieved 6.5 seconds with an Esseesse.

[Small Car Lover]

Caliber, I agree with your points 100%.  Your point about C&D times vs other publications is very valid.  For little arm chair comparisons like these, I think it's important to use the same source.  Just like you point out, not much point in comparing times from different publications that use different drivers, test facilities, and possibly different methods.  In the end, we are only trying to get a relative comparison between cars so we can take the number back to a frame of reference we are familiar with (a car we  have driven).  A published number number doesn't have much meaning to me unless I can relate it back to something I have personal experience with.

I have been reading C&D (and others) since I was kid (25+ years ago).  Back in the day, in the US, there was Road and Track, Car and Driver and Motor Trend.  R&T focused more on the high end while C&D focused on more common stuff.  MT was the running joke.  So my frame of reference has developed around the C&D results.  I have a harder time evaluating results from other publications that I am not as familiar with.

Thanks for the links and the discussion.  It's great to get additional perspectives.

Cheers!

[CaliberSRT4]

Small Car Lover wrote

Caliber, I agree with your points 100%.  Your point about C&D times vs other publications is very valid.  For little arm chair comparisons like these, I think it's important to use the same source.  Just like you point out, not much point in comparing times from different publications that use different drivers, test facilities, and possibly different methods.  In the end, we are only trying to get a relative comparison between cars so we can take the number back to a frame of reference we are familiar with (a car we  have driven).  A published number number doesn't have much meaning to me unless I can relate it back to something I have personal experience with.

I have been reading C&D (and others) since I was kid (25+ years ago).  Back in the day, in the US, there was Road and Track, Car and Driver and Motor Trend.  R&T focused more on the high end while C&D focused on more common stuff.  MT was the running joke.  So my frame of reference has developed around the C&D results.  I have a harder time evaluating results from other publications that I am not as familiar with.

Thanks for the links and the discussion.  It's great to get additional perspectives.

Cheers!

That's exactly what I was getting at. Very well put.

I trust C&D's results as I consider them a very reputable source. I enjoy their comparisons, lightning laps, etc. and usually find their results to be spot-on. But I figured when I saw 6.2 seconds for the Cooper S that they must have had an amazing launch and shift in order to hit that number, so I looked at the video even though it didn't show much. FWD cars are very tricky to launch well and the acceleration times are slower. So the variance in 0-60 times does not come as that much of a surprise to me.

I'll be very interested to see a possible C&D comparison between the Abarth and Cooper S (or mini MINI S?). I thoroughly enjoyed the EVO comparison, and it seemed to hit perfectly on all the points. Of course, with the differences in wheelbase and body proportions between the two, the results are really no surprise.

Glad to hear you appreciate my very limited perspective lol.  I'm sure you have considerably more real-world experience than I do. I mostly just read up what I can, haha.

[cogtooth]

Anyone read a good direct comparison of an Abarth and a sport?  I understand the cosmetic (such as seats) and horsepower differences, but how about the suspension and handling.  I don't care too much about the 0-60 times, but I would hate to buy a sport and find the Abarth is way better at steering through the curves.  I'm kind of thinking that being able to use regular gas with better economy might be a better choice if I don't sacrifice too much cornering fun with a sport.  Are the ground effects lower on an Abarth going to mean that I would continue to hit a front air dam when I go into my garage, similar to my current car?

[Mike S]

You should easily be able to modify the sport to handle as well as you like with aftermarket parts.

[CaliberSRT4]

cogtooth wrote

Anyone read a good direct comparison of an Abarth and a sport?  I understand the cosmetic (such as seats) and horsepower differences, but how about the suspension and handling.  I don't care too much about the 0-60 times, but I would hate to buy a sport and find the Abarth is way better at steering through the curves.  I'm kind of thinking that being able to use regular gas with better economy might be a better choice if I don't sacrifice too much cornering fun with a sport.  Are the ground effects lower on an Abarth going to mean that I would continue to hit a front air dam when I go into my garage, similar to my current car?

The sport suspension is the same as the normal suspension, it is just tuned differently. The Abarth will be more serious and handle quite a bit better, for sure. Wider, stickier tires; a .5 inch lowered ride height, performance brake pads, bigger brakes.

If the US version has the esseesse changes as standard or available, the change is yet more dramatic. Even better tires, brakes, brake pads, shock absorbers, and lower springs.

What is your current car that rubs going into your garage? Unless it's something crazy, I'm guessing the Abarth would rub as well. My car definitely scrapes sometimes, and I go up steeper drives at a more careful pace. But it doesn't bother me much, and there has been no damage as of yet, just a lot of scrape marks on the plastic shield underneath the front of the car.

Mike S wrote

You should easily be able to modify the sport to handle as well as you like with aftermarket parts.

To modify the sport to be like the Abarth would seem like a lot of effort and money. I think it would make more sense to simply buy the Abarth, and have a full warranty on all those suspension components and everything.

[CaliberSRT4]

Not a comparison of Sport vs Abarth, but here is a comparison of the Abarth vs its competition in Europe that you might enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m81afvOq4yM

[Mike S]

He wanted handling AND fuel economy.

Sway bars, shocks and tires would be much cheaper than an upgrade to an Abarth.

[fredfrey]

I've driven the Abarth 500 in Holland and it was a blast. Keep in mind, it was not the SS version (they are very limited in EU) and the Euro Abarth is going to be less powerful then the US (SS Spec) version. Sure, the US version can be tuned somewhat by modifying the ECU chip, but that will not compare to the turbo and all the other modifications. My prima will be going up for sale as soon as the Abarth is available.

[CaliberSRT4]

Mike S wrote

He wanted handling AND fuel economy.

Sway bars, shocks and tires would be much cheaper than an upgrade to an Abarth.

The Abarth should have good fuel economy. First, to address his comment about the fuel type. Even the regular 500s are recommended to run Premium fuel, but can also use 87 octane (same as my SRT4). So the fuel price per gallon will be the same for the normal 500 and the Abarth.

Fuel economy will shed a few mpg, but that is still good fuel economy when you are talking 30+ mpg. My car gets 3 mpg less than the equivalent manual transmission 2.4L Caliber. So only a loss of 3 mpg with all the extra or changed body components (hood, grille/front fascia, rear diffuser, rear spoiler, side skirts), 19" wheels and wider stickier tires. 100 additional torque and over 100 additional horsepower. Plus all the suspension, exhaust, cooling, bigger brakes, larger sport seats, and countless other modifications.

To sum up my point. If the Abarth is similar to other performance models on the market as far as the price difference and fuel economy difference compared to the lower models, it would definitely be the better choice over modifying the lower model. All the modifications packed in, the OEM look and performance, all the testing, the full warranty backing, the resale value, etc. That's just my viewpoint though. Maybe he would rather just have a sport with a few mods here or there. That doesn't sound like much fun to me, compared to an Abarth (or just keeping the Sport stock), but to each his own.

edit: By the way, you make it seem simple, but I'm sure you realize the Abarth is a complete package. If he upgrades the handling, the brakes will still be inadequate and he will need to upgrade those too. Also, to cope with the extra g's you would definitely want some sport bucket seats to hug your body during turns (like those that come with the Abarth). Then I bet you before long, he will be yearning for a bit more pull. I am familiar with how the modding game goes. Eventually the costs, time, and issues start adding up and you end up wishing you had bought the performance model.

[RacerRon]

Fred, finally took a look at all the nice Alfas and Fiats you have. Nice collection. I am waiting for the 500 Abarth too. Hope more information comes out about the U.S. version this summer.

My 1978 X1/9 with Ansa exhaust.

[Mike S]

Not to argue, but it is simple. It's even easier now.

It the 70's I had to go to Torino to get cheap Abarth parts for my 124 Spider. There were a few parts Abarth would not sell because they needed them for the factory cars still in competition. No IRS for example. My carry on luggage had a header slung over my shoulder with carbs and cams and pistons in my bags. It's much easier now. The factory was so cool.

Add a turbo, modify an ECU. It's so easy. I don't want an Abarth. I want what the Abarth SHOULD be.

[sketch]

Then buy an old Abarth.