I have owned two FIATs and a Lancia (FIAT Group) Delta. The Lancia was the funnest car I've ever owned. It chomped my Golf GTI any day. Road handling was a dream, equipment was amazing, things like stock Recaro seats, etc. That said, I will never own a FIAT again. FIAT is Stellantis: FIAT, Peugeot, Chrysler, Citroen... Amazing impulse buys. Sweet cars new, but they age horrendously.

They are designed to fail in the short term. Amazing innovations, power oriented engines, but just too flimsy.

The Multipla is a great concept executed the FIAT way.

I believe Honda had a 6 seater subcompact. The CHR or CRV? I can't remember. I'd pick the Honda any day.

The MKII had much better styling, BTW

I've rebuilt two FIAT engines. An engineer's wet dream. A 1,20L that output nearly a 100 HP? yes, but a shitload of compromises. the fucking head was the top engine support!!! Fuck FIAT.

I must admit that the 900 was simpler than a scooter's engine. You could probably work on it with a Leatherman and some duct tape, but I have owned motorcycles with 3X the power output. I've driven some Cinquecentos. Opening the hood/bonnet has given me PTSD.

[–] lemonuri@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

The Mk II lost all the charm of the original in my opinion. I think there is nothing cooler than going on a road trip with three people in the front (like in a transporter). To have that in a compact car would be a huge selling point for me. Who really cares about looks -- cars are for utility in the first place imho.

I think old American cars had a couch instead of a front seat, so you would be able to fit an entire family (or one average sized American). How cool was that?

[–] skarn@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It was the Honda HRV, and it couldn't hold a candle to the Multipla.

The Multipla had 6 full size seats that could all comfortably hold adults, plus the backseats where individually removable. I loaded a couch sideways in that car. Absolutely brilliant.

The middle seats on the HRV were significantly smaller, no comparison in terms of usefulness and versatility.

[–] alberttcone@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

It was the Honda FRV and I still have one. I also had a Multipla. Both are good, in their own quirky ways. Both have slightly narrower seats than a normal car; the honda slightly narrower, but more supportive, have heating and are leather. Both are very car-like to drive, but the Honda has way better engines and better reliability. That said, getting parts for the FRV is a pain, because there weren’t many made and the wider body means that a surprising number aren’t shared with other Honda models if the same era.

Given a choice, as a practical family car, I’d take the FRV over the multipla. I do have a soft spot for the multiplugly though.

[–] skarn@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 21 hours ago

Both have slightly narrower seats than a normal car

The Multipla's seats are narrower than a normal car? Are you american?

have heating and are leather

I think the FRV was also a significant step up in price. That being said, I never understood what's supposed to be good about leather seats.

Both are very car-like to drive

What else should they be like?

but the Honda has way better engines and better reliability.

The one I had was the natural gas version. It might as well have been on pedals. And the noise on the motorway, between the engine and the aerodynamics, was horrendous.That being said, we got 380000km over 19 years out of that one, so not too bad.

That said, getting parts for the FRV is a pain, because there weren’t many made and the wider body means that a surprising number aren’t shared with other Honda models if the same era.

Getting parts for the Multipla was pretty easy, despite the wider body most parts were somehow shared with much smaller cars, like the FIAT Brava.