This will come as no surprise to regular readers, but I don’t really like newer cars very much. I never thought I’d be one of those people whose taste in cars (and music and movies) essentially froze in my thirties, but here I am in my fifties pretending anything made after 2005 doesn’t exist. This week, however, I’m going to try to explore the newer car market. I’m going to try to stick to cars no more than fifteen years old, starting with these two little runabouts.
Friday was an experiment: What happens if I show you two obviously overpriced cars, and give you an escape hatch in the poll? Well, what happens is most of you take it. Fully seventy-five percent of you noped out. So that’s enough of that. We’re now back to our usual “you must choose” rules.
If I throw out the “none” votes, the winner on Friday was the black Colt GT, which is my favorite of the two. Putting a wood-rimmed Nardi steering wheel in a basic economy car is my kind of silly, and while I still think they’re both overpriced, if forced to choose, I’ll take the less expensive option.
Gas prices right now, to put it plainly, suck. It’s almost never worth it to think about trading in a car to get better mileage, but I can’t say that I don’t look at the small cars on the road with some envy, as our Hemi- and LS-powered cars gulp down unleaded like a rock star on a bender. You never want to see $100 on the pump total. And with the two little cars we’re going to look at today, you never will – unless prices really went crazy. Let’s check them out.
2013 Chevrolet Spark – $3,900
Engine/drivetrain: 1.2-liter DOHC inline 4, four-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Chicago, IL
Odometer reading: 171,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Chevy’s history of tiny captive imports dates all the way back to 1985, when the Suzuki-built Chevy Sprint was introduced. The Sprint gave way to the legendary Geo Metro, which stuck around for more than a decade before being replaced by the Daewoo-built Chevy Aveo. And in 2013, the Spark, also based on a Daewoo design, replaced the Aveo. Now, of course, you can’t get any small cars at all at a Chevy dealership, which feels like a mistake to me, but what do I know?
The Spark is powered by a tiny 1.2-liter four cylinder making just 84 horsepower. But it’s a lightweight car, especially by modern standards, so it’s enough. This first-year Spark has a traditional four-speed torque-converter-type automatic; later Sparks had the dreaded Jatco CVT. This transmission is said to be less efficient, but a lot more reliable. You could spec a five-speed manual as well, but few buyers did. This Spark has covered 171,000 miles, but the seller says it runs and drives like new.
The condition of the interior at that mileage shows that someone has taken care of this car. The tree air freshener is a little worrying, but I know some people actually like the smell of those stupid things, so I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. The seller says everything works as it should.
Sparks came in a whole rainbow of colors, as a small economy car should. This pale rosy pink, called “Techno Pink” by Chevy, is actually one of the more subtle options. It’s in good condition outside, but it almost looks like some body panels don’t quite match. I’ve noticed that on other cars as well, and I can never tell if it’s a trick of the light in the photo, or if the paint fades more on the plastic parts than on the sheetmetal, or what.
2014 Fiat 500 Sport – $3,999
Engine/drivetrain: Turbocharged 1.4-liter OHC inline 4, six-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Plainfield, IL
Odometer reading: 75,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
You can pretty much blame Volkswagen for this car. VW’s Concept One show car in 1994 was a big hit, and became the New Beetle in 1998. BMW, after acquiring the Rover Group and with it the Mini brand, saw the Beetle and thought, “Hey, we can do that, too!” Fiat, not to be left out, introduced its own modern version of the iconic 500 in 2007, and brought it to the US in 2012. It isn’t quite the pared-down people’s car that the old 500 was, but then, the modern Mini and Beetle weren’t exactly bare-bones cars either.
This is the Sport model of the 500, with a turbocharger on its 1.4-liter MultiAir four cylinder. It drives the front wheels through a six-speed Aisin automatic, which is a bit of a letdown, but maybe the extra horsepower makes up for it. It’s a one-owner car with only 75,000 miles on it, and the seller says it runs and drives well.
I’ve always liked the interior treatment of these 500s. The body-colored dash panel, the cream-colored accents, and the overall stylishness of it is a nice change from the bland gray plastic appointments of most small cars. It’s in really good condition, as you would hope with the low mileage.
This one is a good color as well; you don’t see many brown cars these days. It’s also in really good condition. Personally, I think Fiat did a better job modernizing the 500 than BMW did the Mini. These are good-looking little cars.
It may not be worth trading in your gas guzzler on one of these, but if you’re looking for a car anyway, one glance at the numbers on the gas station sign could have you thinking small. Your choices for today are a simple no-nonsense hatchback from a domestic brand, though it’s built in Korea, or a stylish Italian mini built in Mexico. These things are from everywhere. Which one could find a home in your driveway?
I’m fairly certain this is too early for a Sport trim to have the turbo engine. I didn’t think the turbo got an auto till like ‘15-‘16ish and only the Turbo and Abarth trims had the turbo engine till ‘17-‘18? So this is likely just the regular N/A engine. Still would probably risk the Fiat for the lower mileage.
Slightly careful driving will net you +40 mph highway. Non-turbo engine of course.
Hopefully you are doing 40+mph on the highway. You should be doing 60, at least.
I spent my internet money on the Fiat because I think it will take less space in my internet driveway.
To those who picked that beater penalty box over the Fiat: It’s OK to like yourself. You’re allowed to have nice things.
I like not fixing turbos.
Yes, this is true. And I choose to like myself by never having to do any work on a 500 again if I can help it.
I picked the 500 but honestly not having to buy premium fuel is a pretty good reason to go with the Spark.
The chevy is a pink econo-shitbox.
The fiat is just a gay* little car.
* Gay is used in the old meaning here.
That little fiat really got the spark.
The Fiat but only because it’s the turbo motor. The base ones are stupid slow and would have pushed me to the Chevy.
The Fiat looks like more fun and the extra power would be much appreciated during my occasional longer drives. The reliability gap between it and the Spark has likely been narrowed by the Chevy’s extra 100,000 miles.
Fiat.
I don’t trust cars with air fresheners not to be attempting to mask chainsmokers..
My daughter has one in her car just cause she likes the smell. YMMV
Yeah, that’s what my son said. I don’t think his pupils have dilated since around 2016.
My daughter has no desire to drink or smoke.
Fewer than half the miles, plus striking decor, for just $99 more make the little cup of espresso worth the Italian risk.
That is a lovely color combo on that 500.
And the Spark had a four speed in it? I mean guess it’s better than the shitty Nissan CVT (!?) it had later but hell is this a compact car from 2013 or 1993?
Probably not enough engine to take advantage of any more gears, or that’s the though process, I would guess.
The Fiat….come on it’s turbo…and brown! Though would be better if it was a stick. Though both would
Six speeds in the automatic go a long way to making it more interesting.
Both of these are basically overgrown golf carts. It would be terrifying to take either of these onto the interstate here in the land of Suburbans and full size pickup trucks.
The bright pink would probably be a wise safety measure, but I went with the “they’re never going to spot you in the ditch” brown Fiat.
People take smaller vehicles on the interstate all the time, with even worse crash protection (motorcycles).
Yes, other people do. I do not. I’m kind of a wuss that way. 🙂
My brother is into road bikes. In fact he just got a new (to him) one last week. He gets great joy out of 600 mile road trips, and I’m happy for him. It’s just not something I would do.
Dirt bikes and ATVs are a blast, but only in their natural environment.
I get nervous enough on the interstate in my NC Miata (the “big” one).
When I take my classic Mini out on the interstate, I take comfort in the fact that any Suburban rear-endening will only be my problem for a fraction of a second.
I have a 500(e) and the only anxiety I experience on the highway is when I see the range indicator drop like an anvil. My safety has never been a concern.
I DD a 2016 500e and avoid interstates mainly because Atlanta. But the 100+hp and EV oomph make it fun to zip ahead of anything scary next to me if I’m on one.
And the 500s have a relatively tall seating position so you’re not staring at spiked lugnuts when you’re next to a tractor trailer.
But…does the 500S have the same crap turning radius the Abarth does?
My brother tends to buy without doing a trade-in and then gets rid of the old bike via private sale. One day our mother was driving down the road and came upon an accident scene. Someone had pulled out onto the highway without properly yielding the right of way, and had taken out a motorcyclist. She recognized the bike immediately, but didn’t know he’d sold it yet. By the way people were standing around the body (ambulance hadn’t arrived yet), she could tell it was a fatal accident, but she didn’t know whether or not it was her son.
I was paranoid about motorcycles before that incident, but that pretty much sealed it as far as me ever getting a two wheeler. (A reverse trike has some appeal to me though, for whatever reason.)
I chose the Fiat only because 100k miles less than the Chevrolet.
The Fiat is just an Abarth with a torque converter automatic and probably less aggressive suspension (which I am sure makes it less unnerving).
The Spark didn’t replace the Aveo, the Sonic did (which was still called Aveo here). The Spark is a smaller A-segment car.
I like the looks of the 500S, but I picked the Spark today, even though it’s uglier and has more miles.
The reasoning: The question asked which one would you buy due to the high cost of fuel? The Spark gets 32 mpg over the 500s 30 mpg. Plus the Chevy will be happy with regular 87 octane. The Fiat recommends premium fuel.
According to Google:
Gas Mileage Comparison (EPA Estimates)
Vehicle & Transmission —————–City MPG Highway MPG Combined MPG
2013 Chevy Spark (4-Speed Auto)———-28—————37—————32
2014 Fiat 500 (6-Speed Auto)—————-27—————34—————30
Based on current national average gas prices, the 2014 Fiat 500 will cost approximately $468.60 more in fuel than the 2013 Chevrolet Spark over the course of one year and 12,000 miles.
This significant difference is driven by two factors: the Fiat 500’s lower fuel efficiency and its requirement for premium unleaded fuel.
Wow, neither one of these is as efficient as my Maverick hybrid. I average about 40 mpg. Full disclosure though, my wife gets closer to 35.
Non-hybrid and bad aerodynamics are not a brilliant combination…
EDIT In reference to the city cars, to clarify.
With a hybrid drivetrain using a 660cc engine, and a CdA about 1/2 of what the cars currently have, the overall fuel economy could easily be doubled, and the highway fuel economy possibly tripled.
Consider the Renault Twingo of the 1990s, and then what Greenpeace did with the non-hybrid Renault Twingo SMILE, and notice the difference.
These small cars are already hideous looking, so why not lean into the fuel economy aspect that is their main selling point? The auto industry really isn’t trying to give us an option that keeps fuel costs at a minimum.
Completely agree. Although we have come fairly far in that aspect even with small cars. Clio VI has a Cx of 0,3 and the hybrid drivetrain is utterly economical.
Anything above a 0.2 Cx is totally extraneous fluff on anything except for a pickup truck or a supercar where downforce is critical. We should and could have small city cars with a Cx value around 0.19(consider the Mercedes Bionic from 2 decades ago), lower if you decide to make an economical RWD sports car with a city car footprint(1967 Panhard CD Peugeot 66C had a 0.13).
While I agree with you and in theory it should be achievable, I guess that reality begs to differ.
Styling and practicality put hurdles to that (in a SUV-based society, does anyone want to buy a car that looks like a fish?), also hatchbacks are usually less aerodynamic than teardrop-shaped cars. And then there can be cost constraints as the extra cost of a completely covered floor might not be feasible in a €20,000 car.
But I would love to drive such a car if it existed.
Yeah, for sure, but I’m sure they have better aerodynamics than my Maverick which is basically a lumpy brick.
My Soul is having the same issue that this Spark is showing. The plastic bumpers are fading at a different rate than the metal panels in the Florida sunshine. You might think I had a collision and replaced them, but I did not.
My mom’s ’10 Mustang has the same problem – if you look closely enough, she’s actually white and off white at this point.
I know Ford works hard (and I assume the others do too) to make sure the metal and the plastic are color matched. They don’t seem to account for fading over time. Oh well. Gives the car some character!
Yeah, there is an additive that has to be put into the paint over flexible parts. If you don’t put in enough, the paint pops off over time, but put in too much and it fades at a different rate than normal.
I think the clincher for me was the lower mileage. I’m ambivalent otherwise.
It says something that I would prefer the brownish mound by the roadside. But, here we are.
Spark mostly b/c the dash is more my cup of tea – sportbike performance functional is > 60s Italian retro that itself channels 50s American cars.
I’m picking the turbo five hundo, if only to have a stash of window regulators, armrests, and door handles at the ready for my 500e.
Are those the biggest issues with your 500e? I have the opportunity to pick one u pop (43k miles) for next to nothing and I’m having a tough time saying no. Worth the gamble?
I love this car. It is so nice having a small urban e-nugget to scoot around in. I would highly, highly, highly recommend trying it out.
The rear seats basically don’t exist, but the cargo space is huge with them folded down. The range isn’t great, but driving for efficiency exercises a muscle that basically doesn’t exist in an ICE car. I think it is fun, but I could be (am) weird.
The failures I pointed out are known failure points in all 500s. Specific to the 500e – the AC compressor is NLA, as are the rear shocks. It only does level 2 charging (no fast charge for you) but it’ll charge to full overnight at 120v.
If you don’t have to go very far, or you have 8 hours of charging available at your workplace, I’d absolutely recommend it as a second or a sixth vehicle.
Also the driver’s armrest tends to break in half if you push on it too hard.
Many thanks! It actually has a Thule rack system on it worth about $500 and that’s about 15% of the potential sales price, I’m gonna do it.
I voted Fiat, but really, either would be great.
I have an affinity for itty-bitty cars like these.
The Spark is a fantastic color, and it’s so tall and narrow, it looks adorkable! And the headlights have that peeled back look taken to such an extreme that they nearly reach the windshield!
But the 500 wins because I bought a 2013 for my daughter’s first car, and it gave us over 80k trouble free miles. The only downside was it had a sunroof, and the passenger front seat wasn’t height adjustable, and I would juuuuust touch the headliner when I sat there. This one doesn’t have that problem. Plus it had much lower miles.
However, given the location of both, they gotta be closely examined for rust!
If fuel efficiency is the selling point, why not list it in the specs?
Gas Mileage Comparison (EPA Estimates)
Vehicle & Transmission —————–City MPG Highway MPG Combined MPG
2013 Chevy Spark (4-Speed Auto)———-28—————37—————32
2014 Fiat 500 (6-Speed Auto)—————-27—————34—————30
Based on current national average gas prices, the 2014 Fiat 500 will cost approximately $468.60 more in fuel than the 2013 Chevrolet Spark over the course of one year and 12,000 miles.
This significant difference is driven by two factors: the Fiat 500’s lower fuel efficiency and its requirement for premium unleaded fuel.
Because these are inefficient little subcompact city runabouts even compared to non hybrids in the compact car class. Unaerodynamic little blobs more suited to short drives than highway slogs and even suburban commuting. You’d be better off with a Civic, Corolla, Focus, etc than one of those turds, but as the spark is pink my 5 year old daughter would love it.
I have always loved the style of the 500, especially the interior. Its seats are shockingly comfortable. BUT…
It’s me, not you, Cinquecento. I just don’t want any more turbochargers in my life. My nostrils are singed into fatigue with burnt oil. I’m convinced there’s just no way to keep the supply, return or intake tract clear of oil for the long term.
The brutal heat cycling is something I would also prefer to avoid.
Tiny cars with transverse powertrains have glovebox-sized engine bays. I have little dwarf hands but don’t like feeding my phalanges into a meat grinder if I can help it. And this car’s configuration means you’re not going to be able to avoid it. At some point. I buy for keeps.
And in the 500, unless it’s the Abarth, it’s just not worth it.
Relax and plan.
The Spark is less “exotic” in that it’s an appliance car from Korea vs an appliance car with (forced induction) aspirations.
For the simpler life, the Spark will be a better place to practice your mantra and achieve Zen. Something like “gonnadiegonnadiegonnadie” to calm your anxiety as you enter a high speed interstate highway from a short ramp.
Honestly, I just think the Spark will be cheap and anvil reliable. Repair parts, including a whole-ass parts car, will be cheap, as well.
Nobody treasures these things till they’re long gone. Use that to your advantage. The 500 has a bit too much character to be seen as disposable.
There’s something in there about Automotive Horseshoe Theory: very expensive high-luxury and tech cars and very cheap basic cars both revert to being basically $.25-.50 per pound for the enterprising and patient buyer.
I drove my Abarth for 7 years with barely an issue. Only 75K miles? Easy choice.
Spark would be the sensible choice if the mileage between the 2 were the same. It will likely be more reliable and cheaper to maintain. I had one as a rental once and it was a car, except that it only seats 4 and there were 5 of us so we rejected it and got something bigger that I can’t remember.
Fiat wins just for being quirky.
Think a cuppa mocha sounds right this morning. The 500’s just an interesting car anyway, even if this isn’t the Abarth.