I spotted these two little coupe-cabrios at the curb, a Fiat 500C and a Smart Cabrio, and of course I couldn’t resist a few shots. What a great pairing. I was going to just share them but then it made me wonder, how does their combined length compare to the longest production coupe ever sold in the US, the 1973 Imperial? Turns out they’re almost the same length; actually about ten inches longer (245.7″ vs. 235.3″). Close enough.
It makes for a nice visual contrast. And the real irony is that the passenger compartment of the Fiat looks almost as big as the Imperial’s.
I’m speculating as to whether these belong to the same owner; since they’re both cabrios, it tends to suggest so. Or perhaps his and hers city cars, to complement the Range Rover in the driveway? No, it’s not Eugene; I found these in San Mateo, near San Francisco.
Smarts seem to be getting less common on the streets at a rather alarming pace. And the Cabrio was never very common.
Definitely the world’s shortest convertible.
I have a soft spot (and top) for the 500, especially the Cabrio version. It is of course intended to hark back to the original 500, which did have a similar roll-back roof.
Like this. I rather like these cabrio-coupes, as it allows those wide-open views up without the issues of a full convertible.
Stephanie and I could enjoy this, especially on the back forest roads in the mountains.
Of course an Abarth version would add to the fun factor. Of course there’s the little issue of the fact that she doesn’t do stick shifts. One for each of us! I’ll pass on the Smart.
Maybe I can talk her into the Smart? It’s “automatic”. Umm…never mind.
Related CC reading:
Who’s The Longest Mega-Coupe In The Land?
COAL: 2015 smart ForTwo – Clown Car, Or Real Car?
COAL: 2008 smart fortwo passion cabrio – A Small Car with a Passion for the Open Road
Love that top-olino! The best retro tribute ever.
The ’50 Rambler was also consciously copying Fiat, but it wasn’t retro at that time.
How interesting of a comparison. When you think about it, those two tiny cars being close to the same length as the big old Imperial, the comparisons can go even further. Example: Those two can carry a total of 6 just like the Imperial. When it comes to comfort doing so, the Imperial would probably win there. Luggage and room for stuff? Imperial should win that one hands down. And finally, although the two are tiny cars, they really didn’t get the greatest MPG’s as you would think. Either way, both are WAY more efficient than the Imperial. However, if you were in need of taking 6 passengers with 6 average sized pieces of luggage to the airport, the similarity could be close once again on fuel used. Taking those two tiny cars, would they use about the same amount of fuel as the Imperial alone?
Thanks for the great article.
Adding to my first comment: I have no real idea what these 3 cars would get in real work driving. But let’s say the Imperial got 13 MPG and on average, the other tiny cars got 30 MPG each. Let’s say the hypothetical airport run was 20 miles each way for a total of 40 miles round trip.
The huge Imperial would use about 3 gallons of gas. The two tiny cars would use combined about 2.6 gallons of gas. Just a fun little piece of useless info! haha.
If these folks needed to haul 6 persons and their luggage to the airport, they’d take the Range Rover in the driveway. How often does anyone take 6 people to the airport these days anyway? Pretty hypothetical.
Wow. Sorry to ruffle your morning feathers.
Yes, I was just having some fun and giving a hypothetical just like I said.
And as the article stated, we don’t know if the two cars were owned by the Range Rover driver. Assuming? Anyhow, have a nice day.
Ruffle my feathers? Hardly. It takes quite a bit more than that. 🙂
You have a nice day too!
The Imperial could tow a trailer carrying the two little cars. Towing is beyond what the little ones are capable of.
I really really miss my beautiful Fiat 500c. Unfortunately it became too scary to drive in my semi-rural area with wretched roads and crazy pickup drivers. (As did my equally beautiful NA Miata.)
I will note that, while I never had trouble with my top and kept it clean and well-lubed, they do have a reputation of breaking and requiring a $4000+ repair, if you can even find anyone who will work on one.
Good to know, about the Cabrio roof. I’m sometimes tempted to get one for Stephanie; it would suit her well both aesthetically as well as practically, except for her occasional drives to the Bay Area and back. She drove back just yesterday (in the TSX) from San Mateo and arrived an hour earlier than I had expected, 7.5 hours total. That’s a new record for either of us. (Google says 8 hrs, 33 minutes).
Johhny ;
? The sun roof’s required $4K repairs ? .
That’s a sad thing, I *think* the picture is of the “1957” model, here in Los Angeles I only ever saw them in this blue or pea green, both nice pastels well suited to the car but a white one with a red roof might make me pull the trigger, I occasionally see them for sale dirt cheap and wonder how bad they are $ wise…….
-Nate
I really wish I had bought a Fiat 500 Abarth new back in 2016-2017. They were absolutely giving them away at the time, 16k out the door with taxes and everything. Fun little package, great handling, perhaps the meanest sounding 4 cylinder factory exhaust ever put in a car. Honestly dont know how they got those past noise regulations. They were pretty practical too provided you never used the rear seat. Keep it folded up or just remove it, ton of room in the bacm.
I sold my ’97 Miata NA in 2015, worst mistake in terms of cars that I’ve ever made, I still miss that guy. Replaced it sometime later with an F150, which is kinda fun in a very different way, but I missed the size of the Miata. Driving an Ecosport now, I tell everyone it’s the Miata of CUVs, underpowered but fun to drive.
I have a garage door on my house with only an 8 1/2 foot deep garage… The previous owner turned the rear portion into living space… I could actually fit one of these two cars in it.. Now its filled with my snowblower, tools and car parts and paraphernalia…
Interesting catch and comparison. I caught this duo (his and hers, I happen to know) last January. Might as well leave them here.
Volvo power hybrid and Fiat mild hybrid:
The other way around:
Despite being a vastly smaller car than the Imperial, the Fiat still has larger-diameter wheels (16″) than the Imperial (15). (the Smart was available with either of those diameters)
The Imperial is from an era when they fitted tyres to cars not rubber bands, the original tyres for my 66 Hillman 13s equate to a modern 65 aspect 15 inch tyre, those soft bias ply tyres helped with ride comfort.
I think that instead of selling the 500, Fiat would have done better in the US with the Panda, either in its normal version as a 4×4. A car that was more successful in Europe than the new 500.
It is interesting you would bring up the size of the Imperial’s passenger compartment, Paul. These 60’s whales were all hood an trunk and for some reason, interior volume wasn’t much of an issue for them.
And now we get the second coming of the 500e. Granted, it has a much longer (double?) range of 149 miles. But at $34,095 (including destination), way too much, and the number of them lanquishing on dealer lots is evidence of that.
It’s a shame the latest 500e is no longer eligible for the $7500 federal tax credit (although the potential is there on a lease). At $26,595, it would be a whole lot more palatable.
Those Fiats are very small, I parked next to one recently, it only came back to my B post, but compared with the original they are huge, its like Mini to MINI by BMW
I have had the somewhat massochistic pleasure of using a Smart For Two ED. No snickering at the back, it stands for “Electric Drive”!
I grew fond of it despite its quirks (maybe because of them?) – range, only 60 miles maximum drastically shortened in cold conditions, meaning that one could not even think of using the heater, but initial accelerration and top speed of an indicated 80mph meaning you could use its agility in traffic. The electric Smart does get rid of a major annoyance experienced in the IC versions – the pitching on each gearshift. Ride comfort? terrible, and very limited carrying capacity compared to a Scion IQ, which is better in every conceivable way, despite being not much longer.
Maybe I’m fond of the Samert for another reason – see attached sketches from 1994 for the Opel Maxx which, funnily enough was dimensionally similar to the later IQ…
These were done well before the Smart gained it’s exoskeletal look…
While the Fiat 500 is a tiny car, the Smart is more shoe like…sure a very very big motorised shoe or a very very tiny automobile with shoe like qualities. One of the little Smart’s passed me just the other day and that was my initial reaction, that this tiny car has many shoe like qualities and that Reebok missed a golden marketing opportunity….imagine a line of Smart cars inspired by/looking like sneakers…gaudy with a timeless elegance or….perhaps not…
I’ve always felt shoe cars are impractical – especially the high heeled versions.
I have had the somewhat masochistic pleasure of using a Smart For Two ED. No snickering at the back, it stands for “Electric Drive”!
I grew fond of it despite its quirks (maybe because of them?) – range, only 60 miles maximum drastically shortened in cold conditions, meaning that one could not even think of using the heater, but initial acceleration and top speed of an indicated 80mph meaning you could use its agility in traffic. The electric Smart does get rid of a major annoyance experienced in the IC versions – the pitching on each gearshift. Ride comfort? terrible, and very limited carrying capacity compared to a Scion IQ, which is better in every conceivable way, despite being not much longer.
Maybe I’m fond of the Smart for another reason – see attached sketches from 1994 for the Opel Maxx…
If your battery dies, does a blue pill help?
Arf, arf…Never tried that!!