I don’t know what it was like before the Edsel came out. Nor did I witness the launch of the Citroën Ami 6, the Austin Allegro or the VW 411/412. Those all came out before I did, so they were just a fact of life, a questionable piece of automotive history that could not be helped. But I do remember how prettier the world was before the Fiat Multipla.
It seemed to have emerged, one dark day late in 1997, from the depths of the Mediterranean Sea and landed with a big flop on the European market. The well-known Japanese affinity for all things fishy must have played a part in this one’s presence in Tokyo. It’s not the first one I’ve found there…
What the hell was going on at Fiat Centro Stile in the last years of the 20th Century? The Italian giant had done a complete 180 from the overly conservative-looking (if not downright boring) products that were its mainstay in the ‘80s and early ‘90s to going full oddball with the edgy Coupé, the sexy Barchetta, the blobby Marea and the WTF-happened MPV we have here.
The Multipla borrowed its name from Fiat’s distant rear-engined past, but the vehicle was decidedly unlike its historic namesake. Based on the Bravo platform, the new Multipla was a mid-sized minivan (the large one was the Ulysse, shared with PSA), packing a 102hp 1.6 litre driving the front wheels, soon accompanied by a 1.9 litre Diesel. The only transmission on offer was a 5-speed manual.
So if you could get past its far-left field looks, the oily bits underneath were all quite middle of the road. Space utilization was also a strong point: Fiat aimed to make a genuine six-seater, reintroducing Europeans to front three-abreast seating – something not really seen there on non-commercial vehicles since the days of the Matra Murena.
But then Fiat went all weird again with the dash. It’s less egregiously bizarre than the external design, but it still gives out Nautilus-on-acid vibes.
People either loved it or hated it. A large majority were in the latter camp, unfortunately for Fiat, and the car sold poorly outside of its home market. Between January 1998 and early 2004, Fiat sold just over 120,000 Multiplas – not a very impressive total. It was really down to the looks and nothing else: everyone who rode in one knew its exceptionally airy cabin and competent drivetrain made for a top-notch MPV.
In early 2004, the Multipla was given a thorough makeover. The highly distinctive bulge under the windshield, with that random extra pair of headlights, went away, as did the front end’s roly-poly styling and the quirky taillights. The overall shape remained, but the Multipla was definitely “rectified” to something more orthodox. Losing the love handles was the right move: the restyled Multipla broke the 200,000 unit barrier. Production stopped in 2010 in Italy, but carried on until 2013 in China.
Does this go to show that weird doesn’t sell? Well, let’s go ask the Pontiac Aztek, the Leyland P76 or the Ssangyong Rodius. I know, you’ll say “But the Citroën Visa sold pretty well and millions of Datsun-badged little nightmares were made throughout the ‘70s and let’s not forget about the AMC Gremlin…” Yes, yes, yes. And it’s also true that Mitsuoka are thriving. Still, Fiat moved the cursor a little too far into rotund oddity for the image-conscious naughties to accept the Multipla in its original form.
A car I’ve actually ridden in, in the center front seat in France in 2004. American friends of ours (dual Volvo brick owners here) leased a diesel Multipla while they lived in France for a year. It was an interesting experience sitting three abreast, the driver stirring the gearshift above my knee, and looking out at beautiful Provençal scenery through that windshield.
The real question is why? Why would anyone design that thing?
Someone trying to outdo the Pontiac Aztek in hideous design?
LOL. This thing makes the Aztek look…………………..um……………….better?!
I’ve always thought that the original Multipla set had a bit of Bedford CA van to it: short nose with round lights and that vertical area at the base of the windscreen.
Hmm, what would a Multipla ice cream van look like…?
Now you’ve said that…..
i love it and always have – such a fun design, and higly functional.
the facelift ruined it and turned it into a forgettable car.
+1!
Tatra: Thanks for consideration of those that offend.
Renault gets no break either; consider the Avantime. To my eyes it is equally offensive, bizarre and mal-proportioned (though I’ve never seen either it or the 2nd generation Multipla in person). And how did it sell?
“Muffin top”. Putting into the exact words something I have been unable to describe up to now…
I just saw at least one pre-facelift version still doing official taxi duty in Florence just last week.
I do like the idea of original and form-follows-function designs, but the muffin top/love handles (nice writing there) thing on the original version never made sense to me. And like with the Citroen XM facelift dashboard, although correcting the original mistake the facelift tacked way to far in the opposite direction and didn’t really fit the overall design.
I always liked these, even if they were probably a bit of squeeze with 3 across the front.
The revised version did not really have the personality of the first, and the competition was just getting stronger. But it worked….so the looks were the issue, not anything else. But an MPV with big windows….what a thought
I will strongly defend the original (though not its dash design, which is just eccentric). My reaction seeing it close up (as opposed to just in photos) is that it’s a brave, brave example of function triumphing over form. It’s a design that maximizes people space in a relatively compact “footprint,” obviously tailored for crowded urban driving conditions. Its priorities were space utilization and visibility, and to some extent I see it as a modern example of the same design philosophy that informed the AMC Pacer, albeit with the FWD platform AMC couldn’t afford back then.
The most obviously controversial aspect is the way the windshield and the bonnet intersect, but that serves to limit the “acres of dash” effect of, e.g., the GM U-body minivans or some cab-forward Chrysler sedans. A tall greenhouse on a relatively small platform tends to look dorky (see for example the previous-generation Nissan Versa sedan); the Multipla didn’t try to apologize for that by attempting to look at like a shuttle craft from Star Trek. It said, “Yes, it looks like a bug-eyed monster, but wait till you see how it works.” (What I thought they should have done was to arrange an elaborate product-placement deal to insert a similar-looking character into some crowd-pleasing animated movie like Finding Nemo.)
In those respects, it’s quite different from the Renault Avantime — my vote for the world’s most inexplicable MPV — which is more palatable to look at, but also makes no practical sense at all, a concept car indulgence desperately in search of a use-case.
I really have to hand it to Fiat for taking the chance on giving MPV buyers what they needed rather than what they necessarily thought they want. It didn’t pan out, but it was an admirable attempt.
Thank you for saying what I didn’t have time to do yesterday. I agree 100%.
As to the issue with the windshield, my beloved xB, which is fairly close in concept to the Multipla (no three across in front, but the back seat is vast), handles the same issue very simply. But clearly a boxy design was not in the cards for Fiat at the time.
Farther of the Fiat Qubo.
The basis of the “Rover James”
It looks less bizarre now than they did new considering some of the junk built since then, meant to be fun to drive but I havent seen one for quite a while good find
This is one of the most brilliant cars ever, you can argue about the looks (I love them) but if there ever was a useable, roomy and very practical car, this is it.
Besides that, it wasn’t the worst driving car either, you could actually had some fun in it. Italians know how to make fun cars.
And, put to good use as the futuristic hero car in the movie “Children of Men”.
I am a fan. It is reminiscent of my 85 Civic Wagon, large windows small footprint and tremendous amount of space for the overall size. The Multipla is the next size up and has round styling but the basic philosophy is the same. I think the styling is fun and serves a purpose.
I also liked the original Multipla, but I don’t think it was quite as clever.
I do have a question…. Which are the main headlights, the lower ones? If so what are the lights by the windshield.
I think it was not just a desire to avoid boxiness, but also an effort to keep the beltline as low as possible, to maximize the height of the side glass without further raising the roof. I’m not in a position to compare them directly, so you can speak to this better than I, but it seems like in the original xB, the tops of the doors are quite a bit higher relative to the seats and the dash, whereas on the Multipla, the doors are well below the top of the dash.
(This was supposed to be in reply to Paul’s comment, but it didn’t thread properly.)
The Multipla was the cleverest, most versatile and fun car to drive.
It was colourful inside and out with many models offering double sun roofs. It has really large windows so the view was up high and really good. It was a roomy car with 6 seperate seats all with picnic tables with cup holders at the back of them. The back seats could fold twice or come out. The front passenger seat folded back and it the middle one folded in half, as did the back ones so you could transport a lot of stuff in it.
Why it was so maligned beats me. I’ve owned 3 over 19 years. I need a new car now and I’m struggling to find anything as fun, colourful inside and out and as practical. Most cars look the same.
If they still made them, I’d be first in line to buy one.
Don’t critise it if you’ve not actually driven one.
I can’t seen to open any of the links in the story…they all come back with ‘404 page not found’…still the gremlins?