They put a name from a sedan-based car with a lifestyle image that tried to capitalize on a trend on a sedan-based car with a lifestyle image that is trying to capitalize on a trend? Surprising.
That kind of doesn't help it's build quality. I'm not saying it needs to be perfect, but the engine shouldn't be able to have issues with parts like the gears or differentials from stock, especially from an company that have been able to make the best quality out of their Mustangs. --- Post updated --- I guess they did it because they were both compact vehicles, as stated from AnnoyingDude before. I call it an cash-grab, just because of the name inclusion itself.
I know, but it doesn't seem like they can hit the quality of the older Mustangs when it comes to engine quality TBH. Plus, it wouldn't make an good fuel-efficient car either.
And the 6-banger 1964 Mustang could hit 91, according to Automobile Catalog, which lists the 1979 2.3 at 100 MPH flat. The 1964 automatic I6 Mustang was the slowest one in history.
When you get to the highest horsepower, the 1964 model with an 289 cubic inches V8 could reach 306hp, while the 1980 model with an 2.3L 2V 4cyl (Turbo) could hit 135hp.
This was a product of its times - a car from a time when people were asking "what if gas runs out in the entire world?" Also, the 1964 289ci HiPo has 275 HP gross, which is a bit below 220 HP net, and the 1964 260 V8 (164 HP gross, so a bit below 130 HP) had only a bit more power than the 120 HP 255 ci 1980. When you ask "why there were no big engines", well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy
In the sub-€250 segment, condition and model is a crapshoot - you can find a Corolla for €200 that will be better than a €250 Polo, or the other way around. Also, the 205 and Polo are bigger, but not that much bigger.
Well, you probably have to pay someone to take a used Matiz from you now. In most markets, it was one of the cheapest cars around when new. You really have to resort to some 25+ years old used vehicles to find something cheaper used.
They are also much safer, faster and can actually handle round corners. The Matiz is in fact, a rejected Fiat design. Then again, Fiat rejected the Matiz design in favour of the Seicento...
The last thing a car maker thinks about when introducing a new model is how competitive is it going to be when it is 20 years old and falling apart. By your logic, Lada 2109 is much better than an E34 because 500 € get you a much better 2109 than a E34 Matiz isn't a rejected Fiat design. It evolved from Daewoo Tico whose ancestry dates back to Japanese kei cars. Matiz is certainly safer than a decade older Sunny and Corolla, getting 3 EuroNCAP stars while these cars would have struggled to get 1 or 2. Even early 90s 3 series got 1 star. Matiz with 50-70 hp is certainly more powerful than an entry level Polo with 44. If you are wondering, this is what happens when Matiz collides with a bigger yet older car: Despite great size differences, the weight difference is actually small.
It was a rejected styling proposal (by Giugiaro). It would be a much better car if it was actually a FIAT project... If there's one thing FIAT can do is small cars (see the 2001 Panda).
