Find Reviews by Make:
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
- theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
- A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
- Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
- Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
Is that a 2011 Chrysler Town & Country or Durango?
Ah Yes, be careful what you wish for.
Is there anyone out there that actually owns and drives a new Fiat? Can we get the real truth about these cars? How about a Fiat review now that they are in the headlines.
I’d like to forget that I saw this picture.
The current Multipla, slightly less hideous.
Grab a FIAT by the horns.
Fix It Again Tony
three plus three seating! woo! I will take the Mazda 5 two plus two plus two instead thanks. Still, anyone who values distinctiveness over aesthetics (and reliability) will be rewarded with a functional little box.
I could have sworn it was a Renault.
Juniper,
You can get one right here: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/review-2008fiat-panda-4×4/
Oh, and not all FIAT’s are as FUGGLY as this one posted. Some are (the 600 and the Doblo come to mind).
Sweet. Bertone?
So if a vehicle doesn’t burn a lot of fuel, make lots of noise, and heat it doesn’t meet your needs.
That little Fiat is cute, practical, and sans chrome wonderfully clean looking.
It is sad Fiat is allowing its name to be associated with Chrysler and U.S. car dealers.
The Fiat Multipla. I remember the first time I saw of these was when I was stationed in Germany from 1998-2001. I also remember throwing up in my mouth a little bit. Makes you pine for the elegant beauty of a 1986 Escort GT.
Berkowitz!
Farago found your next car!
My recollection is that the Multipla, while widely criticized for its styling, was considered a very good car otherwise.
That, at least, would be an improvement over current Chrysler offerings that are both ugly and lousy.
I just read that the multipla was once displayed in the Museum of Modern Art in NY, so it was probably designed by Dalí.
How the hell did that ever leave the drawing board? Honestly, that’s as bad as an aztek.
I like it. Chrysler could use a little acid induced creativity now.
I’m sorry, but I am a Multipla fan, (in its original form). Yes, I can understand that many people found it ugly. But I’ll take originality and creativity over bland any day. This thing had a panoramic view out with its green house windows, and seated 3 across.
As for the Aztec, other than being hideous, it had no redeeming values. I’ve driven both, and the Multipla is much better.
@eh_political: given the choice, I’d rather have the opposite. The NA Mazda5 has about 6 cubic feet cargo room if you’re using all 3 rows, not a problem with a 3+3 vehicle.
The other one that comes to mind is the Honda FR-V (JDM Edix), also not available stateside.
I’m sorry, every time I see one of those, I just laugh! It just looks so cartoonish, and it is nowhere near as hideous as the Aztek, which had an overabundance of Hot Wheels styling cues. The Multipla is just so stupid looking, like a kei car.
How DARE they create a vehicle that looks anything but generic! Don’t they realize that auto insurance companies won’t be able to use the Multipla in their ads?
To each his own I guess. Glad to see I’m not the only one who thinks that distinctive is better than bland. And sorry, but this car was a lot easier on the eyes than the Aztek. Sure it’s weird, but the lines go. In fact, I confess, I like cars like these, the Dobló, the Logan, these cas are so ugly, so ugly, that they are strangely appealing (something the Aztek never was, probabbly because proportions are still spot on in the cases mentioned above).
Again, to each his own
The first time I saw one of those in Switzerland I actually laughed out loud.
I’ve been in these. Yes, they’re silly-looking, but they look a lot less silly parked among other European oddballs, and they’re really quite capable.
If there weren’t Italian, they’d be reliable, too. Of course, if they weren’t Italian (or possibly French) they’d look like the first-generation Scion xB.
Did somebody really call the Multipla “wonderfully clean looking”??? SERIOUSLY? Just when I thought I had heard everything…
I’d be willing to believe Rosie O’Donnell is a ‘classically beautiful woman’ before I can be convinced that anything about this monstrosity of a car is ‘clean’.
I’m also sick of hearing any ugly-but-unconventional car being defended by saying “you just don’t get it”, or “just because it’s not generic doesn’t mean it’s ugly”. No, I get it, and this car is just ugly. Period.
TheTopDog: you may like to think so, but yours is not the only opinion that counts.
That said, yeah, the car is funny looking. Maybe in the “so ugly its cute” way a la E.T.
The headline here should really be “be careful what you wish for.” Everyone wants their car to be distinctive, until someone actually goes and builds a distinctive car. Then everyone bashes on it for being hideous. I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the 1st gen Multipla. Form is rarely so distinctively and uniquely defined by function.
Arthur Read, we have your car.
I’ve read (above, and elsewhere) that these oddities were innovative and practical, in addition to being insufferably ugly.
It would help if the front-end didn’t look like a platypus beak, and the back like a duck’s ass. Why the designers gave it that exceptionally ugly little flat bit below the windshield, we’ll never know. I knew there was a nautical term to describe that ugly flat bit, and it’s called a ‘coaming.’ On a small boat it would keep water from washing into the cockpit, but on a car it only serves to prevent sales.
You know there’s a problem with a car when you find yourself describing it in nautical terms.
No, I get it, and this car is just ugly.
Yeah, but there’s “ugly” (the Acura TL) and then there’s “so ugly it approaches cool from the other direction” ugly (the Multipla)
One of these used to ‘live’ by my parents’ house in Wales. I kind of liked it. I wouldn’t quite call it ugly; dorky looking, certainly. The 3+3 seating made it pretty wide (by Euro standards) IIRC. There are plenty of vehicles that are, IMO, uglier on the roads (Nissan Micra*, most Subarus*, practically anything with a Ram’s head emblem)
Overall I prefer it to the newer blander version. Anyone else ?
* I currently own a ‘bugeye’ Impreza, I love it, but it’s ugly. Previously, I have owned a Micra, also ugly. I have never owned a Dodge
I just threw up a little in my mouth.
I have a soft spot for the Multipla. I only saw it in the metal once (parked on the street in Santa Monica, oddly), but when I walked around it and looked at it, it suddenly made a lot of sense. It crams space for six passengers (I think you could actually fit three child seats in back) and a moderate amount of groceries or luggage in a car shorter than a Civic. Most of its Bizarro World features are actually packaging decisions; for example, the weird windshield-hood interface is to avoid the stadium-length cowl and radically raked windscreen of, say, GM’s “Dustbuster” minivans. It’s amazingly practical for a small family. I showed it to some friends with two small children, and after they picked their jaws up off the floor long enough for me to show them how the seating arrangement worked, they were ready to sign up.
It is seriously ugly — I once described it as looking like a character from Finding Nemo — but it’s definitely not stupid. Instead, Fiat made the very brave decision to go with what made practical sense, and damn the looks. I don’t know how reliable they are (it is a Fiat, after all), but the Multipla is a brilliantly focused product, and a very courageous one. I admire it a great deal.
Well, there could be one good thing to come out of a Fiat/Chrysler partnership: if all goes well, we could get the Nuova 500 next year…
I’d paper bag that.
Everyone knows Italians are butterfaces…
I saw one in N Hollywood and chased it awhile trying to get a better look. Must have been a test rig. Maroon color and looked like it just set down from Mars or something
I wonder if Chrysler/FIAT will build a new TC by Maserati on the Sebring platform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_TC_by_Maserati
Hmm, definitely one of the few vehicles to make the Aztek look good.
So…I’m the only person who likes the Aztek’s external styling? (I’ve never been inside of one, but I’d be willing to buy one if they still made them)
As for the Multipla, I just can’t figure out what the second set of lights does besides blind everyone else on the road. But I have no issue with it besides that. Definitely lets in tons of light.
Is that a redesigned Aztek?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(I know it’s a Fiat, though)
Let’s hope Fiat/Chrysler bring two Multipla successors to the States – one the size of the 1st gen Multipla to replace the PT Cruiser, and a larger one to replace the god-awful Dodge Journey.
I like it. But I have a bugeyed Subaru as well. I will take practical over pretty every day. For what it’s worth, I didn’t think the Aztek was that bad…
Prototype Pelosimobile. :)
Ahem.
This car (Fiat Multipla) was a genuine sales success.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what it’s all about.
Do not project your American tastes on the rest of the world. Mistake Number One.