I would venture to guess the Fiat 500 Gucci Edition is overwhelmingly driven by women. The gender skewness for the purchase percentage is less extreme than it is for me, but part of that could be that women are not the ones who are actually paying for these car, but they are the ones picking them out (hopefully nobody…

You could just as easily steal an armored truck, which are even more prevalent. When was the last time you heard of someone going on a rampage in an armored truck?

I don't actually have a problem with this. It only cost $5000, which is cheaper than any normal vehicle they could have gotten on the market in terms of transportation. At the end of the day it's really just a glorified bigass truck (or a badass bookmobile).

I don't think the term "chick car" has anything to do with the aesthetics of the car, but instead is based on the reputation for being a car that you see more women than men driving. VW Beetle? Land Rover Evoque? Scion tC? Mini Cooper (not S) Droptop? Fiat 500? VW Cabrio? VW Eos? Mustang Convertible? BMW Z4? Nissan…

The difference is that the Camry drivers are just inept (if you find driving to be a chore and just want to get from A to B with minimal effort, you get a Camry).

Meh, who cares what complete strangers who you will never see again think.

I've owned a few BMWs and I agree with this statement. The vast majority of BMW owners bought the car for the cachet and the badge; the small minority are enthusiasts who actually value the driving dynamics.

How? Since when did feminists start watching sports?

I'm Asian and I favorited because it's funny.

Disc brakes all around.

I had a situation where I parked at a broken meter in Berkeley (corner of Channing and Bowditch, right next to the DC). When I got back, I saw the meter was being serviced, with a meter maid writing me a ticket because the meter (with half its guts exposed) was now flashing red for Expired.

Good to hear. Sounds to me like they've been overachieving and going above and beyond what is required to meet the NHSTA/IIHS/EuroNCAP requirements for a "good" rating.

Most comprehensive coverage also includes hydrolocking too.

Only if they knew about these test procedures in the first place? Perhaps they were designed to give occupants the greatest chance at survival in the real world, and as a byproduct also enabled to do well in these tests? Doesn't sound like cheating to me; sounds like they're doing what all automakers should be doing.

Looks like full frontal, not small offset. If it were small offset I'm pretty sure whoever was sitting on the side that got hit would either have no legs or be dead right now.

True, but all of the Volvo cars behaved similarly in how they seemed to bounce off rather try to eat the wall. Unless Volvo is in bed with the IIHS, I'm leaning towards believing that they were designed to do just that, rather than they got lucky in this one instance.

The Volvo XC90 aced the test even though it's been virtually unchanged for the past 12 years. These tests separates cars who were meant to just pass a known test in a controlled environment vs one that is designed to improve survivability in all crashes, not just the ones being tested.

Well, it was designed by Subaru. Had it been built by Toyota it probably would have failboated like all their other cars in this test (mostly poor, a couple marginals, and maybe one acceptable)

To further add to this, none of these tests actually test more nuanced crashes (different angles, cars of different heights, etc.) But Volvo does. There's a reason their entire brand is based on the reputation of uncompromising safety:

I like these tests because it exposes the automakers who make cars just to pass the known tests rather than make cars for real world survivability.