Talk:Fiat X1/9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Russian steel: Where is the evidence?[edit]

I have removed a reference to the "russian steel" story. Next time someone posts something like that, I want to see EVIDENCE and PROOF. Rumours and urban legends of "well-documented" deals (which are not substantiated by evidence) don't belong in Wikipedia. Elp gr (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Talking of evidence... - production number[edit]

Since when was it acceptable to quote other websites as definitive sources? I refer to the derived 150,000 & 50,000 figures. If you want far more realistic figures then take a look at The Fiat run is more 136,000 and i don't think you'll be finding too many Gran Finales with a chassis number over 166,000

I wanted to add that I own a car with a build date of 09/87 and a VIN ending with 163976. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Lowered floor pans - you're having a laff[edit]

The seat mountings changed from having the runners welded on the floor (and the seats were then slid on and retained by a spring) to an all-in-one seat frame unit that bolted directly to the plain floor. As the different seat designs over the years offered diferent support, it's debatable whether there was any extra leg room achieved.


I had a 1974 X1/9, the first year it was in production. It was a great car, handled very well, but only had 66.5 bhp. The mid-engine layout promoted oversteer, if it was driven hard. Cost $4,500 at about 10k miles old. Sold it in 1986/7 for $1,600, but wish I have keep it as a restoration project when I retire.

Young Owner[edit]

My dad's just bought me a 1982 one as a 1st car, hoping for cheap classic insurance (its ridiculous for a 19yr old male new driver!). Most places don't want to know until you're 21, and the others want £3-4k- i.e. about the same as a modern car. So annoyed.

On the one hand I sympathize, as a former X1/9 owner - it's not that powerful but it's a great driver's car, and really the insurance shouldn't be that steep. However, on the other hand, I have to say that young male drivers have created this situation for themselves. I'm not saying YOU are irresponsible or a bad driver, no doubt you're one of the exceptions that prove the rule - but statistically, well, you know the score. If you see a ricer scorching up a high-street at a completely inappropriate speed, driven by an 18 yr-old chav with his stereo knocking out windows as he goes; if you see a group of teenagers staggering around in a daze because their "ride" has just been wrapped around a tree; if you get hit by an uninsured 15yo joyrider; the next time your mate shows of this cool new move he saw on "The Fast and the Furious", or spins his wheels to impress the girls outside a nightclub (hint: it doesn't) - well, perhaps you can begin to see the way the insurance companies of this world view the culture. Until this changes and the statistics improve, your premiums will be exorbitant, and rightly so. But probably by the time you see it their way, you will be old enough to get much cheaper insurance! Graham 01:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I had an X 1/9 as a young man and I loved it. However it has to be said that I span it twice, the fact that I didn't hit anything was pure dumb luck. You don't get much practice driving a car with a tendency to oversteer before taking your test. It's not by modern standards a powerful car but it asks to be thrashed and it's tail yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So, I owned a '77 model about 1980, during my last years in college. Bought with 36,000 miles on it for $3,600. The car had quite ingenious engineering, and a blast to drive. The amount of luggage space up front was amazing even with the top stored, and room in back for a large duffle bag or two. The car is so well balanced that once I was going down a dark country road about 70mph when a skunk jumped in front of me, I hit the brake hard, spun a perfect 720 degrees, still in my lane, pointing straight ahead, and continued on my way. Flight Risk (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Porsche 914 was mid engined, may lay claim to being first affordable one.[edit]

"The Porsche 914 of 1969 had a similar design-brief but was considerably more expensive than the X1/9 and was of rear-engined layout rather than the mid-engined layout of the X1/9." Footnote 4 claims that the 914 was rear-engined. It was most definitely mid engined. I don't know if this effects the claim to being "Intended to be the first affordable mid-engined sports car". I intend to revise the footnote, but would like to know if others feel that the claim is affected.

I must admit I have problems with the claim too, which was added recently. I think Fiat were not actually out to create an affordable sports car, but just had the idea to make a cool concept car using the 128 parts bin. Production followed (hastily) after more interest than expected was shown. The fact that it was cheap was because, well, it was a Fiat. In fact if they'd spent a few more months productionising it properly, it might have been a bit less troublesome in its early days. Having said that, this is all my own view - so perhaps if there are documents stating Fiat's aims that are contrary to this, I might be proved wrong. Graham 11:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Re' "affordable" tag; Bertone were commissioned to create the 128 Spider, the bottom of the rage convertible car (equivalent to the Punto Cabrio'), the fact that Nuccio Bertone convinced FIAT to adopt the radical mid-engined Runabout concept over a more conventional version of the 128 doesn’t detract from it's position in the model range (ie "budget"). The X1/9 never realised its low-cost nature in the UK due to import taxes and a high premium aimed at the RHD variant which diverted production resources from the much more profitable (LHD) US market. This put the X1/9 (in the UK) up in the same price range as the MGB and TR7 whereas it was intended to compete in the Midget/Spitfire price-bracket.Mjdk 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, 914 is blatantly mid-engined. Even though it used the same engine used in VW and Porsche cars in rear-engined layout, the 914 used them in a mid-engined layout.Mjdk 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Lotus Europa also has a claim. It was quite affordable. Not as affordable as the Zündapp Janus, but then that wasn't really a sports car. Messerschmitt TG500 may have agood claim to the title... // Liftarn

Hint, the article says affordable and mass-produced. The Europa hardly qualifies as mass-produced, and I doubt it qualifies as affordable either; after all, if it was so affordable, why were less than ten thousand sold? Similarly, the Messerschmitt article claims less than 500 were built. Mark Grant 18:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
In any case it still needs a source for the claim. // Liftarn
It seems the sourcing that has been provided falls all over itself to claim it as the first transverse, inline powerplant in a mid engine/RWD design. NOT mid/RWD affordable mass produced. The 914, introduced in 1970 with its flat 4 had an MSRP of $3495 and production totals were around 118,000. I couldn't find MSRP for the x/19 but once adjusted for inflation and exchange at the time of its introduction I sincerely doubt would be much more "affordable" than Motor Trend's 1970 Import Car of the Year. I'm taking the liberty of removing the claim entirely, though if the Wiki Contributer wishes to refine it to the niche of "first mass produced affordable transversely mounted inline four cylinder mid engine...." or similarly worded description, it is peachy keen to me.  :-) The motor trend reference is ambiguous at best, you can see where he starts the passage with transverse... in any case a false claim well sourced, is still a false claim. Batvette (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Your "sincere doubts" do not justify deleting the multiply sourced fact that the X1/9 was the first genuinely affordable mid-engined sports car. The Fiat was significantly cheaper than the Porsche. Dino246 (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not delete the passage based upon my doubts, I did so based upon the facts, my friend, and I don't just run around deleting page content lightly. Your references all stated "transverse four", or a similar niche in the market. I provided the MSRP of the Porsche for reference, above on this page a user claims his X/19 used with 10k miles, presumably purchased in the era, was $4500. I spent a full hour on google looking for a comparison MSRP, and you yourself offer none, but have now added the qualifier "genuinely" which serves only to cause ambiguity, not define factual. As if "affordable" isn't a dodgey enough claim to begin with. Why don't you provide a figure to define "significantly" cheaper and we'll see if it flies. I somehow doubt it will be, the 914 is a simple, cheap car, the '72 I bought in 1981 cost a whopping $3k, mint, and from a used car dealer to boot. I offered a compromise, I think I was being reasonable in light of the fact it seems someone wants to keep making a questionable claim that others have provided good cause to doubt. Batvette (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Its hard to find X 1/9 prices, here is some comparison prices (FIM) from year 1972, I would not call 914 as cheap
  • VW-porsche 914 (1679 cc) 47 000
  • Alfa Romeo 1750 GTV (1179 cc) 45 885
  • Fiat 124 Sport Coupe (1608 cc) 34 795
  • Dodge Charger 500 59 500

and for comparison Fiat X1/9 1300 35 900 in 1975

--— Typ932T | C  10:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it boils down to the definition of "affordable". Lotus Europa was seen as an affordable mid engined sports car. Messerschmitt TG500 also fits. If you find proper sourcing for it it would probably be easier to say something "The first mid engines sports car for under...". // Liftarn (talk)
According to the book "X1/9 Super Profile" by Graham Robson, the X1/9 cost 1,800,000 lira in 1972. It says that the original US price in 1974 was $3970. How much was a 914 in the US in 1974? I have a British Autocar from 1974 that lists the 914 at £3689. the X1/9 was not yet on sale in the UK then though but for comparison, a 124 Coupe was £2060, Lotus Europa was £3334 and a Ferrari Dino, £6245. The exchange rate at the time was $2.36=£1. The 1977 Motor road test referenced in the article has the UK X1/9 price listed as £2998 which was still 10% less than the Lotus Europa and whichever way you look at it, significantly cheaper (20%) than the Porsche had been even 3 years earlier. The Porsche 914 was no longer on sale by then and the two cars were not sold simultaneously in the UK. The evidence all suggests that the X1/9 was not a little bit cheaper than the Porsche 914. Dino246 (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's define 'affordable' using VW Beetles as a universal currency. A 1200 VW in the UK in 1974 cost £1029. The 914 cost 3.6x Beetle. Can we garner some Beetle comparison pricing for the X1/9 and 914 from other countries in the mid-70s and settle this once and for all?! Dino246 (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Found another old Motor magazine (UK) from 1977. X1/9=£2998, Beetle=£2440 ie X1/9=1.2x Beetle. Can we end this ridiculous contention that the price of the 914 was in any way comparable to the budget price of the X1/9, the first affordable production mid-engined sports car? Dino246 (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
But if everything below £4000 is defined as "affordable"... To settle it all we need to do is to find a reliable source that says it was the first affordable mid engined sports car. If it's in dispute we can attribute it like "According to NNN the X1/9 was...". // Liftarn (talk)

Drawing the line at £4000 or any other price would be arbitrary. The original Beetle is the epitome of affordable motoring and is the best comparison to define affordable. The X1/9 was a mid-engined sports car that cost just 1.2 times as much as a Beetle. The Porsche 914 cost 3.6 times as much as a Beetle. As far as I'm concerned, this hard data crosses the boundaries of what can be considered mere opinion. Dino246 (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Usually words first,fastest, cheapest etc in car articles should be avoided, it causes always some disputes, so I suggest we find maybe other way to tell the cheap price compared to others? this can be written different way to tell the same thing... --— Typ932T | C  13:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not just give the hard facts? "When introduced it was sold for...". // Liftarn (talk)
Three independent sources have been provided (Motor Trend, Road & Track, and Motor magazine) that all explicitly describe the X1/9 as the first affordable mid-engined sports car. I've just backed these claims up with black and white figures proving that the X1/9 was barely more expensive than a Beetle while the 914 was 3.6 times more expensive than one. Not one source has been provided to show that the 914 or anything else for that matter was ever considered to be an affordable mid-engined sports car or that any contemporary mass-produced mid-engined sports car was sold for a price comparable to the X1/9. These are hard facts. I don't believe that the claim of 'first affordable mid-engined sports car' for the X1/9 is controversial and it has been extensively and even excessively sourced here. Dino246 (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Put it in then. "According to Motor Trend, Road & Track, and Motor magazine the Fiat X1/9 is..." Providing ofcourse that that is what they actually say and it's not just your interpretation of it. // Liftarn (talk)
The quotes are right there in the footnotes. These are just 3 examples. It's hard to find an original 70s road test of the X1/9 that doesn't explicitly describe it as the first affordable mid-engined sports car. Like I said, I really don't see where the controversy comes from. Dino246 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This passage of yours: " I've just backed these claims up with black and white figures proving that the X1/9 was barely more expensive than a Beetle while the 914 was 3.6 times more expensive than one." Is probably the most ridiculously dishonest manipulation and distortion of data I can imagine. You directly imply that the Porsche is over 3 times more costly than the Fiat, which is utterly ridiculous and clearly displays you will stoop to any means possible to have your POV stand here. Well as far as I am concerned you can just go right ahead and claim it was the first production vehicle to win every formula one race in its first year, because the joke is beyond laughable that we are even comparing the two cars in the first place. Porsche's engineers got the spare tire placement right, I guess that is where the money went. Seriously, you know what drove the claims made by those magazines? In '69-'70, the US economy was positively roaring and nobody sold a car because it was cheaper than the competition. Performance was what the headlines would shout out. In '73-'74 the Arab oil embargo, Watergate, the Vietnam conflict's mounting war debt had put the brakes on everything and the writers wrote headlines that the publishers knew would reflect the climate of the industry. Had the 914 been introduced 4 years later YES it may have been perhaps 20% more on the sticker but it would be a direct competitor. There lies the barometer: I bet one of those publications did a comparison test of the two and maybe a couple of others, if we dug deeper. We know damn well they were in the same ballpark, even if the Fiat occupied the bleacher seats. Batvette (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Porsche got the spare tire position right and the Fiat occupied the bleacher seats.. and I'm the one pushing my POV..? Dino246 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't try and turn this around when you get caught piling up the bull****. Besides the spare tire issue is FACT and YOU are the one trying to convince the world how cheap your car is.  :-P Be honest now, the cars were in fact direct competitors in the US market. As for your references, you might want to try reading them carefully before using them to back a claim. Each of #'s 6-9 specifically state TRANSVERSELY mounted engine. #10 is just an idiot babbling, period. First mass produced? Huh? Why do you need this explained AGAIN? Batvette (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this can be easily solved by adding the caveat, "is sometimes referred to as the first affordable mid-engine sports car". "Affordable" is a subjective term without a precise definition, what is affordable to you might not be to me. The fact of the matter is some people see the 914 as the first while others give it to the X1/9. We went through this before with the term "supercar" and I think this is more or less the same issue, I hope it doesn't get as heated as the previous debate. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to get dragged into a childish argument here. No Fiat has ever been a direct competitor to a Porsche. I researched and found ample evidence that by all comparitive means the X1/9 was significantly cheaper than the 914 and referenced numerous sources to back this up. Comparing the 914 with the X1/9 is like comparing the Boxster with the MX5. Using the word FACT in upper case letters is not the same as sourcing a claim. Please provide backed up evidence to support your opinions or stop using Wikipedia as a platform to voice them. Dino246 (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I really doesn't seem like you are assuming good faith here. I am not trying to use Wikipedia to voice my opinions, that is simply not true. Here is a source that refers to the Lotus Europa as the "first affordable mid-engined sports car" [1] and the article on the 914 while not directly saying "the first affordable mid engined car" does indeed make the argument that the 914 was intended to be affordable and compares it directly to the X1/9 and other affordable mid engined vehicles. What it clear is that some sources do not refer to the X1/9 as the first so we should have the small caveat. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, (an online classified-advert directory as best I can tell?) and are now relevant sources for verifiable information about the relative market position of the X1/9, Europa and 914 in the early 1970s? I have every sympathy for you in your attempt to prove your point, but citing sources like this /isn't/ helping you, _or the article_. Remember, not all sources are created equal. Mjdk (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to Classic & Sportscar article explicitly describing the 914 as having been expensive, in Britain at least. [2]. It even describes it as being 'extortionate', being barely less expensive than an E-type roadster. The more I research this, the more compelling the evidence.. Dino246 (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact is there are sources that dispute what you have found. In any case the fist link I gave refers to the Europa not the 914 and is explicit in calling it the first. I'm not saying that you are wrong about it being the fist, I am just saying that the sources vary as to which vehicle is given the title. In this case we should not be interpreting the sources and making a claim, we should say it how it really is "some/many sources refer to it as."
The comment wasn't aimed at you Daniel. The claim is that the X1/9 was the first affordable mass-produced mid-engined sports car. The Europa may have been affordable (compared to the 'extortionate' Porsche) but it was far from mass produced. The X1/9 was both mass-produced and affordable. And by 'affordable' I mean significantly cheaper than any others. No mid-engined sports car before or since has been cheaper and produced in comparable numbers. Dino246 (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There a couple of problems with saying the Europa was not mass produced, for starters it's wiki page calls it mass produced (that could be changed) and secondly here is a source that refers to as mass produced [3]. You might be right though they made about 5000 Europas in what like eight years and about 150,000 X1/9s in about 17 years. There is a big difference, but I am not sure mass produced is the right word, it wasn't like they were they were screwing a couple Europes together a month like a kit car maker they were cranking out a few a day on an assembly line. Mass produced really just means large numbers of identical products on an assembly line I don't really think there is a number that you have to make to qualify as mass produced, maybe I'm wrong. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
1. You can't use the [un-sourced and un-verified] Europa wikipedia page as a source of definitive and authoritative information but blindly ignore the /multiple/ contemporary references listed on this page. That's just silly!
2. A classified-advert for a /private individual/ selling their Europa (i.e. your "source") is _NOT_ even /remotely/ (not even a little bit) a valid source of reliable information. P.S. I've got a bridge for sale if you're interested?
3. Yes "mass produced" is a fuzzy term. However, a "kit car" maker is /exactly/ what Lotus was; even the Lotus Elan (contemporary to the Europa) was available as a kit. At a *guess* (look how I _don't_ parade my unsubstantiated opinions as "fact") I would say that "groundbreaking coach-built niche sports-car" would be a much better description of the Europa?
Mjdk (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Also don't forget the Messerschmitt TG500. I haven't seen actual prices, but it was sold for about as much as a bugeye Sprite so that may be considered affordable. // Liftarn (talk)
What an interesting little car. However, I don't think a total production-run of 950 units over 4 years qualify as "mass produced". Mjdk (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
950 produced certainly is mass produced by any definition of the term. // Liftarn (talk)

Can we /please/ suggest some alternative wordings that adequately describe and acknowledges the X1/9s unique position in budget sport-car history (i.e. being the template for most commercially successful budget mid-engined sports-cars that came after) which /doesn't/ included weasel-words or too heavily step on the toes of the 914 or the Europa. Personally I never perceived that the 914 or the Europa were competitors of the X1/9; both, in my view, held positions much higher up the automotive pecking order that the little Fiat. The X1/9 was, as far as I can tell, the car which brought the mid-engined sports-car platform to the masses (like the mid-engined sports-car equivalent of the Model-T), and the first to use a modern FWD drive-train in a mid-engined car (though admittedly this may be because the 128 drive-train was the first "modern" FWD drive-train [the mini using a gearbox layout which was a bit of an evolutionary dead-end]) which was then shamelessly (but very successfully) copied by by the MR2. Mjdk (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

First "modern" FWD drive-train? In what way? Anyway, use the sources, i.e. "According to AAA the..." // Liftarn (talk)
Only "modern" in that [if my information is correct] the 128 FWD drive-train was the first to use the - now ubiquitous - transverse engine layout with the gear-box /next to the engine/ (rather than in the sump - as the mini did) and unequal-length drive shafts. Not a particularly large evolutionary jump from the mini, and probably an inevitable one, but it was still the first to uses this particular layout (which in now used by the majority of modern FWD cars).Mjdk (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Err... No. That layout was used in the 1930s and also in the post war Saab 92. // Liftarn (talk)
Not many modern FWD cars use two cylindered two-stroke engines; why do I get the impression you are being deliberately obtuse? I'm not claiming that the 128 was particularly revolutionary, it was just the car where all the key components of the modern FWD drive-train came together for the first time.Mjdk (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying it wasn't. The number of cylinders and/or if it's a two stroke or four stroke is rather irrelevant. Transverse front wheel drive had been around for a long time before Fiat used it. // Liftarn (talk
"Please provide backed up evidence to support your opinions or stop using Wikipedia as a platform to voice them."

That's pretty rude of you to imply I should get lost for MY POV when what we're arguing about here is YOUR POV content in the main article, NOT MINE. Your references DO NOT support your claim as each offers a catagorizing disqualifier. I have mentioned this twice already, I guess I will have to take your hand and walk you through them.

6: "There must be thousands of mechanical doodlers who have toyed with the idea of using a transverse in-line engine to power a mid-engined sports car. One or two of the experiments reached an advanced stage..."

"However, not entirely unexpectedly, it has been left to Fiat to produce the definitive small mid-engined sports car, using the engine and transmission pack from the front-engined 128 Coupe."

All that implies is the first passage alludes to it being the first transverse engine to power a mid engine design. It goes on to call it "definitive" which means merely the author likes the design better. No first.

7: "Since the introduction of the first modern small car with front-wheel drive and a transverse engine, the BMC Mini in 1959, the pundits have been pushing for the use of the same principle behind the cockpit to build an inexpensive sports car of advanced mid-engined design. All a maker had to do, they argued, was to put the whole engine-gearbox-diffirential package in the rear and drive the rear wheels with it. Lamborghini's Mura and Ferrari's Dino show how to do it for five-figure prices, but no maker of any size has managed to build such a car that most of us could afford to buy. Until Fiat."

Clearly offers the sub-catagory of transverse, specifically a FWD powerplant adapted to mid mount. Dismissed.

8: "The X1/9 is the first good-looking open mid-engined roadster available to buyers of modest means"

"In designing the X1/9 Fiat pulled a trick others are sure to emulate: installing what was a front-drive power unit in a midship position to drive the rear wheels."

If one thinks the flying doorstop styling of the x/19 is homely, one could completely discount the first claim. What kind of disclaimer is he offering? "first good looking"? If I need to explain why exactly that statement proves nothing, I am not the one who should refrain from wiki entries.

9: "From the moment you slip behind the neat four-spoke wheel and fire up the engine it is obvious all other small sports cars - with the possible exception of the much more expensive Lotus Europa - are hopelessly out of date."

Considering it says "unlisted author" I am not sure why you even offered this. How is "irrelevant" defined?

10: "At it's announcement in 1972, Fiat's Bertone styled X1/9 had the distinction of being the first mid-engined sports car destined for volume production"

"the X1/9 is a remarkably safe car with excellent handling and high reserves of roadholding..."

I can see why this author wished to remain anonymous. About 120,000 914's were produced. About 10,000 Europas. Either is "volume".

So your "sources" do not back up your claim, and since you or nobody else has a direct MSRP comparison of each for anyone to embark on the hopeless journey into deciding what affordable means....

I will edit the main article to reflect the actual things your research reflects, since you seem unable to decipher the characters yourself. Batvette (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the edit as applied is a good compromise. Batvette (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Batvette I think that your edit was an excellent compromise. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was pretty good too and I intended a concession to keep Dino246 happy, but a year plus later I see someone mucked it up so it makes no sense at all- the revision by contributer to add the part of "Fiat 128" is puzzling- anyone make sense of that?Batvette (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Right you are. I never noticed that change being made. I think I see the point he's trying to make but it kind of looks like the X1/9 is laying claim to be the first mid-engined car with a Fiat 128 engine which was clearly not the intention of the edit. If you can find the original then roll it back.Dino246 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


I found some high-res scans of some photos I took of my old X1/9 back in '95 for the web site I ran at the time, and uploaded some. Unfortunately it was very much a 'daily driver' and was getting a bit rough around the edges, so I added the two which look decent and left out the others. If anyone has better shots, feel free to replace the ones I put in: I'm X1/9-less right now after the 'new' one expired last year so I can't shoot any more. MarkGrant 21:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So whose X/19 is this-could it be Dino246's? [4] Not sure who owns this beauty, and that must have been a non-US export body option. Sweet!Batvette (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


By removing the spare tire from behind the passenger seat and securing it in the front compartment the directional stability for straight driving was greatly enhanced

I discovered this myself one night taking a used Calor Gas container back to a service station along twisty roads in my '78 X1/9. The heavy cylinder in the front compartment made the handling really crisp! From then on I had a 56lb weight strapped into the front "boot". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Yes, even stowing the roof made a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsallen (talkcontribs) 05:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Paint Colors[edit]

I had a metallic brown '77 with gold "Fiat X1/9" logo striping. This was without doubt a stock paint job, yet brown is not listed in the possible colors for the 1977 model year. What is the source for the color choice table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know but the year and colors for mine matched up.Bofum (talk)

Fiat 128 AS[edit]

Please take a look at As far as I can tell that is a Fiat X1/9, but it's registered as a Fiat 128 AS. What's the deal here? Fiat X1/9#Name says "The X1/9 name stands out amongst the contemporary FIAT automobile names for not conforming to the standard (at the time) numerical designations.", but was it called Fiat 128 AS internally? // Liftarn (talk)

Searchin google with Fiat 128AS gives some results, its probably type code or similar --Typ932 T·C 12:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
So it did have a numerical designation, but for some reason it was never used. // Liftarn (talk)
128AS was the engine code of the original 1300 (from the 128 obviously). I think someone just misread the paperwork. I'm pretty certain that X1/9 was the internal code - all Fiat group cars were developed under X1/y code names (the Lancia Montecarlo for example was X1/20) and the X1/9 was just unusual in that it kept its code as the production name. It was originally developed as the replacement for the 850 Spider so I suppose it might have been referred to internally as 128 Spider at some point. Still, 128AS is definitely the engine code. Dino246 (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

was the targa top fiddly or not?![edit]

Must say I never found it awkward to either remove or replace. In fact it could be removed and inserted under the bonnet by driver alone while waiting for the traffic lights to change. It also left a not inconsiderable amount of boot space considering how small the car was. Compared to other targa-tops I don't believe it had anything to be embarrassed about but this is Wikipedia and our opinions count for nothing so does anyone have a source either praising or complaining about the roof arrangement? Dino246 (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I decided to eliminate the portion of the "criticisms" section that claimed the top was difficult to work with "for some people." Well some people have a hard time falling out of bed in the morning too. I find the top to be the model of simplicity (two latches and it's off). Why is it that people who have owned and driven the cars cannot be their own source for Wikipedia? What rule says that a citation in some publication, written by a person who is test driving the car for a day or three at the most, has more credibility than people who have owned the car for years and years and have removed and stowed and replaced their tops hundreds if not thousands of times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Our own opinions cannot be cited but published ones can. I can't find any comment on the simplicity or not of the targa roof in any independent road tests. I have however found an owner's comment, published in an X1/9 "Super Profile" book. That backs up the claims that the roof was simple to remove and reposition. I suspect that those here who are complaining are taking the car out of its 1970s context. Next to a push button Merc SLK I'm sure the roof is fiddly but alongside an MGB with its canvas and push studs it is a design success. Dino246 (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Having owned a 914, whose roof may be twice the bulk of the Fiat's, and an 86 corvette (for 22 years now!) and having assisted in removing the Fiat's roof several times IMO there is nothing unusual about it and it takes much less time than the corvette's which involves a factory supplied ratchet tool, and 4 bolts- 2 removable and easily lost. The criticism is downright unfounded. I would offer the person who originated that may have parked the car on an uneven surface, which would cause difficulty in any removable targa roof vehicle.Batvette (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

US Model Year Changes accurate in regard to the tron wheels?[edit]

The only reason that I ask is that my 1983 Fiat X 1/9 came with the old GBC fuses and the Cromodora CD-179 wheels. (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fiat X1/9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)