Microcar Status

Dr.Jeff

Dr.Jeff

True Classic
A thought came to me today...in itself a rare occurrence. Is the X1/9 a "microcar"?

While waiting for an appointment I was reading a old Classic Motorsports Magazine article online. It was about microcars. Covered the history of the microcar, its cultural impact in some countries, and specific reviews of several examples. Some of those examples were actually very large vehicles (at least by comparison). And some were very modern cars...including things like the current Mini and Smart (the new Fiat 500 had not been introduced back when the article was written, but a editorial comment said it would have been included if it had).

This made me wonder if the X1/9 could also be considered a microcar. No mention of it was given in the article. But its size is actually smaller than a few of the others, as are its performance and technical specifications. I'm not sure if there is any real definition of a microcar. Frankly some of the ones featured in that article are certainly not by my personal definition. So could the X be considered as one? And perhaps just as important, would anyone want it to be?

Speaking for myself I consider a microcar to be much smaller than the X, and MUCH smaller than several of the examples given in the article. Furthermore I consider one aspect of a microcar to be its economy and practicality, not its performance or sportyness. So again, the X would not qualify (although I really don't consider it a performance car either). I suppose the original goals for a microcar's initial design and production are also part of their definition, and also different from those of the X (again, in my opinion). Therefore I do not consider the X to be one. However I do really like microcars and would not mind if the X was considered as such. Somehow it just doesn't seem to fit though.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
aarpcard said:
I think of Japanese Kei cars which are generally much smaller than the X
Click to expand...
Exactly. However some of the Kei cars do not appear as if they are much smaller than the X. Particularly the later ones, I believe their government has increased the size dimension limitations for them over the years.
 
Just for comparison of sizes, here is one photo from the article. These were some of the examples they included as microcars. Notice that several are not much smaller (if not actually bigger) than the X.

IMG_3025_xoKwxUx.jpg


And to put it into greater perspective, one vehicle (not in that image) that they considered to be a microcar is the Fiat Multipla.

I'd have to look up the actual dimensions, but aren't the modern Mini and 500 (both considered microcars by them) also bigger than the X?
 
I don't think microcars should only be defined by size. Most of the cars shown in the photo from the article are both small in size AND engine displacement. I have the body of a Berkeley (now modified to fit on a modified early Spitfire chassis) as shown in the foreground. It's really small compared to the X and was originally powered by an Excelsior motorcycle engine. I also have a Nash Metropolitan which is usually accepted in most microcar groups and it is taller but a little bit narrower than an X but not much shorter and certainly not anything I would want to drive other than around town. When I think of a microcar, it should really be limited in top speed to something that you wouldn't take on a major highway. The X can certainly hold its own on most highways, especially if a later car with a 5 speed. Just my opinion.
 
I almost bought one of these years ago at a swap meet, a 1960-ish Subaru 360. Under 1000 lbs. Flippin' tiny in person!

is-the-subaru-360-the-japanese-microcar-you-ve-always-needed-1476934410347-1000x563.jpg
 
twincam69 said:
I don't think microcars should only be defined by size. Most of the cars shown in the photo from the article are both small in size AND engine displacement. I have the body of a Berkeley (now modified to fit on a modified early Spitfire chassis) as shown in the foreground. It's really small compared to the X and was originally powered by an Excelsior motorcycle engine. I also have a Nash Metropolitan which is usually accepted in most microcar groups and it is taller but a little bit narrower than an X but not much shorter and certainly not anything I would want to drive other than around town. When I think of a microcar, it should really be limited in top speed to something that you wouldn't take on a major highway. The X can certainly hold its own on most highways, especially if a later car with a 5 speed. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Which Berkley do you have? Any pictures? How do you like it? One of my senior projects in college was to convert one to electric. It had a 250R Ninja engine in it at the time unfinished. Unfortunately we couldnt come up with a package that met the clients demands (money, weight, power, range) so the project was dropped.

Is the X bigger or smaller than a Spitfire?
 
AKimball92 said:
Which Berkley do you have? Any pictures? How do you like it? One of my senior projects in college was to convert one to electric. It had a 250R Ninja engine in it at the time unfinished. Unfortunately we couldnt come up with a package that met the clients demands (money, weight, power, range) so the project was dropped.

Is the X bigger or smaller than a Spitfire?
Click to expand...
The Spitfire is smaller than the X. Wheelbase is only 83". I cut it down further to 75" to better fit the Berkeley body (which even then I had to both add some length and width to fit the Triumph chassis). It was a SE492 and the aluminum "chassis" was gone and the body had been cut down the middle so the owner could fit it in his attic! It's a stalled project as the Fiats are taking up my time. I'll try to find some pics tonight and post.
 
twincam69 said:
The Spitfire is smaller than the X. Wheelbase is only 83". I cut it down further to 75" to better fit the Berkeley body (which even then I had to both add some length and width to fit the Triumph chassis). It was a SE492 and the aluminum "chassis" was gone and the body had been cut down the middle so the owner could fit it in his attic! It's a stalled project as the Fiats are taking up my time. I'll try to find some pics tonight and post.
Click to expand...
the one we worked on was a B105 I believe with the ugly hood bulge for MOORRREEEE POWERRRR ARR ARRR ARR.
 
I know a couple who own a Messerschmidtt KR-200, an Italian Iso Isetta (not the more common BMW version), a Berkeley (IIRC a B105), a Czech Oska/Velorex, and a Heinkel they just got that I haven't seen yet.

I will have to ask them if they consider an X1/9 to be a MicroCar.
 
The more I think about it, I would put several of the smaller vehicles (like many of the ones Dan just listed) under the category of "microcar". But I would distinguish the larger (relatively speaking) ones as "mini cars". If that distinction was made then a lot of the examples in the article I referenced would go under the mini category. I've not heard the term mini-car used to describe anything other than the "Mini". But with the word 'micro' in the name 'microcar' it should only define the smallest vehicles. Is there a better name than minicar to classify the ones too big to be microcars?
 
twincam69 said:
Here are a couple of pictures of the project.View attachment 23593 View attachment 23594 View attachment 23595 View attachment 23596
Click to expand...

Looks pretty cool with the body extensions. I wonder how it will turn out proportion wise. One thing i might suggest is to find a safer way to mount the tank than as your backrest. These cars are fiberglass with no consideration for safety whatsoever. Any wreck front or rear will empty that tank all over everyone. At the very least make a firewall surrounding it and a g switch for the fuel system.
 
AKimball92 said:
Looks pretty cool with the body extensions. I wonder how it will turn out proportion wise. One thing i might suggest is to find a safer way to mount the tank than as your backrest. These cars are fiberglass with no consideration for safety whatsoever. Any wreck front or rear will empty that tank all over everyone. At the very least make a firewall surrounding it and a g switch for the fuel system.
Click to expand...
That's the original Spitfire tank. I was planning on a similarly sized fuel cell. I agree that g switches are necessary too.
 
AKimball92 said:
Looks pretty cool with the body extensions. I wonder how it will turn out proportion wise.
Click to expand...
I think it actually looks much better with the new proportions, especially the wider overall width. I like it.

Some microcars are best left in their original tiny design and proportions. But to me others look oddly shaped dimensionally. I realize they were made to meet a particular 'functional' goal, and it is difficult to make such a small vehicle and still contain all of the necessary components. But in certain cases I think they did not try very hard at incorporating any "style" into them. The thing that attracts me to microcars (and I am definitely attracted to them) is their unique appearance. I like odd stuff. But that does not necessarily mean it has to be ugly. ;)
 
Dr.Jeff said:
I think it actually looks much better with the new proportions, especially the wider overall width. I like it.

Some microcars are best left in their original tiny design and proportions. But to me others look oddly shaped dimensionally. I realize they were made to meet a particular 'functional' goal, and it is difficult to make such a small vehicle and still contain all of the necessary components. But in certain cases I think they did not try very hard at incorporating any "style" into them. The thing that attracts me to microcars (and I am definitely attracted to them) is their unique appearance. I like odd stuff. But that does not necessarily mean it has to be ugly. ;)
Click to expand...

An old Hot Rod magazine had an Isetta with an Allison aircraft engine. Not sure if there was room for a driver but that was probably a good thing.
 
My view on cars are like this:
micro cars (looks mostly they are newborns of normal cars that really look like babies) : isetta, keycars and other that are really micro

small cars (looks as big toys): classic mini, fiat 500, X1/9 and other

normal cars: e21,e30,36, mercedes 190..

all bigger are in big or bigger category

but X1/9 is close to normal car category, it’s design is normal, not to look like a toy, but also in size it’s betveen small and normal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top