What color bumpers would look best?

Nice creative work.
On a nice straight car, which is to be used in public, I feel bumpers like this and the OE 1974 bumpers are simply cosmetic, (that is to say they do not perform the function of bumpers which is to prevent sheet metal damage if you bump into someone or if you are bumped by someone.) Nice look for trailer queens or cars which only park side by side. As for me, as someone with 74 bumpers who got bumped in a SCCA race with a dent or 2 which cost $2000 to fix, I will stick with 'crash bumpers'. And, yes, I removed them for races where the 20 pound savings (that is slightly more than 1 percent of the car weight) might make a difference. Orange car is my former street car. Yellow is my former SCCA road racer. I have a set of these single bar bumpers for 1975-and later bumpers free for pickup in Sacramento if you want some.
 

Attachments

  • 20201203140518105.jpg
    20201203140518105.jpg
    293.2 KB · Views: 98
  • 20201203140621593.jpg
    20201203140621593.jpg
    296 KB · Views: 99
  • DSCN1074.JPG
    DSCN1074.JPG
    275.9 KB · Views: 96
O.K. I will add my 2 cents. I think the fascination with the early split bumperettes is due for an up date. The split bumpers on early cars do not fit the design of the X 1/9, they break the smooth line across the front and they just look out of place. The version you =have done looks fabulous as it maintains a smooth line across the front, does nor draw the eye like the split bumperettes, and just blends in. So I say they look fantastic.These are a proper Italian arrangement. In fact it is the first time I have questioned not going with some different bumper arrangement.
 
Dr.Jeff said:
That's another touch I love, all red lenses. :) I have a new set of original Fiat red ones like in the sample pic. But I've decided to take it even further and not use the stock tail lights at all. Instead I'm installing a custom set with aftermarket LED lights. ;)
Click to expand...
Now you're really hurting my head. haha.
 
770mark said:
So, I realize not everyone likes these bumpers but after those of you who replied spent the time to do so, I figured I owed it to you to post a few pics of the final outcome. Again, they're not for everyone, but for the most part, I' happy with how they turned out. What do you think?View attachment 53105View attachment 53106View attachment 53109
Click to expand...
The black wheels - did you think long about those? I kinda like how they tie-in the other black parts of the car, but so few people do black wheels. Nice…
 
Just for interest sake on bumper requirements :)

I always wondered how 1974 North American spec X1/9s could get the small bumpers: (I can't recall the wheelbase at the moment, but it seems this would apply). By 1974, most North American large cars had HUGE bumpers! (1972 Buick Riviera as an example had nice small front bumpers - by 1973, the front bumper was massive - by 1974, both front and rear were huge and the styling suffered). Heck, before 1973, bumpers had tail lamps integrated into them!



1633521895461.png


If I'm not mistaken, the primary requirement of FMVSS 215 was to protect the lighting from being damaged (hence why 1974 X1/9s only have bumpers near the lighting - the front has no protection in the middle! I can't find the actual old FMVSS 215 test spec, but looking at the test - you can determine that it's only to protect lighting - at least in 1974.

1633522183891.png


1633522640310.png
 
Last edited:
myronx19 said:
Just for interest sake on bumper requirements :)

I always wondered how 1974 North American spec X1/9s could get the small bumpers: (I can't recall the wheelbase at the moment, but it seems this would apply). By 1974, most North American large cars had HUGE bumpers! (1972 Buick Riviera as an example had nice small front bumpers - by 1973, the front bumper was massive - by 1974, both front and rear were huge and the styling suffered). Heck, before 1973, bumpers had tail lamps integrated into them!



View attachment 53171

If I'm not mistaken, the primary requirement of FMVSS 215 was to protect the lighting from being damaged (hence why 1974 X1/9s only have bumpers near the lighting - the front has no protection in the middle! I can't find the actual old FMVSS 215 test spec, but looking at the test - you can determine that it's only to protect lighting - at least in 1974.

View attachment 53172

View attachment 53174
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the days when you were supposed to protect yourself by being a good driver, not texting on your phone or gulping soft drinks. Can you imagine - neanderthals. Nowadays, the one comment we hear about the ‘74 the most, besides “It’s so cute”, is “I just wouldn’t feel safe in it. That’s why we bought a Range Rover.”
Yeah, sure, that’s why you bought a Range Rover. lol. You sure scare the hell out of the rest of us.
Nearing our first anniversary, and the only thing I’ve hit so far is the table saw in the corner of the garage….. ;)
 
Last edited:
770mark said:
So, I realize not everyone likes these bumpers but after those of you who replied spent the time to do so, I figured I owed it to you to post a few pics of the final outcome. Again, they're not for everyone, but for the most part, I' happy with how they turned out. What do you think?View attachment 53105View attachment 53106View attachment 53109
Click to expand...

The rear bumper is too high, needs to be at the same level as the '74 bumpers. Quality work, though...
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEG
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top