x19 2020

DanielForest

True Classic
I never saw that prototype. I like it. But I can't translate from... greek? Bulgarian? Egyptian...?

1592597567585.png
 
I like it. There have been a few really nice modern interpretation renderings on the X. I would be great to see one actually get built - in the same light as the other "retro" restyled cars in recent years.

One design aspect that has been popular on many cars is a downward sloping roofline, from front to rear. To me this "negative" facing rake seems odd. I prefer a roofline that tilts down in the front, or at the very least is flat (horizontal to the ground). This view of the car does not show it well, but I tried to illustrate what I mean:

fiat_x19_by_mirko_pavan_6 - Copy.jpg
 
For me this is a NO. I like big wheels but this looks ridiculous. I see very little X in this car except the rear. Is it meant to be electric? -No vents except in the front. I like computer designs but they must be doable and realistic. This one below is (and would probably sell a lot if manufactured):
X19 concept.jpg
 
For me this is a NO. I like big wheels but this looks ridiculous. I see very little X in this car except the rear. Is it meant to be electric? -No vents except in the front. I like computer designs but they must be doable and realistic. This one below is (and would probably sell a lot if manufactured):
View attachment 33617

Bjorn, I have considered trying to build this after I finish my 037 project. I love the looks of this thing. The one in the OP looks too Honda S2000 for me.
 
Bjorn, I have considered trying to build this after I finish my 037 project. I love the looks of this thing. The one in the OP looks too Honda S2000 for me.
Just do it! This exactly what I think a "Mk3" should look like. Can't understand why Fiat is not concidering building this and a new Uno.
Uno Turbo concept.jpg
 
For me this is a NO. I like big wheels but this looks ridiculous. I see very little X in this car except the rear. Is it meant to be electric? -No vents except in the front. I like computer designs but they must be doable and realistic. This one below is (and would probably sell a lot if manufactured):
View attachment 33617
This car would not be legal in North America for sure. The hood/bumper is way to low for modern standards. I believe it's pedestrian impacts that drove the hood height up.
 
This car would not be legal in North America for sure. The hood/bumper is way to low for modern standards. I believe it's pedestrian impacts that drove the hood height up.
Why wouldn't it? It doesn't look lower than existing X1/9. My other car, American made Ford Probe GT is even lower than the X at the front. But maybe the regulations has changed since the late 90's. In EU this would not be an issue.
 
I'll pass on both.

Other than the forward-leaning sail panel, the first one has so little on it that evokes X1/9.

I like the greenhouse on the second, but that's it. The front looks like it could be from any supercar made in the last 10 years, and the side scoops are a Boxster rip-off.

If FCA wanted to bring back the X1/9, they already have a mid-engine design that could be adapted for volume production, the 4c. Depending upon the price point they are aiming at, dump the carbon fiber for aluminum (mid-price) or stamped high strength steel (lowest price). Make the platform a little wider and a little longer to accommodate American avoirdupois, and use a warmed up version of FCA's current 2 liter four. Send Marcello Gandini the chassis blueprints and a blank check and ask him to send back a modern X1/9, and build that!
 
Love most if not all the prototypes. Just give me a new X already! The sad thing is, most proto's take waaay too long to develop. The production cars are, by then, just a wisp of an idea of the beautiful prototypes. Case in point, the GM prototype for the late 80's "Trans-van" which became that Pontiac abortion. The prototype was really pretty cool for an '80s design. What GM turned out was a complete turd. Toyota copied the prototype and made the second gen Previa. Sleek, and modern looking for it's day. Then charged 25% more (than the GM) and sold a crap-ton of them. So I will say it again. Just give me a new X. I am ready to buy new. Getting kinda tired of rehashing a 50 year old design. Fiat almost did it with the new Spider. But that car is really not unique. As far as the front end being too low... Really not a factor. See the new Corvette? Lambo? Ford GT? It can be done. "...build it and they will come..."
 
Why wouldn't it? It doesn't look lower than existing X1/9. My other car, American made Ford Probe GT is even lower than the X at the front. But maybe the regulations has changed since the late 90's. In EU this would not be an issue.

Existing cars are not held to standards that new cars are. As laws change we are not forced to scrap cars that don't meet those regulations.
https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...ian-protection-regs-make-cars-fatter-feature/

Still, I think the new MX5 out did Fiat with producing a modern X. IMO it's a beautiful car that has lines I can easily see an X morphing into over 30 years. It has lost what I figured a modern X would, in more luxury and cost as opposed to cheap but fun.
 
This car would not be legal in North America for sure. The hood/bumper is way to low for modern standards. I believe it's pedestrian impacts that drove the hood height up.
That rule came from Europe, not from the US. Then again, how do the Ferraris, McLarens, Lamborghinis, and others get away with it? Production volumes? Exemptions?
 
That rule came from Europe, not from the US. Then again, how do the Ferraris, McLarens, Lamborghinis, and others get away with it? Production volumes? Exemptions?
The rules don't mandate a taller hood, this is just the way many manufacturers have chosen to comply with the rules. When a pedestrian slams into a hood, the hood is actually cushioning the fall before the pedestrian hits the hard stuff under the hood. Adding several inches of air gap between the hood and the stuff underneath is one thing manufacturers do to meet the requirements. Several manufacturers have shown systems with pyrotechnic devices lifting the hood just before impact.

With mid- and rear-engined cars (like the ones you listed) it is a much easier problem, as there isn't a tall, hard engine under the hood. If you're lucky there is only a set of fitted luggage in soft, supple leather.
 
If I'm not mistaken the front suspension of the X was raised to meet bumper height requirements in NA. I watched a show on just this topic, I wish I could remember the show, and there was a guy talking about having to redesign cars and how they were looking less racy because of the requirements of raised hood heights. He did not say who made that requirements and he was talking about a front engined car. I suppose it makes sense that it's the manufacturers themselves.
 
Yeah back then the US bumper height and headlight height was a thing. It's why the later MGBs were raised. It's why the Lancia Scorpion had those silly little flip up headlights vs fixed lights.

These days it's about pedestrian collision rules, first mandated in the EU.
 
If I'm not mistaken the front suspension of the X was raised to meet bumper height requirements in NA. I watched a show on just this topic, I wish I could remember the show, and there was a guy talking about having to redesign cars and how they were looking less racy because of the requirements of raised hood heights. He did not say who made that requirements and he was talking about a front engined car. I suppose it makes sense that it's the manufacturers themselves.

In pictures it's evident that the US version of the 1500 series X1/9 has a nose-high stance. But, the difference between US and Euro ride heights is not in the front, it's in the back. In non-USA versions of the sales brochures for later cars, the pictures show a level, but curiously tall, stance on Euro cars.

If you go by part numbers, the front struts for US and UK/Euro cars have the same part numbers. OTOH, the rear struts have different part numbers.

Eurosport UK shows a difference of 30mm between the mounting points, with the US strut having the shorter distance and the UK/Euro strut having the longer distance. It's likely the strut itself and internal components are the same, and the only difference is where on the tube the mount was welded.

So it could be a US bumper height regulation for the rear bumper forced the back of the USA X down, or maybe a bumper height regulation in effect in Europe forced the back of the X up.....not sure which.
 
Last edited:
If I'm not mistaken the front suspension of the X was raised to meet bumper height requirements in NA. I watched a show on just this topic, I wish I could remember the show, and there was a guy talking about having to redesign cars and how they were looking less racy because of the requirements of raised hood heights. He did not say who made that requirements and he was talking about a front engined car. I suppose it makes sense that it's the manufacturers themselves.
This has been discussed here a few times. It seems the US 1500's were lowered in the rear, compared with EU models, not raised in the front. See this post. I know the same conclusion has been reached in other discussions here as well.

Edit: Dan beat me to it...
 
Back
Top