Limited production vehicles
Been in transit and gee the thread has grown somewhat, by the time I get the SAT back it will have probably have grown somewhat more. Just shows that this car is loved by passionate folks. I have enjoyed the mature tone of the thread so thanks to those who can agree to disagree, the truth is really a matter of perspective and who saw what. So I'll continue but I'm away from my Fiat stash so I hope I can offer something constructive to add a deeper understanding of what SteveC elluded to. If you have the (dis)pleasure of owning an AlfaSud many of the issues with the country/politics/workforce manifested itself in what should have been a great car. When it was working it was, but bits kept falling off it - I still miss it though.
Anyways, this will be a quite long post as I'm stuck here and bored out of my brain, go grab a sandwich and a cup of tea (if that's your thing, but you guys mostly drink coffee don't you? Well thats what some call it, I'm happy to get 'home' as that's proper coffee)
Not quite so simple on who assembled Bertone X1/9 bodies into complete X1/9 cars.
Well actually it is that simple, Fiat asked a carrozzeria for a proposal, Umberto challenged Nuccio to cough up if he thought he could do better than the Fiat efforts at the Austosalon in '68. Not the other way around, a simple sub-contractor arrangement. When I or any manufacturer subcontracts out and pay for it and help them achieve what it is I am after I get to put my brand on it. Foxcon/Jonny Ive doesn't get to put branding on the outside of the IOS run mobile phone. Scaglietti and Pinin are acknowledged in the name of a Ferrari but they are Ferrari first and sold and acknowledged as such. It is that simple.
While Bertone made the body shells from the very start with the body shells being sent to a Fiat plant for final assembly, This did not hold true for the entire production life of the X1/9. Some time in the mid-1970's Fiat made a marketing decision to push the 128SL instead of the X1/9. This was another poke by Fiat management at the X1/9 and proving again Fiat management never wanted to produce or have anything to do with this Bertone design.
Well that first bit about shells is already agreed, but I can't agree with your supposition on the coupe part nor the bit after Lingotto closed, the sales were dwindling after a decent run this is not unusual in auto manufacture, the space that Fiat used to assemble it was about to be converted to a multi purpose facility ( see later in the post for some history). You can argue that the development was not afforded the X1/9 but that Fiat as a business was also 'on a slimming program' at the time (recession and pulling out of USA and the Asia Pacific) and that the Lingotto factory was shutting down "limited production model" runs are all reasonable non conspiracy factors for walking away from a car. They had other vehicles in their portfolio to do different jobs in varying spheres of influence. Yes the 131 from the Mirafiori plant is one of those.
What Fiat management originally wanted to replace the 850 Spider was a FWD two seater, NOT a mid-engine two seater. This is why Fiat from that time promoted the 128SL over the X1/9 and why the FWD Fiat Barchetta Became the Fiat two seater "sports car".. while Mazda introduced the MX-5, which is the Japanese effort to copy the Lotus Elan for the masses. The market success
of the MX-5 proved how WRONG Fiat management was regarding the choice of a FWD two seater.
I believe I actually said that but the above doesn't show any intent that they never wanted to build it the first place, Fiat had many manufacturing sites and they were dedicated to mainstream production elsewhere ( as 128 was mainline production elsewhere ) Fiat used the mostly vacant Lingotto floor space for low volume stuff. Yes we know the MX5 is a Lotus Elan copy and a darn good one at that, Colin Chapman would never have achieved the evolution afforded the MX5/Miata that Japan achieved to date. Lets see if FCA can give it some style and panache when they release their copy of it. The much later Barchetta was also a 'limited production vehicle', it could have done better in the market if it was not abandoned by FIAT but the reality is it was outclassed. FIATs Centro Stile, under Architetto Cressoni, started on the Barchetta in 89/90, after fluffing around for 3-4 years, an abuse and shortening of the Punto platform it was all show and no go in the handling department despite having a good variable Cam phase engine. But regardless its curves were refreshing in an age where Fiat/Alfa et al were slab sided and lost the vigor of Italian stlye. Hand welded sheet metal pieces that formed the body cost a bomb and were also part of the reason it was canned. Its in the title 'limited production vehicle', it as that from inception.
The 128 coupe and the X 1/9 programs were started at the same time, as parallel projects there is no conspiracy of favoring one over another, volumes of the 128 line outstripped the 100 odd a day that Bertone could manage, if that gives the appearance of favoritism then it was unintentional, just the reality of a "limited production vehicle" against a full production series assembly line output. As SteveC said we couldn't get our hands on enough of them and a lot of that was not Fiats fault, our standards design regulations (ADR's) had a lot to do with that. The 81 I have was built some time before that but had to await compliance. The one that Papa persterd Fiat in Australia for ( I have a embarrassing picture of me sitting on it in storage) was one of the first in the country. When he went to see Nonna in Trieste he was nearly run over by one in 76 and went straight to a local Fiat dealer and wanted to know where he could get one, paid and drove one around for weeks. Whenever he want back to the visit family that's what he drove around in, nowdays we call that a mid life crisis.
Ponder for a moment why Fiat never put forth any serious effort to create a racing brand identity for the X1/9? While Dallara used the X1/9 with help from the folks at Bertone to create his technical calling card as the Dallara X1/9. This was the car that got Dallara started in the race car business. One can find reference to it on the current Dallara web page history time line.
https://www.dallara.it/wps/portal/en...y#.VdGDfqY-D-Y
I do and there is no conspiricy there either, its corporate common sense and putting the most capable car on the rally track. The return on investment from 131 sales volume is a commercial decision they correctly made. If you got a race prepared Abarth x1/9 and a 131 from Bertone and they were rallied against each other who would do you think win, my money is on the 131. perhaps I'm wrong, I can be enlightened - I am not stubborn, Replenter may wish the X1/9 would win but the 131 would be easier to fix in serice between stages be more robust in build structure and once a full safety cage was installed actually house a Rally and Co driver of normal height and proportions. There were few Lilliputians that were piloting at the top of the game at professional levels in rallying. Where you would put a full roll cage and expect a average sized person to come out without banging around against a cage in a tiny cockpit. I would like to see those poor sods at the end of a rally stage.
So from my POV I guess that has a lot do do with the racing development being focused on the 131 and it's rallying efforts. Groups N, A specify 4 seats so where it might have been competitive in limited modified production cars it was not eligible. That leaves the pre 83 Group 2/4. The HF stratos was already there adding the X1/9 would be to what advantage? Fiat actually did give Nuccio a proposal for 200 Rallye Abarth versions of the X1/9 but when the decision about what platform would be more successful in the racing events held they gave the 131 the green light and Bertone the 131 Abarth to him to build. It was a very effective weapon winning Fiat the World Constructor Championship three times. The very difficulty we have to this day about engine swaps was one factor as to why the X1/9 was not chosen. The 128 had to be squeezed in and tilted so the spark plugs could be reached. There was no way the specific output to be competitive could be extracted out of the SOHC. The as yet emerging L-Jet and Motronic systems affording management of Turbo options did not exist and dependable Turbos were another 3-5 years away and as most who have played with EFI of old, kugelfischer fuel injection systems were a PITA, not suitable for the application. Take a look where the Turbo development timeline was at its finest in F1 and the nightmare they were having where cost is no object, are you asking why Fiat did not to do that for a limited production vehicle? Those 200 X1/9 bodies got cancelled, Dallara pushed ahead as it was in his own interest but the clear headed thinking exhibited by managers at Fiat equaled the drive and determination Dallara had. Fiat chose the right platform IMHO and have 3 World Constructor Championship trophies from the 131 to show for it.
If this was mastermind and I was quizzed my special subject would be Group 4 Rally, the age of motoring monsters 82/86. Jean Todt I remember as the little Napoleon general, a short stumpy French rally Co Driver who came to terms with his lack of driving prowess, he accepted the realities of his abilities and worked on his strengths and moved of from his desire to be a Rally Champion because he knew that there was a difference between his desire and his gifted talents. It was he who took the then emerging innocuous little 205 hatch back and created the monstrous 205T16/406T16's, rising in stature as an organised/manager to run the racing team in Red out of Modena, CEO of Ferrari and onto FIA. Fiat Spa had the same level headed reality check when under fire when navigating the nightmare that was the social/industrial fabric of Italy, made the business decision to chose the 131 over the X1/9. I see no conspiracy in that.
Please do to take a look at what became WRC and the environment before the move to Group 4. The similarly sized and far more competent Startos was already in existence and now noncompetitive, hence efforts were sunk into the 131 and than later the Montecarlo 037 RWD evolution's making the 037 the last of its kind before the Lancia Delta S4 ( made sense as the dimensions made sense). The very similarity to the compactness of the Stratos and extreme engineering difficulty repackaging a X1/9 with a powerful engine and taller suspension makes all the sense in the world that it was not chosen over the 131 or Lancia Montecarlo.
Just because Fiat did not invest in, what is a global sense, some obscure North American racing format is no foundation for corporate sinister intent to smother the X1/9. They had bigger fish to fry, and bigger arenas to do battle in. The small and narrow model range from Stuttgart in itself explains why they supported club racing all over the world, they had nowhere near the 'commuter' focus and wide range of vehicles to manage. For Porsche that would be part of the business plan as a matter of survival in a niche market segment. Remember when it tried to move to a Superior 928 or 944 and wind down the 911 the backlash was immense, they had built themselves into a corner. You can argue if the reversal was smart but I can tell you having driven a 'Widowmaker' turbo, it is the worst sports car I have ever driven and have disliked the 911 ever since. I thank just pure sheer luck I didn't spin that thing into the nearside road furniture and die, I am not that good. I knew the Turbo lag was there but it kicks in at the exact wrong time near an apex when you need to slow in fast out of a corner. That they built a cult following is testament to the club racing investment. The 'best' light well handling sports car they made was the 944Turbo S2, just my opinion as I like cars where I am allowed to be king and the car my servant, not left wondering when I am dead if 'the butler did it' at the post mortem. Or is that not a Porsche as it was made in the Audi plant in Neckarsulm. Oh wait the 924 predecessor built there in the ex-NSU Neckarsulm factory just north of the Porsche headquarters in Stuttgart was fabricated by Volkswagen so is the 944 a Volskswagen or an NSU, sorry I'm being a bit facetious.
Examples of non factory backing in domestic racing formats existed here in Australia, most on this board rightly have no Idea who Betty Klimenko is but to summarize she is very wealthy and was heavily into Mercedes racing with the 6.2 Ltr SLS GT3. Looking for more this expanded to another obscure Australian Supercar format where it was just Ford/GMH. Other teams entered followed her lead, like Nissan and Volvo, both have massive factory support. When Betty bought out the licence from Stones Brothers Racing and created Erebus here before Nissan and Volvo showed up she approached Mercedes , they were actively trying to discourage her, press releases from Merc' Aust distanced itself from the 'new' team. Basically saying that they are not involved in 'production series' racing. I don't think the E63 is an unloved model they are trying to kill off. Its a commercial decision that they as a global company have other bigger fish to fry and weren't interested in some obscure Australian racing series. I fail to see how the small volume X1/9 was any different, Fiat had far more eggs in a bigger basket with other racing efforts to fund and focus on than Datsun, BMC or Leyland. Fiat had other sports oriented brands to offer, Ferrari, Lancia, Alfa Romeo. Mercedes has a very successful Formula One team, I just wish they didn't sound like a Hoover. I went to watch James Brock (the son of the late nine-time Bathurst 1000 winner Peter Brock) driving the Erebus SLS GT3 that Betty has racing around, sounds like the mix of an entire jet fighter squadron + a bracket racing drag car driven by the grim reaper as it shakes the ground when it goes past, I love it. Now THAT is a racing car!!!!
In contrast, British Leyland, Nissan (Datusn), Porsche promoted heavily in he USA using SCCA as their racing venue with full factory support for those interested and more. The US market was taken extremely seriously by these brands. This is why there is such a legacy following for these cars in the US to this very day.
Fiat had different financials and corporate structure to British Leyland, Nissan/Datusn ( Downunder the Nissan/Datsun name is interchangeable we all know its a Nissan, I helped crew a 1100 for a short while - great rally car) just have a look at the disparate Itallian brands that Fiat absorbed over the post WW2 period. Efficiencies had to be cross platform to go up the production ladder at Fiat. It took GM longer to implode under the weight of bloat decades later but Fiat had to go on a diet in the late 80's, not because it hated the X 1/9 but because of the financial position the company found itself in. Thatchers Brittan and the militant English workforce are some reasons why they eventually collapsed British Leyland but the culture of exporting English sports cars was part of the old English Empires industrial plan post WW2, without that non domestic volume it would not survive. Eventually Japan and Europe rebuilt themselves after WW2 and The English found it harder to compete and withered. Fiat were not alone when they ditched Australia as Renault did the same and the fiasco Downunder of attaching it to the Volvo dealer network when they pulled out of Ozz is an example of manufacturing shrinking across the automotive industries. These are realities not unsupported theories of why management wanted to scuttle the X 1/9.
Noteworthy was the use of the rear suspension from the Lancia MonteCarlo-Scorpion in the 1500cc X1/9. When production went to a trickle then none- Fiat had to do something with all those rear suspension bits produced for the MontCarlo-Scorpion. This is why the rear suspension on the 1500cc X1/9 is so incredibly stout...as it was originally designed for about 300 hp V6. This is why the rear uprights, CV joints and related rear suspension bits are interchangeable between X1/9 and Lancia MonteCarlo-Scorpion. I'll save the story of this other under-reconized and appreciated and unfinished design maybe at a later time.
So are you saying the rear A arms on the X1/9 were developed for the Montecarlo before the X1/9 reached final development? Not my understanding of the way it came about. The very point that 'just in time batch manufacture that Bertone moaned about I find it odd they would have just built a massive pile of A arms with no customer for them. I have a pretty clear recollection the X1/8 was suspended the X1/9 developed and the X1/20 later restarted under the Lancia brand, so I'm confused.
The 1980's also marked the introduction of the Fiat Uno Turbo. Since Fiat decided to pull out of the US car market, the Uno Turbo oily bits never got US Federalization. If it did, there could have been a Uno Turbo variant of the X1/9.
I have heared this before as I have been messing around with UnoT engines for a long time now, but if you look at the EFI systems that were mature enough to do this the decision about the X1/9 had already been made to close Lingotto and let Bertone continue. As your market was already terminated why would Fiat try and have its Uno assessed for, as you call it, Federalization ? The 83 release of the Uno didn't see the Mk1 Turbo until two years later if Nuccio wanted to flog a dead horse that was his decision. I wonder if he would have paid for all the compliance testing in all the markets required by an UnoT engine out of his own pocket? That Bricklin did what he did was poor marketing against the trend of what else was available, that his shear arrogance of moving a car upmarket when the originator had specified economical to build/sell in the design brief is judgement enough. Remember the MR2 was released in 1982 as a full production series platform from Japan, could Bertone compete with that? I think Fiat already knew they couldn't and made a decision. The MR2 was a great car that just got better as they had something to copy from that originated in Turin. Your more appropriately sized ( for North Americans) Pontiac Fiero mid-engined sports car was also released 1984. There was stiff competition when the 85' UnoT Mk1 was available , I'd be hesitant to re tool and sell into a hostile American market too. Remember you guys still have a 'Chicken Tax' and all that goes along with importing from OS.
Friends who visited Bertone while the X1/9 was still in production asked the folks at Bertone why the X1/9 never got a more powerful drive train. Answer turned out to be Fiat's resistance to give Bertone access to anything other than the 1500cc / 5 speed. Fiat forced Bertone into a contract to accept a fixed number of engine-gearbox-axle-uprights with zero options. Fiat did not care if Bertone put them into cars or scrapped them, Bertone had to accept this fixed number with no exemptions. Beyond this Fiat had absolutely zero interest in spending any of their engineering and production resources on any redesign of the X1/9. Adding to this, Fiat was out of the US car market, any efforts to Federalize a more modern Fiat engine-gearbox was too expensive and pointless.
Proving again, Fiat was determined to kill off the X1/9 in any way they can.
Proves what exactly? Be careful when you ask a salesman if his product is flawless and if there is anything better available.
Proof of production line tooling reality, the 128 variants were something the factories at Fiat would have to shut down and re-jig their tooling for, if Bertone expected to just ring up and vary the numbers they wanted every month he was out of his mind. Henry Ford would have done the same, shut downs and re tools cost time money and interrupt main line production, it was up to Bertone if he wanted to project units needed. If I go to my CAD machinist with a sketch and say I want 5 'of these' and maybe I will maybe I won't come back for more it'll cost a fortune. If I say here's a CAD file and I want 100 a month for the next six months with the option to vary by 15% a month in advance it will be cheaper per unit. His CAD programmer and operator cost money as does his machines/materials. It would be very naive and selfish of me to just show up and say 'can you make me 5 of these widgets'. I'd or he'd go out of business. Be mindful that the Uno was up and running in 83' and the Fiat Punto supermini car produced by the Italian manufacturer Fiat was a decade away in 1993. The Uno was a big deal because Fiat were embracing the Fully Integrated Robotised Engine and body assembly. This is the environment Bertone expected limited production runs of a variant that may undermine the very automation Fiat was championing. I hope you can see some reasoning for Fiats choices, Its just a manufacturing reality. Nuccio was flogging a dead horse IMHO.
Given this history of twist and turns... and how Fiat did what it could to kill of the X1/9 since day one.. Is the X1/9 really a Fiat?
Yes it is a Fiat, history is often a matter of perspective and Governments made heroes out of villains all the time. Is it Ochams razor where there are two or more reasons for an outcome and the most simplest one is often correct. For me the X1/9 was developed with Fiat money and input, it had a short life due to its limited appeal and when Lingotto closed they let Bertone continue. No evil empire in the board room at Fiat, just cold hard reality - it outlived its usefulness and Fiat is a business that has to make money or perish in a very competitive industry. I ask again, show me facts not myths and misunderstandings for commercial decisions. Exactly what did the board do to smother the X1/9. That they rightly passed over it to choose other platforms for racing programs is not at dark horse or a sinister motive but a commercial decision based on the realities of the racing formats attractive to Fiats market focus. That they let Bertone continue post Lingotto says to me that they allowed it to continue after commercial realities would have seen them terminate it, if they wanted to kill it they had ample opportunity in 82.
Cadillac Allanté - Pininfarina was a very different deal. After Fiat ditched the 124 Spider, Pininfarina wanted access to the US car market beyond Ferrari. A deal with made with GM in a similar idea as the Bertone X1/9 bodies to GM assembly. Except Pininfarina did not assemble complete cars as Bertone did with the X1/9 and Pininfarina never tried to market Allanté independently from GM.
Cart before the horse here, Remember Bertone goaded Agneli as he knew the 850 was reaching the end. Just as Fiat did GM asked a Carrozzeria to style/construct bodies. Pininfarina was doing just fine with projects enough customers to keep it busy. GM tasked Pinin as they wanted a car to negate the impact that the Merc' SL was having, they tried but failed as the product was not as good, that GM was 'too big to fail' (at the time) is why they just cancelled it Pininfarina would never be allowed to keep building it. When the market grew tired of it they just terminated the project. Bertone asked if Fiat would let him keep building a Fiat X 1/9 and rebadge it a Bertone when Lingotto closed down, last time you were in Turin you saw how close all these sites we are talking about are, makes a difference. Different commercial decisions, I hope you can see that. Nothing sinister about that.
If one were to look at the personalities involved with the design, development and testing of the X1/9, this list consist of some of the very best and talented individuals from that time. Yet, their work on the X1/9 and it's resulting excellent design remans mostly unrecognized for a host of reasons politically and more.
Yes thats a great idea, now lets acknowledge who was paying who's paycheck. Fiat chief engineer at the time was Dante Giacosa, working under him was Giuseppe Puleo, director of advanced design in Fiat's research and development department, He was 'loaned' and responsible for engineering and design (except body) of the X1/9.
He was an exceptional engineer
http://papers.sae.org/730075/
I remember a nice article where was quizzed about the work on the X1/9 in a magazine in 1973, I don't have access to it out here perhaps someone remembers and has a copy. So is the skin Bertone and the suspension layout a Fiat? Or is it that Fiat asked a tailor and stylist dealing in sheet metal to make them a suit and they provided the person wearing it. This was what Ferrari used to do all the time they are still Ferrari's and anyone going to Pebble Beach espousing otherwise will be ridiculed.
The X1/9 is unrecognized by the vox popoli without doubt, not by Italian car nuts or those that folow European car design. Most on this board will find it interesting to delve into who Puleo was. Without him the adaptation of the inadequate 128 suspension probably would not have been resolved in the manner as it was finessed. Trailing arms, stub axels are different to the 128 but who and why.
Still think FCA would consider offering OEM x1/9 parts?
Who me? I never advocated it and explained why it was unrealistic to expect any manfacturer to keep a discontinued model alive. The SHOC went onto revisions roughly ending in the 176A000 before 182.A4.000 twin cams /cross flow became the way ahead, there is plenty of access to SOHC parts on the Web.
By example:
Scored yet another Punto Gt crate engine recently, now I just have to get it shipped ( which will cost more than the NOS engine) far cheaper than a rebuild of an old probably twisted engine block by the 'specialists' Downunder. You just have to know where to look.
http://s17.postimg.org/byj206h5b/NOS_Punto_GT_Crate.jpg
That Fiat let go of the space for assembly facilities at Lingotto has nothing to do with pushing the X1/9 out and 'burying it'. The factory took seven years to build, finally opening in 1923. Car-building technology inside the landmark building became outdated, inefficient and costly before WW2 and the plant finally closed in 1982, if it wasn't for the onset of WW2 it would probably have been demolished. Fiat moved production elsewhere long before, it was only really used of small volume projects. Projects like the robotized production of the FIRE engine etc were installed elsewhere, the future of sustainability. Does the year 1982 make a correlation as to when Bertone took over!? Fiat was never going to shift production to the factory at Rivalta that was built specifically for the 128, the Mirafiori plant had been busy with bigger production runs since 1939. That Bertones Grugliasco site had capacity to do this it made sense to let Nuccio continue when the redevelopment of Lihgotto finally started, but by then everyone had moved on and the X1/9 was no longer competitive and winding down.
1972-74 ~26.8K
1975-76 ~21.3k
1976-78 ~47.0k
1977-78 ~00.7k
1978-79 ~27.8k
1980-82 ~20.5k
1982-83 ~02.8k
1983-84 ~02.5k
1984-86 ~08.5k
1986-88 ~05.6k
If I was the project manager I would see a trend in those numbers, down. Bertone took over in March of 82 he never achieved as much as Fiat did, they would have fed him as many 1500 power trains etc as he could consume, he just couldn't develop and forecast his logistics because the vehicle was already in decline, his cost base was too high. Perhaps why Fiat had moved on?
I have not seen anything 'concrete' to convince me that it was a Bertone, intentionally nobbled and actively suppressed. The lines set up in Grugliasco were not all Bertones work, Fiat helped set / tool him up for his 100+ a day capacity as they needed a secure source of bodies delivered to Lingotto in a timely fashion. One of the things that they couldn't count on was tomato picking season and militant workers who wouldn't show up. Ever stop to wonder why Sergio is so wary around the American Auto Union and why the deal with Chrysler was at the cusp of going through for so long. He came up through a system that SteveC described as the environment at Fiat Spa when he was starting off his career. To understand Italian cars you need to understand Italian manufacturing and the culture that powered it. SteveC and I share one thing in common, our fathers are Italian (sometimes a stubborn PITA, mine was anyway) from that you can bank what he wrote about the social upheaval that Americans only experienced after the twin towers. The Red Brigade and the left extremists were a real problem and rebuilding Italy post WW2 had some real challenges. I know my AlfaSud was poorly put together and understood why, I accepted that as it was a great design and ahead of its time with inboard disks a watercooled boxer front wheel drive seating for 5 and a sporty litte two door that could take 5 with room in the boot. But with mandating the creation jobs in the South (Sud in Italian - hence Alfa Romeo South = AlfaSud) came with a poorly skilled workforce that could be off picking tomatoes to make salsa for nonna when the vines were ripe. If it didn't rust to bits then I probably would have kept it. Twin IDFs and a 1500 boxer from a later doner in a Ti was a blast to drive, I have not seen one in the last decade that was not full of cancer.
Fiat treated the X1/9 just like any other limited production project, so I'm content to agree to disagree. I see others bringing up the (Ferrari 308 based) Rainbow from 76' , other wedge designs were ceratinly out there but chronology is important, the X 1/9 concept was later stretched but the bigger B pillar and window were unapealing and it never went anywhere (ugly). The Bravo was also post X1/9 but also only a concept car, way after the important Fiat Centro Stile concept Pio Manzu's' was in charge of that was Fiats effort shown in 68 that preceded the Runabout/X1/9. Nuccio could sell ice to Eskimos, he was a maestro who could secure contracts with proposals that were outside of the brief because he nurtured and gave credit to his designers (the opposite to Pinin Farina as it was all about him) artists who were ahead of their contemporaries, Nuccio was visionary with charisma, my clear recollection was Nuccio was very quiet when Umberto Agneli asked what he thought of Fiats efforts at replacing his 850 spider at the Paris auto show in 69'. Basically Nuccio was a sales master and was very hesitant at offering anything positive to say. When pressed by Umberto Agneli ( I am not quoting but going off memory here) Nuccio replied - Fiats are not true sports cars and he could do better than Fiats offering.
Umberto was reported as saying - if you can do better do so, show me how you would do it. Well baited, hooked and challenge accepted (bravo, what a salesman). The creation of Bertones is what everyone remembers, the 69' Runabout, how it was arrived at is forgotted and shrouded in mystery I hold no one the lesser for getting influenced by myth and popular culture, after all we are taliking about an Italian who as anyone who is or knows one likes to embellish and tell a good tale. Nuccio was the Barnum & Bailey of auto design, showman conjurer, magician, maestro and creative genius. Marchello had finished the Miura and was in vogue as a young designer as everyone was blown away with his Miura, if you are interested in Enzo see if you can find out what he had to say about it as he kept peddling "engines in sports cars are in the front driving the rear wheel". He changed his tune eventually. What is telling was the Miura was disconcertingly Unstable with > a 1/4 tank of fuel at speed - apparently, so a pretty car yes but shows Marchello was no chassis designer. He was only tasked with the sheet metal and the shape of the X 1/9. Bertone used 128 bits (disgusised as 112 if I remember as the emerging 'new' car, the 128 was known of in Turin Auto circles) and the rest is as they say history. The body and the styling was certainly Marchello but the suspension, drivetrain and what we admire so much that delivers the driving experience was not theirs alone. Fiat had direct input.
Giuseppe Puleo was director of advanced car design in Fiat's research and development department/ When the Primula was in production Giacosa, who was responsible for the Autobianchini I would say saw the potential for a mid engined drive train. Their prototype Project G.31 by OSI was unloved and hence Fiat Centro Sile put a concept together at 68' for the Turin show, nope went nowhere. I had a picture in a article of the scale model in a press shoot from the 70's somewhere but I would have to find it. Perhaps a Google guru could find it in the Wayback Machine if they were good. After the 128 introduction in 69' and Bertones concept approval Puelo was tasked to create a sports car for medium production at a affordable price. Puelo's brief was to use the 128 parts and the had to allow for design changes if they were required during production. The first attempt was a straight
transfer from a 128, it was no good. The whole front end was put in midships it didn't behave IAW the design brief and the engine wouldn't fit at 22 deg so to get at the spark plugs so 11 degrees was arrived at. This is why the pickup of a 128/Punto oil pump is wrong and you have to use a X1/9 end on an almost identical pump. Same goes for the inlet as the carb was now 11 degrees off and it didn't work as Webbber designed. The stub axels were uprated from the 128 to improve control as the 128's had play that induced rear wheel steering, accidentally long before Japan built it in as a design feature, had to be excluded. The 128 steering track rods were not up to snuff from a rigidity POV as radius arms so A arms were added instead. It was a good decision as the shims some don't understand being in the swing arm bushes and stack in the wrong order are a direct result of the design allowing for slight changes in dimensions during the "limited production" inaccuracies expected from the body shells. Folks attribute the pressed steel A arms in the back of the X to Bertone but Puelo who was seconded from Fiat oversaw this despite it being counter to what his boss at Fiat Dante Giacosa asked for economy of production and simplicity of parts inventory they wanted to do a straight swap from the 128 whilst achieving neutral character and slight overstear when pushed over the limit of adhesion ( typical management ask an engineer for the impossible on a shoe string budget).
Somehow in the mists of time this became attributed to Bertone, Puelo would be a bit miffed if he was asked I guess. I wonder how Pinin copied Bertones work in the Montecarlo A arms if it were not a Fiat engineers work, I doubt either of Bertone nor Pinin giving a leg up to each other. Now the gearbox - oh don't bother the bottom linkage was reversed by Fiat as the 128 was 'wrongside' so they recast the part at Fiat and supplied the 'odd' gearbox to Bertone. I'm sure Fiat didn't like the addition of inventory and manufacture but they were still able to cope with 'similar but not same' and not detract significantly from the 'economy of manufacture' Fiat was looking for.
Bertone didn't have a wind tunnel so this work was done in Germany to figure out the body, side air intake shape and getting the radiator to work for the engine cooling. The chin spoiler adds to efficiency of the standard radiator like you wouldn't believe as it helps create a low pressure differential off the back face of the core, the thermofan was only added if you were stuck in traffic. That the chin added to road adhesion is just a bonus and makes it look purposeful. If you have heat issues at speed adding a bigger chin and putting the radiator diffuser pannel back on that folks think does nothing was arrived at over many hours in the wind tunnel in Stuttgart. If you think it just dead weight leave it off and be my guest, flow analysis says different in a wind
tunnel. All reasons why an X will just effortlessly slide on by a 128 coupe on the freeway with the same power plant. Next time you take the top off have a really really good look at the trailing edge of the targa and it will twig that lots of hours were spent getting the boundary layer separation correct on a flat roof. A nautical engineer will tell you that top should have been curved so the rear profile has the vertical segment bars in there for a reason. So the next time you see a Subaru WRX with the little self adhesive diffuses above the rear window compare function and maybe you will have a gee wizz moment.
The Italians were doing this stuff in a wind tunnel in Stutgart in 1970/71, its the little things that we don't notice I point out to the ricer crowd when they poke fun and they all of a sudden show interest in the silly little hairdressers car. "How much did you pay for those fake little carbon fiber stick on shark fins at the back of your roof"
Anyway as a result folks notice the suspension of the X1/9 front end is similar to the 128 sedan but not identical, with no front wheel CVs the springs/struts were lower mounted at the hub to suit the low nose on the X. The FWD facing radius arms added where the sedans use the roll bars to locate the struts. Puelo did these to ensure the sloppy 128 front end had more precise geometry, hence control added 7 degrees inclination to limit tracking and induce better directional stability and shifted the rack and pinion further to the rear.
Anyways enough of that lets discuss Lingotto and perhaps the red mist will clear somewhat.
If you are into marine engineering then you may know of Giacomo Mattè-Trucco, he was the maestro who created the Lingotto at the turn of the century. It is interesting that Giacomo visited Henry Fords way of production in the US and whilst 'inverted' Ford influenced the design concept in Turin. From an architectural POV the structure of the factory was an innovation in the 1920's. The use of reinforced ‘Hennebique’ concrete frame to span the huge workshop areas and the banked sections of the track were held in place by an elegant web of concrete ribs. But it was the idea of driving on the roof that remains in imagination of those who followed in the 'atomic age' of futuristic design, flawed but imaginative.
But then everything eventually outlives its usefulness, the building became inefficient and unable to increase output as Fiat grew. There is nothing sinister in that, it is just a function of 'progress' and the growth required by the western model of economics. Some of us just fall in love with things of the past and there is nothing wrong with that either. Mythology on the other hand often spins out of proportion.
John Cook did a good piece on the old factory a while back, worth a read and might show you why Fiat sent the X 1/9 to Bertone during the twilight of its production, there was no evil intent, the plans to redevelop Lingotto were not an effort to kill the X1/9.
https://www.academia.edu/14362388/Lingotto_Myths_Mechanisation_and_Automobiles
I hope you read that above piece, its worth the effort.
Ask yourself, did they shove the X1/9 out the door or did it outlive its usefulness and when the building renovators moved into Lingotto, did Fiat allow it to continue to live on under Nuccios badgework? They didn't have to do that they could have just terminated the project. Or perhaps acknowledge and answer that there two cars were assembled under contract by Bertone.
Why is the 850 spider a Fiat and the X1/9 a Bertone, please expand.
The best news I had out of this whole tread is that two vendors popped up on here to say that dealers use them too and they don't have to scratch out a living on tight wads like me alone. Well done I hope it you make it worth your while.
I may not have bought bits from either of you but I appreciate your efforts
Thanks Chris and Andrew
I've polished off 1/2 a bottle of Captain Morgans best so I have probably made some errors and repeated my self somewhat. Remember a good friend is someone who doesn't always agree with you but even if he doesn't agree to let you believe he is wrong and doesn't become your enemy. At the end of it all perhaps letting Bertone put his badge on the nose and tail of the X1/9 is the problem for some, it will always for me be a Fiat. I have enjoyed this thread immensely. Bear no ill wind and let the wind fill your sails and propel you forward, just keep the log and chart your course, people often forget where they have been.
Looks like the winds are picking up and that Neptunes old lady is a bit upset tomorrow, so this may not make the hop on the day I send it. So in old Naval Jack-speak I wish you all "a willing foe and plenty of sea room"
See I told you to go grab a sandwich.
My Best regards
Sandy
imp:
