Who could have imagined in 1967 that this 124 would still be being built almost 50 years later, as the Lada/VAZ-21xx. In a somewhat ironic and prescient statement, the last line of R&T’s review was “One thing is certain—the Russian standard of motoring will go up markedly when the 124s start rolling off the lines in the USSR”. Yes, for the first 15 years or so, but not in the 21st century.
The Fiat 124 is a car we tend to think of in terms of its later offspring, like the also near-immortal 124 Sport Spyder. It didn’t make much of an impact in the US in its first few years, at a time when Fiat was at a low ebb. These early versions were always fairly rare in the US, but sales picked up some after a few years, especially so once the larger DOHC four from the sport models made its appearance under its hood. These early ones came with a 1200cc pushrod four; a rather petite engine for American style driving by 1967, and that was not a exactly a brilliant decision. But nevertheless, the 124 was a fine performer, if one was willing to wring out the high-revving little mill. Its handling was even better; as good as it got at the time, and the packaging of its wide and boxy body was excellent too.
There were good reasons the 124 family lasted so long: it was born with good genes.
The 124 was a perfect example of a car which exceeded the sum of its parts. It may have been orthodox in its appearance and configuration, but it was very well thought out. And for those that were hoping or expecting something more ambitious with FWD, the somewhat smaller 128 followed it soon enough.
It was good enough to be crowned Europe’s Car Of The Year in 1966, despite stiff competition from BMW’s 1600 and Volvo 144. The 124 was of course aiming for a different segment of the market; it had the VW Beetle in its gun sight, and it played a pivotal role in taking it down in Europe, playing essentially the same role there as the Toyota Corona did in the US. Both were pragmatic RWD sedans, but they offered so much more than the VW, with spacious four door bodies, a good-sized trunk, as well as other amenities. The Fiat had it all over the Corona when it came to handling and braking; it set class standards in both those qualities, offering a truly enjoyable driving experience. In essence, the 124 was a poor-man’s Alfa, and once the larger DOHC four arrived, it essentially was an Alfa.
The interior accommodations, including the driving position, were deemed very good. Obviously the little four got buzzy on American freeway driving; a bigger engine and 5-speed eventually cured that. The transmission was slick and quick, and the four wheel disc brakes were excellent. Fiat’s decision to fir the 124 with four wheel discs at the time was ambitious, and clearly showed that the cost of doing so need not be exorbitant. Consider that the 124 came out the same year as the Olds Toronado, with its horrifyingly inadequate drum brakes, followed by the Eldorado in 1967. Shame!
Not many Americans appreciated what a fine little sedan (and wagon) the 124 was. Fiat’s rep was at a low point, due to selling out dated cars such as the rear engine 850 sedan and the 1100. And of course a sparse and iffy dealer network exacerbated their reputation for being unreliable, grossly beyond what they deserved. The 124 was fundamentally a robust car, but the same issues that plagued other imports in the US, meaning problems with emission systems, accessories such as a/c conspired against them. Fix It Again Tony. But that was not the rep these cars had in Europe, where Fiat dealers were common and very familiar with them. And it certainly wasn’t the rep the Russian LADA soon earned there, where it acquitted itself quite well in the harsh conditions of the time.
mn
A friend’s dad bought a 124 Sedan in the early ’70’s, right after the first fuel crisis. I loved driving it… a great break from my Mom’s Country Squire. Fond memories of a great car!
This article reminds me… What I find fascinating is the difference in perception of car reliability between Europe and the United States. Many European cars on their homeland are considered to be near indestructible (e.g. many VW models, older BMWs, Audi, Mercedes), in the US are considered to be faulty and expensive to repair “disposables”. In Europe, American cars are often considered cheap and short-lived.
Is it due to different type of usage? In Europe weather conditions are rather not extreme (we don’t have the Death Valley) and distances are much shorter, a typical European doesn’t have a problem with expensive and frequent servicing of their new cars – probably because cars in Europe are quite expensive.
From my European perspective, typical American looks at a car as just a tool to work and move around and has no intention of taking care of the car as his own child, which is completely understandable – it’s only a car.
My conclusion being, European cars can be extremely depended and can look new for a long time, but only if they are properly, and expensively taken care of. American cars can look very tired and “wreck-like” very soon no matter what, but mechanically they are very depended in long run.
“… typical American looks at a car as just a tool to work..,”
I would suggest that here in Canada, if you don’t take good care of your car, it won’t last beyond about 8-9 years. The weather does a number on cars here, the body, exposed mechanical parts, engine wear in cold temperatures, wires, batteries, the ongoing need to change from snow tires to summers and back, etc.
I certainly don’t view my car as just a tool, it is a financial investment on which I rely for transportation, and one in which I take pride. My current daily driver is getting on to twelve years old, and had I not looked after it all these years it would have found itself in a scrap yard long ago.
Friends of mine in the U.S. have looked after their rides also, and have made them last to fifteen years and beyond. As have associates of mine in the UK.
I just don’t think you can generalize based on nationality.
“financial investment” a car is not, unless it’s the rare car that appreciates in value
the media is probably the cause, they misuse the term “investment” when what they describe is just spending
an investment usually provides income or financial appreciation – or at least the hope
your car is really a necessary but depreciating asset, which is not a good investment but you appear to be wise enough to spend time and money to slow the depreciation
In focusing on one word, you may be missing my point.
Not all car owners in the US or Canada treat their cars in the manner suggested by the commenter. Some do, many do not.
The debate over the term “investment” is not that important, but since we tend to spend alot of hours shopping and deciding on how to spend money on the second largest investment of our lives is what makes the decision so important. Use the term significant cost if you prefer.
Financial investments do decline in value over time. See “GE”.
Interesting comment, which I somewhat agree with. Going back to say the ’60s, my impression, and while American I’m much more European car oriented, is that Euro cars are somewhat more demanding in terms of service and maybe even minor/modest repairs, but given more attention will go far further.
And I think climate plays a factor too as you suggested, but far short of Death Valley, take a half a dozen or so of the warm states and in the summer you can travel hundreds of miles in 100F+ temps, sometimes over 100 miles at a time over 110F, which you obviously don’t see in Europe. Plus use of A/C which add a thermal load to the car too, combine both with at times climbing moderately steep grades, at 70-80 MPH, it’s conditions they really weren’t designed for, even if the designers might have considered them overdesigned for the home area. And in the 60’s, we got the exact same cars as Europe did, some changes in the 70’s for emissions, bumper standards, the latter of which didn’t really affect longevity, but they started being designed for a somewhat different market.
And now, while we get reduced options, particularly in the way of engines for a combination of reasons ranging from marketing to the cost of emissions certification, cars are to a large degree, world cars. Full circle in a sense, but to the most demanding market.
I believe the totality of emissions controls on 1967 cars consisted of positive crankcase ventilation. That being the case, I’m a bit surprised that this overhead valve 1.2 liter sedan only returned 24-28 miles per gallon. I think Beeltes were doing better until the 1968 model year, or at least comparably; which is impressive considering their pre-war design. That being said, the 124 was one remarkable sub-$2K import.
Our 1966 1300 cc Beetle returned a consistent 27-29 mpg, max 30 on long highway stretches. Kept it in pretty good tune. Years later had a 1974 Fiat 124 with the 1438 cc engine (first year with big bumpers). Seem to remember it gave 25-29 mpg. Given that the 1200 cc engine was “rev-happy”, suspect the testers flogged it pretty hard.
That’s the same mileage my brother’s 1300 got. The 1967-up 1500/1600s only got about 25 mpg.
R&T tested a 1974 124TC (they came with 1592cc twin cam engines in 1974) and they got 22 mpg. The extra weight and emission controls took their toll.
I put a lot of miles on a 57 chassis, with 1600 engine and trans in a 66 Bug body. I consistently got 25MPG at 75MPH and 32MPG at 55-60. The older 1200/40HP did do better.
Thanks Paul, didn’t look up whether 1974 North American spec was 1438 or 1592 cc. Do remember the big bumpers. Used my 124 mainly for the once a week drive from Cleveland to Youngstown, Ohio, an hour’s drive, working at Anchor Motor Freight. Driven conservatively, it got good mileage on that route.
Emissions controls were required on US-market cars starting with MY 1968. But I think you’re correct that they were pretty minimal at first.
For some reason imported cars were exempt from California exhaust emissions standards that started in 1966. Most domestics got air injection pumps and all got spark control and idle mixture changes.
Four wheel disc brakes and a portioning value in the braking system.
Ahead of its rivals…..
Well, yes and no. Renault’s R8 was even more of a trailblazer in this regard, with discs all round, from its launch in 1962, with just 956 cc under the rear hood.
And, a valve which limited the pressure to the rear brakes was there on every BMC Mini (from 1959) and 1100 (from 1962), though these weren’t load sensing.
The load sensing versions, connected to the rear suspension, started to be designed into various FWD European hatchback models from I think around the mid 1960’s.
A friend’s family had one of these back then (1970), which I was permitted to take the wheel of occasionally. I’d never driven anything smaller than a Maverick, and I remember the overall lightness (in a good way) of taking the Fiat through corners, especially; but also the high-revving buzziness at highway speeds.
Alas, we got T-boned by a larger (US) car at an urban intersection; nobody hurt, but car really crimped. Bye-bye, Fiat!
****************************
That was a really positive R&T review—-I wouldn’t have read it at the time—-and I’ll guess it helped Fiat sales at the time.
I always admired the 124, they were well regarded and sold in reasonable numbers here in South Africa, however I haven’t seen one in years. I guess enthusiasts looking to take on a sporty Italian car will always take an Alfa over a Fiat sedan. I still see relatively plenty of Alfas of the 124’s vintage. I have an issue of Car Magazine [South Africa] June 1972 in front of me with a list of best selling cars for Q1 of 1972. the 124/S sold 499 units making it the 25th best seller on the list, the Alfa 1750 sold 405 and was 33rd, with the Alfa 1300/1600 selling 201 units at position 42. the biggest surprise of the list for me was how well the Peugeot 404 did, selling 2081 units placing it 4th on the list.
I love the photography in R/T and C/D from this period, the last shot of the rear of the Fiat is wonderful.
I don’t much care for the mph/1000 rpm figure. Consumer Reports tested a later 124 sedan with the 4-headlight front clip and the 1438cc pushrod engine and termed it “one of the quietest of the little cars.” I assume it had a taller final drive ratio than the Road & Track test car.
I thought it was a shame Fiat never put the DOHC engine (1438 or 1608cc) in the sedan.
Road & Track tested the 124 sedan a few years later when its replacement, the 131, was rumored but not yet announced. They suggested that anyone who liked the 124 should get one: “The new car, whatever it’s like, isn’t going to be any less expensive.”
I thought it was a shame Fiat never put the DOHC engine (1438 or 1608cc) in the sedan.
It did get the 1592 cc twin cam engine in 1974. But because of increasing weight and emission controls, its acceleration was virtually identical to the ’66 version with the little 1.2.
Are you sure that was R&T? I’ve got their 1974 test of the 124TC open right now, and I don’t see that quote.
R&T would have been the only buff book I was reading at that time, and I have a clear memory of that quote. Maybe it was a different road test from the one you’re referring to. And maybe I just didn’t get the memo when Fiat put the twincam in the 124 sedan. I know the 124 coupe and spyder had it all along.
Paul and Staxman, I located that quote — it’s in the November 1974 R&T road test of the 124 Special Twincam. Here’s the quote – it’s the concluding paragraph of the test (p.47):
Just figured I’d help out with this since I’ve got my R&T index and collection right here today.
Yup, there it is, in the same one opened. I guess I didn’t look closely enough. My bad.
I think my ability to remember it word for word, 47 years on, indicates some level of geekiness. 🙂
Yes it does. I’m impressed!
The line that stuck with me from their Subaru 360 road test was, “The car is of an uncommon ugliness, looking like a dehydrated Volkswagen or a reconstituted Renault 4CV that didn’t quite make it.”
No, I don’t remember every word of every issue of R&T!
“I thought it was a shame Fiat never put the DOHC engine (1438 or 1608cc) in the sedan”
I thought it was a shame Fiat never put the DOHC engine into the European spec wagon to create a 124 Special T (not “TC” as in the US) wagon. If a 1608, nearly 100hp and 5 speeds…a rather unique and handy small wagon at the time…
I also thought it a shame that Fiat never sold the 124 Special T here in Australia. Instead we got the slightly larger and slight better appointed 125 and 125 Special, which whilst a very good car, had its more rudimentary uspension derived from the much older Fiat 1300/1500 resulting in a sloppier handling cheaper Alfa Guilia alternatives 125 Special was my first car, and needless to say I would have bought a more nimble 124 Special T instead had they been available..as was typical, our close friends in the smaller market of New Zealand most probably got both models. Otherwise an Alfa sedan or even a 124 S with a DOHC engine swap back on the day would have been a better choice for me.
I didn’t know the 1438 CC pushrod model was also sold in the US, this model bring known as the “124S” elsewhere, with a specification change in the rear suspension to a torque tube to a 4 link arrangement, which is echoed on the 124 Sport and Spiders, and as it was stronger.
I wonder if any of the US 124s with the later round dial dashboard had an optional tachometer. Were any of the US spec sedans/wagons offered as a 5 speed? Sad how the later US spec DOHC models were not marketed as sportier variants due to the detrimental emission and weight issues.
I not the US advertisement above has a similar colour scheme and font to the contemporary Australian advertising.
A 125S was my first car too. Bought it from my parents and was their first new car in 1970.
Mine was a Special B (1972) which I bought around 1988. I preferred the detailing on the earlier model.
The 124 is more evidence that in the 1960s, at least in terms of styling, there was something for everyone. The boxy little European and Japanese sedans of the time were so crisp and timeless. Fiats, Alfas, Simcas, Peugeots, Mazdas, etc. often looked just right, even in sedan form, at least to me.
Agreed. And let not forget the Datsuns/Nissan’s such as the 1600/Bluebird/510 and the like.
Great title for a car that would not die.
Staying in production simply made it a legend, although its Russian stepbrother is an obese wrestler compared to its light footed Italian brother.
The Russians were not completely stupid. They 1) rejected the 125 as the first car Fiat offered to them, as it was based on the older 1300/1500 design 2) beefed up their version of the 124 as the original Fiat versions, as good cars as they were, were found to be weak in quite a few area after Russian testing. This goes for the coupes and spiders as well as the sedan’s and wagons, and as they all shared the same basic chassis and inner structures.
The Russians chose a modified rear suspension setup with non concentric springs and dampers, and specified thicker metal plates in many areas of the inner structure that was twice as thick or more as the original penny pinching Fiat parts. The rear diff was not very strong, and the chickens came home to roost with the non US spec 1800 CC models with nearly 120 BHP DIN breaking diffs fair easily. Fiat 132 diffs are much stronger and can be substituted with some modification.
My brother is currently restoring a 1974 CC 1800 Sport coupe and he says it is a godsend that there are quite a few Lada 124 sedan parts (inner structure) that can be fitted as superior substitutes to a coupe.
I was checking out a modern 124 Spider in black up at the beach the other day and it was a fine looking little beast, surely a better drive than a Mazda? Better looking by far anyway….
Over here in Germany these FIATs were quite popular in many versions. They were cheap, versatile and rather solidly built.
But very soon they got a bad reputation in northern Europe, “already rusting in the showroom”. The truth was, rust and strict state inspections killed all of them within the first ten years, inevitably, if not totalled earlier by inexperienced RWD drivers in wintery conditions. To find a good one nowadays I would suggest a trip to southern Italy … or … Nevada … or … Arizona!
Joe
In the early 1980s I saw a 124 sedan in Seattle with FIATSCO vanity license plate.
I attended an out of town high school from 1969-1972. Although quite a bit of my commuting was in AC Transit New Look buses (and SF Muni streetcars and trolley buses), I spent a lot of time in other kids’ parents’ cars. BMW1600, VW Squareback, Land Rover Series II 88”, a Corvair, a first-gen Corona … and a 124 Sedan. I remember it as roomy, but not the most flexible engine, exacerbated by the driver’s total insensitivity to rpm and load. She always seemed to be in the wrong gear, unlike any of the other moms (or dads), and yes, most of the cars we rode in were 4 cylinder/4 speed imports except for the Corvair. But I felt safe; as an avid R&T reader I knew it was the only car we rode in which had 4 wheel disc brakes.
I think the 124 was probably the high point of Fiats in the US, although it seems like I saw more 850 Spiders than any other model. But my perception is they went downhill after that, I seem to recall a sidebar quote on a road test in Car and Driver to the effect of, “Torch this sucker” They, or at least he, wasn’t impressed. Of course I have to admit I’ve used that line on several cars in my time, often rentals such as a ’12 VW Passat.
Mike, your comment reminds me of driving home around the Beltway in torrential rain in around 1977 when we saw a Fiat 850 on the hard shoulder with flames coming out of the engine cover. My father, ever the Good Samaritan, stopped and put the fire out (maybe he was making a point to me about always carrying a fire extinguisher…). The owner said she always put towels on the engine on wet days or the car wouldn’t start. She’d forgotten to remove them that day before setting off. But once the charred remains were removed she was able to start the car and drive off again!
A 125S was my first car too. Bought it from my parents and was their first new car in 1970.
A good looking automobile, I have a friend who is a Fiat fanboi and still loves his .
Maybe instead of thinking / saying ‘investment’ they should say / mean “Return On Investment” because the expenses incurred over time represent good dollar value even if the vehicle itself is essentially worthless .
-Nate