Happy New Year, Autopians! 2025 was a rough road, but it’s in our rearview mirror now. Let’s greet the new year with a couple of cool old wedge-shaped sporty cars with pop-up headlights.
Our final Showdown of 2025 featured two classics for the same price. It was no contest; the Studebaker cruised to an easy win. It sounded like a lot of you liked the idea of a Mini, just not that Mini. And I appreciated all the Fozzie references in the comments. It reminded me that I haven’t seen The Muppet Movie in a very long time. I should rectify that.
I’m with you on the Studebaker. I love Minis, but having recently gotten out of a dysfunctional relationship with a small British car, I’m not in a hurry to jump back into one. And now that Tamiya has sorted out its licensing agreement with BMW, I can get my Mini fix in 1/10 scale, so I don’t need the real thing. Besides, that old Stude is just plain cool.
Once upon a time, designers of sporty cars wanted the front ends of them as low as possible. To achieve this, they hid the headlights away in the front bodywork when they weren’t needed, and devised complicated mechanical or electric linkages to make the lights pop up out of the front of the car when turned on. Everybody agreed this was way cool. But small cars so equipped weren’t considered safe, apparently, so nobody makes cars with them anymore.
They’re still cool, however, and so today we’re going to honor the wedge-shaped styling and hidden headlights of yore by looking at a couple of sporty coupes. They have their engines in different places, and come from opposite sides of the world, but they’re united in spirit by their low noses and pop-up lights. Let’s take a look.
1981 Fiat X1/9 – $4,100
Engine/drivetrain: 1.5-liter OHC inline 4, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Omaha, NE
Odometer reading: 86,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great
Front-wheel-drive drivetrains with transverse engines were originally developed for packaging reasons. If you put all the drivetrain components in one place, at the front of the car, you have the whole rest of it to devote to interior room and luggage space. It was, and remains, a great way to create a car that’s small on the outside and roomy on the inside. But keeping the whole drivetrain together also creates an intriguing possibility: You can just take that whole assembly and stick it behind a pair of seats, driving the rear wheels, and you have a mid-engine sports car on the cheap. That’s exactly what Fiat did with its 128 drivetrain to create the X1/9.
The engine for the 128, and consequently the X1/9, is a small single overhead cam four-cylinder, designed by famed Ferrari engine designer Aurelio Lampredi. Fiat improved and developed this engine over the years; this being a late-production X1/9, it benefits from those improvements. It displaces 1.5 liters, and uses Bosch fuel injection in place of a carburetor. The seller says this one runs great, and is a lot of fun to drive. But it has high mileage for an Italian car, so it’s worth asking about recent service. If they can’t tell you when the timing belt was last changed, do it immediately. This is an “interference” engine, meaning that if the timing belt breaks, the pistons and valves will meet each other in a way you really don’t want.
X1/9s are tight inside; you kind of feel like you’re wearing it rather than riding in it. But for a sports car, that’s a good thing. This one is in usable condition, with a few flaws that won’t stop your enjoyment of it. It could use a good cleaning, though. The seller, somewhat ominously, says that “most” things work, but doesn’t elaborate. Best to try everything out so you know what you’re getting into.
It’s pretty tired-looking outside, but it doesn’t look rusted out, and that’s the biggest concern with the old Fiats. There is some minor rust, but I’ve seen a lot worse. The rear 5 MPH bumper is absent – I won’t say “missing” because it looks better without it. In fact, I’d consider removing the front one as well to match. A lot of these older European sports cars look really good with no bumpers at all.
1985 Nissan Pulsar NX – $3,900
Engine/drivetrain: 1.6-liter OHC inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Odometer reading: 161,000 miles
Operational status: It’s a bit of a mystery, actually
If moving the engine and drivetrain to the back is the “X1/9 method” of turning an economy car into a sports car, then this Nissan Pulsar NX represents what I think of as the “Scirocco method:” Leave the engine where it is, but design a lower and sleeker body shape for it. You can’t get the hood as low that way, but you can still make it pointy and use pop-up headlights if you so desire. The Pulsar is basically a Nissan Sentra underneath, but it doesn’t look anything like one, and that’s the point.
Under the hood, it’s all Sentra, with the same 1.6-liter carbureted engine. At least it has a five-speed manual; I once test-drove one of these with an automatic, and it was miserable. This is still no performance car, but the manual transmission helps a lot. The seller says it’s in good condition, but they also say it includes a new clutch kit and some other parts. Does that mean it needs those things? Or were they just purchased for future use? I guess the only way to know is to contact the seller.
Every time I see an interior like this one, I dislike modern car interiors more. Look at how simple and straightforward this is. There’s nothing there you don’t need, and the basic controls of the car are all right where you want them. It’s in pretty good condition, too. There are some signs of wear, and I imagine that dash cover is there to hide some cracks caused by the Arizona sun, but there’s nothing here that’s gross or embarrassing. A low bar, but from what I’ve seen, it’s not one that every car clears, even for this price.
The seller doesn’t say, but I think this car has been repainted. I don’t remember this pale green being an original color on these. I’m pretty sure it left the factory in silver. This is a good color for it, though, and who doesn’t like a nice shiny car? It looks a little plain, though; it’s crying out for some stripes or trim strips along the sides.
Making sporty cars from economy cars seems to be a lost art these days. There used to be a low-slung counterpart to almost every boxy hatchback on the market. Now, everything has to be tall and a four-door. It makes me glad there are a few of these old wedge-shaped numbers still floating around. And they’re really not even all that expensive. Which do you pick as your first winner of 2026?
Also, just a quick programming note: I will be out for a few days here and there over the next couple of weeks, while the Shitbox Showdown corporate headquarters relocates again – this time to central Michigan. I have complete faith that whoever fills in will keep you in a good supply of cheap, crappy cars in my absence.
Nissan Pulsar for me. That old Fiat looks a lot more beat up compared to the Nissan.
If the Fiat was in the same condition as that Nissan, it would have swayed my vote.
Ha! Nice try, Mark! Trying to tempt me to vote for practicality over a special combination of fun and frustration that only Italian and British cars can deliver. Well I’m not starting off the new year using logic or reason! Gimme that 8/10’s Ferrari that I probably can’t even fit in and will assault my wallet and limited free time in return for a few days of the year of backroad bliss!
X 1/ NEIN
Owned one about a decade ago until it turned into a pile of rusted metal spaghetti.
The regret has yet to subside. Anyone considering one should consider the following
1. Every frame must have left the factory coated with 10 gallons of “rust enhancer”. I’m familar with northeast winters and the tin worm. Heck, I even owned a 1974 Honda Civic. The X would leave a crime scene outline wherever it was parked. Part rust, part used motor oil I desperately sprayed on the undercarriage like it was holy water blessed by the Pope. The windshield frame rotted to the point that the glass rattled over 20 mph. If you closed the door too hard you would hear the satisfying clunk of the window regulator slipping and a bang when the window slipped into whatever was left of the rotting door interior. Even pop rivets wouldn’t hold the darned thing together.
2. Transmission made of soggy hopes and shattered dreams. Briefly considered draining the fluid and refilling with sawdust. Eventually left with three forward gears and Barney& Fred reverse.
3. Had to stop multiple mechanics from assaulting the engine after dealing with rage inducing wiring and charging issues. I initially believed that all the competent Fiat mechanics must have had their visa revoked after Fiat left the US but now realize they simply left out of disgust.
4. Beyond unsafe on any highway at any speed. Friends cheerfully predicted what road would kill me, most favoring the GS Parkway. A state trooper stopped me for speeding and actually called my car a “white coffin”. I helpfully pointed the hideous 5 mph bumpers and he still gave me a ticket.
Beware. These cars have a peculiar survival instinct. When all hope is lost it will run perfectly for an afternoon. Great ride. Super responsive to all inputs. Slow car fast on rails.
Get home before the muffler falls off!
Not a contest. X1/9s are much, much cooler.
Yes, the Pulsar is going to be more reliable and cheaper to keep on the road. Who cares?
That’s simple Bosch LH fuel injection – so much better than whatever cantankerous carburetor the earlier versions had. $4100 is a lot of dough for a filthy project-grade fancified Yugo, but they’re not exactly falling out of trees lately, either.
I think the engine pulled to swap into a Yugo so it had Big Block Power would likely be the most likely reason I would consider buying the Fiat.
From a historic competition perspective, you’re not wrong. If you were a subscriber to GRM magazine in the mid 90s you may remember the article. Some individual in the southeast SCCA region campaigned his Yugo in SCCA Solo 2 with a 1500 out of an X1/9. The car was a giant killer in class. Proverbial David vs Goliath.
Eh, based on how many Italian cars of this era rusted if you ate a bag of salt and vinegar chips near them, a lot of the world’s dirt is probably X1/9 rust. So I bet a lot of leaves that fell this all probably have some Fiat DNA in them. Of course, some assembly required…
Bosch fuel injected and electronic ignition made these cars bloody reliable. They simply won’t give you any drivability issues, hot or cold, sea level or mountains. I put a couple hundred thousand miles on one as a daily driver when I young and poor. That car is still in my collection after 38 years.
Is that rust on the top of the Fiat’s windshield frame? I’m narrowly choosing the Pulsar regardless because it looks so much better cared for. The Fiat could be an awesome project though if that isn’t rust. A car with rust where it should not have any will also have rust in the usual places.
It’s quickly coming up on being a 50 year old car….half a century. Are you expecting zero rust from being exposed to the elements for that long? Perspective…
I’ve been a sucker for the X1/9 since I was 11 and saw a pair on a dealership lot and tried to talk my parents into buying both to haul our family of 4 around. I’m also a fan of the Pulsar, my wife had one decades ago and it was a really fun little car. Taking the t-tops and rear hatch off and driving along the beach was just awesome even if the car wasn’t very sporty to drive. Today was hard to pick just one but I went with Bertone.
I like the way you thought about of hauling a family of four around back then!
It was ’87 and mom was looking for a Chrysler New Yorker. That car couldn’t have been more boring to me and I wandered over and found the X1/9 but I had no idea it was a Fiat and just called it “A Bertone”. She didn’t find the New Yorker and I tried to convince her to buy “the Bertone” instead. She pointed out that it was only a 2 seater and we wouldn’t all fit so I pointed to the 2nd Bertone next to it and suggested they buy both. This was entirely logical and feasible to 11yo me.
Long story short, we went to another dealership and she looked at another New Yorker and I wandered again and found a Conquest TSi that had “TURBO TURBO TURBO” printed on the seatbelts!!! Luckily for me the Conquest was a 4 seater and I managed to talk my parents into it. We went home in the Conquest that night. I still joke with my mom that I owe her an ’87 Chrysler New Yorker.
The Conquest was pretty cool looking in its day.
It’s still the most beautiful car on 4 wheels, but of course I’m biased.
I really don’t know what the “most beautiful car on 4 wheels” is in my own mind. So many to choose from. Maybe 280 SL? But I got a ride in one and it was kind of underwhelming, dynamically. So, I would never spend stupid money to own one.
I loved the look of my ’88 Saab 9000T. It wasn’t perfect, but I thought it looked cool. Really, the prettiest car I ever owned. And it drove pretty nicely. Kinda thirsty though.
My ’17 Accord V6 would dust it and then get close to 40 mpg on the freeway when not being caned. But that Saab was gorgeous. Inside and out. Kind of like the Volvo on today’s challenge.
What kind of enthusiast are you? X1/9. Coach built, limited production, Italian, baby exotic, and handling that’ll still embarrass cars 50 years newer. Don’t listen to the urban legend BS on Fiats, it’s up there with the faked moon landing wackos.
X1/9 all day long. Like I really want one, and would probably check this out if it were closer. Plus Midwest-Bayless in Columbus OH is pretty close for all my Fiat needs and possible Acura drivetrain swap.
I’ve had three Nissans and had a great time in each, but they were RWD with an LSD and were mostly sideways. A FWD Nissan doesn’t appeal to me at all.
So I guess it’s the X1/9 for me, all though all four of my old MR2s will be turning in their graves.
Weird that someone saved an X1/9 for longer than anyone saved any of my newer MR2s.
Then you’ll be at home in the X. Reference the old R&T article where Toyota engineers admitted to buying eight X1/9s for dissection. The first gen Mr2 borrowed some DNA in packaging and chassis stiffness design.
The first gen MR2 was the most fun, and rustiest.
I’ve wanted an X1/9 since I first knew they existed. But today really is both… the Pulsar for Mon-Fri and the Fiat for weekends.
Both kinda day for me.
shiny reliable I guess. though neither is a more fitting choice. the Fiat surviving in Omaha with little rust is impressive, but I imagine the low miles is due to long waits for parts between short stints before it broke down again.
As others have said, the MR2 or A Celica GTS (93 and older I think) would be better options here, hell even a Pontiac F-Body would be fine.
Plenty of parts vendors. Huge one in Ohio, and sells internationally. They’re that big.
Parts are not an issue.
Between these two the dynamic experience is very different as you cannot fake having a mid – engine. The Pulsar is always a Sentra, the X1/9 is never a 128. That being said, it seems fitting that I never had a 128 come in needing a reverse gear idler while it was a common fail point with X1/9 drivers.
In high school I group of buddies and dragged an x1/9 sideways in a parking space with the small guy who owned it still in the car. We managed because the do not way much for 6+ guys and the smallest of us was 6ft 185lbs.
At these prices, I find this a gun-to-head choice. The correct answer is MR2 but since that’s not an option I’ll take the Pulsar. Cool name. And I tend to prioritize the ability of a car to run at all over how interesting it is when it manages to do so.
I know for a fact I do not fit in that Fiat, so it’s gotta be the Nissan for me.
About six foot two or so is the cut off in an X1/9 with the stock seat pad, if you want the targa on. A local enthusiast who was at least 6’6” (I forget his name, he passed away some years ago) cut and inverted the sheet metal under the seat and easily fit after the mod.
It’s not just the height that’s a problem, if you catch my drift.
A family friend has owned one since the early 80’s, so that’s why I know for a fact that I do not fit.
The X1/9 is a slightly water resistant motorcycle of a car. It weights less than 2000 pounds and it a tiny thing. The Nissan is more of a car and was of much better quality when new. Still picked the Fiat for the “Fun when running” thing.
When I was but a wee lad my dad had a X1/9 that was gold. I don’t remember a thing about that car except how excited I was every time I got to get in it and how much fun riding around in it was. Odds are good that it’ll never live up to those memories, but chasing them is half the fun. Fiat all the way.
The only time I ever sat in an X1/9, I was never so disappointed to find out that I cannot fit in one with the roof in place. My head was above the targa bar.
Of course I’m voting for it anyway. I’ll figure it out.
I have too much Italian in me to fall for the X1/9. Looks like a great way to hold down the garage floor. The Pulsar will have plenty of parts and and support online, so it should be easier to keep running.
But, is it only the later Pulsars that have the swappable rear hatch?
…the Fiat seems like the more rewarding experience for the pain it’ll put you through. The NX can’t back up its looks with zoom. It’s mostly interesting as a survivor, not even being a more exotic model from overseas…or being the later car with the modular rear bodywork. Yes, the Fiat will only operate on its own schedule, but when it works, you get a zingy little mid engine sports car to play with instead of a Sentra pretending to be one.
If you slip a turbo into the Pulsar (they had them at the time) you’ll have plenty of go.
I mean, sure, same thing if you swapped a QR25 into it. But I’ve lived the SE-R (’04 spec V) life already, I don’t need to go back.
I think the Pulsar is a bit more interesting (and usable) as a car. The X1/9 is fantastic, but just too small and fragile for daily use since your legs are the crumple zone.
The X was designed to DOT crash regulations that were never implemented. It is absurdly stiff. Ask yourself why a small car like that weighs 2200 lbs. The crumble zone in front is quite robust, something you would have gleamed from a basic internet search on the topic.
They are impressively rigid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp16vWtuLCw
Stiffness alone does not equal crash safety though – the energy has to be absorbed in a controlled way, and that generally comes through having bits of the vehicle designed to crumple in a predictable and safe manner.
I only have anecdotal evidence that this isn’t the case – I know someone who sustained serious injuries in an X1/9 crash – but when driving old cars I’m always keenly aware that older vehicles are fundamentally less safe than new ones, particularly when there is not a lot of bendy metal between me and the upcoming accident.
The whole front storage area, sans engine, is the crush zone. There are pics online showing the accordion action. The big issue right now is the proliferation of really tall vehicles which will simply override the bumpers. Such vehicles really didn’t exist in large numbers and weren’t a concern when the X1/9 and other low cars were developed.
Both cars that teenage acquaintances owned, so for nostalgia’s sake it’s hard for me to choose. I lean Pulsar, though not a fan of the respray.
Another cool thing to note about the interior is it’s pre everything-console. It’s funny how it still looks sporty, but feels more open and functional/less fussy. Like old Triumphs or MGs, or Porsche 914s.
The X1/9 looks kinda ratty all around. The interior looks like it just has grime on it, likely from the T tops letting water in? I’d still be really concerned about the floorboards, not to mention mold.
The Pulsar could be hiding something, but seems a lot cleaner all around. Looks like a decent paint job, and a reasonable enough interior. The fart can exhaust makes me cringe a bit though.
Gotta go with Pulsar, it’s a couple steps ahead of the Fiat