Supermini: The Autobianchi A112 Abarth

Many of our articles are inspired by the cars we spot in and around Los Angeles. Your author has encountered cars as diverse as a Bugatti Veyron, a Jaguar XJ12C, and a Fiat Multipla — not at car shows or museums, but parked on the street or driving in traffic. Every so often, we run across something exotic enough that even we can’t immediately identify it — something like this Autobianchi A112 Abarth.
1972 Autobianchi A112 Abarth badge

We must admit that we didn’t immediately recognize this little car, and it took some research to determine exactly what it was. Our first thought was that it was a Fiat of some kind, which was almost correct. In fact, it is a 1972 Autobianchi A112 Abarth, a mouthful of a moniker that bears some explanation.

1972 Autobianchi A112 Abarth side
The Autobianchi A112 Abarth is a little bigger than a BMC Mini, but not by much: 127.6 inches (3,240 mm) long on an 80.3-inch (2,040mm) wheelbase, tipping the scales at around 1,600 lb (725 kg) with a full tank of fuel. It has disc/drum brakes, MacPherson struts up front, and wishbones with a transverse leaf spring in the rear.


If you have any interest in bicycles, you may recognize the name Bianchi, an Italian manufacturer of high-end racing bikes. The Milanese company, which holds the distinction of having offered the world’s first bicycle with pneumatic tires, was founded by Edoardo Bianchi in 1885. Two years later, the company introduced a three-wheeled motorbike and in 1901–1902 developed its first automobile.

In 1905, Bianchi was reorganized as S.A. Fabbrica Automobili e Velocipedi Edoardo Bianchi & Co., offering a variety of products and even undertaking some racing. During the first World War, Bianchi produced military vehicles for the Italian army, returning to passenger-car production after the war. However, the company fell on hard times during the postwar depression, which was difficult for all makers of expensive cars. Bianchi was forced to concentrate more on motorcycles and bicycles than cars, although the auto business had recovered somewhat by the mid-thirties.

Like many automakers of the Axis nations, the Bianchi works were targets of Allied bombing during World War II, leading to the near-total destruction of the Milan factory in 1943. By 1946, Bianchi had returned to production, but Giuseppe Bianchi, son of the founder, decided to drop the passenger car lines to focus instead on bicycles and commercial vehicles.

In the fifties, general manager Fernacio Quintavalle began exploring the possibility of returning to automotive production with a new subcompact car. Since Bianchi could not afford such a project independently, Quintavalle negotiated a joint venture between Bianchi, Fiat, and the tire manufacturer Pirelli, dubbed Autobianchi SpA. Autobianchi’s first product was the 1957 Bianchina, which was based on the contemporary Fiat 500. Bianchi’s family, which had owned 33% of the business, subsequently sold their interest in the joint venture to Fiat, which acquired the rest in 1968.

Autobianchi’s role in the Fiat lineup was akin to Honda’s later North American Acura division: a somewhat more expensive brand generally selling upscale versions of existing Fiat cars. By the mid-sixties, Fiat was also using Autobianchi as an opportunity to try out new technologies on a smaller scale before introducing them to the mainstream brand. For example, the Autobianchi Primula, which bowed in 1964, actually introduced the groundbreaking transverse-engine/front-wheel-drive layout later used by the 1969 Fiat 128.

1972 Autobianchi A112 Abarth rear
The three-door hatchback layout was still a novelty in the late sixties and early seventies, but by the time Volkswagen’s rival Golf debuted in 1975, it became de rigueur for subcompact cars. The Autobianchi A112 was available only in three-door form, but the Fiat 127 that shared its platform was also offered as a two- or four-door sedan. Fiat advertising claimed the 127 and A112 made 80% of the body available for passenger and cargo space.


A few years earlier, the BMC Mini had demonstrated the packaging advantages of a transverse engine and front-wheel drive. By consolidating the entire drivetrain into a single compact unit, the rest of the body’s volume is available for passenger space. The problem with that layout, however, was what to do with the transmission.

Alec Issigonis, designer of the Mini, opted to mount the transaxle in the engine sump, sharing its oil supply. This was compact but problematic; engines and transmissions have very different oiling requirements and requiring them to share lubrication results in compromises that are satisfactory for neither. Such an arrangement also tends to be noisy because of the need for transfer gears between gearbox and differential.

Fiat engineers wanted the space advantages of a FWD layout, so they opted to offset the transversely mounted engine and mount the transaxle next to it, driving the front wheels through unequal-length halfshafts. This provides a powertrain package almost as compact as that of the Mini, but with no need for transfer gears nor any of the drawbacks associated with putting the gearbox in the oil pan. The layout did have its limitations, including poor access for repair and maintenance and a tendency of the unequal-length halfshafts to exacerbate torque steer, although with well under 100 horsepower, the latter was not a great problem for most small FWD cars. (The Primula had a 1,221 cc (75 cu. in.) four making no more than 65 PS (48 kW).

The Autobianchi A112, introduced in October 1969, applied the technology of the Primula on a smaller scale, becoming the forerunner of the modern “supermini” class. Although it was a very small car, only 127.2 inches (3,320 mm) long and 58.3 inches (1,480 mm wide), its three-door configuration made it usefully versatile, particularly on the plusher A112 E, with its folding rear seat. A curb weight of only about 1,550 lb (705 kg) ensured good fuel economy and sprightly performance even with the modest 44 PS (32 kW) of the standard 903 cc (55 cu. in.) four, adapted from the one in the rear-engine Fiat 850.

The A112 was not a sporty car per se, but its fully independent suspension (MacPherson struts up front; wishbones and a transverse leaf spring in back) gave it nimble handling despite the diminutive 135SR13 tires, although with 60% of its weight on the nose, the little Autobianchi naturally tended to understeer. Front disc brakes provided good stopping power.

Just as the Mini’s agility had made it a favorite of rally drivers, spawning the Mini Cooper and Mini Cooper S performance derivatives, the A112 soon got its own performance model: the Autobianchi A112 Abarth.


The Bolognese firm of Abarth & C. was an early example of what today we would call a tuner. It was founded by former motorcycle racer Karl Abarth. Although Abarth was Viennese, he had worked in Italy in the twenties and resettled there permanently in 1934, becoming a naturalized citizen and changing his first name to Carlo. After the war, he became a director of Cistalia, but after that venture went into receivership in early 1949, Abarth and Armando Scagliarini decided to start their own firm. The company’s new logo was a distinctive scorpion emblem, derived from Abarth’s astrological sign, Scorpio.

Abarth & C.’s primary focus was racing; Scagliarini’s son Guido, who had previously driven for Cistalia, won two national championships in 1949 behind the wheel of the first Abarth cars. The firm’s bread and butter, however, soon became high-performance exhaust systems and other speed equipment for street cars. By 1962, Abarth was selling more than a quarter million mufflers a year.

1972 Autobianchi A112 Abarth scorpion emblem
The distinctive scorpion emblem of Abarth & C., recently revived by present owner Fiat.

Along the way, Abarth built relationships with other manufacturers and coachbuilders, including Lancia, Fiat, Zagato, Boano, and Pininfarina. Abarth & C. offered highly tuned competition versions of a wide range of cars, from the Simca 1300 to the Porsche 356B. The majority of Abarth’s cars were Fiats — natural enough, given that Fiat was Italy’s largest automaker. By 1967, Abarth had offered more than a dozen Fiat-based models.

It should be no surprise, therefore, that Abarth also turned his attention to the A112. In fact, his company built their first prototypes of a hopped-up A112 only a few months after the car’s launch in 1969, fitted with a race-tuned version of the four-cylinder Fiat engine Abarth had already developed for the company’s other products.

By this time, however, the company was not doing well financially despite its strong reputation. Abarth’s cars had won thousands of races, but that wasn’t enough to keep the business afloat in a very competitive market. Abarth, then in his sixties, decided he’d had enough. In the summer of 1971, he sold the company to Fiat. A short time after that, Abarth and his wife moved back to Vienna, where he died in 1979.


After 1971, Abarth effectively became Fiat’s performance division. One of Abarth’s first post-buyout models was the Autobianchi A112, introduced at the Turin show that fall. The production A112 Abarth used a long-stroke 982 cc (60 cu. in.) version of the standard engine, fitted with twin Weber 32 DMTR carburetors, a higher compression ratio, a hotter camshaft, an oil cooler and heavy-duty radiator, and of course an Abarth exhaust system. In this form, the engine was rated at 58 PS (43 kW) and 54 lb-ft (74 N-m) of torque. This was accompanied by a sport suspension and sport seats, a new instrument panel with full instrumentation, a slightly taller final drive ratio, and a brake booster.

The extra equipment only added about 45 lb (20 kg) to the A112’s curb weight, so power-to-weight ratio was much improved, trimming about 3 seconds from the standard car’s 15-second 0-62 mph (0-100 km/h) times and bringing top speed to about 93 mph (150 km/h). Although not outstanding by today’s standards, this was fine performance for a small European car of its era. List price was 1,309,000 lire, representing a premium of about 25% above the standard A112.

In early 1975, a bigger, 1,050 cc (64 cu. in.) engine with 70 PS (51 kW) and 63 lb-ft (85 N-m) of torque became optional on a new model dubbed A112 Abarth 70; the smaller-engined version, now called A112 Abarth 58, remained available through 1976. The big-engine Abarth was about a second quicker to 62 mph (100 km/h) than was the original and had a top speed of almost 100 mph (160 km/h). A five-speed gearbox became available in 1979, when the A112 line got its fourth modest facelift. (Three previous revisions had occurred in 1973, 1975, and late 1977; two more followed in late 1982 and the spring of 1984).

1972 Autobianchi A112 Abarth front
Ground effects and spoiler border on the ludicrous for a car with a top speed under 100 mph (161 km/h), but helped to distinguish the Autobianchi A112 Abarth from the mundane A112, which was of prime importance to Fiat. The rear fog lights on this car were required in some European markets.

The A112 was quite successful and competition A112s would be popular rally cars throughout the seventies, even leading to the creation of a one-marque racing series.

Back in 1969, Fiat had acquired Lancia, and in the mid-seventies, Autobianchi was rolled into the Lancia organization. By the late seventies, Fiat had dropped the Autobianchi brand in many export markets, rebadging the A112 as a Lancia in those markets. Nonetheless, the A112 remained very popular despite its age. It survived with only modest evolutionary changes through April 1986, selling a total of 1.25 million units. More than 10% of those were the Abarth version.

The Autobianchi brand survived in Italy and France until 1995 and was finally dropped when the last Autobianchi model, the Fiat Panda-based Y10, was replaced by the Lancia Ypsilon. Fiat eventually sold the rights to the Autobianchi name to Registro Autobianchi, the official Autobianchi club.

Abarth languished after Fiat’s withdrawal from racing in the mid-1980s, but in 2007, CEO Sergio Marchionne announced his intention to restore Abarth to its role as Fiat’s performance arm, establishing new dedicated offices in Turin. Its first products were the Grande Punto Abarth and dealer-installed Abarth SS, offering up to 180 hp (132 kW) from Fiat’s turbocharged 1,368 cc (86 cu. in.) engine. This was joined in the fall of 2008 by an Abarth version of the new FIAT 500 supermini.

To the best of our knowledge, Autobianchi was never officially imported to the U.S. and we doubt the A112 Abarth would ever have met increasingly stringent federal standards. The owner indicated that it is one of only three of its kind in the States — a rare and remarkable little car.



Our sources included “Autobianchi A112” and “Autobianchi A112 Abarth,” Autobianchi Club de France, n.d., www.clubautobianchi. fr/ Presentation_445.html and www.clubautobianchi. fr/ Presentation_448.html, accessed 28 December 2008; Autobianchi SpA/J. Leonard Lang Automobielbedrijven N.V., “Autobianchi Primula” [Dutch brochure AP-7500], August 1966; the Cars from Italy “Other Makes” page, carsfromitaly. net/others/ index.html, accessed 28 December 2008; Mike Covello, Standard Catalog of Imported Cars 1946-2002, Second Edition (Iola, WI: Krause Publications, 2001); Sergiò D’Angelò, ed., World Car Catalogue 1966 (Bronxville, NY: Herald Books/Automobile Club of Italy, 1966); Edwin Storm’s Free Car Brochures website at the Old Car Manual Project (storm.oldcarmanualproject. com); Vignale Gamine, “The Autobianchi A112,” n.d., www.vignale-gamine. com, accessed 28 December 2008; “Historique,” Autobianchi Club de France, n.d., www.clubautobianchi. fr/ Historique_363.html, accessed 28 December 2008; L’Editrice Dell’Automobile LEA, World Cars 1973 (Bronxville, NY: Herald Books, 1973), and World Cars 1979 (Pelham, NY: Herald Books, 1979); Edouard Seidler, “Import Report: A Fiat for People Who Don’t Like Fiats,” Motor Trend September 1969, p. 22; the Sporting Fiats Club’s A112 Abarth page, www.sportingfiatsclub. com, accessed 30 December 2008; “Storia Bianchina,” Bianchina Club, n.d., www.bianchinaclub. com/ ita/ storia-bianchina.html, accessed 28 December 2008; Daniel Vaughan, “1959 Autobianchi Bianchina,”, www.conceptcarz. com, accessed 30 December 2008; and the Wikipedia® entries for Autobianchi and Autobianchi A112 ( and, accessed 11 October 2008). Additional background on Carlo Abarth came from the Sporting Fiats Club’s bio, n.d.,, accessed 30 December 2008; the Abarth Cars U.K. history page, abarthcarsuk. com/ about-abarth/ the-history-of-abarth/, last accessed 5 August 2015; “A Long and Successful History Lies Behind the Revived Abarth Name,”, 26 February 2007, www.italiaspeed. com, accessed 31 December 2008); and Mark Wan, “Grande Punto Abarth,”, 10 October 2007, www.autozine. org/html/Fiat/Punto.html, accessed 28 December 2008.

Historical exchange rate equivalences were estimated based on data from Lawrence H. Officer, “Exchange Rates Between the United States Dollar and Forty-one Currencies” (2009, MeasuringWorth,; used by permission). Please note that all exchange rate equivalencies cited in the text are approximate and provided for illustration and general informational purposes only; this is an automotive history, not a treatise on currency trading or the value of money, and nothing in this article should be taken as financial advice of any kind!

For the record, AutoBooks, pictured in the background of some of the images, had no connection with this article and we have no business relationship with them other than being a customer and occasionally attending some of the local events they organize.


Add a Comment
  1. After finding an old Polistil diecast A112 model some months ago, I was a bit curious about the cars. Wikipedia is well and good, but I think you did it better :)

  2. Cool article! I guess I have one of the other two in the country! Mine was imported from Netherlands a couple of years ago.

  3. Are we sure those aren’t reverse lights? Possibly added so it could be street legal in the US?

    1. No, actually, I’m not, without running into the owner and asking him. That hadn’t occurred to me; I assumed the reverse lamps were part of the taillights, but looking more closely at the photo, it doesn’t appear so. Hmm…

      1. I think that the US is pretty much the only country that requires the reversing lights built into the taillight housing, it also appears that they requite two, but this is just from observation. Look at the tail of a European 1st gen. New Mini and you will see a single reversing light (I think in Europe this also lights up red for a rear facing fog/inclement wether light) in the center of the lower bumper. US models have the bumper molded to show where this would go, but have the reversing lights in the taillight housings.

        Now how far back these regs go, I don’t know (and didn’t try and find out.) If you see the owner of this car again, it would also be interesting to see if he knows whether they are factory or not.

        1. The U.S. does not require the reverse lamps to be integral with the taillight housing. Many automakers do that for design convenience, but it’s not a regulatory requirement; a lot of cars have them mounted separately. (I don’t remember if current law requires two lights; it probably does, but I’m not sure.) They DO have to be white, though. (Some U.S. states restrict the use of fog lamps, particularly rear-facing ones, and most sharply restrict the use of red lights.)

          This car was imported by the owner — I didn’t get a chance to ask for details, but I imagine he was in the military. I don’t see any reversing lamps at all, looking at the higher-res photos, so he may have added them to avoid being pulled over. (By 1972, they were required; that was part of the first batch of federal safety rules, which went into effect in January 1968.)

  4. Informative as always. Clearly I didn’t do any research on the taillight laws in the US, but just made an assumption based on never seeing ones in the bumper. And now that I type that out I do believe there are some GM cars, Pontiac Grand Prix? that I recall having them in the bumper.

    1. Yeah, a number of U.S. models put them in the bumper; either side of the rear numberplate is also common. Mounting the lights in the bumper is not particularly desirable — it means they’ll break in even a minor parking lot shunt — but it’s legal enough.

  5. Reminds me of a tiny little critter that you’d think was cute until it bit your wagging finger right off.

  6. Nice article and quite a surprise to know there are A112s in the US. The description of the A112’s suspension is incorrect, though. The fron suspension is not double A-arms, but rather a MacPherson setup with coil springs. In the rear it’s an independent Chapman strut with a transverse leaf spring. The A112’s platform in in fact based on a shortened version of the Fiat 128’s.

    1. Thanks for the correction! I haven’t reviewed this article in some time and there were a number of glitches. I’ve amended the text.

      1. The article still says fiat 127 for platform and shell which are both incorrect. The shell is very unique.

        1. I’ve amended the text — thanks for the correction!

  7. I hired one of the base model A112 in Israel in I think ’91 and drove it like I stole it all around the country. It was an absolute hoot on the Golan Heights roads, revving high without protest and pulling two of us up the hills and around the tightish bends as hard as I could drive it( I am a hillclimb driver but usually in much more powerful cars)

    1. Little FWD B-segment cars like this or the early (first two generations) Honda Civic could be enormous fun to drive. It’s a bit like having a young dog (not a little puppy, but one who’s coordinated enough to not trip over his own feet like puppies do): It may not be that strong or fast, but it’s terribly enthusiastic about everything it does.

  8. Rode in Autobianchi in Switzerland in 1977. What a wonderful little car. I would love to own one.

  9. It is known whether the 47-70 hp 903-1050cc Fiat 100 Series used in the Autobianchi A112 was capable of being enlarged beyond 1050cc or given its relation to the Fiat 127 and Fiat 128 capable of being fitted with bigger engines?

    It is also a pity Yugo did not adopt the Autobianchi A112 as an entry-level model below the locally produced versions of the Fiat 127 and Fiat 128 that remained in production as late as 2008.

    IMO the Panda-based Lancia/Autobianchi Y10 was an inferior successor to the A112, it would have been better for the latter to have been thoroughly updated/refreshed during the early/mid-1980s before being replaced by the Fiat Cinquecento in European markets from 1991.

    1. I don’t know what the practical limits of that engine’s displacement may have been, but I don’t that fitting a slightly larger engine (say, 1.2 to 1.3 liters) to the A112 would have been an insuperable problem if there’d been a business rationale for it. My suspicion is that the main impediment would have been non-engineering considerations, like the need to stay within certain displacement limits for tax purposes and the risk of cutting into sales of larger, more expensive models. The latter could be a headache, since some market segments were really sliced very thin in terms of size/price/capacity. (This was also an issue in the Japanese market, for similar reasons.)

      1. It would have probably not been issue had the 127 and 128 make use of larger 1500-1600cc engines to reduce overlap (with the Ritmo/Strada featuring larger 1600-2000cc engines from the outset), thereby leaving the A112 to use 1.1-1.3 versions of the Fiat 128 SOHC engine*.

        *- Fwiw cannot seem to find any reference to the 128 Rally & Sport featuring an 84-85 hp version of the 1290cc engine, am assuming it was a SAE figure rather than a DIN/Net figure.

        1. I assume part of the issue was that certain important markets had different capacity limits for specific tax brackets. For instance, in Italy and some other southern European markets, there was significant demand for cars that were nominally under the 1-liter line, while others had weird taxable horsepower brackets that set effective limits on maximum displacement. In those areas, it wouldn’t make sense to try to sell a B-segment supermini with an engine that would make the car more expensive to own than some C-segment cars, for instance. The calculations on that kind of thing had a lot to do with the expected market scope. If a car was going to be exported to markets like the U.S., which in those days still considered 3+ liter sixes to be tiny economy engines, there would be an advantage in having the larger engine option, but if not, the extra engineering might have seemed like a waste of time.

          The dilemma with larger-capacity engines from an engineering standpoint is not whether an engine can be expanded enough or whether a bigger engine will fit, but what else might have to be changed to accommodate the extra power and in particular the extra torque. Given how weight-sensitive the B segment is, that can spiral quickly. If the existing transmission/transaxle doesn’t have a lot of excess torque capacity, it might need to be upgraded or replaced, along with the differential, halfshafts, and CV joints. The extra mass of beefier components might be enough to require suspension changes and reinforcement of the body structure, which in turn might demand upgraded tires and brakes. (Looking at the differences between the initial European Mk1 Fiesta and the U.S. version is instructive in this regard.) So, the engineering expense can be significant, which forces automakers to decide whether the results would be salable enough to be worth the bother.

          1. Since many a comparison has been made between the Autobianchi A112 Abarth and the Mini Copper, am looking at things from the (Europe-based) perspective of both the Mini 1275 and Austin 1300 GT sharing the comparatively heavier 1275cc A-Series engine.

            The A112 itself was based on a shortened version of the Fiat 128 platform (along with the Fiat 127), with both the 128 and 127 featuring the lighter more advanced 1.1-1.3 SOHC engines (with the 127 also making use of the 1049cc Fiat 124 Series engine).

            An Autobianchi A112 Abarth that featured a 75+ hp 1.3 SOHC engine from the 127/128, would have been comparable to the Mini 1275 Mini Cooper S and similar engined Mini-derivatives that was both dimensionally smaller as well as utilized a heavier engine. It also would not have been significantly more powerful compared to the existing 70 hp A112 1050 Abarth, also being more of a rival to the similarly-sized 71-78 hp Peugeot 104 1.4 ZS.

  10. The 1275 Mini Cooper engine was externally identical to the 848cc engine that appeared in the first Mini in 1959. I dare say there was little difference in the weight of most BMC A series engines, from the 803cc as seen in the Austin A30 to the 1275cc in the Morris Marina And Austin Allegro.


    1. BL in the ’70s was also in a somewhat different position than Fiat vis-à-vis potential overlap with other products, or lack thereof.

    2. Seem to recall reading of there being a fairly significant difference in weight between the 803cc A-Series up to the 1275cc version, at the same time have also read of the Fiat 100 Series engine used in the likes of the Autobianchi A112 being considered a very light and compact engine some 10-20kg or so lighter compared to an A-Series depending on the figures.

      Which brings up the question of whether the Fiat 100 Series engine’s reputation as a light compact engine is largely due to featuring an aluminum cylinder head or some other factor in comparison to the A-Series, along with if a similar weight reduction could have been achieved on the A-Series featuring an all-alloy head and a lightweight cast iron block*.

      * Essentially a successful A-Series equivalent of the weight reduction programme planned for the revised BMC C-Series engine used in the MGC and Austin 3-litre.

      1. I don’t have any comparative weight figures for these engines, but the BMC A-Series engine, like the C-Series six, was developed in an earlier generation. The early sixties saw some important technological advances in “thinwall” casting techniques, which allowed significant weight reduction even with cast iron. I’m no expert in engine manufacturing techniques, but the gist was that earlier manufacturing technology required thicker cylinder walls to account for core shift or metallurgical flaws during casting. Greater casting precision allowed thinner walls and less massive blocks while still maintaining an acceptable failure rate. As BMC found with the C-Series, taking full advantage of those new techniques really required clean-sheet engines; the revised C-Series was lighter than the original, but was still a good deal heavier than a good American thinwall V-8 of the same period. (The MGC engine was still 70-odd pounds heavier than a Ford 289/302, for instance.)

        1. Seem to recall John Tipler’s Fiat & Abarth 500 & 600 having the Fiat 100 Series engine weight at around 108kg, while others claim the A-Series engine weighs as low as 113kg to as high as 125kg (with some going as far as to say the A-Series engine’s weight plus gearbox and ancillaries pushes it up to as much as 150-155-ish kg).

          Using the 113kg as a rough guide. An A-Series that received the same weight reduction as the revised C-Series at 7.38% (as opposed to the targeted 30% reduction) would equate to a weight of 105kg, the addition of an all-alloy cylinder head as fitted to a number of small four-cylinder engines including the Fiat 100 Series unit should roughly shed a further 9-15kg from the A-Series engine’s weight.

          The A-Series did form the basis of about two or more different experimental all-alloy versions from the 1950s to the 1960s that did not go anywhere nor was applied to future engines. No clue what the extent of the weight reduction was though the benchmarks of the period would be the 875cc Imp OHC at 80kg as well as the all-alloy Reliant that reputedly weighed around 60kg (some claiming a figure as low as 37kg sans gearbox, etc).

          1. That’s more figures I have in this case, although the perennial challenge with engine weight figures is knowing whether you’re comparing like to like. Where there are different or contradictory figures, all of them may be correct, but represent different states of “dress” with regard to accessories, bell housing, and so forth. It makes direct comparisons somewhat difficult unless you have a good sense of the what condition each figure represents.

            To Claud’s point the other day, altering an existing engine’s displacement, incidentally, DOES affect its weight, although just how much varies a lot. For example, the early Ford Falcon six had a dry engine weight of (per Ford official figures) 344 lb in initial 144 cu. in. form and 356 lb for the 170 cu. in. version, which was largely identical save for a 7/16ths inch (11.1 mm) longer stroke. (I don’t have figures for the later 200 cu. in. version, which was a good bit heavier because it was redesigned for seven main bearings.)

            The point I was trying to make earlier is that the actual bare engine weight is also only part of the story. Even if the bigger-displacement version is only a few pounds heavier by itself, it will tend to generate more heat and produce more torque, which raises the question of how much margin has been built into the existing cooling and lubrication systems, driveline parts, and so forth. That also varies a lot, especially if (as is often the case) a car is using hardware carried over from previous designs. Typically, an all-new design will have some built-in margin for future development, but even that isn’t always the case. To pick on the Ford Falcon again, the initial Falcon was really ruthlessly optimized for minimum weight, but there was no margin for growth or even for use cases more rugged than gentle go-to-market driving, as Australian buyers soon discovered the hard way. Once Ford had done beefing up the structure, suspension, and running gear so it could take a small V-8 engine and not smash itself to bits on a rough gravel road, the Falcon was a good 400+ pounds heavier than its 1960 ancestor. That’s admittedly an extreme case, but it does illustrate the challenges involved from an engineering standpoint.

  11. Apparently Abarth originally wanted to fit a 108 hp version of the 105-112 hp (?) 982cc Twin-Cam engine used in the Fiat-Abarth 1000 Bialbero, an idea which was rejected by Fiat.

    The Italian wiki article on the Autobianchi A112 makes mention of two more road-going prototype 982cc engines being considered in 1971 just as Fiat was acquiring Abarth, a 63 hp version with a conventional cylinder head and a 74 hp version with a “Radiale” cylinder head (not sure what Radiale is referring to exactly in whether it was an OHV or OHC/DOHC design beyond the term appearing in a few 982cc Twin-Cam engines).

    Also found out the 1288cc Twin-Cam engine used in the Simca-Abarth 1300 GT and featuring a bore/stroke of 76x71mm was inspired in its basic architecture by the Fiat-derived 982cc engine. While it does not mean such enlargement could have been easily applied on the Fiat 100 Series OHV in the same way the BMC A-Series grew from 1098cc to 1275cc, it is fascinating nonetheless and had it been feasible opens up the possibility of further enlarge to 1343cc with a bore/stroke of 76/74mm (using the 74mm stroke of the 70 hp 1050cc Abarth engine).

  12. Good point about a larger version of an enlarged existing engine weighing a bit more than its original, a longer throw crank and larger pistons might easily do that.
    A very good point about the whole package weighing more due to beefier ancillaries like the clutch, cooling system and transmission being required. Not to mention bigger brakes , wheels and tires also being a factor.
    Perhaps an example might be the P6 rover, I think the Rover 2 liter bare engine weighed about the same as the bare Buick 215 engine, even after Rovers different casting method added a few pounds. But the heavier duty hardware necessary to deal with the extra power and torque added more weight to the total car.


    1. There’s not a cut-and-dried standard for that either, since a lot depends on how much extra capacity may have been built into the body structure, the running gear, the brakes, and so on. In some cases, there’s enough extra margin that the difference is quite small, although in those cases, it means the lesser-powered model was probably carrying around a fair bit of extra mass. In other cases, many things need to be beefed up. Another example is the early Ford Falcon (the XK, in Australia). The weight difference between the early 2.3-liter cars and the first V-8 Sprints was around 400 lb, of which the difference in bare engine weight accounted for perhaps a third.

    2. The VW type 1 engine seems to weigh just about the same, within 5 pounds, no matter what the bore or stroke is. That covers a range of 1.6liter to 2.3 liter. Rather striking, and clearly an engine that needs to be used with care when bored and stroked.

  13. The idea of fitting an alloy head to production A series engines is laughable. BMC couldn’t build an all iron engine leakfree, ; an alloy headed version would have had not fluid leaks, but gushes.

    1. One can argue the merits or pitfalls of an alloy-head A-Series, yet it was something BMC considered during its conception (around the same period as the Fiat 100 Series engine) up to as late as the A-OHC project when the company was known as BL. Both were ruled out on grounds of cost though it was mainly financial problems that prevented the A-OHC from reaching production as opposed to any unresolvable issues with the design itself (with the lessons later being used in the A+).

      Given the influence Austin had on Nissan due to the post-war license agreement (with a number of Nissan engines reputedly featuring some Austin design cues many decades later – allegedly to the point of certain parts being interchangeable), the Nissan A OHV and Nissan E OHC (possibly even the Nissan GA) would give a rough idea IMO as to how the A-Series or a slightly upscaled half-relation based on A-Series principles could have evolved. Which is not really that different to what was considered for the A-Series in terms of updates and further development.

      Otherwise have a similarly low opinion on BMC / BL / etc, that said do not believe it was completely beyond BMC’s engineering ability to follow a similar path as Nissan.

  14. Thought everyone here would like to know that I purchased this car from the Owner in North Hollywood. The car can be found on youtube, Instagram and at local car shows in Orange County. Its a fun ride with a very distinctive character. I am a local collector and have been friends with the previous owner for over a decade. Find me online WheelerStealer…

    1. Cool! I’m glad to hear it’s still on the road.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments may be moderated. Submitting a comment signifies your acceptance of our Comment Policy — please read it first! You must be at least 18 to comment. PLEASE DON'T SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED CONTENT YOU AREN'T AUTHORIZED TO USE!