The Cinquecento was produced in significant numbers between 1991 and 1998, but is a very rare find on our roads today, whereas our streets are overwhelmed by the presence of its descendant, the ‘new’ 500.
Development of Tipo 170 began in the early-to-mid ‘80s. This was a period of intensive R&D in small, highly economical cars, designed to counter the threat of escalating fuel costs and growing fears about environmental sustainability. I previously wrote a short series of articles about some of the better-known concept cars of this ilk (‘Eighties Eco-Concept Marvels’). With one or two possible exceptions, none of the more exotic designs became production models. Some of this was down to the senior management of the large European manufacturers doubting the market’s appetite for revolutionary design progress.
Such was the case, with Tipo 170. The Cinquecento (as it would become) replaced the FIAT 126bis in production at the former FSM facility bought by FIAT in Tychy, which lies about 70km from Krakow in Poland. As an interesting aside, FSM had a contingency, should the negotiations with FIAT have failed, which was to produce the more innovative looking Beskid 106 which was developed as one of a series of projects by the BOSMAL Automotive Research and Development Centre.
The new, small FIAT was not designed or intended to be a direct replacement for the 126, or even the previous Nuova 500. These cars were considered to occupy ‘Segment A’, informally categorised as ‘runabouts’ positioned below ‘Segment B’ which related to ‘sub-compacts’ like the 127 and Uno. FIAT had identified a trend of falling demand in Segment A in favour of B.
The Cinquecento was designed to a new brief, described as a ‘city car’, which occupied an emerging market segment positioned between the two. The brief highlighted the need for such a car to be a complete family car, or at least an authentic city car, small enough to be suited to travel in large conurbations. Dimensions should be suited to town traffic and easy parking. Interestingly, there was an emphasis on technical specifications which match the emerging agenda of environmental friendliness, energy saving and recycling, and absolute reliability.
The city car would be conceived to fulfil a wider role. Whilst primarily intended for town use, it needed to be as comfortable as cars of Segment B and suited to heavier use, including motorway excursions where required. Interestingly, it appears that the development of Cinquecento was held back as FIAT observed that the development of this new market niche was slower than originally anticipated. Hence, whilst originally slated for launch in 1987, the Cinquecento did not emerge until December 1991.
One can see from the table below how the Cinquecento was positioned into this new segment between A and B.
| Nuova 500 | 126bis | Cinq’to | Y10 | Uno | ‘new’ 500 | |
| Length (m) | 2.97 | 3.05 | 3.23 | 3.39 | 3.65 | 3.57 |
| Wheel-base (m) | 1.84 | 1.84 | 2.20 | 2.16 | 2.36 | 2.31 |
| Width (m) | 1.32 | 1.38 | 1.49 | 1.51 | 1.55 | 1.63 |
| Height (m) | 1.32 | 1.30 | 1.44 | 1.44 | 1.42 | 1.52 |
| Weight (kg) | 499 | 645 | 710 | 780 | 711 | 940 |
The weight quoted for the Cinquecento is for the 903cc version, the two-cylinder car weighed only 675kg, and that for the Y10 and Uno is for versions with the same sized engine. I added the new/ Tychy 500 to show how even today’s smallest cars are surprisingly wide (+24cm over the Cinquecento), tall (+8cm) and, most noticeably, heavy (+230kg). Of course, the new 500 has more extensive passive safety measures compared with cars of the late 80s/ early 90s …
FIAT claimed to have invested more than $800m in Tychy to turn it into a highly automated manufacturing plant and produced 750 prototypes, tested over 8 million kilometres, to ensure that the build quality and reliability of the new city car matched the requirement for absolute reliability. Much of the bodyshell was made from galvanised steel. Many of the plastic parts (the bumpers, for example) were made from recyclable materials. These were indicators that FIAT wanted to address the reputation of some aspects of its previous small cars.
According to Wikipedia, the styling was a collaboration between Ermanno Cressoni and Antonio Piovano (although I also read a review of the Sporting in AutoCropley which credits the work to Guigiaro(?!)). Either way, it has a very clear association with the Tipo and the facelifted Uno, and the Cinquecento is a follower of the Uno’s ‘tall-boy’ look, to the benefit of its interior packaging. The other car it resembles is the Lancia Y10, albeit that car has proportionately longer over-hangs and a more vertical rear hatch. This very compact car achieves a creditable Cd factor of 0.33.
It’s an honest, practical design, rational and simply adorned. It’s not retro or gimmicky, just a modern (for its era) looking car, and if it is to be described as cute, that’s entirely down to its dimensions and proportions rather than the styling. It looks and is narrow, but the stance is good, with the wheels pushed well out under confidently lipped wheel arches. It came only as a three-door, with large, wide-opening doors which wrap over the A pillars and edge of the roofline. Similarly, the rear hatch is a full clamshell extending down between the simple, slim, horizontal rear lamps to ease access to the small (170/ 810 litres) but practically shaped boot.
On early cars, the bumpers, rear wheel arch protectors, exposed fuel filler cap and wing mirrors are unpainted and hued in dark grey. The front wrap-around bumper thus becomes a predominant feature of the frontal aspect of the car. The short, simple, smooth bonnet pressing lacks feature-lines or anything as pretentious as a power dome and extends down through the headlamp to a shallow air vent above the bumper, with the only adornment being FIAT’s slanted 5-bar badge. The headlamps are trapezoids, with the inner edges slanting down inwards and the outer edges abutting amber coloured indicators which cut narrowly into the wing.
The windows are large and deep and, the rear side glass can be popped-open (at least on higher-spec models), as can the optional sunroof. The flanks of the Cinquecento are unadorned apart from ugly black metal door handles (which are also crude in operation). Visual bulk is relieved and a certain surface tension created by a prominent indented feature-line pressed into the side panels between the wheel arches, and, a light crease gently rising from above the front bumper, clipping the top of the front wheel arch and continuing to a point above the the rear lamps.
Inside, the aim is clearly to optimise packaging. The result is interior width at elbow level of 1.24m for the front passengers and 1.25m at the rear, which is an achievement given the maximum exterior width of only 1.49m. Facing the driver is a dashboard which owes a lot to the design of the Tipo. It protrudes towards the driver, with instruments, controls and vents arranged on multiple levels. Hard plastic gives away it age, and comes either entirely in charcoal or, if one is lucky, in a lighter grey with main facia being in charcoal.
Instrumentation is simple, with a centrally mounted, arced speedometer, flanked by fuel and temperature gauges (stacked one above the other) to the right, and a comprehensive twin bank of warning lights to the left. There are four adjustable air vents; two mounted high up, each at opposite ends of the dashboard, and two mounted centrally just below where the driver’s hands would be holding the simple, two spoke, plastic, padded-rimmed steering wheel. Above the central vents one finds two levels of physical sliders for the HVAC controls, actuated via tiny, grooved knobs which resemble upturned cup-cake cases.
Between these and the instrument binnacle sit two blocks of four push-push switches to work the rear wash/ wipe, heated rear window and rear fog lamps. Below the central vents is a space for an ICE unit, with the ashtray sitting beneath.
So far, so ergonomic. However, the placement of the remaining switches and controls lower down on the dashboard is more chaotic. Where optioned, electric window switches sit inconveniently low, with that for the passenger-side next to the ICE unit, and, for the driver, the other side of the steering wheel next to the knob for the manual choke. FIAT managed to fit no fewer than three flat, flimsy stalks to control the wipers, indicators and headlamps, with the latter being supported by a rocker switch mounted next to the hazard warning switch, below the instrument panel. Helpfully, some of these anomalies were tidied up by annual detail updates.
On the passenger side, the dash cuts away, with a low mounted moulded storage shelf at knee height, maximising the sense of space. Items stored on the shelf of hard, lightly grained plastic are bound to slide around annoyingly. Above and at the rear of said shelf there is a plastic, ribbed finish which blends with the passenger-side speaker cover, mounted just below the air vent (there is another similarly located on the driver’s side).
The seating is well designed, with decent cushioning, rubberised head-restraints, and cloth inserts into the painted metal doors which also house long, narrow storage bins. The rear bench can be had with a 60/40 split. At launch, there was one design of cloth for all versions, whatever the exterior colour, with a light grey background and broad red and blue horizontal stripes. When mounted on the doors, the same cloth was set on a diagonal bias, giving the impression that it was of a different pattern. Other designs of cloth soon followed.
All in all, FIAT’s new city car platform rivalled both its predecessors and the Mini for packaging efficiency, wrapped in a modern and aerodynamically efficient, if resolutely rationally styled body.
In part 2, we will look at the mechanical make-up of the Cinquecento; how it evolved over its production run; review driving impressions; and investigate the question …’where are they now?’
Three of the images are missing from this post.
Hi, thanks, I think I have sorted it now.
Since I wrote this, of course we have had the series about the Twingo. They are cars of a similar generation and brief, and yet quite different in their conception and execution, the FIAT seeming much more serious
SV. That’s an interesting point about the 500 seeming ‘more serious’ than the Twingo. I admit that, if I consider the me of 30 years ago, I would have chosen the 500 over the Twingo precisely because it has a certain logical simplicity about it. I never wanted a car that would bolster my character in any way – especially one that suggested that I was fun and lighthearted. My ownership of a Citroen Twin I would have excused by its mechanical purity. Now I’m less uptight about these things, and especially now that I feel I’ve experienced the inside of the Renault by reading about how much work went into making it habitable, I’d choose the Twingo. Though my head might be turned by a Sporting.
Given the choice betweeen Cinquecento and Twingo I also would have taken the Fiat because it is a serious car in a small format. In my imagination it’s simply perfect for driving through the narrow alleys of Lucca or San Gimignano.
I had a Sporting for a couple of years and loved it. I wish I had kept it somehow as it was such a practical and yet fun car, especially around town, but also rock solid on motorway hauls. Whilst I was writing thus two parter, I came over especially nostalgic for one and started scanning the classifieds. There are very few for sale in the UK, but there was briefly a good looking one, albeit for quite a price (£3.5k). Of course the last ones sold are now over 25 years old and likely to need care and attention. Any ideas of itching this scratch went out of the window when the C6 was diagnosed as needing major surgery, but that’s probably another story.
Good morning S.V. and thanks for a proper assessment of a car that is, I agree, unfairly overlooked. To my eyes, the Cinquecento has a charm that derives from its unpretentious practicality and functionality. Its design is pretty much perfect for such a car. Who cares if the interior is made up of “hard plastics”? That material serves its propose without adding extra bulk or weight.
Sadly, the Siecento, Fiat’s replacement for the Cinquecento, corruped the latter’s perfectly drawn lines with an overlay of ‘styling’ that just looked awkward and contrived:
https://i.imgur.com/oFV6oPn.jpeg
At the front, the apparent misalignment of the headlamps and indicators just looked like an error rather than intentional, leaving awkward ‘black holes’ below the former.
https://i.imgur.com/1pGoGFg.jpeg
At the rear, the upswept rear side window added nothing and the shape of the lower edge of the tailgate (presumably to serve as a handle) looked like someone had attacked it with a crowbar in an attempt to break in!
It does have neater door handles than the Cinquecento, however!
Who drove into the back of my Fiat? In view of what we’ve said above about the Cinquecento being a ‘serious’ design, that is underlined by the Seicento. A true Fiat Charter job, someone called for more fun, and the underlying car was completely unsuited. Like a very serious relation wearing a party hat at the Christmas dinner.
I remember an interview with Ermanno Cressoni in which he explained the development of the Alfa 145’s design. Cressoni took particular pride from the kink in the bottom of the door windows and said it was a styling detail which he had wanted to do for a long time and he had already proposed it for the Cinquecento where it wasn’t signed off because it would have been too expensive to make.
I am quite pleased it did not receive that sign off.
Thanks for this article! The Cinquecento is a car I remember with a certain fondness. I liked the rational Fiat designs back in that time, and I appreciate how well they seem to work in basic specs with dark grey bumpers and only minimal wheel adornment.
As mentioned in the text, some controls were rather tiny and flimsy, like the light stalks and the door handles. This is the impression from a short test drive around 1993 that remains to this day.
With its lightness and clever packaging, it had a certain resemblance in spirit to the Citroën AX I drove from 1992 to 2001, although the latter was about 1/2 class above the Cinquecento.
If I happen to see a yellow Sporting for sale in good state, I could actually be tempted, just like Bristow.
I owned an 11RE AX in the late 80s and then owned a Cinq Sporting. There were similarities in the way they went about things. The AX was larger and lighter and felt less quite a lot less robust than the Cinq, but it rode better and always felt like a latter-day 2CV to me (my wife owned a 2CV for a number of years, so I was able to make the direct comparison). They are both cars I loved, and wish I could somehow have kept hold of them both (they and my first Legacy Spec B).
It seems that our automotive preferences match on many levels (I have a soft spot for Subaru as well, without ever having owned or even driven one – probably a Swiss thing).
I don’t have a lot of 2CV experience to compare to the AX, but they certainly both go into the “soft, but nimble” category. The 11 RE might even have been softer than my 14 TZS, I think that some “smaller” versions didn’t have anti-roll bars).
I really like the Cinquecento and its no-nonsense demeanor, which thankfully doesn’t diminish its cuteness factor. In this respect it’s more of a normal car than the Twingo, thanks to its instruments behind the steering wheel and its more conventional interior and exterior designs. There’s a nice promo video of the Cinquecento in Fiat’s Centro Storico Youtube channel.
The Seicento is just a Cinquecento with the organic treatment and to me lost a bit of its charm.
When the Seicento was presented I read an interview with a Fiat bigwig who explained that that car was deliberately taking the edge off the driving experience by being much less direct in its responses and much less fun in the overall experience. He said they did it out of social responsibility because they’d seen too many young people having real fun from driving around in Cinquecentos and they had to do something against that. One sentence I remember was “If you see how they drive around corners four up you know that it cannot stay that way and we had to do something”
I read that too, and I think it gets a mention in part 2.
Bearing in mind what I wrote above, there is fun, and there is fun. I’m sure I’m not alone in forgiving Fiat quite a few of their shortcomings based on the single fact that they were good to drive. So that statement is shooting yourself in the foot – those young (and older) hooligans would just go elsewhere.
Unfortunately, Italian youngsters have continued to drive like hooligans four up to this day, irrespective of the car, especially on Saturday nights. It is a fact that the Cinquecento/Seicento could easily accommodate four adults, or two adults with a huge luggage space. I am 188×85 and I fitted nicely on the rear bench, with enough headroom. It was a very sensible car from the point of view of ecology, it is a pity that it succumbed to today’s idea of safety as driving a tank on wheels full of electronic gizmos that keep you on the road while you play with your smartphone. Sure, it was not overly safe in a crash, but you must consider the alternatives. It is basically a city car (although I remember driving it from Prague to Trieste, 900 km in one day, at max legal highway speed, in reasonable comfort). When I finally scrapped my father’s Seicento I told the lady at the reception that I’ll miss it, she replied she had one too once, but it was too unsafe. I asked what she drove now, she said I have a Panda but usually I go around town in a scooter. Well if that’s the alternative I’d much prefer to crash into a tree in a Seicento than on a scooter. And a Seicento is the next easiest thing to a scooter to drive and park in Italian towns — the current, bloated Panda a distant third.
I remember sitting in my car at a customer and waiting for somebody to arrive from FRA airport.
Then a rental Cinquecento rolled in the parking area and the guy unfolded his 195cm/170kgs frame from the car.
When I asked him how he fitted into the car the answer was ‘pinches somewhat under the armpits’.
DaveAR: 😀 The fun factor is always there with these tiny cars. An acquaintance, slightly older than me, who was an Olympian in rowing (Seoul 1988) used to have the original 500 as a youngster. He is 198 tall, although more slender than the person you met. Legend has it that he had taken off the front seat and used the rear bench. Next time I meet him I will ask whether this is true … Anyway the seat was very low on the original 500, so that tall people could fit somehow (and little ol’ ladies often had to use a cushion to glance at the road beyond the instruments cluster). Seating in the Cinquecento/Seicento, although much more consistent, also was quite low, both front and rear, allowing for a lot of headroom — and some additional legroom for the driver. Another feature that is out of fashion today, maybe for structural reasons?
I had use of a Cinquecento once as a courtesy car. My abiding memory is of the horn: single-tone and so comically high-pitched as to be no use whatsoever as a warning.
In the UK, courtesy car was the main function of most Cinquecenti.
Can’t remember the relevant Fiat Charter ™ clause…
A high pitched horn is as Italian as a lower pitched friendly moo is/was French.
In both countries a horn is not so much for warning but a means of communication and you can use it with the ignition switched off.
That’s why many Italian cars have a switch for two noise levels of their horn for city (communication) and country (alarm) use.
I seem to remember seeing road-signs outside Italian towns warning against using the horn at night time – this was in the late 60s.
On holiday on the Italian island of Ischia last month I spotted a small number of Cinquecento (is the plural Cinquecenti?!) and many more Seicentos. The latter were mainly the Fiat 50th anniversary model which was actually badged 600. Almost all of them had parking knocks and dents, although it’s quite hard to tell at the back of the Seicento with its “pre-dented” design.
Ah, Italy! 🙂
No the plural doesn’t change because “Cinquecento” is a number. So we say “la Cinquecento” or “le Cinquecento” (cars are female in Italy, except for some regional dialects). There’s plenty of Seicentos left here in the industrial North of Italy as well, while Cinquecentos have become a rarer sight. They’re just too convenient. Prices have gone up so that you can expect to pay over 2k for a good Seicento, which you could have had for a few hundreds years ago. Mind you, not because of collector’s value but as an utility.
Thanks S.V. The Cinquencento is one of my all time favourites. The design reads as almost perfect to my eyes: crisp, modern and functional. I seem to remember that at the launch, journalists were told that the boot had room for two crates of mineral water. Apparently Fiat thought that was something of a staple for Italian families.
It certainly has less of a sense of fun than the Twingo, but it’s (to me) almost equally cute, like a toddler wearing a very serious expression. The genius of the Twingo, however, is that it has that sense of fun and is still a serious proposition as a product. Like the Cinque, it’s has a good stance, certainly for such a small car. In that sense, the Cinquecento seems less ambitious to me.
I very occasionally see one around, as well as a Seicento. I think, besides “fun” (small cars rapidly got more engaging after the Twingo), the design brief for the Seicento also ran along the lines of: “the eighties called, they want their creases and straight lines back…”. By the second half of the nineties, it was no longer hip to be square, after all.
How did the original Panda fit into this story? I must confess I had always thought of the Cinquecento as a successor to the Panda really.
In all the reading I did on the subject, not once was the Panda mentioned in terms of the Cinquecento’s role within the FIAT range. I assumed that the Panda was viewed by FIAT as more utilitarian, rural even, in its role, and so quite different to the ‘city car’ concept assigned to the Cinquecento. The Panda carried on alongside and, indeed, outlived the Cinquecento, truly becoming FIAT’s R4/ 2CV/ Mini in taking on a product life of its own.
Original Panda, rural? city car?
I studied Adrian’s question for a few minutes before concluding that a definitive answer won’t be coming from Stellantis.
https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/03/centoventi2.jpg
I did discover that Meccano was invented in England, not helpful really. Probably remove the stuffed animal before smoking.
Yes, I think of the original Panda more as a rural car too. I guess that’s because of the number of still valued 4x4s you come across in European mountain areas.
Wanted to like the Cinquecento, yet felt it was not dynamic enough nor did it feature the 60-84 hp 1.2 FIRE motor like on the mk1 Punto.
Also cannot help feel it was lacking in additional body styles to further expand its appeal, like the Cinquecento concepts at the 1992 Turin Motor Show or the later Cinquecento-rooted FSM Beskid 1702 (plus 1703 5-door and other 170.. numbered) concepts.
Recall reading in a translated Autopareri link a while claiming there was a similarity of design for both the Fiat Cinquecento and Lada Oka stemming from the early stages of development for a small car project to be developed between Fiat and Autovaz, only for Fiat to go its own way and build what became the Cinquecento in Poland after the basic design was approved.
https://driventowrite.com/2021/03/05/small-but-perfectly-formed-fiat-cinquecento-seicento/#comment-146059
Intention to paste link to old comment on the matter from while back.
Also heard the development of the Cinquecento was rather protracted with the design being frozen sometime in the mid-1980s before finally appearing in 1991. With other influences coming from the 1986 Fiat GNR concept below as well as the lesser known X1/79 and X1/79 prototypes (of which only one image dubbed the 1986 Topolino prototype below have found so far).
As the Cinquecento carried much from both the 126 and Panda in addition to the FIRE motors, could the same be said on it also using a modified Uno platform in the manner of the later Palio or was the platform entirely all-new?
https://i.imgur.com/U4S0l92.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/4lSFtJh.jpg
Unusually there part of the Punto story bringing up a plan for it to not only replace the Uno and Y10, but also the Panda as well via the Bino / Trino projects to create production synergies (or commonality) that would seem to clash with the Cinquecento.
https://i.imgur.com/P0vVD9T.jpg
Given the amount of money Fiat probably spent with the various city car projects (including one or two that have forgotten name of), they could have saved themselves a big headache had they simply produced the A112 as a 2/4-cylinder Fiat to replace both the 500 and 600 then later ignoring the Panda project (leave that for Renault with its Panda-esque VBG proposal).
An 84 hp Cinquecento should have been very very funny but maybe a little dangerous. On the Seicento the 50 (or 55?) Hp FIRE 1.1 was perhaps the sweet spot. In fact the “sporting” variant has the same engine, although with 6-speed and shorter gearing. I remember the Seicento as a quite stable car (much better than, say, the Y10 — which actually got an 85 hp engine) but the short wheelbase made it sensitive to quick load transfers, like when entering/exiting a roundabout too fast.
The idea of a more potent Cinquecento (and Seicento) is partly inspired by what owners on Fiat Forums and tuning companies have achieved with swapping engines, unusually though not always larger versions of the FIRE motor although Giannini considered the crazy idea of fitting a 1.6 engine into the Seicento and Novitec was able to extract 99 hp from the 1.1 FIRE via a turbocharger and a 6-speed gearbox.
Cinquecento/Seicento engine conversions with the 1.2 FIRE by owners IIRC do not seem to be too much of a problem with enough tuning to handle the increase in power, it is a case of finding a balance between something more potent then the 53 hp 1.1 Sporting yet not too powerful then the Panda 100HP.
The 60 hp 1.2 SPI would be a slight improvement, the 73 hp 1.2 MPI would draw some more comparisons with the classic Mini 1275 Cooper S (and be a more appropriate sweet spot), while the 80-84 hp 1.2 16v would have made the Cinquecento/Seicento into an interesting Warm Hatch competitor to the Citroen AX GT, Peugeot 106 XSI and Rover Metro/114 GTa.
Back in the day, one of my friends had a student job changing the posters in bus shelters and places like that. He got a blue Cinquecento as a company car. One day he took me with him in the Cinquecento. It must have been one of the very first examples around.
I kind of like the design of it, but to me it wasn’t really special in any way. There is a certain crudeness about them that prevents me from truly embracing the car. It starts off with the already mentioned door handle. It’s the first time you touch the car and its action is not very smooth, to put it mildly. Sadly this was pretty much an indicator for the rest of the car. It’s not nearly as well executed as say a Honda N600, which is much older, but that has a feeling of being well engineered and built.
I still remember my back hurting for days. To be fair I’m not sure if this was down to the seats, my friend’s driving style, the numerous speed bumps we encountered, or the small wheelbase. Probably a combination of all four.
I’m not sure if I would compare it to the Twingo either, which is quite a bit larger and at the time 20% or so more expensive.
Here’s the video from Fiat Centro Storico, mentioned by cesargrauf.
I was interested to see that they did electric versions of both the Cinquecento and the Panda. Re the difference between the two, the Panda is meant to be a larger, simpler car; the Cinquecento focuses on being small and relatively more sophisticated in its image.
The video shows the Cinquecento as being small enough to park nose-in to the kerb. I wonder if anyone actually did that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r8rZQkc43E&list=PLt6mUUQP99N_SASIzi7drhxjQkZKgimFR
I looked to see if there are any available for sale in the UK, and there are – some nice ones, too.
On a related note, I think the Beskid 106 looked interesting.
I cover the electric version in part 2.
From the images below find the increase in wheelbase of the Cinquecento-based FSM Beskid 1702 and 1703 models an aesthetic improvement.
https://i.imgur.com/YLHggZC.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/48iAEXC.jpg
There’s a bit of a resemblance to the Cinquecento’s home country rival from the erstwhile FSO works:
https://i.imgur.com/DfCe259.jpg
Polish Tico production started in 1996, about two years before the Seicento arrived, and ended in 2001.
There was a whole plethora of Cinquecento-looking variants considered and some outliers not seen, which shows how its appeal could have been broadened.
FSM Beskid 1703 Sedan
https://i.imgur.com/Y7VEpsi.jpg
FSM Beskid 170X Kombi
https://i.imgur.com/DnngDK6.jpg
FSM Beskid 1704 wysoki (tall)
https://i.imgur.com/XdietgZ.jpg
FSM Beskid 1705 P
https://i.imgur.com/Qbbjf85.jpg
Not seen these before – I rather like the Kombi.
S.V. Robinson
Leaning more towards the wysoki (tall) and LWB 3-door myself.
The Kombi immediately makes me recall the Ford TouringKa concept by Ghia.
https://driventowrite.com/2016/08/17/ford-ka-turing-by-ghia-concept/
Proper Syrena replacements, those…