Talk:Polski Fiat 126p

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polski Fiat 126p article.

Article policies
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Title of the article

Dear Authors, Let me draw your attention to the fact the "Polish Fiat 126p" is only the English translation of Polski Fiat, a trademark used in Poland between the World Wars and after World War II, in connection with cars built in Poland under the licence of Fiat.

I think it would be better to use this name as the title of this Wiki article and "Polish Fiat" should be given as an explanation only.

Best regards

Millisits

I believe the last 126p had an original flat-twin engine instead of the original straight-twin of the Italian 126. Can somebody confirm ? Ericd 21:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zastava 126 PGL

This car was known in Yugoslavia as Zastava 126 PGL. Was it imported from Poland and rebranded, or was it produced in Zastava factory in Kragujevac? --romanm (talk) 22:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know but Zastava built some fiat models in Yugoslavia. I think the Yugo were in fact Zastavas. Ericd 21:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is true, but "Polski Fiat 126p" was not branded under Yugo trademark - it was built way before Yugo. --romanm (talk) 22:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Late reply :) But, that particular model was made after Fiat's license in Zastava as well even though many of those were imported from Poland. So really, both. It was similar with some other Fiat's cars. --Dejan Čabrilo 07:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I think the photo of the car with the missing wheels is silly and unnecessary. The other photograph suffices. I'll remove it if no one objects. Appleseed 19:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I second that.