R19 vs Fuego

Simon said:
Would the 1968 Pug bolster be an intentional anti-submarine bolster or just thigh support? I'm wondering if lap sash seat belts were actually a standard fitting in such a Pug or if it came from the factory with just the mounting points? In AUS front seat belts were mandatory from Jan 1967, but didn't have to be lap sash. Euro rules were so different things like seat belt wearing and head restraints (though early 504's had that nifty recessed restraint) were not compulsory in some places in Europe until well into the 1980's, so my guess would be that the seat design was more for comfort rather than an intentional safety device.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right, but when you read back through old automotive engineering magazines from the mid 1960s, you come to realise just how much European manufacturers were redesigning cars with safety in mind at the time and in particular designing to make best use of lap sash seat belts. Cars released between 1965 and 1970 like the Volvo 144, Saab 99 and Peugeot 504 were among the first group of cars to benefit from this research.

Maybe the ramps in the 504 seats were purely for comfort, but they look the spitting image of the anti-submaring ramps which makers like Ford made a big deal of, in the early 1990s.

Dave
 
Last edited:
DTwo said:
I don't know, you really think there are more fuegos, let alone "good" fuegos, out there than BXs?
Click to expand...
Speaking only for WA, I'd say there would be many, many more Fuego's than BX's. It is VERY rare that you see a BX in Perth. Fuego's are quite common.
 
Stuey said:
Speaking only for WA, I'd say there would be many, many more Fuego's than BX's. It is VERY rare that you see a BX in Perth. Fuego's are quite common.
Click to expand...
yeah, you may be right....Though i don't see too many of either in Melb these days....

If you did go hunting for the two with $4000 i think there'd be a greater range of better condition BXs to choose from than feugos.....it's fairly subjective opinion....i guess....

Dave Cavanagh would probably have a pretty informed opinion in this regard i imagine.....

Either way, it sounds like ren tin tin has very different ideas anyway
:)

A fuego doesn't sound like a good car to carry dogs and tow trailers to me........
 
Europa said:
Big dogs would be difficult in a Fuego, but it does tow trailers quite well, with the motor being quite a low revving, torquey beast...
Click to expand...

Fuego's are more for small dogs like poodles. Original owners, like hairdressers, would have appreciated the shallow bootspace for the short dogs. Bigger poodles could travel on the back seat!
 
Simon said:
Fuego's are more for small dogs like poodles. Original owners, like hairdressers, would have appreciated the shallow bootspace for the short dogs. Bigger poodles could travel on the back seat!
Click to expand...


oh well i can't fit our dog in there then
damn :whip:
 
My daughter has no trouble in carrying her large Doberman around in her Fuego, it usually occupies the whole back seat space, but also loves to sit in the front passenger seat when not occupied by her boyfriend.

The only problem she had (with the Doberman) was when it was a young pup and got bored while waiting (guarding) in the car and chewed up some of the door sill trim. Fortunately spare trim is fairly easy to come by in Melbourne.

Our Fuego's have no trouble in towing trailers, and often you will find the trailer pulls at a reasonable price at places like pick-a-part, the last two that I fitted came from there at a fairly reasonable price (under $50 as I recall) and custom built to fit the Fuego.

While there are some rough fuego's about, most that I have been offered have had very good interiors for their age and have been well looked after.

Ken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top