Currently working on a Turkish series, I was wondering about how some Tofas-built Fiat models should be considered in terms of model origin. For what I see, we currently consider of Turkish origin only the Tofas-branded models Dogan, Sahin and Kartal as local iterations of the Fiat 131.

Tofas has got an own R&D center since 1994, and their most notable works so far are:

- collaboration on the Brazilian-guided Project 178 (Palio/Siena)
- collaboration on the Fiat Doblò [223] development, whose intellectual property rights were acquired by Tofas while working on its 2006 facelift
- local iteration of the Project 178 as the Fiat Albea, a facelifted and stretched version of the Siena
- "Minicargo Project", guided by Tofas (who owns the intellectual property rights) for Sevel, producing the Turkish-built Fiat Fiorino/Qubo [225] and PSA-twins Citroen Nemo and Peugeot Bipper
- collaboration on Project 323, a saloon-version of the Fiat Grande Punto [199] sold worldwide as Fiat Linea (engineering by Tofas and styling by Fiat)
- development of the second Fiat Doblò generation [263], later sold also as Opel/Vauxhall Combo and Ram ProMaster City
- "Egea Project", guided by Tofas (responsible for the development and owner of the intellectual property rights) for a new C-segment model, launched in 2016 as saloon, hatchback and wagon, and marketed as Fiat Egea in Turkey, Fiat Tipo in Europe and Dodge Neon in Mexico

All these informations are available on the Tofas site https://www.tofas.com.tr

That said, in my opinion following models could deserve a Turkish origin:
- Fiat Albea
- Fiat Doblò [263] and its twins Opel Combo D, Vauxhall Combo Mk.3 and Ram ProMaster City
- Fiat Fiorino/Qubo [225] and its twins Citroen Nemo and Peugeot Bipper
- Fiat Egea/Tipo and the rebadged Dodge Neon for MEX

Not sure about the Fiat Linea: according to the site, engineering was done by Tofas and styling by Centro Stile Fiat, but nothing more precise is said

Why did we list the Albea as Brazilian origin? Because of the Siena then I suppose?

We can change the model origins indeed, but we should probably also do it the other way round for some of the old Tofas models. Those which are close to the original Fiat 131 (and others?) should keep the Italian origin.

I'm thinking that often, in case of multi-national developing efforts, the origin may depend much to "who do you ask"

About the Albea, I think too it was listed as Brazilian origin because of the Siena. I believe Turkish origin would be more appropriate indeed, since from that point Siena and Albea followed different paths, facelifts etc. and the Albea is stretched. In this case, made for TR should be removed where present.

I'm not convinced about the other models, especially the vans. I believe there was a collaboration between all the R&D centers rather than a lonely design effort by Tofas. It's not like the Palio or recent Brazilian models IMHO which have virtually no imput from other R&D centers

I believe a similar question could anyway be raised also for other TR-built and partially developed (?) cars like the Renault Symbol

I found an interesting report of Tofaş where a timeline of their R&D center is shown. The pdf can be found here.

According to this timeline (page 12), if I'm correctly understanding:
- the R&D activity began in 1994 (so, where were engineered the 1988+ Dogan/Sahin/Kartal then? )
- had only a production supporting role until their involvement in the Brazilian-led Project 178, when they played a more important role in qualification and reliability tests (the same role they had during the development of the 1st-gen Doblò [223])
- was tasked with developing facelifts and partial re-engineering of the above mentioned models (the Siena becoming the Albea, and the facelifted 2006+ Doblò [223])
- began playing the main role in new vehicle development with the Linea and subsequently with the Sevel Minicargo vans (mainly taking care of prototype vehicles production)
- was tasked with full (or main?) vehicle development starting with the 2nd-gen Doblò [263], and then the facelifts of the Linea and the same Doblò [263] and its derivatives for Opel/Vauxhall and Ram
- in the case of the Ægea project, the timeline marks a further improvement to 'product & technology development'.

On page 20, a graph shows Tofaş' workshare in new projects, moving from about 35% in 2009 (Doblò 2) to 50% in 2015-16 (Ægea) and exceeding 50% after 2020 (forecast, since this report is dated October 2018). Anyway, their corporate site states that the intellectual property rights for Doblò & twins, Minicargo vans and Ægea cars belong to them:



About the Egea/Tipo, Fiat EMEA-Head Luca Napolitano stated during the presentation at the Istanbul AutoShow 2015 that it was "styled in Italy and engineered in Turkey by Tofaş R&D centre".

The question is then: what makes a car's origin most? The styling or the engineering? Or both? And in that case, should it be considered as EU-origin or the brand's nationality wins?

About the Minicargo vans, there is an interesting interview dated October 2007 to then Citroen president Gilles Michel for Just Auto, who - surprisingly - reports the French origin of the project:



So, this appears to be a total collaboration between French, Italian and Turkish engineers: the French provided the idea and the styling, the Italians the chassis and powertrain and the Turkish engineers realized the van with the provided "ingredients": who wins the flag?

I was thinking also of the Renault Symbol indeed. For the 1st generation, the development history is unclear and I couldn't find any source so far.
The 2nd series is everywhere stated to be a teamwork of the Renault R&D centres in France, Turkey and Romania (the then brand new Renault Design Central Europe centre of Bucharest). The sources I've found are not much detailed and precise, but it seems that the lead role is to be acknowledged to the French Technocentre, and this could be confirmed by two facts:
- the Renault Design Central Europe of Bucharest was opened in 2007, so I guess they hadn't much possibilities to work on a project scheduled for 2008 (maybe it was the contribution of some Dacia engineers?)
- I couldn't find any precise information about the Turkish R&D centre, but according to the Renault website, the Oyak-Renault joint venture doesn't do R&D activity (so maybe again a contribution of individual engineers working at Oyak-Renault?)

So I believe that the considerations made for the Symbol II can be valid also for the (Clio) Symbol I: a French origin flag appears to be the most probable, although the models have never been sold in homeland France.

Obviously no doubts for the 3rd series and its replacement Renault Taliant, being simple rebadgings of the corresponding Dacia Logan series.

But at this point another question is: who designed the Renault Fluence? Renault-Samsung in Korea or Renault in France? Maybe it was already specified in other topics, but it's still unclear to me

That PDF seems like a good source, even if I can't open the link but I'm basing on your extracts.
- maybe they meant that a new R&D center was opened in 1994?
- I believe supporting roles are assigned to all branches when developing a global car, or a vehicle meant for many markets in the world.
- I believe that 35% is still a supporting role, if that's the workshare during development of the Doblò II project. For sure not enough to consider "winning" the origin flag, IMO.
- IMO in case of doubt or 50/50 development, the manufacturer's nationality prevails, also because a different system maybe would be too difficult to keep clean.
This one is the case of Linea and Tipo/Egea.

About the Minicargo project:
It seems that this case represents well the "depends to who you ask"
Anyway, seems unlikely that Fiat wasn't already working at this project before Sevel jumped in and before they assigned Tofas a main development role (or they weren't already doing this in conjunction), as there was this early proposal, designed by the Fiat styling center, dated 2004:

And the press speculated about such small van (which seems to be even smaller) from early 00s, when was noted that the Doblò was bigger than the old Fiorino it replaced.

About Renaults, indeed it isn't always so simple to find the right sources (not contradictory too). About the Fluence, I always had the same doubts too

I replaced the pdf link with another source, hope it works

I believe the van in your pictures is the rejected Fiat proposal, to which it should have been preferred the PSA proposal, most likely with the same chassis/powertrain carried over

Anyway, this topic could easily lead us to the biggest question: which origin have the Sevel vans?

To me it's quite simple and I think my opinion is well known: both generation Scudo/Jumpy/Expert and both generation Eurovans are French origin, and all generations Ducato and its twins are Italian origin. I haven't a precise idea about the earlier 242/C35, and we're discussing here about the Minicargo.
First generation Ducato was styled at Fiat's styling center by Paolo Boano. Its development started mid-70s, even before Sevel was created (1978), and initially it appeared it would have been a scaled-down Daily, then they changed to the design we know. The second generation was designed at Italdesign, whereas the third was styled by Mike Robinson, at the time head of the Fiat styling center.
I also think we should add chassis codes:
[280] for 1a serie
[230] for 1994-2001 2a serie
[244] for 2002-2006 facelifted 2a serie
[250] for 2006-2014 3a serie
[290] for 2015-current facelifted 3a serie
Sevelnord vans instead were enginereed by PSA, and their styling (at least for LCVs and [U60]) and mechanics reflect this.

The green van could be the rejected proposal by the Fiat styling center, but it appears to be smaller, some did even speculate that it was based on Panda [169]'s platform

I agree, if there is a part in "home" country lets keep it simple

Between styling & engineering, it depends: I'd say the engineering part is more important.
Also, if the styling is done by an external company it is not really important for the origin of the car itself, but if it is done by another office of the company it may also include some engineering work and so become more important for the origin.

I totally agree