Lancia Integrale 16v - any good?

[BlueStreak]

Evoluzione said:

Then you need to go read a bit more.

Hmm, one advert doesn't overturn the general consensus. That ad is the only place I've ever seen anything refer to Evo 3 too (and I had to go and look at the copy of that ad that's hanging in a frame in my garage, as I'd never actually spotted that before! Also, as whoever wrote the ad needs a quiet word from the apostrophe police, then it doesn't bode well for the rest of the advert!!).

As to the OP's question, there's not a huge difference between them. I think the popularity of the later models was based mainly on their looks but I also thought they were built to a higher standard. Not sure that's so important now, when they're all so old. The performance differences are not that great, and as none are that quick compared to a lot of more modern cars then it is insignificant anyway. For me it was personal preference to get a 16v (although I did nearly buy an Evo years ago). The main thing for me is actually the smell of the interior in the older cars!! Later cars, especially the ones with leather, just do not smell right!

[Evoluzione]

BlueStreak said:

Hmm, one advert doesn't overturn the general consensus. That ad is the only place I've ever seen anything refer to Evo 3 too (and I had to go and look at the copy of that ad that's hanging in a frame in my garage, as I'd never actually spotted that before! Also, as whoever wrote the ad needs a quiet word from the apostrophe police, then it doesn't bode well for the rest of the advert!!).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming we should start claiming all Evo 2s are Evo 3s, far from it - i'm just pointing out where the label came from.
Fiats advertising dept wasn't great agreed, there is another poster with a green background and an exploded view of a car and it's components in red, the text claims it's the new 16v engine, but if you look closely it's an 8v....