Lancia: Do they deserve a bad reputation?
Discussion
Yertis said:
Breadvan72 said:
When I had a Jensen Interceptor, the story was different. Everyone at every garage claimed to have owned one or to have had a close friend, relative or boss who had owned one. There were only about 5,000 or so Interceptors ever made, so those cars must be real tarts.
There must be an interesting 'story-matching' type psychology going on there, because the same phenomenon is often experienced by us Quattro drivers. With no exaggeration, about 80% of men who comment on the car go on to add that, back in the day, 'a mate had one of the short ones'. I think about 200 'short ones' were ever built, of which a dozen or so (very few at any rate) came to the UK.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QBq3x_oljY
RBH58 said:
... poorly built and on still evenings you could listen to them rusting. There is so few left because most of them have dissolved!
QED: Standard bloke in pub BS, with bonus semi-literacy! It's a tad sad to see that sort of tosh coming from someone who frequents this sub forum, where most people are well informed about cars. Breadvan72 said:
QED: Standard bloke in pub BS, with bonus semi-literacy! It's a tad sad to see that sort of tosh coming from someone who frequents this sub forum, where most people are well informed about cars.
Meh.... I conceded they were great cars, and that Lancia were a brand with an outstanding history, but those 70s/80s examples left a good deal to be desired in terms of build quality and corrosion protection (or lack thereof). And that, simply, is irrefutable. Edited by RBH58 on Saturday 3rd June 09:08
ClaphamGT3 said:
I have had three.
A 1977 Beta Spyder that i have owned since 1989. It's an amazing car which has suffered very little rot in its life and is mechanically as strong as an ox. Ancillary bits are rather fragile and some things fall into the "who thought that was a good idea?!" Category but overall a cracking little car that I'd drive from here to Scotland in a heart-beat
A 1976 Fulvia 1.3 S3 that I owned for a couple of years in the mid 90s. Beautifully engineered, drove like a dream and unbelievably sophisticated for a Mid 60s small coupe - poke around one for quarter of an hour and you'll see why they cost more than an E Type new. The rust had got into the front sub frame mounts and, in the end, I sold it to buy my 1st wife's engagement ring. It was restored and still goes strong
A 1982 Gamma Coupe SII. This is what happens when you design a great car but under-invest in the R&D to productise it. Just as unreliable as the bloke down the pub will warn you which is such a shame as it could have been awesome - the handling alone is sublime
Summary; don't deserve the bad press but can understand why things like the Gamma killed the brand; they could have got away with it in the 60s (when ironically, their cars were bullet-proof) but, by the 80s, the Gamma had to compete against the BMW 323i, the Mercedes 230CE, the Porsche 924 and the Audi 80 Coupe which, although conceptually inferior, slaughtered it in execution
Summarises Lancia well. I had two Beta's when studying when everyone else had cortinas and capris, the lancias were soooo far ahead in design and engineering. If only they'd manufactured them with the same approach to quality as the design. With the right support and leadership the brand could have been an Italian BMW but with a greater history. Would love a Fulvia now.A 1977 Beta Spyder that i have owned since 1989. It's an amazing car which has suffered very little rot in its life and is mechanically as strong as an ox. Ancillary bits are rather fragile and some things fall into the "who thought that was a good idea?!" Category but overall a cracking little car that I'd drive from here to Scotland in a heart-beat
A 1976 Fulvia 1.3 S3 that I owned for a couple of years in the mid 90s. Beautifully engineered, drove like a dream and unbelievably sophisticated for a Mid 60s small coupe - poke around one for quarter of an hour and you'll see why they cost more than an E Type new. The rust had got into the front sub frame mounts and, in the end, I sold it to buy my 1st wife's engagement ring. It was restored and still goes strong
A 1982 Gamma Coupe SII. This is what happens when you design a great car but under-invest in the R&D to productise it. Just as unreliable as the bloke down the pub will warn you which is such a shame as it could have been awesome - the handling alone is sublime
Summary; don't deserve the bad press but can understand why things like the Gamma killed the brand; they could have got away with it in the 60s (when ironically, their cars were bullet-proof) but, by the 80s, the Gamma had to compete against the BMW 323i, the Mercedes 230CE, the Porsche 924 and the Audi 80 Coupe which, although conceptually inferior, slaughtered it in execution
Edited by ClaphamGT3 on Thursday 1st June 10:10
RBH58 said:
Breadvan72 said:
QED: Standard bloke in pub BS, with bonus semi-literacy! It's a tad sad to see that sort of tosh coming from someone who frequents this sub forum, where most people are well informed about cars.
Meh.... I conceded they were great cars, and that Lancia were a brand with an outstanding history, but those 70s/80s examples left a good deal to be desired in terms of build quality and corrosion protection (or lack thereof). And that, simply, is irrefutable. Edited by RBH58 on Saturday 3rd June 09:08
Breadvan72 said:
RBH58 said:
Breadvan72 said:
QED: Standard bloke in pub BS, with bonus semi-literacy! It's a tad sad to see that sort of tosh coming from someone who frequents this sub forum, where most people are well informed about cars.
Meh.... I conceded they were great cars, and that Lancia were a brand with an outstanding history, but those 70s/80s examples left a good deal to be desired in terms of build quality and corrosion protection (or lack thereof). And that, simply, is irrefutable. Edited by RBH58 on Saturday 3rd June 09:08
Breadvan72 said:
Except for the fact that it's refutable. There were no signs of poor build quality on the four Lancias that I have owned thus far. One was very rusty, but had lived outdoors in northern England for decades. Could I hear them fizzing while parked? No. Four cars is not a statistically significant sample, but how many Lancias have you owned? I have a fifth Lancia on the way. I have not yet seen it but am told by the specialist classic car welder that is sorting a few grotty bits (the car is nearly 40) that the car is OK.
I've owned one Lancia (mistakes repeated are choices). It was lovely to drive but in terms of build quality and corrosion it was a laughable debacle. But I've known a number of Lancia past owners over the years, including some enthusiastic ones, and one that still owns the prettiest cleanest Fulvia I've ever seen, and I know the battles they've had to keep them on the road. Maybe they just sent all the s
tty ones to Australia?Edited by RBH58 on Saturday 3rd June 21:59
If mistakes repeated are choices (and I like the phrase) then Lancias are a mistake I have made 20-30 times. Have there been rusty Lancias? Sure but in my view not especially more than other makes. Have there been Lancia that have made big leaps in engineering, ahead of any others - yes, and many of them - from memory monocoque construction, v6 production engine, independent front suspension etc etc. Do they have a fine competition history - check.
But to my mind apart from the recent years which has admittedly involved a sad decline into mediocrity, almost all Lancias were better to drive than average, and in some cases blew the equivalent mass produced competition into the weeds. Compare a 1.3 Beta (let alone a two litre one) to a 2.0 Ford Capri, for example. Then throw in some wet conditions and watch, for example, a Fulvia make many other contemporaries look pretty silly.
I do also think that even if the perceived bodywork fragility is accepted for the sake Mor argument (and I don't) the very strong mechanics are a big plus. I never felt I would break a Lancia engine or gearbox on the road, no matter how hard I drove.
Unless we are looking only for a nondescript box to go from a to b, I think there is much to commend among the many Lancia models.
But to my mind apart from the recent years which has admittedly involved a sad decline into mediocrity, almost all Lancias were better to drive than average, and in some cases blew the equivalent mass produced competition into the weeds. Compare a 1.3 Beta (let alone a two litre one) to a 2.0 Ford Capri, for example. Then throw in some wet conditions and watch, for example, a Fulvia make many other contemporaries look pretty silly.
I do also think that even if the perceived bodywork fragility is accepted for the sake Mor argument (and I don't) the very strong mechanics are a big plus. I never felt I would break a Lancia engine or gearbox on the road, no matter how hard I drove.
Unless we are looking only for a nondescript box to go from a to b, I think there is much to commend among the many Lancia models.
jaisharma said:
I I think there is much to commend among the many Lancia models.
I would agree with you, I had several used Lancia's in the 80's/90's they were miles ahead of similar aged normal cars. My first one was a 1978 HPE 1600, it was a very advanced car and good to drive, if you compared it to other UK and Jap cars of that era the Lancia's were really well engineered
Lets compare Lancia Beta HPE1.6 v's Capri 2.0 or Manta 1.9 from the same era:
Engine - high revving twin cam with alloy head and over 100 bhp from a 1.6, v's iron block single cam low revving lower powered 2.0
Gears - 5 speed box my 1.6 was quite low geared it would hit max revs in 5th gear v's 4 speed on most normal stuff at that time
Brakes - Lancia had disks all round and alloys v's rear drums and mostly steel wheels
Suspension - Lancia had clever independent suspension with McPherson struts all round, at the time quite innovative.
Inside - sports seats, dash with oil pressure, rev counter, oil temp gauges (cant remember what it had) and sports steering wheel.
It felt special to be in and had loads of character, my early HPE was pretty much rust free, it sadly got written off by an idiot who went through a red light and rammed me.
I had quite a few different models including 1.6 HPE series one, 2.0 ie HPE late model 1985 car, a Volumex Coupe with recarro's on a B plate, Delta 1.5, Delta 1.6 GT with Martini stripes, Prisma Symbol 1.6ie with funky alcantara seats, a funny little Y10 Gt ie,
Never really had any problems with Lancias the engines/mechanicals were brilliant.
The Delta GT was the only one that had rust issues it was only a few years old but it had serious rust in strange places like the A pillars, the roof above the hatch, the door tops, strangely it was solid underneath.
I took advantage of the fact they had a bad image due to press stories and enjoyed some lovely cars bought for very little money as no one wanted them at the time.
This is what the interiror was like on my First HPE,
For an 18 year old used to a Mk2 Escort 1.1 and then a Crappy Capri 1.6 this thing felt like a Ferarri!
Edited by rallycross on Monday 5th June 20:53
rear seats like a booth in a 70's night club
Edited by rallycross on Monday 5th June 22:03
Having owned a 1979 Beta Coupe for several years until recently, I found it better than a 1990 VW GTI for rust, as on that the rear arches had rotted away inside, along with rear tailgate. So would come out to the car with an inch of water in it if it had rained.
My 2002 M3 had rotten front wings and door mirror surrounds, and of course the subframe had a reputation for cracking on those too.
My mate's AMG E55 has rotten wings.
A Polo we had from 1996 leaked terribly when almost new.
My 1999 VW GTI Turbo went through suspension components quicker than tyres, along with windows dropping due to cheap clips being used. Heated seats didn't work, nor did air con. Car only 6 years old. Worse car I had in many ways.
German build quality...a myth.
Have been running Swedish cars more recently and find these have the best build quality I've seen.
My 2002 M3 had rotten front wings and door mirror surrounds, and of course the subframe had a reputation for cracking on those too.
My mate's AMG E55 has rotten wings.
A Polo we had from 1996 leaked terribly when almost new.
My 1999 VW GTI Turbo went through suspension components quicker than tyres, along with windows dropping due to cheap clips being used. Heated seats didn't work, nor did air con. Car only 6 years old. Worse car I had in many ways.
German build quality...a myth.
Have been running Swedish cars more recently and find these have the best build quality I've seen.
Huge numbers of cars from the past have been rustbuckets, even the Beetle and yes, even the Golf.
Fiat/Alfa/Lancia suffered through using really bad steel albeit my 77 Alfetta wasn't really that bad yet my two Alfasuds literally dissolved and rusted in the middle of the roof. i believe they lined the steel with a foam that got wet and the cars never dried out.
Lancia engines falling out was never a good thing yet the designs were beautiful. However, even the Integrale traced its roots to the 70s Fiat Ritmo.
Like everything, only by plugging away and producing cars people can eventually genuinely trust can you get your reputation back.
Fiat were always a mainstream manufacturer and it wasn't until probably the Mk 1 Punto, with its galvanised shell and great design that Fiat became trustworthy again.
Alfa got lost in the sporting sedan wilderness. I still don't think they have fully recovered as the MiTo is basically a Punto and the sporty role is now Abarth. The Giulia is brilliant but is a single car, the rest of them are pretty pedestrian and not up to stuff like the Fiesta ST and Polo GTI. It's now a question of niche and Alfa still struggle.
The Lancias were more luxury sporty sedans but Alfa conflicted with them so Lancia was sidelined. where Alfa are BMW, Lancia should be perhaps Meercedes but Fiat have alsways sucked at making big luxury cars and Maserati have now felt their way downwards and are trying to cash in on the name, not entirely successfully. So there is no niche for Lancia unless it reinvents itself in a Range Rover type role but it looks like Maserati is the favoured child there, as well.
I reckon a Chinese group would love to buy a marque like that.
Fiat/Alfa/Lancia suffered through using really bad steel albeit my 77 Alfetta wasn't really that bad yet my two Alfasuds literally dissolved and rusted in the middle of the roof. i believe they lined the steel with a foam that got wet and the cars never dried out.
Lancia engines falling out was never a good thing yet the designs were beautiful. However, even the Integrale traced its roots to the 70s Fiat Ritmo.
Like everything, only by plugging away and producing cars people can eventually genuinely trust can you get your reputation back.
Fiat were always a mainstream manufacturer and it wasn't until probably the Mk 1 Punto, with its galvanised shell and great design that Fiat became trustworthy again.
Alfa got lost in the sporting sedan wilderness. I still don't think they have fully recovered as the MiTo is basically a Punto and the sporty role is now Abarth. The Giulia is brilliant but is a single car, the rest of them are pretty pedestrian and not up to stuff like the Fiesta ST and Polo GTI. It's now a question of niche and Alfa still struggle.
The Lancias were more luxury sporty sedans but Alfa conflicted with them so Lancia was sidelined. where Alfa are BMW, Lancia should be perhaps Meercedes but Fiat have alsways sucked at making big luxury cars and Maserati have now felt their way downwards and are trying to cash in on the name, not entirely successfully. So there is no niche for Lancia unless it reinvents itself in a Range Rover type role but it looks like Maserati is the favoured child there, as well.
I reckon a Chinese group would love to buy a marque like that.
LuS1fer said:
Huge numbers of cars from the past have been rustbuckets, even the Beetle and yes, even the Golf.
Fiat/Alfa/Lancia suffered through using really bad steel albeit my 77 Alfetta wasn't really that bad yet my two Alfasuds literally dissolved and rusted in the middle of the roof. i believe they lined the steel with a foam that got wet and the cars never dried out.
Pressed steel monocoques had been around for decades, sure, but they were still developing rapidly through the 60s and 70s, with weight coming down and complexity going up - which led to lots of thin metal and rust traps. Add in a Western European steel shortage in the mid-late 70s, with Eastern European steel being used - poor quality control, and poor recycling of scrap.Fiat/Alfa/Lancia suffered through using really bad steel albeit my 77 Alfetta wasn't really that bad yet my two Alfasuds literally dissolved and rusted in the middle of the roof. i believe they lined the steel with a foam that got wet and the cars never dried out.
TooMany2cvs said:
Pressed steel monocoques had been around for decades, sure, but they were still developing rapidly through the 60s and 70s, with weight coming down and complexity going up - which led to lots of thin metal and rust traps. Add in a Western European steel shortage in the mid-late 70s, with Eastern European steel being used - poor quality control, and poor recycling of scrap.
There is a slight irony in that Lancia were the first to actually use a steel monocoque for car construction.I don't think that anyone here is claiming the bodywork was better than the norm (although it is contested that it is worse) but the quality of the design and the mechanics are in my view meritorious.
Given the current fashion for mega power 4wd hatches at the moment I can't think of a better time for Lancia to re-launch a new Integrale, even if it was a badge engineering job with something else.
I was born a little after Lancia's troubles ('83) so my only experience with the brand is seeing pristine examples at classic car shows and blatting through the woods on Sega Rally in the arcades (which may go someway to explaining the interest in Evo models over HF).
Either way, when you compare what's left of any cars from the 60/70s are Lancia's any worse? Probably not in fairness, it's not like cars from that era are famed for their longevity
I was born a little after Lancia's troubles ('83) so my only experience with the brand is seeing pristine examples at classic car shows and blatting through the woods on Sega Rally in the arcades (which may go someway to explaining the interest in Evo models over HF).
Either way, when you compare what's left of any cars from the 60/70s are Lancia's any worse? Probably not in fairness, it's not like cars from that era are famed for their longevity
None of these cars was intended to last 40 or 50 years.
Some car marques acquire reputations based on bad press, and pub and now internet chatter. BL quality problems in the 70s were widespread, but so were those of 70s Ford, for example, but people mainly remember(and exaggerate in re telling) the BL stories. People will swear blind that the Princess was a dire car. In fact it was quite a good car, albeit with flaws. Ditto the Allegro, arguably. Thus it costs a lot to buy a 70s Ford nowadays, but you could (until the hipsters noticed the BL cars) buy a BL car that might be better than the Ford car, for not much . 70s Lancias had about as many problems as 70s Alfas, but compare the prices of the two marques now. The general chatter is that the Lancia Beta was a terrible car, but in fact the Beta was quite a good car by the standards of its time. Some marques can produce one unreliable car after another, but still be legends of the petrolhead world and in the general public view. Maserati might be an example of that. Reputation is all, and reputation may or may not be related to quality.
Some car marques acquire reputations based on bad press, and pub and now internet chatter. BL quality problems in the 70s were widespread, but so were those of 70s Ford, for example, but people mainly remember(and exaggerate in re telling) the BL stories. People will swear blind that the Princess was a dire car. In fact it was quite a good car, albeit with flaws. Ditto the Allegro, arguably. Thus it costs a lot to buy a 70s Ford nowadays, but you could (until the hipsters noticed the BL cars) buy a BL car that might be better than the Ford car, for not much . 70s Lancias had about as many problems as 70s Alfas, but compare the prices of the two marques now. The general chatter is that the Lancia Beta was a terrible car, but in fact the Beta was quite a good car by the standards of its time. Some marques can produce one unreliable car after another, but still be legends of the petrolhead world and in the general public view. Maserati might be an example of that. Reputation is all, and reputation may or may not be related to quality.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 14th June 20:18
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff