(first posted 2/23/2018) Now that we nibbled some Autobianchi and had a good slice of Iso, how about we end this three-course Italian Deadly Sins menu with something of a bittersweet flourish? Many of the marques we’ve seen so far were niche-market, usually small-time affairs – Iso being a good example. Few automotive giants have crumbled in my lifetime. I remember the long, protracted demise of Rover. And of course, Saab, Pontiac and a few others went pretty recently, though those were rather quicker to close shop. Lancia, one of the automotive world’s most iconic names, has been circling the drain for a very long time, but now it could be for good. Or not, given the new Stellantis ownership.
Vincenzo Lancia (1881-1937)
Some automakers went through a torturous history. Lancia went through a series of crises, but in terms of history, things are pretty simple. After a stint as Fiat’s works racing driver, Turin-born Vincenzo Lancia founded his car company. Things didn’t kick off so well: a fire devastated the factory (including the prototype chassis) in early 1907, delaying production until 1908.
But very soon, Lancias were reputed for the quality and innovation Vincenzo infused in his chassis. The automaker’s first hit was the Theta (1913-19), whose 5-litre sidevalve straight-4 had enough torque to propel heavy limousines with more gusto than many. The car featured an all-electric set-up: starter, headlights, taillights, horn and instrument lights were powered by a 6-volt battery. It was one of the first cars sold without a hole for hand-cranking the engine and was the first Lancia to be factory-bodied.
Soon, said chassis was proved to be redundant, as Lancia launched the first monocoque car, the Lambda, in 1922. It also sported independent front suspension, front brakes, a light alloy engine and the first-ever floor hump, due to the car’s markedly lower platform. Lancia cars also began to stand out for their engines, which from this point on were almost always in “V” configuration. Other Lancia products, such as the trucks and bus chassis built in Bolzano, were also making good business.
Above: 1928 Lancia Omicron triple-decker bus; below: 1930 Lancia Dilambda by Stabilimenti Farina
By the early ‘30s, the range went from modest 1.2 litre V4 Augusta to the massive 4.5-litre V8 Dilambda. Lancia also successfully dabbled in trucks, coaches, trolleybuses and military vehicles to increase their revenue streams.
Astura sublimissima – above, a 1937 cabriolet by Touring; below, a 1938 coupé de ville by Boneschi.
Launched in 1931 to replace the Lambda, the 2-litre V4 Artena shared suspension and chassis components with perhaps the most iconic Lancia of the ‘30s, the glamorous Astura, whose faultless 2.6 litre (later 3 litre) OHC V8-powered chassis was dressed with some of the most beautiful metal tailoring in automotive history.
1937 London Motor Show – the Aprilia’s UK debut.
Just as the firm was about to launch the new little Aprilia, the deeply influential founding father, Vincenzo Lancia, died of a heart attack at age 55. This was the first moment of real crisis at Lancia. Vincenzo’s son Gianni was still very young, but the company managed to rally behind the Lancia family and carry on. Vincenzo’s widow and Gianni’s mother, Adèle Lancia, was probably the first woman CEO in the automotive sector and very competently steered the company through the turmoil of war.
The recruitment of Alfa Romeo’s chief engineer, Vittorio Jano, ensured that Vincenzo Lancia’s emphasis on avant-garde engineering would continue to flourish, perhaps even more than before. Production switched to more utilitarian concerns even before Italy officially joined the war in the spring of 1940. The 8-cyl. cars were abandoned and normal production cars such as the Artena above were increasingly (but by no means exclusively) used for specialist coachwork, albeit now in khaki tones. Though not spared by the damages of war, Lancia had to put their activities on pause in 1944-45, but managed to resume production by 1946.
Above: a very peculiar 1947 Farina design for the Aprilia; below: Gianni Lancia (1924-2014).
Taking over from his mother as CEO, young Gianni Lancia and his wife were somehow suspected of being Communist sympathizers, so unlike what happened to Alfa Romeo or Fiat, no Marshall Plan funding came. Lancia had to pull themselves out of the rubble on their own – just ten years after Vincenzo’s untimely passing, Lancia’s future was again in jeopardy.
Crisis number two was averted thanks to the post-war boom and Lancia’s brilliant products. In 1948, the 3rd series Ardea (initially launched in 1939 with the world’s smallest (900cc) V4 engine) pioneered the 5-speed gearbox. The first-ever V6-powered production car, the Aurelia, came in 1950 and was a triumphant return to form from Lancia for their first entirely new car since the war. Early cars such as the B10 saloon above had a 1.8 litre 54hp version of the V6 that was soon supplanted by a 1991cc version that could provide up to 90hp. In 1953 came a 2451cc V6, followed by a completely new De Dion rear suspension set-up soon after. But this “Italian Jaguar” was carefully hand-built and therefore very expensive and exclusive: only 18,000 were made in eight years (still better than the Gamma!).
One-off Aurelias, clockwise from top left: Monterosa, Stab. Farina, Vignale, PininFarina
Jano imposed solutions from his racing experience, such as the greater use of aluminum, independent rear suspension and the transaxle – incredible features for a mere 2-litre car in the ‘50s. These came at a significant cost, but Lancia had a reputation to keep as Italy’s most innovative carmaker. The Aurelia soon became the darling of the carrozzerie. So many beautiful designs were made, but there is only room for four examples. Ah, the agony of image selection!
The Aurelia was a success, as was its little sister the Appia, launched in 1953. It looked like a reduced Aurelia, which it pretty much was (minus the IRS), high price tag and all. The Appia sold rather well, though Alfa Romeo was soon to become a serious competitor in this segment as well.
If the basic Appia didn’t suffice, Italy’s best coachbuilders could propose something different, like the above. For a very competitive price, Scioneri could improve the trim, custom-paint and add trendy rear fins to your Appia saloon. A one-off four-seater coupé like this 1956 PininFarina example (top left) was a far more exclusive and expensive proposition. The Appia was available as a lovely two-door convertible (bottom left) made by Vignale, or as a “pocket rocket” GT with a lightweight Zagato body. The company’s health, though not as sound as other Italian or European firms, was deemed sufficiently good for Gianni Lancia to plan Lancia’s racing programme with Jano.
The V6-powered Lancias D20, D23 (above) and D24 were campaigned in 1953-54, with some notable successes: Fangio won the 1953 Panamericana and Ascari finished 1st at the 1954 Mille Miglia. But this was just the appetizer: by late 1954, the V8-powered Lancia D50 Formula One car was ready and two-time world champion Alberto Ascari was ready to take it places. It was good enough to beat the formidable Mercedes-Benzes, which few could in 1955. But tragedy struck the team when Ascari died practicing at Monza (in a Ferrari) in May, three weeks before the disaster at Le Mans.
Ascari in the brand new Lancia D50, late 1954.
Dumbstruck by the loss of lives and burned out by work-related stress, Gianni Lancia also saw the costs for the F1 effort was pulling the company into the red. Lancia could not afford the D50 programme, realistically. Gianni Lancia took the decision to pull out of the F1 game, mid-season. Rather than seeing the D50 go to waste, six finished cars and a truckload of parts were simply given to Ferrari, along with Vittorio Jano, in July 1955. Ferrari simplified the design and Juan-Manuel Fangio won the 1956 World Championship in a Ferrari D50, proving the car’s potential.
It must have been galling to Gianni Lancia, but by this time, he was out of the picture. The Lancia family, who owned a controlling share of the business, decided to sell it. A deal was struck in mid-1956 with cement and finance tycoon Carlo Pesenti to buy out the Lancias and Gianni Lancia bid his factory farewell, safe in the knowledge that the Lancia name would carry on.
Professor Antonio Fessia (1901-1968)
Indeed, one of Gianni Lancia’s last important acts had been to sign up Prof. Antonio Fessia as head of Lancia’s engineering department when Jano left in 1955. Fessia had been involved with Fiat and other big names over the years, but his stint at Lancia would be his crowning achievement. Carlo Pesenti, who came from the world of cement and finance, was happy leaving Fessia to run the show and produce cars in the Lancia tradition, emphasizing quality and engineering prowess.
Unlike the ’57 production car, the Florida kept the pillarless doors seen on all Lancias since the ‘30s.
The Flaminia was ready to be launched in 1957 and had a tremendous impact, not least thanks to its flawless execution and design, though it was as much a Jano as a Fessia car. The berlina’s sublime Pininfarina design, an evolution of the 1955 Aurelia Florida show car, made it an instant classic.
Fantastic Flaminias – above: stately Pininfarina 1960 phaeton; below: edgy 1961 Boneschi cabriolet.
Even the Italian president agreed and had a couple of transformable limos made, which are still in use. The Flaminia was the last true 6-cyl. Lancia “made the old-fashioned way,” with quality being the number one priority. And one could still rely on Italy’s carrozzerie to provide interesting alternatives if one felt the production Flaminia was too common. But the good Professor Fessia cared little for the Flaminia, for he had an itch he’d been scratching for years: front-wheel drive.
A handful of cars were made in 1947-49. The chassis was cutting edge, the body Kaiser-esque.
Right after the war, Fessia had developed a revolutionary car, the CEMSA-Caproni F11. It featured a water-cooled 1.1 litre flat-4 placed ahead of the front driving wheels – a very novel (and influential) layout for the ‘40s. The F11 never got off the ground, but Fessia saw his chance when Lancia’s new directors decided to aim for a new mid-range saloon.
The 1960-66 Flavia’s rear end, not unlike its front, was not exactly graceful.
The Flavia was both an update of the F11 (such as the Flavia’s disc brakes) and a slight step backwards. Fessia had to resort to leaf springs for the rear suspension to keep costs acceptable. Initially, the Flavia’s flat-4 displaced 1500cc and was somewhat underpowered, but a 1.8 litre version was soon added, as well as fuel injection. Fessia then turned his attention to the Fulvia, the Appia’s replacement, which kept the outgoing model’s V4 engine but also switched to FWD. Both the Fulvia and the Flavia had a fair amount of success, at least initially.
The Lancia Fulvia saloon started being produced at Chivasso in early 1963.
Pesenti decided to build a completely new factory in Chivasso, which would bring Lancia’s capacity from 70 cars per day up to 300 when the plant opened in 1963. Lancia could not offset the cost of Fessia’s FWD follies with the kind of sales they had in the mid-‘60s. The bread-and-butter four-door saloons were boxy and less than appealing, especially the Flavia, whose relatively heavy body, awkward styling and high price caught up with it.
Lancia needed both their FWD cars to be a hit, but only half-succeeded. The Flavia’s slight face/butt lift in 1967 (above) improved things a bit, but the FWD Lancia saloons looked odd and passé. The same quandary was shared by arch-rival Alfa to an extent, but they sold a lot more sports cars than Lancia did.
The concept of a FWD sports car was starting to find its partisans, but few examples existed in the mid-‘60s. Fulvia Zagato lightweight coupés were made, but their very high price and peculiar aesthetics did not help sales all that much. Lancia eventually managed to race the handsome “standard” Fulvia coupé with some success, but this took place after yet another crisis.
The Flavia coupé’s elegant Pininfarina design did not salvage the situation for Lancia in the ‘60s.
The year 1969 looms large in Lancia’s history. From then on, the firm lost its independence and became part of a larger system. We are Fiat. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Pesenti was faced with ever-diminishing returns: Chivasso had cost a lot, but it was not running to full capacity. Lancias were being made and bought – both domestically and abroad – but competition was cut-throat. The problem came from Germany: in the ‘60s, BMW and Mercedes, having disposed of Borgward, invested in modern production techniques and brought down their unit costs dramatically without sacrificing their products. VW’s new Audi range spelled yet more trouble, as the Wolfsburg titan started dipping a toe into the mid-range saloon market.
As seen with the Fulvia, the Flavia Sport Zagato was lighter and exclusive – but also quite odd.
In Britain, the pressure from Germany led to a process of amalgamation. All the old firms coalesced towards the creation of British Leyland: BMC, Rover, Triumph and Jaguar were all bunched up together, which could bring future economies of scale in this segment and compete with the Germans. BL collapsed before any meaningful investment could be made, which doomed the British car industry as a whole. Lancia were in a similar predicament: unaffordable investments in more efficient production facilities meant the price of Lancias was ever more expensive in relation to other cars in its class, while yielding a lower profit margin.
End of an era: this Flaminia-based 1969 Marica by Bertone was the last coach-built RWD Lancia.
This trend of diminishing returns got progressively worse, but can be traced back to the Gianni Lancia era: by investing in motorsport rather than improving output, Lancia had made a fatal strategic error. One that, even had the F1 story gone well, would probably have resulted in the same predicament down the line. The motoring press at the time was well aware of the trouble at Lancia and did not hide their concern. By 1967, this started to affect sales, as more people worried about the future of the company. Flaminia production ended in 1968, but Lancia were unable to launch a replacement, leaving the range without a top and boxy FWD saloon as the main product. This nefarious feedback loop, along with Fessia’s definitive leave of absence for health reasons, persuaded Pesenti to approach Gianni Agnelli over at Fiat.
Here comes one of the central characters of this story…
Agnelli had probably been waiting for this moment for a while. After all, Lancia was Turin’s only other large automaker and, unlike the State-owned (and Milanese) Alfa Romeo, could be incorporated into Fiat without too much difficulty. Pesenti and Agnelli made the deal mid-1969 and announced it soon after: Fiat took on Lancia’s operations and debts, only paying 1 Lira per Lancia stock. This was it! Lancia, having almost passed away three times already, would now be absorbed by their giant neighbour and digested, just like Panhard was eaten by Citroën (or Alvis by Rover, or Glas by BMW) throughout the ’60s. Were Lancia about to sink without a trace?
Even into the late ‘60s, Lancia V.I. products were renowned for their quality and solidity.
This was not Agnelli’s goal, though. He made sure to proclaim that Lancia would continue making cars (designed by their own independent structure) for many years to come. He understood that Lancia was a perfect complement to Fiat and Autobianchi, whose new A111 saloon now looked like an expensive mistake. Lancia had the brand values and reputation for sporty excellence, so Autobianchi was soon scaled back and even integrated within Lancia’s structure and range. One thing that would be on the chopping block was Lancia Veicoli Industriali (trucks and buses), which had been a big help in keeping the company alive thus far, but was too direct a competitor to Fiat’s products. Fiat eventually regrouped all its heavy vehicle production (Fiat, Lancia, Unic, OM and Magirus-Deutz) into IVECO in 1975.
The Flavia and Fulvia continued on, but Agnelli set Fiat’s all-powerful Direction of Production (bean-counters and production process engineers) upon Lancia’s existing products and soon made a host of changes, with Fiat-sourced bits and bobs taking the place of Lancia-sourced ones by 1971. That year, as Fiat quietly closed down Lancia’s truck line, the Flavia became the 2000 and grew a new nose with a chromed vertical grille — shades of Wolseley, Volvo 164 and the like?
These legacy cars, though technically still very much up-to-date, were obviously going to be replaced by a new generation. In 1972, the Lancia Beta was launched and many breathed a sigh of relief: this was not a tarted-up Fiat as feared, aside from the Lampredi straight-4. The aerodynamic looks (when Fiat were at the height of their boxy phase), the layout and suspension were still noticeably Lancia, thanks to Agnelli’s appointment of engineer Sergio Camuffo as head of Lancia’s product development. Some could also distinguish shades of Citroën, as the French automaker’s links with Fiat were getting very strong in those days. Of course, a few details here and there were Fiat – this brought the price down and profitability up. Lancia’s next big move, the Gamma, was met with similar praise, at least initially.
The Beta was a competent car and did well in the European market, though it did rust like no Lancia ever did before. The Gamma, launched in 1975, was a much tougher sell. The car’s looks were universally criticized – comparisons to the Citroën CX, Rover SD1 and even the Renault 30 were usually to the Italian car’s detriment. The decision to power the Gamma with a huge flat-4 also made many wonder what Lancia were trying to prove. The reality was less that Agnelli wanted to protect the Fiat 130 from internal competition, but more that Fiat figured that a big 4-cyl. would sell better than a six in a post-oil-shock world. A very far cry from the Flaminia, the Gamma was basically a big Beta with fancier seats, and universally critics wondered why it only had 4-cyl. rather than a V6. The reliability of the engine and the solidity of the suspension was soon put into grave question and a typical issue started to rear its ugly head: rust.
Above: Gamma production at Chivasso; below: the sublime Pininfarina Gamma coupé.
Fiat had been using various sources for their steel, including the USSR. Lancia cars began using Fiat’s dubious metals and soon developed maladies similar to other Fiat products. This damaged Lancia’s image very badly and was something the marque was unable to shake off. Sales in Scandinavia, Germany and the UK fell off a cliff during the ‘70s: a cheap rusty Fiat was one thing, but an expensive rusty Lancia was a non-starter. The Gamma coupé, designed and built by Pininfarina, was marginally better in this regard, and undoubtedly the most stylish Lancia of the ‘70s. But it remained a Gamma, i.e. a technological nightmare, so sales were quite muted.
Above: the Beta Montecarlo (1973-78), reborn as just “Montecarlo” for 1980-81; below: Lancia Stratos HF.
On the other hand, Fiat’s massive resources could be put to use in motorsports and sports cars. The ‘70s saw a push by Lancia on the rally circuit that brought the sports credentials that Gianni Lancia was dreaming of 20 years earlier. The mid-engined “Beta” Montecarlo coupé (wholly unrelated to the Lancia Beta) was marketed as a Lancia to cash in on the marque’s mystique – a wise move by Agnelli, who understood that bigger cars were better suited to Lancia (or, more accurately, that big Fiats weren’t selling). The 1973-75 Stratos was the real rally car though, with its Ferrari-designed Dino V6; it was made for street use in tiny quantities – a bold and distinctive design, courtesy of Bertone, that fit Lancia’s image very well.
Above: 1980-84 Lancia (Volga?) Trevi Volumex; below: 1980 Gamma Scala by PininFarina.
The Beta was turned into a notchback to follow the European trend of the times for larger cars. The 1980 Trevi consequently looked like a mash-up of Mercedes and Saab put together by blind people – the ‘90s Volga’s equally-ugly (and far more rust-prone) older sister. The Gamma lingered on, but its reputation was in tatters and few took to them, although the coupé was universally acknowledged as a supremely elegant design. Pininfarina had a plan to transfer the coupé’s looks to the saloon, but the model was now poison: only 20,000 Gammas, all versions combined, were made in eight years.
The inevitable happened: starting with the 1979 Delta, only style and/or engine tuning would distinguish Lancias from Fiats. The Fiat Ritmo and the Lancia Delta were fraternal twins, and so would all Lancias from this point on. Best-forgotten Lancias of the ‘80s include the Prisma (top right), the Dedra (bottom left) and the painfully inadequate second series Delta.
Sure, there were a few bright spots: the Delta sold very well (in southern Europe, at least) and ushered Lancia’s transition to AWD sports cars with the Integrale. There was also the Thema, which shared its platform with the Saab 9000, the Alfa Romeo 164 and the Fiat Croma, but was the only marque proposing a Ferrari V8, which made up for the car’s bland looks. Other versions included the dreaded PRV Douvrin V6 and a factory stretch limo. With over 350,000 units in ten years, the Thema really was something of a return to form after the Gamma disaster. It would also be the last time Lancia outsold Alfa.
In 1986, the apple cart was upset by Alfa Romeo’s sudden intrusion into the Fiat family. Years of poor management had left the biscione in very bad shape and resuscitating Alfa became Fiat’s top priority. Alfa and Lancia were merged together within the Fiat Group, but resources all flowed towards Milan. Lancia managed to launch a new executive car, the Kappa, in the late ‘90s. Despite an interesting coupé version (above), the Kappa barely managed 110,000 units – less than a third of the Thema’s score. Lancia began to enter the realm of further financial tightening, which soon precluded the addition of Lancia’s “personal touch”.
Fiat closed the Chivasso plant in 1993, just after having closed Desio (Autobianchi) the year before. Lancia/Alfa/Autobianchi switched production back to Fiat and Alfa factories, leading to continuing quality control issues for some models and scattering Lancia production to several sites. Toyota-inspired production methods did not preclude Lancia from having a few distinctive models, but pure badge-engineering was now going to take place, almost inevitably.
The Lancia Zeta was a higher-trim Fiat Ulysse, which was a twin of the Peugeot 806 / Citroën Evasion. All these “Eurovans” were made at the Sevel Nord factory in France, as part of the Sevel JV between Fiat and PSA, from 1994 to 2002. The very existence of the Zeta was proof enough that the Lancia marque was now digested and reduced to a Fiat with a chrome grille.
The horror… the horror…
Ominously, Lancia pulled out of the RHD markets (UK and Ireland, mostly) in 1994, after years of underperforming in a marketplace that regarded it as some sort of high-priced BL product made in Italy. Sales in northern Continental Europe were down to BL levels as well…
A little style went a long way with the Phedra. Too little too late?
Lancia had actually turned things around in terms of rust-proofing in the ‘80s, but some reputations proved impossible to shake off. Lancia’s main export markets were now limited to the Continent, especially France, Switzerland, Benelux and Austria. The Zeta was succeeded by the Phedra, along with the 807/C8 PSA twins and Fiat’s Ulysse II. Now Lancia were using Peugeot engines – even the French V6! – in some of their line-up. Vincenzo must have been spinning in his grave. Lancia sold twice as many Phedras as they did Zetas, but still only managed about 45,000 to Peugeot/Citroën’s 250,000 units. Beyond the (lackluster) sales, slapping a Lancia grille on minivans and Autobianchis contributed greatly to the cheapening of the marque: Alfa, BMW, Volvo, Lexus or Jaguar would never have tried peddling plebeian products such as MPVs.
A renewal of Lancia’s styling did bring a ray of hope in the 2000s, as did the continuing success of the smaller cars: the Punto-based Ypsilon (or Y, top left, launched in 1995) still sold about 100,000 units per year; the notion that Lancia was done for was not yet universally accepted and new models, now standard Alfa/Fiat underneath, could still be launched. The Lybra (top right), based on the Alfa 156 and launched in 1998, followed the ‘90s retro fad. Commercially, it did not do as well as the Dedra, which seems alarming in hindsight. The 2001 Thesis certainly stood out thanks to its distinctive styling, heralding a new aggressive grille that looked like it came from a pre-war Boneschi-bodied limo, married to a Florida-esque pair of headlamps. Great fireworks, but it clearly wasn’t everybody’s cup of espresso: only 16,000 were made and Fiat pulled the plug in 2009. Despite having no major vices, the Thesis was as big a bomb as the Gamma. BMW, Audi, Mercedes and Jaguar were now completely beyond Lancia’s reach. The Fulvia name was reborn for an enticing sports car in 2003, alas never to be produced. The next year, Lancia fielded a badge-engineered mini-MPV called the Musa instead (bottom right), with reasonable success.
The sun sets and the atrocities begin: the 2012 Flavia (above) and 2011 Thema II (below).
Now majority-owner of Chrysler, Fiat added insult to infamy in 2011 and launched the Chrysler-Dodge range (200, 300 and Voyager) as Lancias on the European market, except RHD countries, where they remained Chryslers. The cynicism of the move was quite astounding and soon backfired, as the “new Lancia line-up” was met by a quizzical public, both at home and abroad. The marque’s use of once-glorious nameplates, such as Flavia, on Detroit-designed barges only made matters worse.
2018 Lancia Ypsilon – the end of the road…
Lancia sales continued to flatline; by 2015 Fiat elected to nix the marque everywhere except in Italy, where it was down to a single model, the Fiat 500-based Ypsilon 5-door hatchback, which debuted in 2011, alongside the Chrysler-based big cars. The new Ypsilon wore Chrysler badges in RHD markets for a few years, making it surely the first-ever 2-cyl. Lancia and Chrysler. This situation echoed the demise of Autobianchi. Fiat-Chrysler’s other brands (Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Ferrari, Fiat and Maserati) have no use for Lancia, whose traditional role is taken up by Alfa at one end and Maserati at the other. Selling Dodges as Lancias having come to naught, FCA are now realistically left with only one option: letting Lancia die of boredom, isolated in its native land. [ Feb. 2024 postscript: Stellantis, now owners of Lancia, have just announced a new 4th gen EV Ypsilon and the reintroduction of Lancia in selected Western Euoprean markets. Perhaps reports of Lancia’s death were greatly exaggerated? We shall see…]
So who killed Lancia? Chrysler? Alfa Romeo? Fiat? BMW? Gianni Lancia’s questionable decisions? Gianni Lancia’s push for the F1 programme certainly upset the firm’s financial balance – and had little benefit to show for it. A case could also be argued pretty strongly against Pesenti, who should have realized that production costs were spiraling out of control. Had Lancia entered the ‘60s with better productivity and cost-control, competition with BMW, Mercedes, Alfa and the British automakers would have been different. Lower prices would likely have resulted in better volume of sales and enabled Lancia to stay afloat longer, perhaps developing into Italy’s BMW. But Pesenti, though very wealthy and well-connected, had no Quandts to lean on and no Neue Klasse waiting in the wings. He invested all he could into the new factory, but sales never reached the volume needed for the loans to be repaid, let alone making a profit.
Were the cars Deadly Sins? Many of them did not contribute to enhancing Lancia’s reputation. The high-tech, engineer-driven nature of most Lancias made the emphasis on quality a key part of the equation. Once Fiat started toying with that, Lancia’s image began to wither. The symptomatic example was the Gamma, which was the first Lancia to be widely panned by the critics and the buying public. Definite Deadly Sin — perhaps the deadliest of them all. With the exception of the Thema, Lancia became a bit-part player in the executive car segment after that, despite their decades of experience.
Despite its success, the mk1 Delta was also a Deadly Sin, epitomizing the direction Lancia were going to take (i.e. re-bodied Fiats). This was later compounded by the badge-engineering bonanza that led to the Lancia/Autobianchi Y10 and the Zeta/Phedra/Musa. At least, those were Fiat (or semi-Fiat) products. When Lancias became re-badged Chryslers, it looked like Fiat were simultaneously engaging in bestiality, necrophilia and sadomasochism, otherwise known as flogging a dead horse. Yes, Lancia committed many Deadly Sins – even prior to Fiat’s overbearing embrace. But aside from the Gamma and the Chryslers, most of its sins had to do with the firm’s stewardship rather than its products. Once digested by Fiat, the Lancia marque, like Riley, Talbot or Mercury, found itself sitting on the pan of history, awaiting the final flush of amnesia.
Time to get off the pot, then.
That’s it for this edition of European Deadly Sins. Let’s see where the next one takes us…
My heartfelt thanks to Don “Il Dottore” Andreina for his generosity, availability and sagacity.
Related posts:
Car Show Classics: Lancia Rally At Castlemaine, by JohnH875
Vintage Capsule Overview: Lancia Aurelia B20 Coupe, by Robert Kim
Pininfarina’s Revolutionary Florida: The Most Influential Design Since 1955, by PN
Curbside Classic: 1966 Lancia Flaminia Super Sport – Gotta Catch ’em All, by Geraldo Solis
Curbside Classic: 1967-69 Lancia Flavia Coupe — Rare Classical Artefact, by Robert Kim
Cohort Capsule: Lancia Fulvia – Last Chance To Try Something Really Different, by PN
Lancia Flavia: What I Drove Yesterday For 570 Miles Through A Snow Storm, by PN
R&T Vintage Review: Lancia Beta Montecarlo – Lost In Translation, by PN
A CC We’re Not Likely To Find: 1976 Lancia Gamma – Seductive But Deadly, by PN
Cohort Sighting: 1978 Bertone Lancia Sibilo – Stealthy; Or Not, by PN
Cohort Outtake: 1982 Lancia Beta Coupe – Lancia Goes Mainstream, by PN
Curbside Classic: 1995 Lancia Dedra – The Name Tells You Everything, by Roger Carr
CC Outtake: 1996 Lancia Y10 – Grazie Luigi, by Roger Carr
Cohort Capsule: 2011-15 Lancia Thema – The Italian Badge Job, by William Stopford
* * *
European Deadly Sins series
French DS 1 (Hotchkiss, Panhard, Citroën) — French DS 2 (Bugatti, Facel-Vega, Monica)
British DS 1 (Jowett, Armstrong Siddeley, Daimler) — British DS 2 (Alvis, Lagonda, Gordon-Keeble)
German DS 1 (BMW, Borgward, Glas) — German DS 2 (Neckar, DKW, NSU)
Italian DS 1 (Autobianchi, Iso, Lancia)
Comments on this were somehow disabled, fixed now.
Wow, what a history. I knew just a little about Lancia, had known that it had a storied history and most recently knew that it was providing a name for selling Chryslers in Europe. A most excellent tour.
Automotive consolidations are so interesting. It seems that there are so few of them which work well for all concerned. Most seem to end with either one winner and one loser or all losers.
Had a bit of an issue posting comments before though managed to somewhat resolve it by switching browsers.
Update – Nope last comment has disappeared
I’m so sorry about this and the Iso post — I’ve struggled with technical gremlins both on the site’s end (the dreaded 503, or sometimes a mere “Service unavailable”) and on my end with an ISP problem.
Sorry again, folks!
No problem, I wondered why there were no comments and when I went to make one I saw why. I have seen that happen occasionally before, no big deal to fix on the back end. Happy to help.
Bought a Lancia Beta four door saloon back in 1976, courtesy of my Dad’s bank account. It must have been no more than four years old on purchase. Beige with a lovely cloth interior, it performed faultlessly for the entire time I drove it. One night I got literally ‘tram lined’ on the rails of the HK tramway’s track on a bend outside the jockey club in Happy Valley. I was a bit too violent pulling the car out of the track and swung the other way; hitting a road barrier on the pavement and pushing the entire passenger side under aforementioned barrier. I was thrown into the front passenger side of the car and came to with the gearbox sitting in the footwell.
When I went to the pound in the morning to collect my personal bits out of the vehicle, I noticed that both front wings had folded across the Macpherson struts. The otherwise hidden rust was severe and quite possibly the only thing holding the front of the car together was the bonnet locked onto the front grill. Grateful that the car crashed when it did, otherwise I could possibly have had a much worse accident when the struts popped up through the wings at a higher speed.
Still; it was a lovely car!
My memories are less direct than Delboy’s; when I got my first pair of glasses at age e there was a red Beta sedan outside the optometrist’s office. I simply assumed it was a hatchback like my uncle Pete’s similarly-shaped Chevy Citation, I now wonder if that Beta lasted to its’ tenth birthday; Vermont must’ve been a tough environment for it, similar engineering to many Subarus notwithstanding (not that their rust control was at all good back then…)
Anyway, I nominate the late-60s/early ’70s Ford Sportsroofs as the last truly successful non-hatch fastbacks. The Beta *should’ve* been a hatchback, just like the Buick/Olds A-body Aerobacks and the BL Allegro and Princess. Or they could’ve taken the Pinto route and offered the trunk but made it clear that’s just for the cheapskates unwilling to pay the extra monthly payment’s worth for the hatch to open up properly.
I remember Lancia being pulled from the UK market due to rust
Italian cars were notorious for it and we had Vauxhalls so they must have been really bad.
There was never anything wrong with Italian design (though we thought their electrics were flimsy, again this coming from the land of Lucas) so I wondered why they rusted so badly, didn’t think it could be as simple as cheap soviet steel.
Had a technical drawing teacher in the mid 70s who drove an old maroon Rover P5 3 litre saloon, suddenly showed up a a brand new Beta salon, dark brown with tan interior, looked modern and stylish, but he only kept it for 8 months
Those Punto-based Ypsilon and Chrysler Lancia are seriously ugly cars, they make the BL Allegro look good, what a shame for such a great marque
I continue to maintain that the steel source has little to do with rust. All carbon steel will rust. What matters is how the body is designed, where dirt collects and gets wet, where water collects and stays and whether or how well surfaces are treated or coated with something that will protect the steel from moisture. A car made of thin, uncoated steel that has lots of places where it gets wet and stays wet will become a rustbucket no matter where the steel comes from.
There was definitely something fishy in the steel itself, either in the doubtless-antiquated Soviet production methods (perhaps including iron content?) or too much exposure during transport or in some ill-thought storage system within Fiat itself, because the ’60’s Lancias rusted in a normal way for a ’60’s car, and the Fiat-controlled ’70’s ones assuredly did not. Betas were rare and expensive here, and without salt and in a relatively dry environment, they became tinworm riddled within no time. I remember being amazed to see these posh (and to me, desireable) cars in distraught states when perhaps a decade old. Fiats likewise, rusting in the middle of panels where no water could possibly be held.
Over the years I’ve read a lot of conflicting opinions about the steel in many Italian cars in the 70s. Some swear (like JPC) that it’s not the steel, but poor handling/processing/building/etc., and of course others swear it was the poor quality steel from Russia. I’m not sure we’ll ever know. But it was a problem.
Russian Ladas built using Italian body designs dont rust badly but are built from Russian steel its likely poor rustproofing is to blame for Italian rust.
You have it right regarding steel storage and transportation methods to blame a lot of the time, along with Italy’s “Years of Lead” civil unrest that resulted in tons of worker strikes and hostility. The Alfa Romeo Alfasud is a perfect example of what can go wrong. Alfa built a new factory in southern Italy for the ‘Sud, where worker mentality was, shall we say relaxed. Management expected higher productivity, and workers balked by many strikes and sabotage. This lead to many incomplete cars sitting in and around the factory in sea air for prolonged periods of time. Another problem with this was the paint shop was located in a separate facility, so completed body shells had to be transported outdoors, in whatever weather, before they were primed and painted, and transported back again to the main line.
Yes JP, but it also depends on what’s in it. Galvanic corrosion depends on a tiny impurity of dissimilar metal to maintain the reaction, and recycled steel has a lot more ions of other metals to react with the iron.
One of my former coworkers had been a buyer for Internation Harvester in the 1960’s, and he told me one of the reasons Scouts rusted so badly was that they were too small a player to buy high quality virgin steel sheet at a good price, so they had to settle for cheaper remelt stuff.
We had a whole module on corrosion in engineering school and it when you learn about all the mechanisms for different types of corrosion it’s rather depressing to the auto enthusiast.
Believe it or not, this is the first time I have heard an explanation that makes sense in terms of steel quality. I would suspect that maybe Studebaker was under the same purchasing disability that IH was under because their cars rusted much worse than average too. I had always heard that it was because they refused to coat the inside and undersides of panels, but this explanation of more “rust fuel” withing the basic panel adds something to think about.
+1
@DougD, thank you for that explanation. I’m guessing that Nucor has some kind of improved product of previous remelts?
The problem of corrosion is related to the nobility of the components, correct?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_series
My father was a top exec at Bethlehem Steel, managing the division that sold coated sheet steel (Bethlehem invented Galvalume) to all 4 big US automakers and most truck makers. He once told me that sheet made from high % of recycled steel or containing significant amounts of contaminants would rust significantly faster. His division sold coated steel mainly for rocker panels and some co’s used it for fenders, some floor components, and other parts, depending on model.
Reduced thickness also became more of a problem as fuel efficiency became more important, he told me that Chrysler was the last to reduce panel thickness in some models in the late ’70s and early ’80s. He retired in 1984.
Had Lancia remained independent via better productivity and cost-control from the 60s, the question then becomes what engine would have eventually replaced the Fulvia V4 (variable value timing was tried at one point) as well as the Flavia / Gamma Flat-4 and Flaminia V6? Additionally should Lancia have remained fully committed to FWD or produced both FWD and RWD cars along with a possible sub-Fulvia car to directly replace the Appia and challenge the Fiat 128?
Prior to the Lancia Aurelia, the company looked at a project called the Lancia A10 during the war that was a rear-engined Tatra-like car powered by a 2-litre / 1946cc 90° V8 made entirely of light alloy featuring wet shirts (ie in direct contact with water), hemispherical combustion chambers and a central camshaft distribution prior to being dropped in favor of the more conventional Aurelia.
Another interesting titbit is regarding the Lancia Stratos with alternative engine options when Enzo Ferrari was unwilling to supply the Dino V6, which include an Abarth-developed 1840cc Twin-Cam 16v 4-cylinder as well as the Maserati V6.
In retrospect the Fiat 130 should have formed the basis for a suitable replacement to the Lancia Flaminia albeit with V6 (and possibly a V8 derived from the 4-cylinder Twin-Cam), read a 3.0-4.0 120-degree V6 4-cam was also considered for the 130 along with an actual V8 project.
As for the Lancia Gamma a 170+ hp 2.5 16v turbo prototype was said to have been developed yet not produced, though wonder a Fiat 130-sourced V6 or Maserati V6 could have been mounted at the front (the latter due to the Gamma project’s connection with the Citroen CX / Maserati Quattroporte II). Perhaps Lancia would have found more success under a well-managed Citroen in place of Fiat in a deal where Fiat ends up owning Maserati?
Would have been interesting seeing the Lancia Montecarlo remaining in production longer and given the road-going 4WD Turbocharged Integrale treatment like the Delta or powered by the prototype 170+ hp 2.5 Gamma engine. The same goes for the Beta receiving reliable versions of the Gamma engine instead of the Twin-Cam. As for the Delta-based Prisma, it had potential to become a cut-price yet more reliable version of the Maserati Biturbo / Ghibli had it spawned a 4WD turbocharged Integrale 2-door coupe variant.
It would be interesting to see the extent various carmakers had to cancel various projects during the 70s, for example heard Fiat had big plans for the 70s onwards that had to be canned as well as Peugeot who had to either delay or outright cancel various projects after being forced to acquire Citroen and later Chrysler Europe (even the XU engine was allegedly suppose to appear in the mid-1970s in Project J with the Peugeot 305 originally being based on an all-new underbody instead of the underbody from the Peugeot 304).
A sad story, beautifully presented. Lancia tried to re-enter the US market for 1976 with the Beta sedans and coupes plus the Montecarlo (rebadged as the Scorpion and emasculated with a pathetic 81 hp). It didn’t take long for the unreliability and rampant rust to scuttle sales in the US. I remember seeing three-year-old Betas in coastal Florida looking like they had been sitting in an acid vat. By the way, that odd 1961 Boneschi cabriolet looks alarmingly like a later Russian ZIL 114 convertible.
I read somewhere that the Gamma drove its’ power-steering pump off the cam-belt, and a u-turn on a cold morning could pull the cam-belt off the motor – with deadly consequences for the flat-four.
I never recovered from seeing three sublime Flaminias at the London Motor Show in the early 60s.
Superb piece, as ever, Professor 87. Thankyou.
So many gorgeous shapes in the thirties and fifties, both carrosserie and factory. So many oddities in the ’60’s, though I must say I “get” the idea behind severe, tight-fitting tailored suit of the Fulvia sedan and really like it.
Now I have two large sedans missing from my imaginary stable, the Fiat 130 Opera (which for me bests the coupe), and now the Gamma Scala. Surely if they abandoned the foolish power-steering drive that caused most of the trouble (it snapped cam belts at full lock if cold) it would have sold. I never knew of La Scala before reading this.
What a long collection of sins and blunders to extinguish such glory in such a shabby end. It saddens because in amongst the dreary seriousness of certain aficionados (“such exquisite castings on the pump”) there is a wide-grinning joy that exudes from the older cars. “Look how good we can make it! Sure, no profit, but who cares about that? Behold, drive.” They do not seem to have been built for snobs, but for the sheer joy of building the finest they could, to be shared.
A lovely article about an amazing company. An American boy, I first became aware of Lancia through the exploits of the Stratos…. let others drool over the Countach and Farrah Fawcett – I wanted Stratos and Michèle Mouton. Oh Hell Yes!
My next exposure to Lancia was an encounter with a so, so beautiful Flavia. Not long afterwards, I bought my first Alfa Romeo in 1976, a used 66 Giulia Spider. Alfa’s were rare but Lancias were as rare as fairy dust and seemed just as magical. I bought my next Alfa Spider in 1978 – a 74 Spider which seemed amazingly sophisticated to me with fuel injection, five speed, four wheel disc brakes, and so on…. but while having some service done, I saw Lancia Beta/Montecarlo. Mid engined, sleek and amazing. It always seemed that the more I learned about Lancia, the more amazing the company was. This article tells why.
It’s claimed that Henry Ford said, “I tip my hat when an Alfa Romeo drives by”, but Alfa Romeo owners tip their hats when a Lancia drives by.
Below is a photo of a Zagato bodied Lancia that appeared in a local Italian car show in my city not too long ago.
Really strange-looking cars, the Zagatos. I’d rather go for a PF coupe for my Flavias.
A very comprehensive, well-told story. The mid-1990’s Kappa in both coupe and 4-door forms looks like it was inspired by the decade-earlier Mercury Topaz. The Kappa looks better, but still…
Great minds think alike, though my first impression was “Lancia rebadged a Tempo?!”
Amazing story, wonderfully told. I always learn something from Tatra’s posts. The Gamma cam belt driven power steering problem is well known in the UK. Still wouldn’t kick a coupe out of the garage…
One of these days, I daresay T87 will get around to BL’s ’70s atrocities, a subject I think I know plenty about but I’ll bet there’s more to learn.
1947 Farina design for the Aprilia
Wouldn‘t that be first example of flush-formed rectangle headlamps?
I think the 1938 sharknose Graham would beat the Lancia.
A long, sad story wonderfully told. What more can I add?
Except that the ultimate outcome was probably inevitable. Consolidation has been the reality since the 1920s.
The pictures form a perfectly clear timeline. Before 1960, prettiest cars in the world. After 1960, ugliest cars in the world. What happened? The company was still in Italy! How come there wasn’t anyone around who could take one look at that Flavia and break it up with a sledgehammer before it multiplied?
Interesting cars, I see the claim Lancia produced the first monocoque car and only 20 years after Vauxhall did just that, yeah sorry Lancia the very first Vauxhall in 1903 was a monocoque, the Lambda is possibly better looking bur not first, Lancias are quite rare here very expensive to buy and the rust bug got at most of them early however there are some very nice classic models around just seldom seen.
Tatra87,
Your series of articles with their depth and quality of writing would have been worthy of the “Automobile Quarterly” in its heyday. Well done, sir.
Thank you so much for an absorbing, educational series documenting past steps in the still continuing and evolving unfortunate demise of the Italian Auto industry which appears to me as a casual observer to be in a death spiral. A spiral that we are now observing day by day, month to month, leading to its likely, sad, inevitable conclusion in the now foreseeable, coming future. When visiting Italy last year, I was truly saddened to see how few real new Italian cars were on the roads unlike in years past, and that German cars, not Italian cars, by casual observation now appeared to dominate the registrations. At least the Italian financial police in Sienna were still driving Alfa’s, but who knows for how much longer?
Thank you, again.
Too right about German cars. My holidays to Italy in the 1970s were characterised by the dark blue Alfa Giulietta Carabinieri sedans, the more recent trip in 2008 brought the culture shock of light blue 3-series BMW police cars.
+1. Lots of effort and research went into this fine series. Thanks for this insiteful write up on the Italian car industry’s downfall.
Consolidation and elimination of redundant brands has been going on as long as there has been an auto industry. GM absorbed over 20 different companies in it’s formative years, of which, only 3 US brands remain. It’s always sad to see decades of genius and effort come to naught, but it happens, whether it’s the work of the Lancias, or Herbert Austin, or the brothers Studebaker.
I took a look at Sergio Marchionne’s “Confessions of a Capital Junkie”, which looks more like a powerpoint presentation than an article:
https://www.autonews.com/Assets/pdf/presentations/SM_Fire_investor_presentation.pdf
Whether we like it or not, if the industry cannot earn a return on capital, there will be no investment, so costs need to be reduced. The preferable way to reduce costs is to reduce model variety, first by resorting to badge engineering across brands of a corporation, then eliminating redundant brands.
In the 50s, if you bought a Ford, your choice was V8 or 6, fancy trim or plain, 2 or 4 doors. Then they birthed the Falcon, then the Fairlane, then the Mustang, The situation is even worse now because demand for SUVs is too great to ignore. Automakers are looking at the cost of providing both a passenger car and SUV in each size class, and eliminating the passenger cars. FCA only has one passenger car platform left, which is old, and it’s replacement keeps getting pushed back. Ford appears to be following in FCA’s footsteps: no new Fiesta for North America and no next gen Fusion, apparently, at all. I have stated before that I expect the next gen Focus to be derived from the Mazda3, and probably sharing the Changan-Mazda production line, the same way the Fiat 124 shares the Miata’s Hiroshima production line. because that is the best way to amortize the costs over a larger number of cars. I would almost be surprised if the Chinese Focus ever makes it to the US as Ford North America would rather push everyone that comes in the door into an SUV to help amortize the cost of those models.
Meanwhile, the beat goes on at Fiat, with Alfa and Maserati being pulled closer together. Rumor mill has it that the Giulietta is up for the chop as it not only fights Alfa’s new Jag wannabe image, but the Giulietta appears to be the last passenger car on the Fiat “Compact Platform”, now that its derivatives, Dart/200/Viaggio/Ottimo have all been killed, making it much more difficult to earn a return on a continuation of development of that platform.
The Ypsilon may continue, by virtue of being on the Panda platform which provides a large volume to amortize platform costs over, but why maintain an entire sales and service organization for one small, low profit, model?
Regarding platforms and offering both passenger cars and SUVs. Last week I read about the brand new Peugeot 508, see below. A “passenger car” in the D-segment, loud and clear.
Based on PSA’s modular EMP2 platform, introduced in 2013. The model variety is almost endless: C- and D-segment cars, SUVs, CUVs and (panel) vans. Offered by Peugeot, Citroën, DS, Opel and Toyota.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_EMP2_platform
…and hats off to Tatra87 of course! What a fine series it is.
Based on PSA’s modular EMP2 platform, introduced in 2013. The model variety is almost endless: C- and D-segment cars, SUVs, CUVs and (panel) vans. Offered by Peugeot, Citroën, DS, Opel and Toyota.
Yes, an attractive car, but the variety is where the costs creep in. So Pug makes a passenger car version, the 508. But SUVs are rapidly gaining market share in Europe, as in the US, so Pug can’t leave it at just the 508. They have to develop an SUV in that size as well. Then Citroen dealers want a sedan version, and an SUV version. Then Opel dealers demand their own sedan and SUV versions. So now PSA has to create 6 differentiated vehicles off that platform, where, 40 years ago, they could offer the 604 and call it a day.
When PSA bought Opel, Tavares said there are a lot of people in the world who will not buy a French car, as if his reason for buying Opel was to have a non-French badge to stick on Peugeots to get around the reputation that French cars have in some markets. Other than the non-French name, Opel has little to offer PSA, and I would expect everything that is Opel to be extinguished within a few years, except that badge, for markets like the US, where a French brand is poison, but German brands are accepted. That new 508 you are admiring would probably be offered in the US only as an Opel Insignia.
Prior to the Aurelia, there was another project called the Lancia A10 – a rear-engined Tatra-like car to be powered by a 2-litre light-alloy V8 with hemispherical combustion chambers along with a Ghia body.
Had Lancia remained independent via better productivity and cost-control from the 60s, what would have they replaced the Fulvia V4, Flavia Flat-4 and Flaminia V6 engines with? Additionally would they have fully embraced FWD (up to the Flaminia replacement akin to the Maserati Quattroporte II) or continue to produce both FWD and RWD cars, along with a direct Lancia Appia replacement to challenge the Fiat 128?
Cannot be the only to see the Fiat 130 would have formed the perfect basis for a Lancia Flaminia replacement, either carrying over its V6s (albeit properly developed up to 3.5-litres+) or using V8s derived from the Fiat Twin-Cam 4-cylinders (with possible scope for displacements at 4-litre+) in the same way the 130 V6 was derived from the Fiat 128 SOHC engines. Would love to find out about a proposed 3.0-4.0 120-degree V6 4-cam engine developed during the Fiat 130 project along with other unrealised engines.
The Lancia Gamma was said to have been the candidate for a 170+ hp 2.5 16v Turbocharged version of the existing Gamma Flat-4 engine, though it would have been interesting to see whether a V6 could have been mounted at the front given its connections with the Citroen CX and Maserati Quattroporte II. Perhaps Lancia was better off being part of Citroen, with Fiat in turn acquiring Maserati in a swap?
The same goes for whether the Lancia Beta and related models (like the Montecarlo) could have featured properly developed versions of the Gamma Flat-4 instead of the Fiat Twin-Cam engines along with possibly the Lancia Delta to retain their uniqueness for a bit longer. IMHO the Lancia Prisma had the potential to become a cut-price and more reliable equivalent of the Maserati Biturbo / Ghibli II, had it featured a 2-door coupe bodystyle and carried over the same 2-litre turbocharged engines as the related Deltra Integrale and Hyena.
While the Lancia Montecarlo could have been transformed into a road-going 4WD turbocharged equivalent of the Lancia Delta Integrale as an indirect replacement for the Lancia Stratos, featuring optional Gamma Flat-4 and 130 V6 engines.
There was a story where Enzo Ferrari was reluctant to provide the Dino V6 to Fiat for the Stratos project, with other alternative engines ranging from a an Abarth-developed 190-210 hp 1840cc Twin-Cam 16v 4-cylinder to a 168-217 hp 2.0-3.0 Maserati V6 (prompting Enzo Ferrari to agree to provide the Dino V6 engines).
Speaking of Fiat, heard they have grand plans for expansion with new models and engines that were apparently killed off during the fuel crisis dominated 70s.
I had a Gamma for a spell. Obviously on it’s last legs at 6 or 7 years old from rust and an engine mixing oil and water.
But it was a lovely drive, marvellous handling, sweet steering and much more go from those 2.5 classy litres than expected.
Sagacity… hehehe had to look that one up. These pieces were perfectly formed when I read them and my contribution was of the most minor corrections; my pleasure was entirely in reading them first. As a completist, I am looking forward to the next three Italian DSs to even things out.
I haven’t done all my reading on Fessia, but I am of the opinion that his pursuit of FWD was the folly that undid Lancia. We can see now FWD for what it is; a space and weight saving solution which I suspect was in the back of Fessia’s mind from the start. But it seems to me that back then when applied to the Lancia cars it was more of an show-off; a further demonstration of Lancia’s engineering prowess than a practical solution.
Retrospect proves me wrong on this of course, but there didn’t seem to be a need for this application particularly on the mid-sized range in which it first appeared. I can’t remember seeing any Lancia marketing material that expounded the increased interior space or reduced weight (please anyone correct me on this, it is a partially-lazy assumption).
To this Lancisto many years later, it seems to have been included on Lancia cars for engineering kudos, and not for any real practical reasons.
Couldn’t have done it without you, Don.
I might agree with you on Fessia. His dreams of complex FWD cars certainly put Lancia over the precipice and into Agnelli’s jaws. But the buck should stop with Pesenti. He should perhaps have dictated more rigid guidelines for Fessia to follow, e.g. “Ok for FWD, but no new engine” or something of the kind.
And I’m not sure who styled the Flavia berlina, but it’s one of the most awkward-looking Italian cars of the era. Plus, as you say, the Flavia’s over-engineered unibody was heavier than it should have been – contemporary tests of the early 1.5 litre cars were all unimpressed by the car’s acceleration.
As for me, a regular black Aurelia saloon would be my idea of Lancia heaven. Best Italian car of the 50s by far.
Piero Castagnero was the in-house stylist responsible for the Fulvia and Beta coupes, and the Flavia sedan. In the tradition of Alfa’s 50s and 60s sedans… rather unbecoming when compared with their two-door brethren.
An absolutely wonderful read, as can be expected from Professor Tatra. I’ve picked up bits and pieces of the Lancia story from reading articles on some of the cars, but never picked up the overall picture. Many, many thanks.
Truly a tragedy, for such an an engineering-proud company to produce rusty cars which snapped their cam belts, Fiats in a designer suit, and ultimately cars of no particular distinction (the Chrysler-Lancias).
A superb look at the long history of Lancia, Tatra87. I have been curious about the subject for a long time, and after reading this article, I feel satisfied that I know everything that I wanted to know.
I have only one remaining line of questions, about Lancia’s naming systems. (1) In their early Greek letter phase, did they go all the way from Alpha to Theta in their first five years, and if so, how did they go through eight models in those five years? (2) After over 70 years of naming their cars after Greek letters and famous Roman roads, Lancia abandoned those classical themes in the 1980s and quickly lost their mojo. Were Fiat corporate decisions responsible for the anonymizing of Lancia names, and if so, do you see them as an integral part of the debasing of Lancia?
In regards to the naming system, it actually stayed fairly constant even into the 80’s/90’s/aughts at least for the sedans:
Prisma: an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Thema: a topic or subject of discourse or of a written dissertation.
Thesis: a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved.
To try and answer your Qs, Robert:
1. Yes, there were several cars before the Theta: Alpha (12 hp), Dialpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Zeta… some didn’t sell more than a few dozen chassis, others sold a few hundred units. I guess Vincenzo Lancia was tinkering with the cars a lot in the beginning.
2. They went for Greek alphabet names (1908-1930) to Roman roads (1930-1970) and back to Greek (minus ‘Alpha’, for obvious Romeo-related reasons) when Fiat took over. I’d say the mojo was lost right then. Fiat just reached in to Lancia’s past and recycled stuff for the future – and kept doing it, even resuscitating the Flavia nameplate for a Chrysler-based model. They did try a few original names, Luke Thema, Prisma or Musa alongside the Greek letters/Roman roads nameplates, which was a bit messy, especially by the end.
Deadly Sin? Not really. On it’s own, a model’s name is not that important, though there are some doozies out there. (One by Lancia themselves: “Beta” is a French slang term for “idiot”…) Lazy or panicked PR? Yes. But I think it is more a consequence of Lancia’s downfall rather than a contributing factor.
Thank you for the neat but comprehensive summary of one of my favourite marques. Love the pre Fiat engineering virtuosity and the quirky design that often needs to be experienced to fully appreciate it. The worth of the real Lancia cars is reflected in the loyalty of the owners and the arrival of aftermarket specialists who support them.
I’ll repeat that the rusting of Italian cars of the 1970s was spectacular in its reach through the structure and staggering rate of progress regardless of how the cars were cared for. Obviously this was unacceptable in any, nevermind the higher, price classes.
I was not encouraged by yesterday’s spoiler but never expected the progress from Gamma onwards to be straight to hell. Yes, end it now Sergio.
There were a lot of cars in the 70s and into the ’80s that suffered the tin worm… Honda… Mazda included. One Lancia that I didn’t see mentioned was the Lancia HPE… I think it ran from ’77 or ’78 to about ’82. I’ve always thought that car was one of the most attractive designs of that era. Still looks sharp, if one can find one.
Btw… one of my sons – he lives in Rancho Cordova in the Sacramento, Ca. Area – has a ’76 X1/9 that I bought from a 75 year old fellow in Santa Cruz back in 2001 and then gave him for his first car. He still has it, it needs brakes and an interior, but still runs well. It only has some surface rust about the size of a quarter on the right front fender. So there’s that.
Some of the most fascinating and authoritative recent material on CC – thank you for a wonderful history. Lancia seems trapped between rising mass market brand sand dominant and expanding premium brands, as was the Rover brand in the late 80s and 1990s. Rover’s response was to go for VW and Volvo’s place, but with little investment and just one engine.
With Alfa getting major investment funds for a long awaited resurgence to build a rival to Audi and BMW, and Maserati lining up to go head to head with Jaguar, there appears little space for Lancia now, even if the brand had any representation or positive image outside Italy. In the UK, Lancia is inevitably linked to rusting Betas. The Chrysler re-badges don’t work either, so maybe a dignified retirement before it’s too late is the best we can hope for.
What a loss!
I’ll echo what Roger ^^ (and others) said… Like with some of my most favorite CC reading over the years, this is one I know I’ll be coming back to from time to time. A truly fantastic, well-researched and written read.
When I was in Rome three months ago, I was truly surprised by all of the Lancia-branded, U.S.-based Chryslers I saw – which were, surprisingly, more than a handful. Your piece also made me start reflecting on that trip and how wonderful it was, with all of the wonderful, period photography and press photos you included.
I really hope the long list of links to related reading doesn’t mean your going on hiatus… I love your pieces (all aspects of it – writing, subject matter, etc.), and don’t usually comment because your topics are usually about me learning versus having any prior knowledge of the subject.
Bravo, Tatra87.
Grazie mille, Joseph!
I am also a ravenous consumer of your posts, which are always filed under ‘literature’ rather than ‘blog post’ in my mind.
The main problem of the Gamma was that the initial plans didn‘t work out. From the onset in the late 60s, Citroën and Lancia wanted to develop their new executive sedans together. With Citroën being in the lead, the Gamma was to share the platform of the CX as well as it’s hydropneumatic system and the projected three-rotor wankel engine.
Alas, it was not to be. Rumor has it that neither the Italian nor the French government really liked the cooperation, both in fear of losing control over their industrial workplaces (that penned out well, at the end, right?). Which was of course also why Fiat got to pick up Lancia and no foreign investor (something that repeated itself in 1986 with Alfa). Who pulled the plug to the cooperation is unknown to me, but it left both companies in trouble. Citroën was deep in the red already and would have been certainly happy to share development costs with the Italians, but somehow managed to finish the new car alone still, as it was their platform anyway. Still they filed for insolvency in 1974, and the CX – magnificent and glorious as it was – never played out its full potential as it was intended.
Lancia, however, was ceremoniusly f*cked when the project was cancelled. They where left with no platform and no engine, but very much under pressure to bring out their new executive sedan. It arrived almost three years later than originally scheduled (imagine that!). Lancia had to make do with an enlarged Flavia platform and an enlarged Flavia engine that was smooth and competent, but (as mentioned above in detail) unreliable and, as a 4 banger, lacking the prestige needed and expected in the market place.
Looking back, it is indeed a mystery why the Gamma didn‘t share more parts with the quite competent Fiat 130. But maybe that was also hybris on account of Lancias engineers? Sort of „we can do this, Signore Agnelli! we got this! really!“
The Fiat 130, though competent, was a huge flop. Same as the Gamma in production numbers. That must have been pretty evident early on in the Gamma’s development, too, as the 130 came out in early 1969 (same as the Autobianchi A111, definitely not Fiat’s best vintage!)
So they tried it the flat-4 way, with disastrous consequences. The Gamma’s French cousin, the Citroën CX, was made for 16 years and sold over 1.2 million units, may not have played out its full potential (Wankel engine, etc.), but it did very well – much better than its French, Italian and British competition, anyway.
As regards the pulling of the plug from the Citroën merger, French sources say the Pompidou government denied Michelin the right to sell their Citroën stock.To Fiat, which prompted Fiat to sell everything back to Michelin and other investors in 1973. Michelin could not sell Citroën abroad, so a shotgun wedding was done with Peugeot. There may have been (and must have been) government intervention on the Italian side too, but Citroen was not as huge as Fiat already was.
True, the 130 was a commercial failure, though (a few) more were built than Gammas. It was Agnelli reaching upwars for his marque, just as Piëch did 35 years later with the Phaeton.
You are absolutely right: it must have been evident early in the development of the Gamma that the 130 didn‘t work out. But why didn‘t Fiat, after having bought an upscale marque, take the 130 Coupe and release it as a Lancia? And then releasing the (incredibly beautiful) 130 Scala four door concept as the Gamma? Why, in the dire situation after the break-up with Citroën, invest money in developing a new car when the days of the executive Fiat were obviously numbered anyway?
One needs to keep in mind that for Fiat, the Gamma was actually the 130‘s successor and the 130 was discontinued almost the very day the Gamma was released (which also explains why the 130 had such a long run – its styling must have looked quite dated in 1976).
Really great read, and unbelievably timely as I just got back from Rome. Popping into Motor Village Italia on thursday to see if the Alfa Giulietta is as nice up close as it seems on the street (it seems to be!), I noticed the one sad Lancia Ypsilon hiding in a corner behind a Fiat Doblo. I know it is obviously based on the Fiat 500 but it somehow looks 15 years older. Seeing it gave me the same sinking feeling I got when I stumbled across the Mercury display at the 2009 San Francisco Auto Show. Something along the lines of “Why are they even bothering”.
The dealer website shows the list price for a new Lancia starts at an unbelievable e9,500, but the cheapest one on the lot is priced at e13,339.
https://www.motorvillageitalia-roma.it/concessionario/lancia Test drives available if you give them your information….
I’ve ridden in a Lancia 300M clone, and the driver said it was the worst investment his company ever made.
tatra87, wonderful as ever. You did the world’s greatest brand of car justice. I’ve no photo evidence but I live not far from one of London’s many small Mediterranean&Aegean enclaves, and the week after Autocar (uk weekly, pretty good) announced the sale of some of Pininfarina’s collection, I saw a(the??) 4-door Gamma Scala double-parked near the lights not far from the North Circ. I wouldn’t double-park a tank in that area for fear of it getting hit by one of the hordes of SUV-on-phone-multitaskers round there
I’m a few days late getting here, but what a great read it was tatra87. I enjoyed every minute of it. New Lancias (RHD) were available in New Zealand until the early 1990s; the Delta and Thema sold well for niche products and there are usually a handful for sale on Trade Me – including an 8.32 recently that looked fantastic. The rural New Zealand town I lived in until 2014 had one of NZ’s prominent Fiat-Lancia specialists, so I’ve been lucky enough to have seen a variety of Lancias over the years, including a high quality Stratos replica and several delicious Gamma coupes. Once Lancia left NZ I didn’t really think about them, but when visiting Italy in 2013 and 2016, I was surprised and delighted to see many newer Lancias that we never saw in NZ – I loved the styling of all of them, especially the Ypsilon and the Gen3 Delta. The virtual demise of Lancia is sad, but not unexpected – especially after reading the article and the various comments. Anyway, thanks again tatra87.
Great article on one of the most intriguing auto manufacturers ever.
Many years ago I owned an Appia. I was familiar with the economics of mass production, and the fact that Lancia (at that time) had three different platforms with three entirely different engineering approaches, all built with quality and hand work otherwise limited to bespoke luxury cars puzzled me greatly. How could they do it?
My first assumption was that Lancia must have had deep pocket subsidy or sponsorship from some indulgent millionaire somewhere. What other explanation could there be?
But your article tells us there was no white knight in the background funding this virtuosity.
My other assumption was that in 50s and 60s Italy, highly talented labor could be had for peanuts and perhaps this is what enabled Lancia to do it (I was stationed there in the 60s and witnessed amazing work being done in back alleys with minimal resources).
When I left Italy in 1967, I seriously considered purchasing a brand new Fulvia Zagato. Almost signed the paper work. In retrospect, I’m both glad and sorry that I didn’t. A year later, in this country, I acquired the Appia noted above.
I am still puzzled, but highly impressed. Am I wrong to think there must be more to learn? The question for me is not that they failed, but how they managed to survive as a separate company for so long.
Thanks again Tatra 87! Your articles are always top notch.
Great article on a very interesting company. In the late 70’s, the Charge Nurse on our ward at the Naval Hospital in Long Beach owned a Lancia. I’m not sure, but I think she may have been the only U.S. Navy Nurse to ever own a Lancia.
While Fiat has remained the dominant Italian carmaker for over a century, who were the 2nd and 3rd / etc largest carmakers in Italy and could any of the contenders have challenged Fiat had they made the right product (or political) decisions?
Lancia and Alfa Romeo come immediately to mind in the post-war era (prior to later being acquired by Fiat) though not sure of any other pre-war competitors to Fiat.
In terms of post-war prototypes that could have potentially led to greater things there was CEMSA, Isotta Fraschini and BBC (Beretta Benelli Castelbarco), again am unaware of any other prospective post-war Italian carmaker projects that never got off the ground.
If I read the FIAT website correctly, even in Italy FIAT itself’s range is down to versions of the 500 (e and X), something called the New 600, and the Panda, and in the U.S. it’s just the 500 e and X, and that just barely because I believe their dealer network has collapsed. Lancia itself has been reduced to a single model I believe, the electric Ypsilon, which is at least vaguely interesting to look at. One wonders what brands Stellantis will have left in a few years.
in Italy FIAT itself’s range is down to versions of the 500 (e and X), something called the New 600, and the Panda,
The Turkish built Tipo is still available in parts of the EU, in both hatchback and wagon versions. The four door sedan seems to have been dropped. In the US, the Melfi built 500X and Renegade are gone.
One wonders what brands Stellantis will have left in a few years.
Stellantis has about as many redundant brands as VAG. If they were really cynical, they would build one line of cars, and paste whatever badge has some recognition in any particular country.
For instance, the Peugeot 208 would sell under that brand in France, as the Opel Corsa in Germany, as the Fiat Punto in Italy, and as the Vauxhall Viva in the UK, with the “premium” market covered by pasting a “DS” label on the 208 in France, and a Lancia label in Italy, with a 1000 Euro bump in price.
Actually, the current Corsa and newly introduced Lancia Ypsilon *are* Pug 208s. This is the new Ypsilon.
> If they were really cynical, they would build one line of cars, and paste whatever badge has some recognition in any particular country.
That wouldn’t be unprecedented: GM’s T body in the ’70s and J body in the ’80s were pretty much this exactly. The T was, depending on country, sold as a Chevrolet, Opel, Vauxhaul, Holden, Isuzu, Daewoo, Pontiac, Aymesa, Saehan, and my favorite, GMC (in Argentina). The J bodies were sold as most of those plus Buick, Oldsmobile, and (most infamously) Cadillac. BMC/BL had some equally egregious badge engineering.
j
It isn’t very fair to say that the Delta I was a rebodied Ritmo: until mid-80s Lancia had a separate team of engineers which of course worked together with Fiat ones. There were bi-conmpatibility constrains of parts between the two cars, but it wasn’t exactly the same base.
The still separate Lancia team started in 1975 to work on the Delta project, with a certain numbers of compatibility constrains, and a little was also retained from the aborted Y4 project. Suspensions were different in design from the Ritmo, and the Delta base was heavier and with bigger longerons to have better rigidity. The Prisma was designed by the same team, and also the Type Four project was undertaken by Lancia engineers at first, from their project the others were derived. All the test mules (except Alfa 164 ones) were carried out by such team. First test mule of Type Four had a Beta Trevi body with a Thema front on the Type Four wheelbase.
After the purchase of Alfa, the teams started to be merged, but even early stadia of development of the Dedra were done by such team.
The Delta II was meant to came out much earlier, even before the Dedra, but they decided to delay it because of the strong second wind the Delta was enjoying thanks to rallies.
About the Gamma, the development was difficult for the reasons explained in the article and many others. The Gamma was thought with an hatchback but the decision was reverted to a trunk because some boss thought the hatch could pour water on the furs of rear passengers in rainy days (apparently someone really said so!)
The timing belt issue happened because the engine was thought with a chain but switched to belt at the last moment.
Sorry, my English is not great and I’m not sure I used all the right technical words
What is the background behind the Y4 project that came before the Delta?
Also heard in non-English forums about a Lancia Y3 project for a flagship car to replace the Flaminia, either with a rebodied version or basically a replacement based on the Fiat 130.
The Y4 was an early 70s project for a C-segment model, from the info I have it seems it was a Beta-like sedan (2 volumes but with no hatch) but smaller, and was to be designed by Piero Castagnero. It should have been powered by a new engine, 4 cylinder about 1300cc, which was aborted too. I saw even a sketch online, but I can’t find it at the moment.
The press at the time talked indeed about the Flaminia being replaced by a deep rebodied model or even a 130-based one, but it was initially delayed and then cancelled because of the energy crisis. Also, it appears not to be entirely true that the Gamma was meant to not hurt the 130, since the big Fiat was pratically doomed (also, of course not only, because of the energy crisis) when the Gamma came out (and the management at this point acknowledged it), and also since a 130-based Lancia was speculated back then. I’m not sure whether the Y3 code was referred to both projects or only one of these. It seems there were design studies at least by both Castagnero (Lancia internal design centre) and Pininfarina (possibly others).
Am surprised Lancia were given free reign with the Y4 to consider a new 1300cc 4 cylinder engine, how likely is it the Y4 was a blank canvas and not based on either the 128 or A111?
Could Lancia have developed its own answer to the Alfasud as a direct Fulvia successor? Read elsewhere the Fulvia was originally envisaged with a 1.1-litre Flat-Four derived from the Flavia and that Fiat’s Dante Giacosa appeared to have a bias in favour of a Flat-Four engine.
Have seen the Pininfarina study online for a possible 130-based Lancia, was a pity the 130 itself was grew too large and ambitious for its own good instead of being a smaller design.
The same goes with not developing an evolution of the Flaminia V6 over going with the Gamma Flat-Four. Read unconfirmed rumours for a 120-degree V6 4-cam with either 3.0-4.0-litre displacement or even a V8 at one point.
Aware the Dino V6 was also considered, yet cannot help think a V6 based on the Colombo V12 would have been a better option. Especially when combined with a 90 mm bore seen on the 1966 ASA Roll-Bar 1800 (or RB418) Coupé 4-cylinder that by way of the ASA 1000 has roots to the Colombo V12.
I heaved a huge sigh as I read this. Not a sigh of relief, a sigh of sadness. Yes I;ve read this before, but still…
It’s really amazing that Lancia has lasted so long. So many dubious decisions, so many styles that just begged “Portami a carrozziere, per favore!”. The rust disaster (whether it was the steel or not, the result was tragic for the owners). And the Gamma engine. The Fiatcias. And ultimately Chryscias.
The number of times we can think “If only….”.
My major “If Only” moment is the Fiat 130 vis-a-vis the Gamma. I think we can all agree the Fiat name didn’t really have the cred for an executive saloon, having been absent from that market for some time. Lancia did. Look at the engineering of the 130 with that lovely V6 and it seems a worthy and obvious replacement for the Flaminia. So why didn’t they just pass the project to Lancia instead of trying to shift the Fiat name upmarket? Hubris?
I still reckon they missed a trick with the 300-based Thema II. It should have been called the Dilemma.
According to “How Many Are Left?” there are 21 Gammas still registered in the UK.
I wish one of them was mine.
The 130 was designed before Fiat purchased Lancia, and it came on the market in 1969. I agree they could have done a Lancia based on it, but before it came out they couldn’t have known it wasn’t a success. And after 1973 the bigger and thirsty models were doomed by the energy crisis. Also, after that date, in Italy cars with engines bigger than 2000cc (petrol) and 2500cc (diesel) were hit by a purchase tax that was double the one you paid for smaller engined cars, and this surely didn’t help too.
Anyway, I can say that when the Delta and other 80s models came out, most clientele had a sigh of relief. I can assure that, especially when the Thema came out, almost nobody missed the Gamma, and the market numbers largely confirm this. Personally, I think the 80s were a great decade for Lancia, and the cars were among the ones with the best recognition in their classes, and the rallying success cemented this.
About the Beta Trevi, I wanted to add that it was meant as a stopgap/interim model on hold of the all-new platform. They also experimented many new solutions with it (like the Trevi Bimotore)
About Chrysler-based Lancias, I don’t want absolutely to despise Chryslers, but they were almost useless on Italian market, especially during those years of economic crisis, and also they had nothing in common with Lancia brand. Indeed, they only sold something at the beginning, then they lingered in showrooms and only sold with big discounts or to fleets and authorities (especially Thema/300, for whom saw them in Rome, it’s likely they were politicians 😀 )
Now they are almost non existent in the streets, at least in my area (center-south of Italy)
I always thought they could have offered the Freemont as Lancia since it was the most sellable product between the American origin ones..
Did Lancia and Fiat for that matter miss a trick by not drawing upon its own history of V engines to create a new generation from using the Fiat Pratola Serra modular engines?
Something on the same lines as Volkswagen with its VR6/VR5 engines that were said to be related to the modular EA827, which included the Audi 5-cylinder, Audi V6/V8, VW W8, VW W12, 1.2-litre TDI (IIRC) and others.
Sorry, I’m not sure to understand the question, but the Pratola Serra engine was a modular one, with straight 4 and 5 cylinder versions, Twin Spark (for Alfa) or not versions, distribution with 3 or 4 valves per cylinder etc.
If they derived from that a 6 cylinder version would have been a straight six.
Maybe now I understand that you mean they didn’t have a modular V6 that spawned smaller or bigger ones, like V4/V5 and V8? Well, I can say that bigger engines always were severely hit by taxes here, so probably it was deemed unnecessary to start from a bigger motor, and for V8s there were Ferrari/Maserati. Also at the time there still was the great Busso Alfa V6, which was used also by Lancia models (late Thema, then Kappa and Thesis) so an eventual other similar engine would have had little use.
About the Y4 project, it should have started even before Fiat’s acquisition of Lancia, and I believe the engine was indeed the first part to be aborted, since it was at that point not necessary anymore to develop an entirely new design.
Mean to say that Volkswagens VR6/VR4 engines used the architecture of the Volkswagen’s own modular EA827 family of engines.
In theory Fiat could have used the architecture of the Pratola Serra modular engine along the same lines to create its own narrow-angle V4/V5/V6 family of engines for mainly Lancia as a spiritual replacement for the Fulvia V4.
Was not aware the Y4 project began before Fiat’s takeover of Lancia or that Lancia had any developments going on at the time (as many engineers left after Antonio Fessia’s death).
Is it known if the design of the 1300 Y4 motor was a inline-four, flat-four or V4? Find it doubtful it being the Fulvia V4 as recall in a book about de Virgilio that last bit of development was motorsport use of variable value timing.
Reading again my comment I see I explained myself badly, sorry.
Of course they could have derived also a V6 by Pratola Serra modular engine, but probably this would have been ruled out by cost reasons and by the presence of the Alfa V6 Busso, so such other engine would have had little use.
Edit: yes, I now understood what you meant, sorry, English is not my first language, so sometimes I’m a bit slow 😀
About the Y4 engine, I believe having read it was a inline four, but anyway for sure not a V4 for the reasons you mentioned.
Yes, it’s true that many engineers left but there was still a team of employees that were later retained by Fiat.
That is ok, understand why they did not due to the Alfa V6 and was only thinking from an economies of scale perspective.
In some ways Fiat’s takeover of Alfa Romeo added more complication to the Fiat Group given the negative impact it had on Lancia.
Did ponder if Fiat should have beaten De Tomaso in taking over Maserati to sit above Lancia.
At least then there was the Maserati V6 and V8 as well as a smaller V6-based V8 seen on the Citroen SM V8 prototype and intended for the Quattroporte II, also read of a 3.2-litre Maserati V6 in Marc Sonnery’s Maserati The Citroën Years 1968-1975.
Know Fiat used the prospect of the Lancia Stratos receiving the Maserati V6 as a threat to get Enzo Ferrari to allow them to use the Dino V6 after being uncooperative.
Despite the negativity and turned up noses of the Euro snobs (and I’ve owned 6 SAABs, 5 Volvos, 2 Jags, 1 M-B and 1 BMW, and too many Brit sports cars to count, so guess I’m qualified to comment) the Chrysler 300 provided a very credible basis for a Lancia badged large luxury sedan, it’s only real failing being the subsequent lack of exclusivity due to a perceived insufficient provenance/cachet by a certain clientele, and perhaps it’s size, though for the latter there exists certainly a significant market, given the numbers of similar class competitors. The Chrysler/Lancia is sold presumably at considerably higher prices there (don’t know it’s selling price, certainly higher than in the US of A.) so perhaps that was a significant impediment, that said it’s technical aspects should not have been one.
PS I should say “was sold” as it is no longer, and is sadly on the way out here as well, but wish it were being replaced with something equally uniquely American for our unique market.
My father was a top exec at Bethlehem Steel, managing the division that sold coated sheet steel (Bethlehem invented Galvalume) to all 4 big US automakers and most truck makers. He once told me that sheet made from high % of recycled steel or containing significant amounts of contaminants would rust significantly faster. His division sold coated steel mainly for rocker panels and some co’s used it for fenders, some floor components, and other parts, depending on model.
Reduced thickness also became more of a problem as fuel efficiency became more important, he told me that Chrysler was the last to reduce panel thickness in some models in the late ’70s and early ’80s. He retired in 1984.
I posted this up above but re-did it here as most won’t re-read all of this long thread (sorry).