I did drive 570 miles yesterday, back to Eugene from the Bay Area. And there really was a late-season winter storm that almost had me considering the longer coastal route rather than over the mountain passes on I-5. But, sadly, no, I wasn’t driving this lovely Lancia Flavia. And no, that’s not Stephanie. Why the misleading headline and picture? My mind does tend to wander on this beautiful 8.5 hour-long drive through endless fields of nut trees in bloom, Mt. Shasta, and the Oregon mountains. The distinctive smooth growl of the Subaru boxer in the Forester had me imagining something a bit more exotic. Of course, something with a boxer engine too. But in order to keep me occupied for more than a few minutes, it had be something truly all-round brilliant and exotic, like the Flavia.
Lancia has a glorious history of innovation, going back the 1913 Theta, the first European car with a complete electrical system, to the breakthrough Lambda of 1922, with the first monocoque (unibody) body structure. We’ll have to save all the other Lancia innovations for another time, but in the late fifties, Professor Antonio Fessia developed what became the 1961 Flavia, incorporating all the elements that advanced engineers had identified as their ideals for the modern car:
a smooth, compact, all-alloy boxer four, driving the front wheels, and looking for all the world like a Subaru powertrain. Four-wheel disc brakes and a double-wishbone suspension rounded out the package. The boxer four started out with a mere 1500 cc and 78 hp, but over the Flavia’s lifespan, it would grow to 2000cc, fuel injection, and 126 hp. Obviously, the somewhat boxy but quite sporty sedan was crying out for a more handsome coupe. Pininfarina obliged.
The first version of the coupe was a bit google-eyed, but the rest of the body was a classic Pininfarina off-the-rack suit, circa 1962.
A new front end kept the now-named 1971 Lancia 2000 going through the end of its long run in 1975.
Zagato got in on the act too, with this rather wild and iffy lightweight alloy-bodied coupe. I’d really have liked to be driving that yesterday. Don’t laugh; all Italian alloy-bodied cars are fetching crazy prices now. Essentially handbuilt over bucks, their limited supply is simply not in balance with the demand for them.
The final version of the sedan was also re-named to just Lancia 2000 in 1971. It competed with the likes of the BMW and Alfa sedans, but was always handicapped by its higher price, presumably the result of its complex design, small production volume, and superb build quality. These were jewels, if not without their flaws.
A sad postscript: Fiatsler has announced plans to sell the Chrysler 200 convertible-coupe in Europe, rebadged as the Lancia Flavia. Thankfully, that thought never once entered my mind in all 570 miles. And now I need to purge it again, by dumping it on you. Sorry.
Being an oddball, I love Lancias more than Alfas, (and I love Alfa Romeos) but, this has always been a question of mine, were they that much more expensive than Alfa Romeos?
I always saw them as equally expensive, kind of like Buick versus Chrysler, Lancia (in the complete irony of this post) being the more innovate “Chrysler” like of the two. But what do I know… I think I’m the only person that would take a Fulvia over a GTV….
According to my Catalog of Imported Cars, the 1969 Flavia/2000 cost $4305; the Alfa 1750 Berlina $3495, and the BMW 2000 $3780. I can’t swear these are perfect apples-to-apples comparisons, but the Lancia was always decidedly more expensive than its main competitors. Which kind of put it into a category of its own, and not a very successful one.
Laurence,
From what I understand, and I could be off on this by a bit but Lancia was a company who did more bespoked cars than Alfa or Fiat and they were, I think a bit larger in size, emphasizing luxury.
Alfa Romeo the next tier down in price and straddled the B through D segments in size, though mostly B/C segment cars and were more sports oriented.
Fiat, on the other hand, did the more bread and butter cars, and the small A/B segment models than the other two, though they did their share of larger family cars and MPV’s but were much more affordable than the other two, though some Alfas weren’t that much more than a higher priced Fiat (say, the 131/Brava for example).
This before Lancia and Alfa Romeo joined Fiat and after they were under one roof. The big difference was that Fiat helped reign in productions costs of Lancia’s products and reinvigorated Alfa Romeo with fresh product and I think some minor restructuring of their lines also commenced under Fiat to help facilitate their survival.
Laurence, I’ve always wanted a Fulvia coupe, and never had more than passing interest in the GTV Alfas. So there’s at least two of us.
If I hit the lotto and could buy any 3 cars I wanted, the Fulvia (preferably a Zagato coupe) would be on my shortlist!
As a Subaru owner I’m delighted to learn of the pioneering Lancia boxer FWD. The Italian interpretation of the form.
Looks like the boxer 4 lived on at 2.5L in the Gamma, through to ’84. Beautiful car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancia_Gamma
Sadly it shared the downside as well as the upside of Italian interpretation. Who could ever have thought this was a good way to use the timing belt? “Ironically, it was the engines that caused the Gamma to have a poor name. They overheated far too easily, wore its cams, and leaked oil. The wishbone bushes wore out early, and, because the power steering was driven from the cam-belts, the car was prone to snapping the belts when steering was on full lock — with disastrous results. By the time the FL1 was launched most of these problems had been addressed, but the damage was done, and the car’s poor reputation cemented.”
The Gamma is a story for another day. Very handsome cars, and it was a bold idea to build such a large four in what was otherwise an exclusively six-cylinder class, especially back then. Its engine was mostly new from the Flavia, except for the basic configuration, being larger and having OHC heads. But Lancia’s investment in the tooling to build a boxer undoubtedly played into the decision to build it. I’d have to confirm it, but I think the Gamma was Lancia’s last own engine, before switching to Fiat engines.
As a teenager I really lusted after the Flavia coupe ( not the Zagato..) but any Flavia was insanely expensive in the UK. I think the little Fulvia coupe cost more than an E-Type.
Very cool, I didn’t know Lancia made a boxer. I have to admit, I do love the sound of our EJ25 as well. Sometimes I consider trading in for a 3.0 R Outback for more power and relaxed driving, but then I’d lose the manual transmission, lighter front-end, and the growl from pushing a loaded down wagon through the mountain roads of Idaho.
Find an SVX and restomod it with an updated 5 or 6 speed manual.
I didn’t know this about Lancia, either. I always learn something new on this site. When I bought my Outback in ’03 (still have it), I didn’t consider the 3.0 because I wanted the 5-speed and didn’t need/want the leather, glass roof, etc. Besides, I recall reading somewhere that there wasn’t that much more power with the 3.0, plus the mileage was worse.
Shame about the re-badged Chrysler. I don’t know about the current reputation/status of Lancia in Europe, but this certainly can’t do it any good.
The Siskiyou pass, in yesterday’s
festivitiesstorm? Glad the trip came out OK. Over here, we had 4 inches of snow on the flat with 8-12 in the drifts. (Winds were gusting to 60 mph.) My favorite motor vehicle for yesterday was the 4WD tractor with chains on the rears. (At times, we’ll get truckers taking US 97 and going over the Willamette pass on Hwy 58, but there wasn’t a good route yesterday. Sounds like the coastal highways sucked, too.)One of my co-workers had a Lancia, not sure of the model. Some minor electrical problems, but its chief problem was the nut behind the wheel. After taking a 35-45 mile curve at 70, the car was a writeoff. He survived without major injury, so that’s a point in its favor…
It turned out to be mostly a non-event. The sun came out at times, and the pavement was all pretty much totally clear, by mid-day. Never had to slow down once. The Siskiyou Pass was also in good shape. Rainy/snow showers most of the way from Ashland until home. I’m glad I decided to not take the coast route; several hours longer.
Guess your timing was really good. The Medford TV was doing a bit on the noon news today about the chain controls on the pass. (Late yesterday and today, I think.) “Carry chains” for most except “chains required” for single-drive axle trucks, and anybody pulling a trailer, including cars with utility trailers. (Not sure about semis.) Me, I’d rather take 97. My wife likes the eastern route down 139 and the small towns along 299.
Paul, gotta say the Siskiyou pass and the Yreka area is just beautiful. Drove down that way to LA in 2002 since I took I-5 all the way from Tacoma south.
Then keep going on down into the northern valley and see Mt Shasta, man, such a beautiful area.
Top Gear UK answered Lancia as the greatest car maker mostly for its innovative designs and unsurpassed rally history I was thouroughly enjoying the story until the turd dropped at the end Sergio has had a few good ideas but that isnt one of them
First european car with an electrical system-1913
Firs car with an electrical fire-1913.
It does have a very cool nameplate script, but they styling, kinda….um…whats Italian for Checker?
I like how they show the couple stranded in a field at night, truth in advertisement.
“We should have beena at the opera 2 hours ago Fabrizio!”
Ha! Very good.
Lancias (lonchas) have always fascinated me. My exposure to them was in the mid-sixties, while stationed in Italy. Then, the lineup included the Appia, the Flavia and the Flaminia. What floored me was that although these were all produced in relatively small numbers, each was a clean sheet design with three entirely different engineering approaches, in no way related to either of the other two. Baby Bear, a narrow V4 with RWD, Mama Bear, a boxer four with FWD and Papa Bear, a V6 RWD with transaxle in the rear.
The Appia was essentially a simple, small Fiat 1100 size of car, built to Rolls standards. I owned one of these for a while. It had four pillorless doors that latched, top and bottom, like bank vaults. The interior had leather everywhere (seats, door panels, dashboard, everything). The engine was an extreme narrow angle V4 (4 degree angle, I think) that was almost 3 feet high, yet only a foot or so long. All alloy. The body was hand leaded. No seams anywhere. Yet, for all of this exquisite build quality, fabulous mechanical beauty and superlative materials, it was not a very exciting car. Very pedestrian, in fact. A nice little Sunday driver for Mr. Peepers.
Further, although I suspect that the original engineering drawings were no doubt museum quality art; less so, the calculations for actually working on it. Much of the finely wrought mechanicals–aluminum-finned marvels–were off limits for even my small hands to get grip on.
The middle of the line, the Flavia, Paul has already described. Front wheel drive with the boxer four.
The top of the line, the Flaminia was a V6 rear wheel drive machine of great beauty and presence, including those with factory bodies. A variety of other body styles were available from independent coach builders (as was also true of the Flavia and Appia). Again, maintenance practicalities had been ignored, leading to extravagantly complicated repair procedures. Then again, labor was very cheap, and very capable, in Italy in the 1960s.
All in all, you had to respect a company that insisted upon such engineering virtuosity and hand craftsmanship well into the age of mass production when other manufacturers had long since had to abandon such practice into order to survive. (There may be a dark side to this story that I am unaware of. There usually is).
In 1967 I came within an inch of buying a brand new Fulvia Zagato. The next morning, sober practicality prevailing, I canceled the order and got a Volvo.
The grille shape of the Chrysler 200 overlays the Flavia’s chrome mouth pretty closely, and attractively.
If I had a chance to buy one of these back in the day, I would have probably jumped right in.
The dark side was they could not survive and were taken over by Fiat.
I mentioned a friend owning a Fulvia sedan a while back, he was able to buy a Flavia sedan 10 or more years ago for $800 or so, in good driving condition – not perfect but not run-down enough to consider restoring (a bargain I thought). He also owns one of the early style coupes (this one definitely needs a resto), which echoed the style of Ferraris. I find the later one a touch too plain by comparison and the interior reflects that too.
Lancias often have very specialised maintenance procedures – eg a few things on a Flavia are accessed via inner wheel arch access panels – and often special tools. If you have the info & tools things are easy, otherwise they would be impossible in some cases.
Will the Italians whine as much about the Flavia-200 as Mopar types here have about the Alfa-Dart?
“Homokinetic couplings”? Incredible innovation, modern cars must get by with hum-drum constant-velocity joints.
Great post. I’ve always had a thing for Lancias, though I have never seen one in person. They had some beautiful designs in the 1960s bordering on art, but I find myself drawn to that eggplant over cream leather 2000 sedan. It reminds me of a similar vintage Alfa Berlina.
Lancia and Alfa aimed to two very distinct kind of buyers, the first emphasizing discreet elegance and mechanical originality (not to mention quality of construction), the second
being focused mostly on building performing cars with excellent road manners. Anyway they were both the upscale brands over the popular Fiat and the choice of one over the other was like parting for different football teams. Lancia’s supporters hated the very crude fit and finish and extrovert personality of Alfas as much as Alfa’s supporters hated the over-complexity and quirkiness of Lancias, the battle between the Fulvia Coupe and the Alfa Giulia GT was much like Mustang vs.Camaro in the States. This ended pretty much between the ’60s and the ’70s, with Fiat buying Lancia and changes in italian society. Watered down as it was, Lancia still built great cars like the Stratos and the Delta Integrale, dominating rallies until the early ’90s. Right now Lancia it’s a zombie-like brand, producing small posh cars for ladies and older people and a range of bigger cars that nobody wants. The last choice of selling re-badged Chryslers as Lancias it’s a joke and I don’t think much people will be fooled by it.
Lancia have a soul, such wonderful cars that are more than the parts that go to make the car. Refined , sporting and you adapt to them and their ways.
Surprisingly fast on long trips and you don’t get tired.
Tom K, the Lancia 2000 is a superb car , not known or liked really.
Eats miles like few cars of it’s time or recent, in a very relaxed manner.
I nursed one back home i bought , saving it from the scrappers, low oil pressure and tired engine, 600 mile trip and it was as quick as a very good Renault 25 but with no electrical faults!
Better car than Alfa Berlina ,better brakes , interior , gearbox, etc etc….
The Lancia cars of the past were in a class of their own, fools compare them with other cars, Alfa Fiat and British cars.
The nicest thing i could say about an Alfa 2000 GTV of the time was the styling was good for a mass produced car. In comparison to almost any Lancia of the Flaminia/Flavia/Fulvia series the Alfa was almost devoid of personality or soul.
It is fair to say the artisans put something unique into these cars.