How did Lancia fumble the Montecarlo so badly? They had everything in their corner – a very capable Fiat platform and engine, a lovely Pininfarina body, plenty of positive brand equity – and yet, this was to be one of the marque’s biggest duds, which is saying something. That makes them rather rare, but as luck would have it, I happened upon not one, but three late-model Montecarlos. That was a pretty clear sign that CC needed a bit of a reminder about this lacklustre (but still fascinating) little Lancia.
A reminder, because our very own Jim Klein regaled us with the remains of a US-market car, so I assume some of you will be well aware of these. North American Montecarlos were called Scorpions, had massive 5-mph bumpers, a wheezy 1.8 litre engine and prescription sealed beam headlights, making for a pretty lousy package. None of that here: I came across this clutch of European-spec 2nd series Montecarlos and just had a field day taking photos.
Take your pick: the classic rosso, the classy burgundy or the ever-elegant black. I’m partial to the middle one, but ended up taking more pics of the back one. Go figure.
There is the fact that said black one came back a few times to the Sunday morning Meiji Jingu meets. It’s also the lone “spider” of the bunch, with that tiny soft top. But for all intents and purposes, and for this post in particular, I will just mix’n’match the three Montes to illustrate things. It’s a very flawed car, but it’s quite pretty and easy on the lens.
But let’s start at the beginning. Back in 1969, even as they were taking over Lancia, Fiat were looking at mid-engined sports cars such as the Matra 530 and the Lotus Europa, thinking of joining in the fray.
Two projects were developed: the X1/9 went to Bertone, and the slightly more upmarket X1/8 went to Pininfarina. The former was fast-tracked to production, but Fiat dithered a bit on the X1/8: the initial plan called for a V6, but which one? The Dino, or Fiat’s own?
The Dino V6 ended up in the Stratos, but the X1/8 (now re-coded as X1/20) went ahead in parallel. The first public hint of things to come were a pair of odd-looking prototypes, dubbed Abarth-Pininfarina SE30, that foreshadowed the Montecarlo (albeit in a funhouse mirror sort of way). These were raced in 1974, using a 3.4 litre V6 derived from the Fiat 130 unit. But ultimately, the civilian version would be far more measured.
Fiat had thus decided to completely revise the project into a more reasonable halo car for Lancia, now featuring the brilliant 2-litre DOHC 4-cyl. designed by Lampredi for the Fiat 124 Sport instead of a V6. Paolo Martin at Pininfarina authored something somewhat wedgy (‘twas the style at the time), but neither exactly Giugiaresque, nor excessively Gandinian. For some reason, they dubbed it Lancia Beta Montecarlo, even though it had absolutely zero Beta in it.
In March 1975, at the Geneva Motor Show, Lancia launched their new sporty two-door, available as either a coupé or a spider, thought the soft top was more like a glorified sunroof. Given this mid-engined machine’s limited projected sales, Lancia were only too happy to delegate the manufacture the actual cars to Pininfarina. This may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but this also coincided with the carrozzeria’s worst quality control years.
Problems piled on problems for the beleaguered little Lancia. Rampant rust and dodgy paintwork were one thing, but the more concerning issue was an overactive brake servo that made it easy to lock the front wheels. Sales were disappointing (especially in North America) and Lancia, seeing the amounts of cars in stock, elected to pause production in early 1978 to sort out the Montecarlo’s most egregious glitches.
And lo and behold, in March 1980, the Montecarlo came back for another bite at the apple. After all, Fiat were selling X1/9s by the wagonload, so surely Lancia’s mid-engined me-too model should have a clientele out there somewhere. Hope springs eternal.
The second series Montecarlo, now rebranded to omit the Beta reference, was a little better. Lancia wisely took out the brake servo but beefed up the discs, making the car much less dangerous, but also more “sporty,” i.e. physically demanding for the driver. Electronic ignition and an improved fuel pump made the Lampredi 2-litre easier to use, and the interior was spruced up.
Externally, the main differences were the revised grille, taking its visual cues from the new Delta, and the rear buttresses uprated to the flying sort. The Scorpion, i.e. the lame US version, was mercifully not reprised.
Alas, the Montecarlo may have been better in 1980 than five years earlier, but it was still the same car in many ways. What could be forgiven or even taken as a positive in relatively cheap and cheerful Triumph TR7s or Ford Capris (not to mention Fiat’s own X1/9) became a much more difficult proposition at the Lancia’s price point. I think we can illustrate that in the usual way.
The Lancia was not ridiculous, but it was on the expensive side and outgunned by several rivals. But the real killers were in a different class: much cheaper thrills (at or below FF50k) were available in many forms, from the Opel Manta and the Toyota Celica to the Renault Fuego and the Alfasud Sprint. You didn’t get Pininfarina’s signature on the body, but you also (probably, hopefully) didn’t have to endure quite so many build quality issues.
A more impressive spec sheet or a real drop in price might have made the Series 2 Montecarlo more attractive, but as it was, it failed again to gain any traction in the ‘80s just as it had in the mid-‘70s, both at home and abroad.
In late 1981, Lancia called it quits. There were enough leftover cars to sell into early 1982. Yet Lancia sort of kept the Montecarlo around post-mortem in the shape of the 037 coupé, which was based on the old car’s body but extensively reworked by both PF and Abarth to compete in the World Rally Championship. Successfully, too: the Lancia 037 won the title in 1983, the last 2WD car to do so.
This all came far too late to salvage the Montecarlo’s reputation. Although the chassis had always been celebrated (apart from the brakes) as superbly well-balanced and the styling had not aged badly, the Lancia was still cramped, noisy, a tad underpowered and prone to electrical gremlins.
In total, fewer than 8000 units were (indifferently) put together by Pininfarina. The breakdown in more detail comes to 5638 Series 1 cars (1975-78), of which 2080 were coupés, plus 1805 Scorpions (1976-77, all Spiders). Only 1940 units of the Series 2 (1980-82) were made; the coupés were slightly more popular than the drop-tops – 1123 units versus 817. All in all, an embarrassing tally for Lancia, especially compared to the Fiat X1/9’s 160-170k units and 18-year production run.
If there ever was a car that could physically embody the downfall of Lancia, the Montecarlo is probably one of the best candidates. It had every possible advantage – capable designers, pent-up demand, a DOHC engine and a second chance, yet it failed miserably.
And yet again, it fathered the marque’s glorious 037, which resurrected the brand for the ‘80s, at least in Continental Europe. As a unique mixture of disappointment and excitement, it’s the most Lancia car of the Fiat era, in many ways.
Related posts:
Curbside Recycling: 1976 Lancia Scorpion – Good Luck Finding One Of The Other 1800 In The U.S., by Jim Klein
R&T Vintage Review: Lancia Beta Montecarlo – Lost In Translation, by PN
Vintage R&T Review: Lancia Scorpio (Monte Carlo) – “…a Scorpion without its stinger”, by PN
Beautiful car.
A neighbour had a white one with red trim, when I had my gold/white X-1/9.
Somehow, the X-1/9 just made more sense – more spidery, better wieldiness and a rear luggage compartment.
The X-1/20 really ought to have squared the circle with my car and the Ferrari 308, but it somehow missed. I did like Eric’s car, mind…
PS – that burgundy’s got a chassis brace and a twin-carb setup that wasn’t factory. I bet it drives well. I always thought if the car could’ve hung around long enough for the Volumex engine, it might have batter justified its price point.
Very pretty car, Lancias were always rare, a unusual choice even when current. The corrosion problem killed the marque in the U.K. A shame as they made fine though flawed cars.
So very (yet unconventionally) pretty, these really tug at me, at least the ones with the non-US bits in/on them such as these. I think the black one of these three would be the one for me, but then I’m the choosy beggar…beautiful wheels on these, and even as I write I’m going back and forth liking the red and plum as well…I’m torn for choice!
I don’t know that I can imagine cross shopping one with a turbo Trans-Am (then or now), but thanks for including that one in the chart. I also don’t think I realized that the Porsche 924, for all the stick it gets, was a 124mph car (in Europe anyway).
I also had no idea the Firebird was available in France through official channels. They couldn’t have sold many but I could see an enterprising GM dealer putting one in the showroom and using it to sell prospects an Opel Manta or Kadett coupe.
American cars were sold throughout Western Europe and had a small but loyal following.
I never realized how much the 79-81 Firebird nose resembles the Alpine A310!
This car was called Scorpion in the US because Monte Carlo was a brand name used by Chevrolet.
A very well-designed car, with a small but fast and agile engine.
That was my thought when he said it was Lancia Beta Montecarlo although there was zero Beta in it; also Montecarlo despite the fact it’d have to be renamed for the single biggest export market because someone else was using the name.
There wasn’t exactly “absolutely zero Beta” in it; the drive train (engine and transmission) are essentially identical, except for some minor details. In fact, it was the adaptation of the Fiat DOHC four to transverse use in the Beta that made the Monte Carlo possible.I suspect there may well be a few other shared parts in the greasy bits. There was a reason that it was originally called “Beta Monte Carlo”.
Later Betas & the Thema had the Monte Carlo layout with a lean-forward engine.
But early Betas with the uneven bore spacing had a lean-back engine with the head porting reversed.
So what you state is true but backwards – the X-1/20 engine was initially unique to the Abarth/FIAT/Lancia. Sergio Camuffo rushed the Beta range into production from nowhere in an incredibly short time frame.
Beta probably just made more marketing sense, TBH.
The ’86 Delta i.e. (fuel injected) engines are where Lancia decided to lean the block forward and reverse the head flow to put the exhaust in front. All Betas including the Beta Montecarlo had the engine block leaned back by about 20°, with the exhaust side towards the rear.
The only major difference with the Monte was that they used a standard RWD Fiat block lacking an extended boss on the exhaust side of the block. FWD Betas used that boss to mount a carrier bearing for a jackshaft connection to the right-side halfshaft, which the Monte didn’t need as torque steer from unequal-length halfshafts is not an issue with the powertrain in the rear.
In theory, the Beta (and early Delta) arrangement made some sense for simpler and more direct exhaust routing, and putting less engine weight ahead of the front axle line for more neutral understeer rather than nose-heavy plowing. In practice however, this concentrated exhaust heat right up against the firewall, cooking the steering rack and adjacent components, not to mention transmitting more heat to the cabin regardless of season. One of those lessons learned in the course of being a transverse FWD pioneer, nearly all other mfrs. followed suit, putting the exhaust in front of an upright or leaned-forward transverse engine. I’m not sure if anyone has tried a leaned-back engine with the exhaust in front and, if so, why not.
As a 47 year owner of one of the 1805 Lancia Scorpions, an original condition 1977 gold model, I appreciated this article on the Lancia Montecarlo/Scorpion.
The late Tom McGaffigan of Cupertino, CA engineered and fitted a Volumex to his 1977 Scorpion and it has impressive power.
3 of them! Only in Tokyo it seems, or maybe Roma. A Volvo mechanic friend in VT has (had?) a black Scorpion parked behind his home garage under a tarp. Don’t know why he bothered as it was mostly a pile of rust. He wanted to restore it but bet since I’ve seen him he’s concluded that it can never happen.
AFAIK the Fiat internal project codes X1/8 and X1/9 started as solicitations for competing proposals, one assigned to Pininfarina and the other to Bertone. I’ve read conflicting accounts as to whether these projects were meant to replace the 850 Sport coupe and spider or the 124 Sport coupe; perhaps one for each or a bit of both combined?
After Bertone’s proposal got approved (keeping its project code as the production model name), Pininfarina decided to continue working on theirs anyway. Apparently they’d become rather attached to it, being their first attempt to develop an entire car (not just designing and coachbuilding bare body shells) that they could fully manufacture completely in-house, aside from Fiat supplying the powertrain package and running gear components (borrowed from the Lancia Beta and X1/9 respectively).
It seems the project code changed, or perhaps forked would be more apt, to X1/20 when they decided to pivot from the original longitudinal V6 powertrain layout to a transverse I-4 layout and move the project under Lancia. The X1/9 had already proven the concept of putting a transverse FWD powertrain (from the Fiat 128) into a mid-rear engine sports car, so it made sense to perform the same trick with the Beta’s larger FWD powertrain, and since the X1/20 was also a bit larger than the X1/9, it made some marketing sense to position the larger car with a Lancia powertrain under Lancia as an upmarket alternative to the X1/9.
I say “forked” as the longitudinal-V6 X1/8 project essentially continued in parallel under Abarth (which Fiat had recently acquired in full and taken in-house) while the X1/20 variant went its own way under Lancia, sharing only the Pininfarina-built central passenger cell in common between them. This culminated in two prototypes of a Fiat Abarth 030 (aka Abarth SE 030) being constructed to race in the ’74 Giro d’Italia (one car actually raced while the other was a backup car also used for display), finishing second only to the mighty Stratos. From that basis, Abarth then continued further development, ultimately evolving into their project SE 037, which entered competition as the Lancia Rally 037, still sharing only the central passenger cell with its Lancia Montecarlo sibling.
So, to be clear, the Lancia-fancier who fancied the fanciest Lancia wanted that Lancia punchier?
Proving that we can all have good and bad days, Paolo Martin designed the Fiat 130 coupe, which live in glory forever, the Rolls Camargue, which will do likewise in infamy, and this, which will only live indifferently, in small numbers. The original, with its buttresses filled in – which is much more innocent than it sounds – looks like a speedy, strangely angled-up little delivery van, the later, with the glass in the arse, at least avoids this issue, but in either, the question of whether or not one’s nose looks big in this is answered with a resounding “I’ll say!” And Martin’s solution of draping it with a humungous ’70’s all-round black moe exacerbates rather than ameliorates.
I’m not a fan. The Beta coupe, with the same gubbins but in the front, is a good deal prettier than this unfinished sketch.
Truly excellent pics though, Dr T. These things are so squat you must have had to perform some reasonably undignified public contortions and interactions with the bitumen to get them.