Fulvias in the US

[gamma as in goat]

a short list of cars i've owned & wouldn't particularly want to own again, not because they were bad (ok, some of them were bad, real bad in fact) , but because i've become a lot more discerning over the years & appreciate owning, at a fraction of what the other would currently cost to buy, own & operate - at almost zero expense - a fulvia. since i've already fixed what needed to be fixed & see no other investment coming up soon, i am driving it on cruise control these days: The list i promised
912 & 911's of the 60's, 70, 80's incl. a # of 2.7 Carreras, 3.0 Carreras (my favorites) , Sportomtic 911's (very rare), 3.0 & 3.3 Turbos, 928s, BMW's big & small, sporty & fancy (including a 3.2 CSL lightweight Batmobile with miltiple fins, ground effect sideboards, a roof & tail spoiler set + a huge rear wing; snowplow front airdam & more ; Benz SL & SLC's (boring) , a # of 328's (the lesser Italian sports car) & thankfully ( I think) never a UK sports car ; having had no desire, to own one.. even when they could be had - in fine shape - for a cuppa coffee & a donut. I had friends who had mgb's, tr4,5 & 6's, various healys etc who never / seldom got to drive them ... they would never start ! i will make 1 'almost' exception to this list. when alfa montreals could be had for same price as a stripped 6cyl mustang. i had a # of them & loved them on long trips...but didn't want to keep even 1 of them ... there were so few german alfa shops who would / could service them, in the 70's & 80's, that i was forced to drive past 20 alfa shops to get to the only one in s. germany who wasn't afraid to touch them. i was once given a fine montreal for a hand- shake; the owner (departing us military member) never wanted to see it - or any other alfa montreal - again in his life. i remember him saying that he had paid for 5 or 6 motors in 3 years... I drove it for several months ; then decided it was too rich for my blood. if i could choose either 1 today, alfa or lancia...well, sorry alfa...you don't meet the current criteria, fulvia, lets get you to a shop quick, get lots of wax injected everywhere, even if its been done before & drive you, when the sun shines, for the next 50 years.

[Geoffrey Goldberg]

So the question is, how big are the children? I have a wonderful memory of my 8 year old son (then) taking a lovely 1 hour nap in the back seat of a Fulvia coupe. No problem.

Three (one smaller) can fit pretty well. Four is work.

By the way - to get a Fulvia really right, you probably have to replace a lot of the rubber in the car. That, plust doing brake work, can set you back a few thou to say the least ($5?), so be prepared. The car with fresh rubber in the springs just is a whole new car - wonderful, smooth supple ride.

[WJones]

The problem on this car is one of the sills is starting to bubble in the front. It's not as bad as the Eddinsmoto car, but who knows until you tear into it.

Apart from that the paint is OK from 15 feet and some of the trim needs replacing. Mechanically is has been gone through.

[Thomas]

The cars you cite have (far) bigger engines, thus higher torque. Apart from the roadhandling that you should feel straight away is incomparably better than many of those you mention, bear in mind that you have to make revs. Fulvias are great at revs the where typical british engine will be marked red on the counter. I remember my first drive in a Fulvia (which happened to be the webmaster´s Tina, now fully restored), and was impressed with handling, but not speed/acceleration. That´s because I was driving it like a modern car, with effective torque as way down as 2000 rpm. When the engine warm, remember to push it beyond 4500 (where its peak torque is). Anybody will say a 240 is sportier than a Fulvia if you stay under 3000. And when you´re above 4500 rpm, observe the balance of the car in those conditions.

[Neil Cundy]

Rather disappointing to see that every ones chosen British alternatives to a Fulvia are limited to TR's, MG's etc. These are essentially products of the 50's and in many cases based on 40's technology and thinking, and to my mind not comparable with a Fulvia. Let it not be forgotten that a certain gentleman by the name of Chapman produced some pretty decent cars that are for more representative of what could be achieved - and I think more comparable in many ways to the Fulvia. Not as well screwed together but brilliant cars when working (and most of those problems have been solved), and every bit "of the time" as the Fulvia.

There endeth my defence of the 60's British sports car industry

[Stephan]

Very kind of Huib to offer a test drive. It would be quite interesting to experience a fulvia like it was new. I have thought of doing a full restoration but that would mean at least a few years off the road. I have only been a Lancia convert for about 3 years and right now I enjoy driving it too much. Maybe I should buy another to restore?

[WJones]

Thomas - I had a E30 M3 with the same characteristics.

Neil - No one ignores Lotus. I really don't want an MG or Triumph. I would prefer a small Japanese or Italian hardtop.

[Randy Adams]

Bubble in the front. Do you mean where the rear subframe mounts up to it (at the rocker panel)? If so, that can be a serious issue that prejudices the car's structural integrity by stressing the A-pillar and also the wheelarch. Mind you I drove a car like that for years but it wasn't something you'd want to show and it did gradually deteriorate.

[jogo]

Huib, in the 60's my italian friends& millions of italians I don't know were going on vacation with multi-kids, grandma, dogs, pulling mini trailers for luggage & camping tent - in Fiat 500's ( I guess the rich ones had 6ß00's) - in the 60's...in the days b4 seatbelts. Thems who lived in N. / mid Europe told me it was a 3 day trip drivinh hote-lless to Sicily...caming on the side of the road & eating whatever was pre-prepared in the picknik basket. There was no great bridge system & not many tunnels (no St. Gotthardo tunnel but the incredible St. G'do Pass) back then, so going was no doubt "slow-going". Of course, the French had little Renaults, the Germans had Kafers, Lord knows what was the "fare of the day" in the UK...they were all travelling in the lap of 60's (affordable) luxury ! In comparison only "VRP's - "veryrichpersons" - could buzz off in a Lancia...I assume without a trailer.

[jogo]

i'm gonna guess that the Lancia Y10 mentioned previously isn't known to many who R readin/writin about Fulvias from USA. Suffice it to say it was an overpriced / badge-engineered / pimped-up mini-Fiat (900 to 1200cc / 40 HP to 70 HP; some w/ 4WD) ; based on the simplest / cheapest Fiat model of 80's / early 90's.
However, they were manufactured in Italy ! That Fiat, the " Panda" - was marketed as "the ingenious box".
You paid for a mobile-box & got a mobile-box. The Lancia Y10 looked different, but wasn't. I remember reading somewhere why the Y10 was labelled Y10, but I forgot why. Some other Fiats of those times (& of these times), that R sold in Europe, R Brasil, Poland or Turkey produced ... which doesn't make em bad cars, but they R simply not Italian anymore......which, now that I think about it, may be good.
Think of it like this...if Porsches were made in Finnland would they be Porsches (ask a Boxster Driver for the answer ) . My "personal" Y10 was cheap; which is why I bought it & economical ,which is another reason why, & anyway, for the 4 mile trip to office it is fine as a winter car. I drove it 2x over 100 miles & well ....what should I expect for € 500 ? Good mileage; no radio, little comfort ! ...but why complain...after all it is the base (unpimped) version with no fancy features - except the standard 4 electric windows. I've run out
of reasons to write more "Y's" or "why's", so I'm going home (in my Fiat Van).