Re: BBC 2 Top Gear 29th November
Posted: 09 Dec 2009, 04:38
I'm actually surprised by the content of Huib's group of posts here. I don't disagree. I've been of the opinion that Fiat should just let the Lancia name slip into the history books rather than crank out Autobianchis or minivans (!) in its name. However, I stopped posting that sort of comment since it just frustrated other people on here.
I will speak up for the much-abused Beta. I have the fortune to live in a dry climate so my coupe is 28 years old. It would be prettier if it had the European bumpers instead of the silly U.S. crash bumpers. It would obviously be more lively if it had the European spec engine and less of the "luxury" loading like the nonfunctional A/C and the now-leaky sunroof that was added to jack up the profit margin for the U.S. importer. But nonetheless the car is nimble and connects the driver with the road, even though it needs new struts! I also drive a 1991 Alfa Romeo 164. The Alfa has a much nicer engine (3.0) which manages nearly the exact same fuel economy as the Beta 2.0 but with vastly greater power but . . . the steering has the least "feel" I've encountered in an Italian car (though my unassisted Biturbo wasn't much better), the brakes are vague and I've yet to experience a car with hydraulic clutch operation that I can shift smoothly. The inside driver's door handle has broken TWICE in my 4 years ownership. The Beta has none of those vices and it's 10 years older. I'm dangerous in the Beta: it urges me to drive faster and so I always do. I'm safer in the Alfa: it encourages me to drive like a banker in a Buick. Make of that what you will.
A number of years ago the Fiat people started talking about Lancia as a "brand." That was the end.
I will speak up for the much-abused Beta. I have the fortune to live in a dry climate so my coupe is 28 years old. It would be prettier if it had the European bumpers instead of the silly U.S. crash bumpers. It would obviously be more lively if it had the European spec engine and less of the "luxury" loading like the nonfunctional A/C and the now-leaky sunroof that was added to jack up the profit margin for the U.S. importer. But nonetheless the car is nimble and connects the driver with the road, even though it needs new struts! I also drive a 1991 Alfa Romeo 164. The Alfa has a much nicer engine (3.0) which manages nearly the exact same fuel economy as the Beta 2.0 but with vastly greater power but . . . the steering has the least "feel" I've encountered in an Italian car (though my unassisted Biturbo wasn't much better), the brakes are vague and I've yet to experience a car with hydraulic clutch operation that I can shift smoothly. The inside driver's door handle has broken TWICE in my 4 years ownership. The Beta has none of those vices and it's 10 years older. I'm dangerous in the Beta: it urges me to drive faster and so I always do. I'm safer in the Alfa: it encourages me to drive like a banker in a Buick. Make of that what you will.
A number of years ago the Fiat people started talking about Lancia as a "brand." That was the end.