1978 Lancia Beta monte carlo from UK and Ireland - Comments

It'd be easier to list things that hadn't gone wrong. Electrics are a nightmare. Turn the engine off after a long run & try to re-start it & it was down to luck whether it would start again. This car is the most unreliable machine I've ever owned.

The Monte Carlo is a fabulous looking car. It oozes class & is obviously styled by a top Italian design house (pininfarina, of course) but that's where the praise ends.

This car rotted infront of my eyes. I swear I could see it dissolving on my drive.

The handling in the wet was lethal. This car is a death trap. I managed to spin it on a greasy roundabout at a ridiculously low speed where other cars would simply stick to the road without drama. No wonder Lancia withdrew it so soon.

If you need new parts for a Monte Carlo, be prepared to sell your granny to raise the cash!

The Montecarlo, correctly set up and maintained, is a reliable and excellent handling motorcar, that only lacks a few extra BHP. It is a pleasure to own, always!

I disagree. It's wonderful to look at, but that's as good as it gets. Why else would Lancia drop it without further development? Road tests all pointed to the dangerous handling in the wet & the lethal brakes. The car was a dud. Shame, but true.

I had one that I wrote off on 1st April 1983 (on the way to church!) having just spent about £1k on the dreadful body work. The car was green, which probably explains a lot. It was a bloody magnificent car to be seen in, but, in the wet (and by wet I mean thinking about raining next Tuesday), it was totally impossible to make to stick to the road. I went out immediately and bought a Beta coupe. What a car that was.

I spun mine at an embarrassingly low speed. Never spun a car before in my life. Sold it soon after. They were a terrible car. In response to the earlier comment about "setting a car up properly", isn't that the job of Lancia? Is he suggesting owners understand the dynamics of Lancia's products better than Lancia themselves? I agree with all the other posts. They look great, but they're a poor, nasty car to drive. Lancia should have done much, much better.

My Scorp rocks, I have a 76 Lancia. In Oregon it rains like mad, our leaf filled streets a bit dangerous and slippery. I have to tell you that at first my scorp was a bit dangerous due to balljoints and other aged parts. Went to MONTE Hospital, picked up polyurathanes for everything, new ball joints front and back, anti dive front kit, also the Rear Cross member. I had reinforced the front end due to some sheet metal disconnects. All struts in the front where redone, the rears where OK.

Wheels are properly aligned now as well.

I have to tell you that even with stock tires this baby is awesome to drive. I have been ripping it around corners, hills twisty roads, oh my this baby screams even with a near stock engine. Soon comes twin 42DCNFs and an electronic engine kit. High speeds the car just gets a heavy feeling of being locked down to the ground as if it is a nimble tank.

I will lower the car soon, adjustable shocks, and 17' rims.

Tires will be on the order as I am looking to upgrade the tyres once I take out the R Fenders and widen them.

I feel that the scorp is an awesome platform from which to launch a Rice Machine Munching Monster.

Viva Italia!!!

In response to Viva Italia!

Wouldn't you have been better off buying a decent car to begin with? What's the point of buying a car & having to spend thousands to make it safe?

The Monte Carlo's ability didn't match its looks.

VLF 525 S was the most lethal death trap I ever owned. It was my second car (I was only 19 at the time) It ruined me financially and was horrifically dangerous. The rear turrets had been glued with body filler. The car had suffered a major front impact and had been stuck back together. The roof was cracked and leaked. The gear change mounts had completely rusted away and you would pop out of gear at any speed. The doors (don’t even go there). I had button mushrooms growing under the carpet. I was constantly getting a push form passers buy to get the thing going after having just switched it off. The return spring snapped on the carb on the M3 at full speed (and scared the hell out of me and I’m lucky to be alive). Of course I span it out of control in the wet (on a straight line!). 25 years down the line would I want another one? I would think about it for ten seconds then say NO. With the road handling of a billiard ball on a tefal frying pan it is too dangerous. For years I was paranoid about not getting the car started, or not being able to brake correctly or just driving in general. Beautiful, but lethal, like a tiger. Nice to look at in a magazine, not practical to have one at home.

I’ve owned an S2 Spyder since 1992.

It’s true that the car needs total reengineering – and I agree – why the hell should you have to go to all the trouble of fitting new brakes and waxoyling the bodywork. But, once modified, it’s a really rewarding car to own.

Why would I have kept mine all this time? I’ve thought about changing it, but it’s a unique car – once modified. I get to drive all kinds of modern metal btw; BMWs, Hondas etc.

It’s not totally unusual for a car to still be a classic, but need much redesign. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Triumph Stag and Jaguar XJC – both appalling cars on their release, but with the time that’s elapsed since their inception, enthusiasts have devised means of overcoming their shortcomings.

Once the – conceded, costly – prerequisite work is carried out, you have an amazingly rewarding car. With CSC exhaust, its noise is pure music.

For rust, you want a post-1980 S2 car; prior to that the cars lacked galvanisation. You can only enjoy one of these cars if it’s been kept in a garage for most of its life. If you don’t own a garage - forget it, or spend grillions on bodywork repairs.

I don't understand why Lancia refused to develop/re-engineer this car. In my eyes it looked better than most Ferraris. I owned one circa 1986 & it looked astonishing on the road next to all the hot hatches. It looked low, exotic, beautiful & rare. People stopped & looked because they had no idea what it was. It was like driving down the road in the Starship Enterprise with Elvis Presley glued to the roof. Unfortunately the car was hideous to drive. It seemed to want me dead. I took a wet corner in my Astravan with no problem whatsoever. I took the same corner in the Lancia & I ended up spinning out of control like drunk flamingo on rollerskates. Being seconds from death tends to take the shine off your enthusiasm for a car. Added to that was the woeful build quality. The bodywork rotted faster than a wet raspberry in the middle of the gobi desert & things fell off on a daily basis. I still love the looks of the car, but to be honest (& it hurts me to say this) it was absolutely vile to own. Lancia could have had a world class machine on its hands. Why they chose to ignore it is a complete mystery.

No one here is stating whether they owned an S1 or S2 Monte - they are VERY different from a driving and corrosion perspective. The S2 doesn't have the front brake servo and has infinitely more galvanisation.

The S1 is deeply flawed, and I suspect that the negative remarks here relate to this model.

The S2 (much rarer than an S1) still needs work to the brakes, engine and weight distribution, but it's a totally different car to drive than an S1. Build quality in terms of trim is much better on the S2 - S1 interior is pretty tacky.

Aside from the galvanisation which is pretty much non-existant on the S1, it also has water traps which breed rust.

It's very, very rare to see an S1 these days that isn't either upgraded to S2 'spec, or fully modified.

They were BOTH flawed!