Talk:Lancia Beta

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Automobiles Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Brands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I've added some images of two of my old Betas. Unfortunately they were very much working cars, so they're as good an example of the most likely place to find rust on Betas as they are of cars in their prime. So if anyone finds better images to use, feel free to replace them :).

Hello friend. The article is correct as it stands. It refers to power steering introduced on left hand drive vehicles first. A few lines later it mentions that power steering was subsequently introduced a number of years later on right hand drive vehicles. Hope this clarifies. Bowjm 06:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Bowjm 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked a photo of my old car and it does have a 'Spider' name-plate on the back as I remembered; however, I found a couple of photos of other convertible Betas and they just say 'Lancia Beta 2000' with no reference to Spider. Either way, the majority of reviews I looked at called it 'Spider' rather than 'Spyder', so it does seem the better choice... given the confusion I guess either could work. Mark Grant (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed accused of being a Fiat, as it had the same engine as the Fiat 124 sport Coupe though with different carburation. However, my old 124 Sport was the quickest car I have owned and it was no disgrace to use such an engine in the Beta. Sadly the my early Beta Spyder was rust prone and needed remedial work year on year which detracted from the better handling compared with the Fiat. JDN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The engine is not quite the same, as Lancia designed their own head for the Lampredi twin cam.Mr Tangle (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on the "Lancia head" (although the external cooling circuit was different). Also there were no production Montecarlos with twin sidedraught carbs. Fitting twin carbs to a Montecarlo was not easy and it made them awfully noisy to drive afterwards (at least in the UK, as the carbs were behind a RHD drivers ears). Most people avoided playing with the carbs on a road Montecarlo and went, if anything, straight for fuel injection just because of the limited space and awkward access. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost certain this is just flat-out false (though it's been propagated across the net from this article, usually in the exact same words). I am deleting it, since no citation has been provided in the 8 years since this comment. Nonmouse (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, apols for my earlier error. I once had a Matra Murena to which someone had fitted twin Dellorto 45s in place of the standard single Solex,and it was a very noisy car, and I can imagine that a Montecarlo would be the same with twin carbs. Mr Tangle (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIR the Murena wasn't quite so bad, as there was slightly more space. The Monte couldn't take the factory twin downdraughts from the 124 sport as the engine was tilted and would have put them through the firewall. DCOE would just about fit, but the trumpets pointed into the firewall from close up so there wasn't even much space for a good inlet trumpet. Airfrlow was thus turbulent and through a narrow gap. In common with the Murena, there was no space for sound deadening. I think the Monte 2 did have a thicker drivers-side felt blanket on the firewall than the 1 had. Andy Dingley (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Legacy section of this article is clearly sympathetic to the manufacturer, and not impartial. A morti (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Aaron[reply]

Yeah great job turning the biggest recall of motor vehicles in european history into a vendetta by the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.118.108 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Biggest recall of motor vehicles in european history"? This is an inaccurate comment. There have been numerous recalls involving far greater numbers of vehicles. For example Vauxhall's recall in 2006/2007 involving over 300,000 vehicles due to potential ingress of water into ABS control units and the subsequent risk of a short circuit and potentially a fire (report on Motortrader.com 17th December 2007. (Bowjm (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I also agree with this - it certainly doesn't fit well with my memory of what happened. There are almost no citations - The section is only focused one one aspect of the legacy of the brand (probably in the UK - as it continued elsewhere in europe). I will therefore remove the section altogether, as it represents original research. Myredroom (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the original Legacy section (prior to additions), I understand and accept that the piece is sympathetic to the manufacturer. However, by deleting the Legacy section, you have removed all reference to the serious rust issue that was widely reported in the UK press in 1980. The UK was the largest export market for Lancia at that time and this matter deserves mentioning, provided that the section clearly identifies the country. The resulting article is now factually incomplete. (Bowjm (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Check your facts; the Legacy section cited not one, but two car magazines, entirely unrelated to each other. As it is now, with the "Legacy" section removed, it seems like the article is justifying the Daily Mirror scandal-mongering rag. Elp gr (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I brought back the Legacy section, with even more complete documentation, as there is ALSO a link to a downloadable PDF article documenting the history of the model, as well as the site of the Daily Mirror rag where you can buy the issue where the whole scandal was started. Elp gr (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this section again. It still does not have enough good quality citations, and is not impartial. In places it looks like original research or POV. I suspect that the original authors seem to think that because the rust problem is common knowledge in the UK, that it belongs here. Verifiable facts are the only things which belong here. Myredroom (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rust scandal is widely known not only in the UK, but also throughout Europe and even in the US. If you haven't heard of it, it doesn't make it any less important, especially knowing that this was one of the biggest factors in the company's downfall. And anyway, if you don't know what you're editing about, ask those who know better than you instead of removing content as you see fit. As for your "original research" and POV claims, they don't stand to scrutiny. This information has already been published in two British magazines (sadly, they don't release their back issues' content online; you have to buy them if they're still available), it has been published in the Betaboyz forum (which is dedicated to providing technical support for the Lancia Beta), there are even links to the original Daily Mirror article that started the scandal. What more do you want? Or is it perhaps an effort on your behalf to erase this incident from public memory and cement Daily Mirror's effort's as "facts"? Elp gr (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to correct the bit about the Beta rust scandal about only Series 1 cars and saloons being affected. I was there at the time and can assure everyone that all models were affected and were scrapped - Series 11 cars, Coupes, HPE's and Spiders. I can vaguely recall a couple of Monte Carlo cars as well at the scrapyard but wouldn't put money on it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.97.227 (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Lancia Beta Coupe 2.0ie 1982.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lancia Beta Coupe 2.0ie 1982.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- talk) 12:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lancia Beta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927183914/http://www28.brinkster.com/lanciabeta/ to http://www28.brinkster.com/lanciabeta/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]