"Luxuriously appointed and very spacious. Performance and economy good. Ride and road noise better than average, but handling something of an acquired taste. Solidly built and nicely finished"

When Fiat purchased Lancia in 1969, the company it had acquired was an ailing one.

So, when the time came for a new D-segment saloon to replace Lancia’s staple model, the Fulvia, something cost-effective was needed – or, as Autocar put it on 1 November 1973, something that “radically changed Lancia’s design, manufacturing and marketing policies”.

That car was the Beta, the first new Lancia under the watchful eye of its fellow Turin townsman, and in order to turn the company’s fortunes around, it employed a wide range of Fiat parts.

The Beta had in fact gone on sale in Continental Europe in October 1972, a right-hand-drive model did not go on sale for another year, at which time we got to drive it for the first time.

It was available in three states: 1400, 1600 and 1800. Each had a Fiat-derived inline-four, transversely mounted twin-cam petrol engine, with the model numbers corresponding to the respective cubic capacities. The entry-level motor’s output was 89bhp, the middle’s 107bhp and the biggest’s 118bhp. We tested the latter.

This was mated to a five-speed manual gearbox, borrowed from Citroën, itself a fellow Fiat subsidiary at the time. Drive was through the front wheels.

The Beta’s suspension, meanwhile, was of the MacPherson-strut type for all for wheels, with wishbones for the fronts and transverse arms for the rears, and coil springs all round.

“Another departure from traditional Lancia practice,” we noted, was the adoption of rack-and-pinion steering.

Introductions aside, off we went.

“Having had appetites whetted by the model’s advanced specification, prospective buyers will be keen to learn how it behaves on the road,” we said. “With a few minor reservations, they will not be disappointed.”

In ideal conditions, we achieved a top speed of 109mph in the Beta, the precise figure claimed by Lancia itself.

“It is significant that maximum speed is coincident with the peak of the power curve,” we reported, but, frustratingly, “whilst such gearing is ideal from the all-out performance viewpoint, it does rob the car of the ability to cruise unobtrusively at wide throttle openings. Anything more than 95mph on the clock involves considerable fuss."

Our attempts to test the Beta for acceleration came in the pouring rain, and so any attempt at a full-throttle capriccio bore nothing but “furious wheelspin”.

In a more measured method, we achieved a 0-30mph time of 3.8sec, 0-60mph in 10.7sec and 0-95mph in 33.1sec; a performance in which we considered the Beta to have “acquitted itself extremely well”.

The gearbox we also evaluated with positivity, although it wasn’t called into action as frequently as we may have expected due to the engine's “pleasant flexibility”.

Fuel economy was decent, too: “Despite being driven brutally hard, the test car averaged 24.3mpg”.

When compared to its (somewhat ironic) rival, the Fiat 132 Special 1800, the Beta came out on top for top speed, acceleration and fuel economy.

However, the Beta’s engine was comparatively slow to warm, and “the general level of mechanical noise was higher than expected for a car in this class,” reaching a fortissimo at 5000rpm, “despite having an electric cooling fan”.

When it came to ride and handling, we found that “inevitably, the concentration of mechanical components at the front has resulted in considerable front heaviness”.

However, partly due to “fairly low gearing” of the steering, “the Beta was reassuringly stable, no matter what the road conditions”.

“The Beta’s balance and general behaviour are greatly dependent on the amount of power being used. Even in the dry - fierce getaways result in considerable wheelspin, a considerable squat and a tendency to veer to the right.

“Under next driving conditions, the Beta’s steering self-centres quite vigorously.”

However, “less predictable was the behaviour on tight right-hand bends”, where startlingly “application of power causes total loss of self-centring action,” compounded by the fact that “lift-off results in a sudden and violent return to the straight-ahead”.

“Such a blow-by-blow account might give the impression that the Beta scores badly in terms of handling, but this is by no means the case once the driver has adjusted to the model’s peculiarness,” we concluded, and that it “was found that most impressive averages are achieved over give-and-take routes”.

The ride had an “air of comfort,” although stiff damping made for appreciable firmness at lowish speeds. Still, the Beta “ironed out the roughest of roads,” and along with its “sumptuously comfortable” seats, we thought would be “an attractive proposition for a great many people”.

Wind noise and road noise, too, were impressively muted.

Brakes seemed too sensitive at first, but actually, 200lb of pressure was needed before we could make the car slide, with progressive fade. “Such characteristics are fine for those who drive briskly and are aware of the pattern,” we reckoned, but “it was conceivable that some drivers could be caught napping”.

Inside the Beta, we were impressed with the 1800’s “comprehensive equipment and luxurious trim” – large, fabric-trimmed seats.

Aesthetically, although the fascia was of a clean design, with “a dominating speedometer and tachometer,” we did criticise “the abundance of instrument and warning lamps”.

In terms of practicality, the Beta offered “better-than-average leg room, decent head room and large door openings”. The boot, meanwhile, was “truly vast” and “of a useful shape”.

The “standard of construction”, too, was excellent. “Seldom have cars been produced with such narrow and regular margins,” we beamed.

We concluded by saying: “Without doubt, the Beta deserves praise for its spaciousness, comfort and the quality of its finish. It is also commendable to drive, although not everyone will like its handling characteristics. Overall, however, the Beta represents excellent value for money."

Our Verdict

Fiat Tipo

Fiat goes back to the future with its new, 1980s-inspired family hatchback

Join the debate

Comments
14

4 May 2017
An expensive 1800 car, 0-60 10.7, 109mph max and worst of all an average of 24.3mpg for the full test which the Autocar thought was good at the time!

 

Hydrogen cars just went POP

4 May 2017
When the Beta appeared all that time ago it was a revalation,Car magazine described it as "Cheap at twice the price" and Lancia's sales went through the roof, but a few years later the the rust problem started to show, which was not an uncommon problem with Italian cars of that era,but Lancia were never able to overcome the rust bucket image and the rest is history.

4 May 2017
ianp55 wrote:

the rust problem started to show, which was not an uncommon problem with Italian cars of that era

It wasn't just Italian cars. Rust protection technology was rudimentary compared with today, but many manufacturers were also caught out by importing poor quality recycled steel - I believe from Russia - which had rust buried inside it, so that no amount of protection would stop it erupting to the surface. Even Volvo and Mercedes were caught out around that period.

4 May 2017
The problem with fwd was Torque steer, it was a well known and ubiquitous issue, however my recollection is that it was almost completely eliminated in both my Betas by the use in later models of equal length driveshafts.

It is easy to forget that this was a really powerful front wheel drive car back then, the most powerful Passat (a similar size car) had 85 bhp. I had access to many different new cars during the 70's, In my experience the only fwd car that had better handling and steering than the Beta , but not by much, was the Alfasud, and until the 80's that only had between 68 and 75bhp.

4 May 2017
Citroen has NEVER been a Fiat subsidiary.

4 May 2017
To quote from https://www.passion-citroen.com/l-histoire-citroën/l-histoire-de-la-marque/
(In 1968)Citroën and Fiat sign an agreement for technical and financial cooperation: the PARDEVI Holding company, which holds the majority of Citroën shares and in which Fiat has a 49% stake and Michelin 51%, will be formed .Fiat and Citroën will develop joint projects for industrial studies and investments And commercial.

In 1973 , Fiat withdrew from PARDEVI and returned to Michelin its share of the capital (49%). However, Fiat and Citroën continued some industrial and commercial relations, but the 1968 agreement was broken.

9 May 2017
I'm glad that you corrected that. Must admit I was surprised to read it, thinking it must have been a gap in my knowledge.

4 May 2017
autocar wrote:

The “standard of construction”, too, was excellent.

Is there any legal time limit on when you can sue? If not the Lancia owners might start court action against Haymarket Publications when after reading the article and parting with their cash, they came out to find a rust heap in the drive where their car once stood.

4 May 2017
My first job from school was in the PR department of Lancia (based in Wembley back then) and my first task was to deal with a very unhappy Beta customer who's 3 month old car was pitted with rust! Baptism of fire eh! Anyway, to cut a long story short, it was at this time that we decided to offer the buy back of any rusty sub framed cars but by then Lancia press was so bad that they never recovered from the rust reputation and despite jems like the Integrale, sales went down and down

4 May 2017
I agree sorrel. My 1989 G reg Lancia delta GTi.e. had no rust whatsoever on it while at least in my care. I kept it for 14 months before the electrical maladies forced me to get a sensible reliable car. And it was eight years old when I got hold of it! Lancia's downfall with the rust scandal wasn't helped by them offering a pittance to customers as compensation and tried to tie them down to buying another Lancia.
Honda, when they introduced the 3 door Accord in 1977 (reme3mber them?) suffered the same scandal. However, they paid their customers beyond the market value of their cars in compensation and the rest is history, as they say.

Pages

Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week

  • Kia Stonic
    First Drive
    18 October 2017
    Handsome entrant into the bulging small crossover market has a strong engine and agile handling, but isn’t as comfortable or complete as rivals
  • Hyundai Kona
    First Drive
    18 October 2017
    Hyundai's funky-looking Kona crossover with a peppy three-cylinder engine makes all the right noises for the car to be a success in a crowded segment
  • Citroën C3 Aircross
    First Drive
    17 October 2017
    The Citroen C3 Aircross has got funky looks and a charming interior, but it's another small SUV, and another dynamic miss. Numb steering is just one thing keeping it from class best
  • Skoda-Karoq 2.0 TDI 4x4
    First Drive
    16 October 2017
    Diesel version of Skoda’s junior SUV is unobtrusive and undemanding, but we’d still go for the silkier petrol version of the Karoq
  • Audi Q7 e-tron
    First Drive
    16 October 2017
    Expensive and flawed but this understated diesel-electric Audi Q7 has a lot to offer