Potential Fulvia owner/LMC member with a few queries ....

[Parisien]

"I will hopefully be in a position to buy a Fulvia Coupe & was wondering if there is a huge performance difference between the 1.3 & the 1.6 engines?

Also, are you seeing prices rising with the 1.3 Rallye Coupe?

Final question, do you know if there are any Lancia meetings coming up soon where there could be a few Fulvia's?"

I'll feed replies back to Martyn


P

[JollyClubUK]

"I will hopefully be in a position to buy a Fulvia Coupe & was wondering if there is a huge performance difference between the 1.3 & the 1.6 engines?

Also, are you seeing prices rising with the 1.3 Rallye Coupe?

Final question, do you know if there are any Lancia meetings coming up soon where there could be a few Fulvia's?"

I'll feed replies back to Martyn
Contact Tony Rosewell @fulviaclassics he is always happy to chat and sources the best Fulvias available.
I have had both 1.3s and a 1.t HF 90 bhp and 115 bhp respectively in stock form. Prices vary considerably as the HF cars are very sought after.
My current 1.3 is set up for fast road/hillclimb spec and performs very well.


P

[davidwheeler]

Having had both I can state that the 1.6 engine gives much superior performance.

[nistri]

But, in my humble opinion, the 1.6 engine wears out much faster and the HF costs a lot more than the 1.3 cars. Andrea

[Wangler]

A tricky question. 1.6 HF cars have become very expensive. The 1.3 series 2/3 have got up quite a lot over the past several years but are still good value IMO. Parts are easier to obtain too.

I would have a 1.6 if I could afford one, but one in the same condition as my S3 would cost double. That's hard to justify. There's a lot of enjoyment to be had out of a 1.3. Engine, gearbox, handling superb visibility etc.

If I had the room and wanted a fast classic I'd keep my 1.3 and buy a Peugeot 1.9 GTi as well rather than just have a 1.6 HF.

[Sliding Pillar]

It's not just the engine that makes the 1600 quicker. It has negative camber front suspension, quicker steering box, lighter wheels and better seats.

[DavidLaver]

I think there are much bigger differences between example of what started as identical cars than between the models. In the big wide world a 1600 and 1300 are much more like each other than anything else.  The 1600 has the bragging rights: its rare, expensive when new and expensive now.  Harder to find, harder to restore.  Pulling out the pub car park and off down the road the differences are marginal.   Some of the 1600s also bring compromises with suspension and seats.  Maybe they'll pull an extra 0.2g on a test track and as homologation specials had all sorts of little detail changes the works team were gagging for, but as a road car? 

There are some very fast 1300cc race spec Fulvias, if you want to race, but I went "one cam change too hot" with my Aurelia and it became harder work in London. Even on A roads it was grumpy in 4th gear unless really cracking on, which is a rare thing to be able to do. 

Can change springs and dampers and camber, and shave a second or so off your lap time, but make it really heavy to park and destroy the ride such that it becomes a selfish pleasure not a car other people want to ride in.

It depends "on the use case".   Is this something you'll use "like a car" or is it replacing a motorbike?  Do you want to cover a lot of miles on normal roads or roll it off the trailer at events and try and win something?

There's a "my fulvia is uncomfortable" thread.  Its not a race spec car but might have some pattern part springs the wrong rate, it might be the interleaving has failed, it might be bushes, it might be old tyres.   A journalist might hop in that car and declare "the Alfa GTV is the more civilised car".   He might try another pair another day and "the Fulvia is the car I'd drive to Italy and back in a weekend while the GTV is an invorgorating car for a sunday morning".   Either can be lovely, either can be pigs, and my view is that the devil is in the detail and 50 years on that's more "nurture than nature".


 

[Wangler]

 Either can be lovely, either can be pigs, and my view is that the devil is in the detail and 50 years on that's more "nurture than nature".

Excellent post.
  

[lancialulu]

 Either can be lovely, either can be pigs, and my view is that the devil is in the detail and 50 years on that's more "nurture than nature".

Excellent post.
 

Disagree! Anyone who has had a 1300 coupe in standard trim and a 1600 in standard trim will tell you there is a huge gap in the driving sensation. Then you go to the Sport (with the same chassis remember) and the characteristics change again....

BTW I have driven that uncomfortable Fulvia and can say it was very odd which was strange as it was a mostly unmolested standard low mileage 3 Coupe.

[DavidLaver]

Tim - your cars a fastidiously prepared and regularly used.  I bet your 1300 could be a much nicer car than a random show winning 1600 that hadn't been through your hands.   Someone once said to me "restoring a car the MOT is roughly the half way stage".  

[DavidLaver]

Its an interesting debate.   Tyres and seats make a massive difference, both to road cars and on track.   Sound deadening radically changes the feel of a car.  A friend with an inherited MkII jag has just swapped the tyres (Blockley) and while he used to think the front suspension and steering needed a rebuild he's now got something that drives really nicely and he's using more and more.  When I swapped the exhaust manifold on our Midget I could have sworn they'd put a six cylinder under the bonnet to replace the lumpy little four.  Swapping tyres made a bigger difference on that than the antiroll bar upgrade and negative camber.  The antiroll bar from not WAS a big change...

[DavidLaver]

...a rolling road session was a brilliant investment with that Midget.  Only a little more power at the top but transformed as a driving experience.

[DavidLaver]

As well as the "nature vs nurture" idea there's also the "marginal gains" that step at a time make a huge difference, and in reverse the "marginal deficits" from neglect.  

Was thinking this morning of those little Austin A30s at Goodwood.  Lots of nurture and no end of marginal gains.  Just looked on wiki and the 0-60 was 42.3 seconds.  The Austin A35 did 0-60 in 30.1.  See one in the street and it might not be able to make it to 60mph at all or it might have 120bhp.  It might be on rock hard cross plies or race rubber.

Perhaps also - now the wrong side of 50 - athletic ability is much more the nurture than nature.  At school the "natural athletes" might have won everything but if they've not looked after themselves...and at the weekend on our everyday steel bikes in normal clothes and the shopping on the back we pass lycra clad folk clipped into carbon fibre bikes.

[lancialulu]

Tim - your cars a fastidiously prepared and regularly used.  I bet your 1300 could be a much nicer car than a random show winning 1600 that hadn't been through your hands.   Someone once said to me "restoring a car the MOT is roughly the half way stage".   

David just for the record my 1300 I was referring to has long since found a new owner…. I am however lucky to drive other Fulvias on which I base my comments….

[GG]

fully agree with the "fettling is everything" notion.

Changing all the suspension rubber and bits often makes a huge difference - especially those rubber interleaves on the leaf springs.

These cars were carefully designed "of a piece", and all the parts have to be up to snuff to get the right feel. Usually takes like a year or two to get this stuff all done, even after the car is a good clean runner!