Lancia Motor Club

My Fulvia bought last year has a set of Cromodoras with new 185/70 Pirelli Cinturato tyres. But I think they're too wide compared with standard 165 tyres on steel wheels that I sometimes use. What do others reckon? Steering is a bit heavier but I worry about them fouling front arches on full bump. Any thoughts about what should be fitted?

I run run 80 profile 165 on Cromodoras on my 1600 Sport  with no problems. BTW nice coupe although I think the rear springs need setting correctly to flatten its stance a bit.

Is the factory width 175?

https://www.longstonetyres.co.uk/classic-car-tyres/lancia/fulvia.html

only 1600 hf for 14” has 175….

Fair point thanks, I saw the Cromodoras and thought HF.

Mine's a standard 1.3S but previous owner fitted a set of 14" Cromodoras. Tyres are 165/80 and no problem with fouling wheel arch.

Mention was made of the rear ride height in the photo. Mine is also up a bit more than I'd like, 75mm clearance tyre to wheel arch compared with only 45mm at the front, car unladen. I asked the previous owner who had tried taking a spring leaf out but he found it caused some fouling (perhaps when fully laden) so he reverted to standard. Can it be adjusted other than by removal of a leaf?

Some  would say the spring should be reset by slackening fasteners and retightening.
 I have never understood how this affects the properties of a spring.
 I know adding an extra leaf upside down flattens the spring.

  Richard

The workshop manual explains how to set the correct rear right height. It involves slackening off certain bolts and putting a specific weight in the boot then re-tightening. The weight sounds quite a lot, but if you’ve got some concrete blocks it soon adds up to enough.

Don’t forget to put a board in the boot to avoid any chance of distorting the top of the fuel tank.

For S2/Fulvia 3 slackening all 10 (!) silent blocks and compressing the rear suspension with heavy weights in the boot such that distance between the bump stop and the top of the sprin plate is 80mm then doing up all the (10) silent blocks has the effect of holding the spring in the middle position of operation. Of course it is necessary the all silent blocks are in working condition so they can hold this design requirement (it is in the manual....) and also nobody has changed the rear springs for non Italian made springs as the steel is different and UK steel is less flexible...

Great thanks.

Takes me back many decades to my early production Hillman Imp, bag or two of cement or gravel in the (front) boot was a common tweak but you had to drive around with it. Eventually bit the bullet and bought a set of shorter springs.

Hi Nick,

This is very timely since I am in the middle of replacing my S2 1600HF tyres and also deciding on the future of my wheels (Cromodora 14x6J).

The Owners handbook specifies Michelin XAS 175 14.  Their profile is not explicitly given, but in its absence you can assume that is 80%.  I have been using a 175/80 Firestone tyre, but the Michelin XASs are now available from Longstone Tyres (Wangler has provided a link) and I have just bought a set. Putting them alongside the Firestones is interesting - the XASs have an asymmetric tread pattern (the outer and inner faces are marked) and a rounded shoulder - the Firestones are quite square in comparison.  My Firestones are also over 20 years old (with surprisingly little wear, so they must be a very hard compound), and I am hoping the new tyre will make the steering a bit lighter at low speeds on grippy surfaces.

The rims are more of an issue.  The tyre shop who removed the old covers were concerned that I had been running them without an inner tube, since the Cromodoras lack 'safety ridges' inboard of the rims.  These are intended to stop the tyre deflating if it is hit from the side near the rim.  Tubeless tyres were introduced around 1970, but it was a while before safety ridges were introduced and the Cromodora design was never updated. The valve holes are also thicker than would be found on a normal tubeless wheel, which have a recess.  My valve holes were also pitted but contained sufficient sealant to avoid any leaks.

My Cromodoras were last refurbished 25 years ago so it was also time to visit some paint shops to see what could be done.  In short, it is not very much.  The Mg-Al alloy wheels are too delicate (and the old paint and filler too thick) to be bead blasted.  An exploratory test showed the surface underneath was quite pitted and some of the detail ('Cromodora 14x6J') and sharpness had already been lost and not just painted over.  The advice was to get them chemically stripped but that should not involve alkali ('soda') or strong acids.  The only remaining choice is to use methylene chloride - the sort of paint stripper that has disappeared from use because of handling, disposal and safety issues.  I used a lot of it to take my car back to bare metal in the 1990's so I know how unpleasant it is and it is not something I look forward to revisiting in a small garage with a recently repainted car.

My solution has been to buy a set of 4 reproduction Al-alloy wheels from Pieces Fulvia, which arrived today.  They have a safety ridge and a recessed valve hole, so are designed for tubeless tyres.  In  fact, my tyre shop tells me you must not use tubes in wheels with safety ridges.  I will use the best Cromodora (with a tube) as a spare while I wait for Spring to clean up the rest in the open air!

Good looking car too,

Glyn

P.S. There is a very good article on the process of Mg-Al wheel restoration here: https://stevekouracos.com/restoration/tips-and-tricks/aluminum-magnesium-wheel-restoration/

I have attached some images showing the more rounded profile of the Pirellis vs Firestones, as well as the safety ridges and valve recesses for tubeless tyres on the reproduction wheels vs a standard Cromodora wheel.  Some of this has been touched on in much earlier threads, but I think the images will help.

Glyn

PS  For interest, I weighed both wheels.  The Cromodora (Mg-Al) wheel is 4.7kg and the Reproduction (Al) is 6.8kg - a bigger difference than I expected.

thanks Glyn, all very useful. TBH my wheels are reproduction items so the safety ridge isn't a big issue but I like the look of those Michelins. 175/70 is probably the max I'd go to now. Yup, the rear sits a bit high and I might look into it but that was always part of the characterful stance of a Fulvia coupe to me!

This is a picture of my car with the Firestone 175/80 tyres.  The springs have been replaced with NOS items and the suspension was set during a restoration between 2018 and 2021.  The stance is pretty much the way it has been since I bought the car in 1986, but if you like the look of yours and it drives well, there should be no rush to change it.

Looks great Glyn sits perfectly on the tarmac.

Nick - if you're feeling like treating yourself to an expensive Christmas present:

https://ricambilanciafulvia.it/en/product/lowered-rear-leaf-springs-fulvia-corsa-available-soon/

Hmmm......tempted

There is a really interesting interview with Dougal from Longstone Tyres on the latest episode of The Intercooler podcast where he talks about why period correct tyres suit classic cars so well. Link to the podcast here - https://www.the-intercooler.com/library/podcasts/all-podcast/

Thanks, Andy.  The tubed/tubeless question has also been addressed by Dougal from Longstone Tyres on You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWJ-tWP3iU0.  This link was originally posted by Beckerman67 in a Fulvia Forum thread in April 2023, but it is worth adding here, just for completeness.

Well I was gearing up to doing the business with the silentblocs and heavy weights in boot as per earlier description until reading this. If the adjustment can be done by the method described, why buy these springs?     

Best to try setting the rear springs IMHO..
Also been following this tyre business as I run tubeless wire wheels on my TR6 after tube blowouts on tubed wire wheels and for the last 20 years I have run a variety of tubeless tyres on original cromodoras and campagnolas on 3 Fulvias and do 10,000 km a year without issue. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, what!

I don’t know, but my thinking, which I’m quite happy for someone to shoot down in flames, is that you are compressing something to an abnormal extent (that is to say more than the weight it has naturally got) then locking it in position.

To me, that doesn’t really seem a satisfactory engineering solution. Surely is better for it to sit as it should do (or as perhaps you want it to) without the addition of any weights to make it do achieve it. The springs and all the attachments are under permanent stress when you compress them and then lock them all into position. I just don’t like the sound of it.

Its what Lancia designed. I think they knew a thing or two.

When playing with rear springs and weights it is advisable to check the correct operation of the brake limiter valve of S2/3 cars. IMHO the red coupe that looks too high at the back is in fact far too low at the front.

Fair point - I did ask for it!

A question though. If you were to take an unmolested original Fulvia and undo all the links etc. ready to compress the springs with weights, by how much would it rise?

Despite my fairly high mileage I never had the need to replace or reset the rear springs even though I did replace a number of bushes. At the front it looks as if the car needs new rubber buffers that link the transverse spring to the suspensions. These deteriorate often and should be seen as consumables. Please note that, on the market, there are short and long buffers; however, the original ones are the long ones and hopefully should be made with rubber material that does not perish very quickly. Modern replacements can be of poor quality.