<VV> Lancia quality (no Corvair so don't read it if you are of an irritable disposition)

[Alan and Clare Wesson]

Joe wrote:

> You are the first person I have ever heard say that Lancia build quality 
> was
> better than Mercedes....even in 1955.  Did you transpose that ?

No it's true. And it's *especially* in 1955, not *even* in 1955. Until 1969, 
when Fiat took them over, Lancias were handbuilt cars, and were superior in 
quality to Rolls-Royce, as well as being massively more technically advanced 
(that info comes courtesy of Rolls-Royce themselves, who bought one in 1961, 
stripped it down and concluded that if they built cars to that standard they 
wouldn't be able to make a profit. They were right - in 1969 Lancia went 
bankrupt, were taken over by Fiat, and Fiat then proceeded to destroy the 
reputation - with the result that the same kind of folklore exists about 
Lancias as exists about Vairs. That is one reason I collect them - I enjoy 
maligned cars).

A 1966 Flavia glove box lid comprises 22 separate parts. Lancia never, ever 
compromised on quality. It is said that if their gear inspector found a 
faulty gear, the junked the whole day's supply. My Appias show *absolutely 
no* evidence of bean-counters being in charge anywhere. If it needs to be 
aluminium, it is. If it needs to be different between models (or even 
different months of the same model) it is. Sometimes a part is different 
even when it doesn't need to be, just for engineering satisfaction. Mercedes 
are mass-produced rubbish in comparison.

That's why I collect them. My cars (1950s Appias) have shut-lines (on 
pillarless, suicide doors) that are superior to Honda's nowadays (they are 
an even 2mm). For some shots of one of my cars, see:

http://viva-lancia.com/letters/wesson-alan.htm

That car is better made than any Mercedes - then or now.

Check out some Lancia history and you will find that the error of judgment 
you have just committed is tantamount to going up to a Vair owner and saying 
'hey, those things flip, don't they?'

You have made the mistake of taking in the folklore and believing the 
'bar-room' reputation - and, as with the Corvair, the Lancia's reputation 
has been unfairly modified by what came after - but a lot of things in the 
automotive world don't match the folklore.

Here's a brief reference for a start:

http://www.carclassic.com/html/DH16.htm

Mussolini drove one of these, and he had quite a wide choice!

The difference between Lancia and Mercedes is that Lancias are technically 
interesting and advanced cars, rather than 'lowest common denominator' cars 
with zero technical interest that just happen to be well-made. Pre-1969 
Lancias are technological masterpieces and art on wheels, as well as being 
hand-built to the highest standards and regardless of cost.

Finally, as your email address is Taruffi57, surely you know of your 
namesake's connections with the company. As well as winning the Carrera 
Panamericana (a lot of people incorrectly think that Lincoln won this, 
whereas they actually only won their class - Lancia won outright), Lancia 
were very successful in Grand Prix racing in the 50s, until they sold their 
outfit to Ferrari, under whose ownership it continued to win as the 
Lancia-Ferrari. But it was a Lancia design. Check this out:

''Alberto Ascari might not have had a Lancia Grand Prix car to race until 
the last round of the championship, but he raced Lancia sports cars 
throughout the season, winning the Mille Miglia, the D24 Lancia's biggest 
win in 1954. Fans of Grand Prix winner and part time F1 driver Piero Taruffi 
might say his win in the Targa Florio with a D24 was just as important. The 
D24 had also won the Carrera Pan Americana in 1953, driven by Juan Fangio.''

Cheers

Alan