Lancia Beta

Lancia Beta: which version to buy and why

If the choice is a Lancia Beta Coupe from the single 1 generation (1972–1984), the catalogue does not give ten different cars — it gives 10 petrol, front-drive, five-speed manuals that cluster into three displacements and five power levels. The useful question is not “is it a Beta?” but which 2.0 MT, which 1.6 MT, and whether the 1.3 MT is enough.

If the choice is a Lancia Beta Coupe from the single 1 generation (1972–1984), the catalogue does not give ten different cars — it gives 10 petrol, front-drive, five-speed manuals that cluster into three displacements and five power levels. The useful question is not “is it a Beta?” but which 2.0 MT, which 1.6 MT, and whether the 1.3 MT is enough. There is only one generation, so nothing later “fixed” the platform: the spread is inside this Coupe, not across restyles counted as new generations.

Specs that actually separate the ten versions

Every listed car is Gasoline, 4 cylinders Inline, boost No, gearbox Manual with 5 gears, drive FWD, independent spring suspension both ends, Disc brakes front and rear, ground clearance 133 mm. Wheel size is not measured on all ten. That common floor is why small numbers matter.

Two 2.0 MT rows share 122 hp / 90 kW, 178 Nm at 2800, 1995 cc, 95, multi-point, compression 8.9, bore/stroke 84 × 90. One of those two lists a 49 L tank; the other does not — tank not measured. Treat them as the same power specification with uneven measurement, not as two performance steps.

Three 2.0 MT rows sit at 119 hp. Two are 88 kW; one is 87 kW (1 kW / about 1%). Only one of the 119 hp cars has a timed run (9.5 s, 188 km/h) and a kerb weight. The 135 hp / 99 kW 2.0 MT is the power ceiling; torque, 0–100 and top speed for it are not measured.

Three 1.6 MT rows are all 101 hp / 74 kW from 1585 cc. Two have timed runs that do not match.

Engine: hp per litre and what the extra displacement buys

Specific output from the catalogue only:

• 1.3 MT: 82 / 1.297 ≈ 63.2 hp per litre
• 1.6 MT (all three): 101 / 1.585 ≈ 63.7 hp per litre
• 2.0 MT 119 hp: 119 / 1.995 ≈ 59.6 hp per litre
• 2.0 MT 122 hp: 122 / 1.995 ≈ 61.2 hp per litre
• 2.0 MT 135 hp: 135 / 1.995 ≈ 67.7 hp per litre

The 1.3 MT and 1.6 MT sit within 0.5 hp/L of each other. The 135 hp 2.0 MT is the only version that clearly extracts more power per litre (+4.0 hp/L vs the 1.6 MT, +8.1 hp/L vs the 119 hp 2.0 MT). The common 119 hp 2.0 MT is the least specific: you pay 410 cc over the 1.6 MT (1995 − 1585) for 18 hp (119 − 101), i.e. about 22.8 cc per extra hp. From 1.3 MT to 1.6 MT you add 288 cc for 19 hp (101 − 82) — about 15.2 cc per extra hp. From 1.3 MT to 122 hp 2.0 MT: +698 cc, +40 hp (~17.5 cc/hp). From 1.3 MT to 135 hp 2.0 MT: +53 hp on the same 698 cc step (~13.2 cc/hp).

Peak rpm, where measured: 1.6 MT makes 101 hp at 5800; 122 hp and the timed 119 hp 2.0 MT make peak at 5500. That is 300 rpm lower for the two-litre peaks we have. Torque where measured: 137 Nm at 3000 on the 1.6 MT versus 176–178 Nm at 2800 on the documented 2.0 MT rows — 39–41 Nm more (+28–30%) and 200 rpm earlier.

Compression: 1.6 MT 9.4 vs 2.0 MT rows that list it at 8.9 (0.5 lower). Bore/stroke: 1.6 MT 84 × 71.5; 2.0 MT 84 × 90 — same 84 mm bore, 18.5 mm more stroke. Fuel grade in the data: 1.3 MT and the 135 hp 2.0 MT list 92; 1.6 MT and the 122 hp 2.0 MT list 95. Several 119 hp 2.0 MT rows have fuel not measured.

Engine position in the data is not the same family-wide: 1.3 MT and all 1.6 MT are Central; the 2.0 MT rows are Front, transverse. Feed: 1.3 MT, 135 hp 2.0 MT, and the carburetted 119 hp 2.0 MT rows are Carburetor; both 122 hp 2.0 MT rows are Distributed injection (multi-point); one 1.6 MT has feed not measured.

What the extra money (in spec, not price — prices are not in the data) buys: there is no price field. In hardware the steps are displacement and the 82 → 101 → 119/122 → 135 hp ladder. Injection appears only on the 122 hp 2.0 MT. The 135 hp 2.0 MT is still Carburetor.

Performance and economy: measured vs not measured

City, highway and combined consumption are not measured on all 10 versions. CO2 and eco class are not measured. Economy cannot decide the purchase from this catalogue.

Timed figures exist for three cars only:

• 2.0 MT 119 hp / 88 kW, kerb 1000 kg: 9.5 s to 100, 188 km/h
• 1.6 MT 101 hp, kerb 1000 kg: 10.9 s, 178 km/h
• 1.6 MT 101 hp, kerb 1145 kg: 11.9 s, 170 km/h

Arithmetic on those three:

• Same 101 hp 1.6 MT, 145 kg more kerb (1145 − 1000, +14.5%) lines up with +1.0 s to 100 and −8 km/h top speed.
• The 1000 kg 2.0 MT 119 hp is 1.4 s quicker and 10 km/h faster than the 1000 kg 1.6 MT, and 2.4 s / 18 km/h ahead of the 1145 kg 1.6 MT.
• Power-to-weight where both exist: 1000 / 119 ≈ 8.40 kg per hp (timed 2.0 MT); 1000 / 101 ≈ 9.90 kg/hp (light 1.6 MT); 1145 / 101 ≈ 11.34 kg/hp (heavy 1.6 MT). The heavy 1.6 MT carries 2.94 kg more per hp than the timed two-litre.

Not measured and therefore unusable as a buying argument: 0–100 and top speed for 1.3 MT, both 122 hp 2.0 MT, 135 hp 2.0 MT, 119 hp / 87 kW 2.0 MT, the untimed 119 hp / 88 kW 2.0 MT, and the incomplete 1.6 MT. Do not infer 135 hp is quicker than 9.5 s — the catalogue does not time it.

Dimensions and weight: two mass classes, one clearance

Ground clearance is 133 mm on every version — no generation step, no “higher” Beta in this list.

Kerb / gross, where measured:

• 2.0 MT 119 hp (timed): 1000 / 1400 kg
• 1.6 MT 101 hp (10.9 s): 1000 / 1400 kg
• 1.6 MT 101 hp (11.9 s): 1145 / 1645 kg

Gross gap 1645 − 1400 = 245 kg. Payload implied by the data: 1400 − 1000 = 400 kg on the light pair; 1645 − 1145 = 500 kg on the heavy 1.6 MT (+100 kg allowance). If you need the larger full-mass figure, that is the 1145 kg 1.6 MT — and it is the slowest timed car.

Tank 49 L: listed on one 122 hp 2.0 MT and on the 1145 kg 1.6 MT. On the other eight, tank is not measured. Wheels: not measured throughout. You cannot choose a Beta here by tyre size.

Which version to choose

One generation (1972–1984, Coupe, 10 versions). There is no second generation to pick for “the later chassis.” The choice is engine and which measured row of the same name.

Buy the timed 2.0 MT (119 hp / 88 kW) if the point is the only proven sprint. It is the sole 2.0 MT with 9.5 s and 188 km/h, kerb 1000 kg, 176 Nm, 2 valves per cylinder, Carburetor, Front, transverse. Versus the light 1.6 MT it is 18 hp and 39 Nm up, 1.4 s and 10 km/h up, same 1000 / 1400 kg. Versus the heavy 1.6 MT it is 2.4 s and 18 km/h up and 145 kg lighter. Fuel for this row is not measured.

Do not assume the other 119 hp 2.0 MT cars match that run. The 119 hp / 87 kW 2.0 MT is 1 kW down and has torque, times, weight, tank and fuel not measured. The second 119 hp / 88 kW 2.0 MT matches power in kW but again times, torque and mass not measured. Same name, thinner sheet.

Buy a 122 hp 2.0 MT if you want injection and 95, not a proven 0–100. Both 122 hp 2.0 MT rows: 90 kW at 5500, 178 Nm at 2800 (+2 Nm vs the timed 119 hp), Distributed injection (multi-point), fuel 95, compression 8.9, 84 × 90. That is +3 hp over 119 and −13 hp versus 135. 0–100, top speed, consumption, kerb and gross: not measured on both. One lists tank 49 L; the other tank not measured. If the catalogue is the only fact source, you are buying feed type and a small torque step, not a timed result.

Buy the 135 hp 2.0 MT only as a power spec, not as a timed spec. 135 hp / 99 kW is +16 hp vs 119 (+13%) and +13 hp vs 122. Specific output 67.7 hp/L is the catalogue peak. It stays Carburetor, fuel 92, torque not measured, 0–100 not measured, top speed not measured, mass not measured. Relative to 1.3 MT it is +53 hp (+65%) and +39 kW. You cannot rank it against 9.5 s without inventing a number.

Buy the light 1.6 MT (10.9 s / 178 km/h) if 101 hp at 1000 kg is the brief. Same 101 hp / 74 kW at 5800, 137 Nm at 3000, 1585 cc, Central, Carburetor, 2 valves/cyl, 9.4, 84 × 71.5, 95, as the heavy twin — but 145 kg less kerb and 1.0 s / 8 km/h better. Versus 1.3 MT: +19 hp, +288 cc, fuel 95 instead of 92. Versus timed 2.0 MT: −18 hp, +1.4 s, −10 km/h, same 1000 kg.

Buy the heavy 1.6 MT (11.9 s / 170 km/h) only for the 1645 kg gross and 49 L tank. Same 101 hp as the light 1.6 MT, worse times, 500 kg implied payload vs 400 kg. If those two measured extras are not the reason, the light 1.6 MT is the stronger 101 hp row.

The third 1.6 MT is 101 hp / 74 kW at 5800, 137 Nm (rpm not measured), Central, compression 9.4, 95, but feed not measured and no times. It does not add a new power point.

Buy the 1.3 MT only if 82 hp is the ceiling you accept. 1297 cc, 82 hp / 60 kW, Central, Carburetor, 92, Manual 5, FWD. Torque, 0–100, top speed, tank, both masses: not measured. It is 53 hp below the 135 hp 2.0 MT and 37 hp below the light 1.6 MT. Specific output (63.2 hp/L) is almost the 1.6 MT’s 63.7 — the gap is size, not a wild efficiency jump.

If the goal is one line: the only version that is both a two-litre and timed is the 2.0 MT at 119 hp / 88 kW with 9.5 s and 188 km/h. The only 1.6 MT that is both timed and light is the 1.6 MT at 101 hp with 10.9 s and 178 km/h. The 122 hp 2.0 MT is the injection / 95 pick without a sprint number. The 135 hp 2.0 MT is the hp pick without a sprint number. The 1.3 MT is the displacement floor. Consumption cannot break a tie: mpg is not measured on every row.