Lancia Flaminia

Lancia Flaminia: which version to buy

The Lancia Flaminia in this catalogue is one generation (1952–1970), Cabrio only, with six listed versions. There is no second generation to “step up” to, and no restyling recorded as a separate generation.

Lancia Flaminia: which version to buy

The Lancia Flaminia in this catalogue is one generation (1952–1970), Cabrio only, with six listed versions. There is no second generation to “step up” to, and no restyling recorded as a separate generation. The buying question is therefore only which of the six listed engines to take: two 2.5 MT cars (102 hp / 76 kW and 119 hp / 89 kW) and four 2.8 MT cars (128 hp / 95 kW, 136 hp / 101 kW listed twice, and 150 hp / 112 kW). Every version is Gasoline, 6 cylinders, V-shaped, 2 valves per cylinder, boost No, Front, longitudinal, Carburetor, Manual with 4 gears, RWD. Front suspension is Independent, spring; front brakes are Disc. Kerb weight, gross weight, 0–100, top speed, fuel use, tank, wheels, and ground clearance are not measured on any row, so this comparison is power, displacement, and what is identical.

Specs: six versions, two names

Exact names as in the data:

Nm is not measured on any version. Two rows share the name 2.8 MT and the same 136 hp / 101 kW; they are not distinguishable by the numbers given. Distinguish the two 2.5 MT rows by 102 hp vs 119 hp, and the remaining 2.8 MT rows by 128 hp vs 136 hp vs 150 hp.

Generations: nothing later to buy instead

1 generation (1952-01-01 to 1970-12-31) is Cabrio, 6 versions. Years on every modification match the generation: 1952-01-01 to 1970-12-31. There is no later body, no extra generation, and no measured change in gearbox, drive, or layout between “early” and “late” rows. Choosing a generation is not a choice here; choosing a power figure under 2.5 MT or 2.8 MT is.

Engine: what the extra displacement and extra hp actually are

Displacement step: 2775 − 2458 = 317 cc, which is 317 / 2458 ≈ 12.9% more swept volume on every 2.8 MT versus every 2.5 MT.

Power ladder (lowest to highest):

• 2.5 MT 102 hp
• 2.5 MT 119 hp (+17 hp vs 102, +16.7%)
• 2.8 MT 128 hp (+9 hp vs 119; +26 hp vs 102)
• 2.8 MT 136 hp (+8 hp vs 128; +17 hp vs 119; listed twice)
• 2.8 MT 150 hp (+14 hp vs 136; +22 hp vs 128; +31 hp vs 119; +48 hp vs 102)

From weakest to strongest is +48 hp, or 48 / 102 ≈ 47.1%. From the stronger 2.5 to the strongest 2.8 is +31 hp (31 / 119 ≈ 26.1%). From the weaker 2.8 to the strongest 2.8 is +22 hp (22 / 128 ≈ 17.2%).

kW ladder matches hp: 76 → 89 → 95 → 101 → 112. The 119 hp 2.5 MT is 13 kW above the 102 hp 2.5 MT. The 150 hp 2.8 MT is 17 kW above the 128 hp 2.8 MT and 11 kW above each 136 hp 2.8 MT.

Power per litre (hp ÷ litres from the listed cc):

• 2.5 MT 102 hp: 102 / 2.458 ≈ 41.5 hp/L
• 2.5 MT 119 hp: 119 / 2.458 ≈ 48.4 hp/L
• 2.8 MT 128 hp: 128 / 2.775 ≈ 46.1 hp/L
• 2.8 MT 136 hp: 136 / 2.775 ≈ 49.0 hp/L (both identical rows)
• 2.8 MT 150 hp: 150 / 2.775 ≈ 54.1 hp/L

The 119 hp 2.5 MT is more specific output than the 128 hp 2.8 MT (48.4 vs 46.1 hp/L) even though it has less peak power and 317 cc less volume. The 150 hp 2.8 MT is the densest (54.1 hp/L) and the 102 hp 2.5 MT the least dense (41.5 hp/L). The 136 hp 2.8 MT sits just above the 119 hp 2.5 MT on specific output (49.0 vs 48.4 hp/L) with 17 hp more.

What does not change with the extra money in this table: fuel type (Gasoline), cylinders (6), layout (V-shaped), valves per cylinder (2), boost (No), engine position (Front, longitudinal), feed (Carburetor), gearbox (Manual, 4), drive (RWD), front suspension (Independent, spring), front brakes (Disc). There is no Automatic, no extra gear, no AWD, no measured turbo.

Performance and mpg: not measured, so do not rank on them

0–100 is not measured on 2.5 MT 102 hp, 2.5 MT 119 hp, 2.8 MT 128 hp, 2.8 MT 136 hp, 2.8 MT 136 hp (second row), or 2.8 MT 150 hp.

Top speed is not measured on all six.

City, highway, and combined consumption are not measured on all six. MPG cannot be ranked.

CO2 and eco class are not measured on all six.

Torque (Nm) and torque rpm are not measured on all six, so there is no “low-end” ranking either.

You can infer only that 150 hp is 48 hp more than 102 hp on the same Manual 4 / RWD layout; you cannot infer seconds to 100 km/h or litres per 100 km from this file.

Dimensions, weight, tank, wheels

Kerb weight is not measured on all six, so weight per horsepower is not measured.

Gross weight is not measured on all six.

Ground clearance is not measured on all six.

Tank is not measured on all six.

Wheel sizes are not measured on all six.

Rear suspension and rear brakes are not measured on all six.

There is no “lighter Cabrio” versus “heavier Cabrio” in the numbers. Body type is Cabrio on the only generation.

Reliability and problems

This dataset does not list faults, recalls, or reliability scores. What is the same on every version (Carburetor, Manual 4, RWD, Gasoline 6 V-shaped, boost No) is the shared mechanical pattern; what differs is only listed power and the 2458 vs 2775 cc step. Do not treat missing problem data as “no problems.”

Which version to choose

If the goal is the highest listed output: take 2.8 MT 150 hp / 112 kW / 2775 cc. It is +14 hp versus each 2.8 MT 136 hp, +22 hp versus 2.8 MT 128 hp, +31 hp versus 2.5 MT 119 hp, and +48 hp versus 2.5 MT 102 hp. It also has the highest power per litre (≈54.1 hp/L). Gearbox, drive, boost, and fuel stay the same as the others.

If the goal is the 2.8 with less peak power: 2.8 MT 128 hp / 95 kW is the mildest 2775 cc row (−22 hp vs 150, −8 hp vs 136). Specific output (≈46.1 hp/L) is below the 119 hp 2.5 MT. Choose it only if you want the 317 cc step without the top 2.8 output.

If the goal is the middle 2.8: 2.8 MT 136 hp / 101 kW appears twice with identical numbers. There is no measured difference between those two rows (same hp, kW, 2775 cc, Gasoline, Manual 4, RWD). Treat them as the same spec in this catalogue: +8 hp vs 128, −14 hp vs 150. Specific output ≈49.0 hp/L, slightly above 2.5 MT 119 hp.

If the goal is the stronger 2.5 without the 2775 cc engine: 2.5 MT 119 hp / 89 kW. Versus the other 2.5 MT it is +17 hp / +13 kW on the same 2458 cc. Versus 2.8 MT 128 hp it is −9 hp but higher hp/L (48.4 vs 46.1). Versus 2.8 MT 150 hp it is −31 hp. Use this when you want the 2.5 name and the higher of the two 2458 cc outputs.

If the goal is the lowest listed output: 2.5 MT 102 hp / 76 kW. It is −17 hp vs the other 2.5 MT, −26 hp vs 2.8 MT 128 hp, −34 hp vs 2.8 MT 136 hp, −48 hp vs 2.8 MT 150 hp, and ≈41.5 hp/L. Nothing else in the table is smaller in power or displacement.

What extra displacement buys in this file: 317 cc and, depending on the 2.8 row, between +9 hp (119 → 128) and +48 hp (102 → 150) at the top of the ladder. It does not buy a different gearbox, a fifth gear, a different drive, boost, or a measured economy or weight change.

What extra money cannot be scored: prices are not in the data. Do not rank “value.” Rank only hp, kW, cc, and hp/L as above.

Practical shortlist from the numbers only:

1. Peak power: 2.8 MT 150 hp. 2. Mid 2.8, two identical listings: 2.8 MT 136 hp. 3. Mild 2.8: 2.8 MT 128 hp. 4. Strong 2.5: 2.5 MT 119 hp (best hp/L among the two 2458 cc cars, and better hp/L than 128 hp 2.8). 5. Mild 2.5: 2.5 MT 102 hp.

There is no other generation, no other body in this set, and no measured 0–100, mpg, or kerb weight to break a tie. The tie between the two 2.8 MT 136 hp rows cannot be broken with these figures.