What makes an Alfa Romeo an Alfa Romeo? Given Alfa Romeo's glorious history and then the takeover by Fiat in 1986 which models are considered to be true Alfas and which are not, Arna aside. Are some models considered to be badge engineered Fiats or do they really have the Alfa DNA. :-\
Ok, I am wiling to say my 2cents worth. To make a case for Alfas not being Alfas post the Fiat takeover, for me is the equivalent of saying that Ferrari's aren't Ferraris or Maseratis not Maserati post their respective takeover.
To me it makes no difference whether an Alfa is RWD, AWD or even FWD if it wears the Alfa badge proudly, and shows its heritage. The difference in drive train is simply a matter of handling variation. All have their place and purpose.
Over the years so many different makes of cars have had multiple owners, again consider Aston Martin, Jaguar, Rolls Royce, Bently, Lotus, Saab, and so on.
To me it is an illogical and flawed argument to say that Alfas ceased to be Alfas for instance pre the 75 and 90. Even Alfa since its inception has had multiple ownership including both private and government.
So yes for my money my 156 is just as much an Alfa as is my 1750 GTV or even Alfettas I have owned in the past.
Let the flames begin !! Remember it is only my opinion. ;D
Alfas are like beer - there's no such thing as a bad one, just varying degrees of excellence!
My contribution:
The main feature of Alfa DNA is feeling alive to a delicate touch, mostly through the accelerator pedal.
For comparison, I give you any 90's Mercedes-Benz, where they at least helped the environment by finding a new use for off-cut planks of wood.
Torben
if its luxury, fast through the corners, sounds sweet after 3000rpm, has killer looks, and cost less than far worse cars.........its most likely an alfa.
If its ugly, sounds like a whipper snipper on crack, but gets there a bit quicker, and is swathed in plastic.... its not an alfa, but probably cost as much as one.
An Alfa Romeo is not an Alfa Romeo when it doesn't bring a smile to your face, you work out the lines through corners on the way to work, you prefer the engine note to a music note from the radio, you think about driving as opposed to what you are going to eat tonight, you tell yourself i am glad that Alfa Romeo isn't the major sponsor of the VFL, i will go for a drive for the sheer enjoyment of driving, you spend far too long on Forums talking about your car, Colin.
Proof of Col's theory. When I bought the 156 in June last year, I figured I didn't need a daily driver as I was using public transport for work. Fifteen months and 25,000km later, I look forward to the daily drive into the office ....
So yes, its a real Alfa. Not that it was ever in doubt. The Busso V6 is magnifico!
Quote from: Davidm1750 on September 26, 2013, 07:15:51 PM
Ok, I am wiling to say my 2cents worth. To make a case for Alfas not being Alfas post the Fiat takeover, for me is the equivalent of saying that Ferrari's aren't Ferraris or Maseratis not Maserati post their respective takeover.
To me it makes no difference whether an Alfa is RWD, AWD or even FWD if it wears the Alfa badge proudly, and shows its heritage. The difference in drive train is simply a matter of handling variation. All have their place and purpose.
Over the years so many different makes of cars have had multiple owners, again consider Aston Martin, Jaguar, Rolls Royce, Bently, Lotus, Saab, and so on.
To me it is an illogical and flawed argument to say that Alfas ceased to be Alfas for instance pre the 75 and 90. Even Alfa since its inception has had multiple ownership including both private and government.
So yes for my money my 156 is just as much an Alfa as is my 1750 GTV or even Alfettas I have owned in the past.
Let the flames begin !! Remember it is only my opinion. ;D
I'll buy in with an opposing opinion.
FIAT's ownership of Ferrari and Maserati seams to be MUCH more financial than engineering.
Certainly, THANKFULLY, there have been no front wheel drive cars from either mark. And front wheel drive is only ever done for packaging and cost reduction reasons.
So to me, an Alfa is an ALFA when it has innovative engineering and balance.
Driving first but still reasonably practical.
Most people say that the engine is the soul of the car. Yeah, kinda. For me, the cars real character starts with its chassis!
I can't stand badge engineering. I hate the fact that FIAT have ridden on the name of Alfa Romeo for so long, but provided them nothing but a generic FWD chassis to work with. And I didn't consider the 8C to be an Alfa.
I'm largely with you on this Duk. Something was lost when the chassis and engines became Fiat derivatives.
Not sure how many people actually realise the MiTo is a Fiat 500 in drag....and a 155/156 was based on a Fiat Tipo.
When my uncle reacquired his old GTV6, I was enthusiastic about it. Keen to see it fixed and properly modified. But he has since sold it.
When my Uncle's other half bought her FWD GTV6, I looked at as a supply of parts (engine and front brakes) for a proper (Read: Rear Wheel Drive) Alfa......... :o
I would like to own a multitude of older Alfa. Typically modified they way I like to do things, but all older Alfa's. There isn't 1 Alfa, since the ES30 that I want to own, except for the 4C.
Actually, I'd like to give an AWD 155 Turbo a go. But they are really a Lancia Delt Integrale underneath, so I don't think of them as a real Alfa, but would still like 1.
But Duk a few matters to consider, my 156 sportwagon is extremely practical, and as Col and Poobah have equally commented to drive a 156 is a soulful experience, be it with the JTS (yes Fiat derived) engine, which is not to say that it is not a nice engine or with the Busso V6 which is equally an Alfa V6 as in an old school Alfetta GTV6.
Also be it FWD or RWD actually is not just about saving cost or space, it actually is a perfectly fine system if engineered well. Think the mini, or even yes the Fiat 128, or how about the mighty Sud, and its fellow derivatives. So no I disagree with the pundits here, FWD can be just as effective as RWD cars, and can offer significant handling advantages. The only downside is understeer but at the extreme end of racing even this can be dealt with. Most of us don't drive our daily drives that hard and so be it which ever drive system makes no logical difference I would suggest.
Again I disagree, that Fiat have not contributed to modern Alfas, how about the 1750 engine in the new Giulietta or as used in the last of the 159s. Would you not suggest that the GT is not a sexy modern Alfa, it is great to drive from all accounts, the Brera has killer looks and as for the 4C it sure looks it is going to be a great addition to Alfa history.
To me it is all to easy to denigrate Fiat's ownership of Alfa but they have kept the marque going, invested in new models and continue to do so which n my view is both a good thing and at the same time offers hope for a range of new models and perhaps even with RWD.
And as much as people deningrate Fiat's ownership of Alfa Romeo, they did save us from a fate worse than death.....ownership by FORD, they would have grabbed the name and put Alfa Romeo bages on their so called sporty cars.
And as for saying its only a Fiat, so what, Fiat make great cars as well, Italians cars all have that Italian spirit that is hard to explain or write down, but you drive one and its there.
The accountants used to say in the olden days that Front Wheel Drive was more expensive to make than Rear Wheel Drive as you needed 2 driveshafts, 4 constant velocity joints etc, British Leyland lost buckets of money on their Mini's, Morris 1100's and Austin 1800's, superior cars to others but expensive to build, then they made a cheaper to build rear wheel drive car called the Morris Marina and it was a real horror, Alex Issigonis hated it, Colin.
Quote from: Davidm1750 on October 02, 2013, 09:20:51 PM
But Duk a few matters to consider, my 156 sportwagon is extremely practical, and as Col and Poobah have equally commented to drive a 156 is a soulful experience, be it with the JTS (yes Fiat derived) engine, which is not to say that it is not a nice engine or with the Busso V6 which is equally an Alfa V6 as in an old school Alfetta GTV6.
Also be it FWD or RWD actually is not just about saving cost or space, it actually is a perfectly fine system if engineered well. Think the mini, or even yes the Fiat 128, or how about the mighty Sud, and its fellow derivatives. So no I disagree with the pundits here, FWD can be just as effective as RWD cars, and can offer significant handling advantages. The only downside is understeer but at the extreme end of racing even this can be dealt with. Most of us don't drive our daily drives that hard and so be it which ever drive system makes no logical difference I would suggest.
I have not driven a 156, nor any other FWD Alfa. But at the same time, I don't aspire to drive them. I'm not saying that they are bad cars, I'm just saying, and I know you've disagreed with me, that FWD cars are accountant derived rather than 'driver type engineer' derived. Yeah the Mini. Yeah the Sud. But to me, Alfa Romeo should have been taking on the BMW M3's, not Toyota Camry's!
I do agree that in day to day driving, the wheels that are driven make little (NO) difference. But what are you owning your Alfa for? While mine is in my shed in a million pieces, my reason for owning it is a piece of road that would make an absolute mockery of an overly powerful FWD!
And I don't care who's name is on the car or what 'amazing' differential you put in it, FWD is a very poor compromise when push comes to powerful shove!
And therein actually lays the problem, for as you say you havn't actually driven any modern Alfas. Perhaps you should. I have driven apart from mine, the 147, Brera, GTV/GTV6 and Spider but not yet a GT. I would love to try a 166 (even if it is auto) and perhaps a Giuletta, I don't like the styling of the MiTo, but the 4C.....wowsie it looks super cool.
Don't get me wrong, I still have my 1750 GTV and a Giulia Super which one day I still hope I might get to drive, let alone my 124 sport which I have owned for over 30 years and until I had my first modern car (156) all the Alfas and Fiats I have owned have been classics and yes RWD.
But I must admit I have driven so many different Italian cars from most makes, as well as been a passenger at speed in a number of exotic classic supercars (246 Dino, Urruco etc) and guess what they all have that same character, be it a Fiat 500 from the 1950s, up to modern Alfas etc. That is why I still drive an Alfa.
The one thing I really will agree with you is that yes, Alfa needs to take BMW, Audi and who-ever else on and beat them at the game. The Giulia Super and its siblings were what BMW made into the 3 series and especially the M series. Maybe Alfa needs to re-invent Autodelta and take the other guys on with performance Alfas again, or alternatively GTA versions, although I would prefer that nomenclature being used for coupes.
This all just subjective opinion anyway, and we all love Alfas of one type or another, but as I can't really fault the way my V6 156 looks, sounds drives or handles I feel obliged to defend its legitimacy as having true Alfa DNA. As far as innovation etc goes, the 156 was named European Car of the Year in 1998, in large part for its advanced suspension layout and impeccable roadhandling, while the Busso V6 was International Engine of the Year in 2000. The 156 also picked up a stack of other awards, including a few for innovation and automotive design. So I'd argue it has a fair pedigree on that front.
And I'm sure there are plenty out there who feel the same about their 159s, Giuliettas and MiTos. Alfa is a broad church, so room enough for everyone.
My family has owned several 156's and they're good cars. In fact my father had a Fiat Tipo as well. The 156 was a good updated Tipo.
I've driven a couple of modern Giulietta's, including a QV, and they too are good cars. But not in the way Alfa's used to be. Yep, its all subjective. Objectively most of the world buys a Golf or something from Japan or Korea anyway!
Quote from: Davidm1750 on October 02, 2013, 11:23:14 PM
And therein actually lays the problem, for as you say you havn't actually driven any modern Alfas. Perhaps you should. I have driven apart from mine, the 147, Brera, GTV/GTV6 and Spider but not yet a GT. I would love to try a 166 (even if it is auto) and perhaps a Giuletta, I don't like the styling of the MiTo, but the 4C.....wowsie it looks super cool.
Don't get me wrong, I still have my 1750 GTV and a Giulia Super which one day I still hope I might get to drive, let alone my 124 sport which I have owned for over 30 years and until I had my first modern car (156) all the Alfas and Fiats I have owned have been classics and yes RWD.
To me, there is nothing that fizzes my Coke about the front wheel drive Alfa's. Nothing that says "DRIVE ME!!". I get excited by the technical details of a car, to the point where, when I see a transaxle chassis Alfa with standard front suspension geometry, I just lower my eyes and shake my head :o................... 'cause I know that the cars work MUCH better when the geometry is corrected (well, made much better than standard). ;)
FWD, no matter how much effort that is put into it, will always be an accountant driven compromise.
The looks are all purely subjective and for me, it has very little to do with it. The 156 looks nice. The FWD GTV/6, I think looks like a Honda Accord.
Quote from: Davidm1750 on October 02, 2013, 11:23:14 PMThe one thing I really will agree with you is that yes, Alfa needs to take BMW, Audi and who-ever else on and beat them at the game. The Giulia Super and its siblings were what BMW made into the 3 series and especially the M series. Maybe Alfa needs to re-invent Autodelta and take the other guys on with performance Alfas again, or alternatively GTA versions, although I would prefer that nomenclature being used for coupes.
I agree that all of this is purely personal. But no one in there right mind can legitimately expect Alfa Romeo to take on the BMW M cars with a front wheel drive chassis!
Alfa Romeo have sat on their hands when it comes to engine development. There has never been a factory normally aspirated Alfa engine that has dished out 100+hp/litre, let alone 1 with a big fat spread of torque. But the E36 M3's had that kind of power/litre, not to mention the following models.
When Alfa Romeo had the 75 Evoluzione, they were taking on the E30 chassis BMW M3s under the Group A Touring Car rules and on the road.
They have had nothing since then to compete against BMW and Mercedes Benz and the DTM 155's don't count, as there is about as much Alfa in 1 of those as there is Holden Commodore in a V8 Supercar.
At the end of the day, we are all entitled to our opinions. The question was asked and I've provided my own inputs and beliefs.
I don't expect everybody to agree with me, in the same way that I won't agree with everybody else.
I want to see Alfa Romeo design their own RWD chassis and design their own engines. And I want to see them do an awesome job of it, but financial reality says otherwise.
Looking back over the last 20 years, there is nothing from Alfa Romeo that I want to own. But I'd have a 4C at the drop of a hat (even with its cheap ass, compromised McPherson/Chapman strut rear suspension :o ). I couldn't give a rats arse that it uses a FIAT engine. I wouldn't give a toss if used a Holden based V6 engine! I want 1 because it is a REAL DRIVER'S CAR!!! 8)
We probably all want the next model line to be RWD - and as I understand it, the next gen platform is intended to be RWD. The reality is that in the modern age, it will have to be a shared platform in order to support the development and manufacturing cost. So maybe it will share Maserati underpinnings. I for one would not complain about that. But until Fiat sorts out its situation with Chrysler, I suspect everying will stay in the slow lane. Who knows.
Quote from: Duk on October 03, 2013, 04:17:05 PM
Quote from: Davidm1750 on October 02, 2013, 11:23:14 PM
And therein actually lays the problem, for as you say you havn't actually driven any modern Alfas. Perhaps you should. I have driven apart from mine, the 147, Brera, GTV/GTV6 and Spider but not yet a GT. I would love to try a 166 (even if it is auto) and perhaps a Giuletta, I don't like the styling of the MiTo, but the 4C.....wowsie it looks super cool.
Don't get me wrong, I still have my 1750 GTV and a Giulia Super which one day I still hope I might get to drive, let alone my 124 sport which I have owned for over 30 years and until I had my first modern car (156) all the Alfas and Fiats I have owned have been classics and yes RWD.
To me, there is nothing that fizzes my Coke about the front wheel drive Alfa's. Nothing that says "DRIVE ME!!". I get excited by the technical details of a car, to the point where, when I see a transaxle chassis Alfa with standard front suspension geometry, I just lower my eyes and shake my head :o................... 'cause I know that the cars work MUCH better when the geometry is corrected (well, made much better than standard). ;)
FWD, no matter how much effort that is put into it, will always be an accountant driven compromise.
The looks are all purely subjective and for me, it has very little to do with it. The 156 looks nice. The FWD GTV/6, I think looks like a Honda Accord.
Quote from: Davidm1750 on October 02, 2013, 11:23:14 PMThe one thing I really will agree with you is that yes, Alfa needs to take BMW, Audi and who-ever else on and beat them at the game. The Giulia Super and its siblings were what BMW made into the 3 series and especially the M series. Maybe Alfa needs to re-invent Autodelta and take the other guys on with performance Alfas again, or alternatively GTA versions, although I would prefer that nomenclature being used for coupes.
I agree that all of this is purely personal. But no one in there right mind can legitimately expect Alfa Romeo to take on the BMW M cars with a front wheel drive chassis!
Alfa Romeo have sat on their hands when it comes to engine development. There has never been a factory normally aspirated Alfa engine that has dished out 100+hp/litre, let alone 1 with a big fat spread of torque. But the E36 M3's had that kind of power/litre, not to mention the following models.
When Alfa Romeo had the 75 Evoluzione, they were taking on the E30 chassis BMW M3s under the Group A Touring Car rules and on the road.
They have had nothing since then to compete against BMW and Mercedes Benz and the DTM 155's don't count, as there is about as much Alfa in 1 of those as there is Holden Commodore in a V8 Supercar.
At the end of the day, we are all entitled to our opinions. The question was asked and I've provided my own inputs and beliefs.
I don't expect everybody to agree with me, in the same way that I won't agree with everybody else.
I want to see Alfa Romeo design their own RWD chassis and design their own engines. And I want to see them do an awesome job of it, but financial reality says otherwise.
Looking back over the last 20 years, there is nothing from Alfa Romeo that I want to own. But I'd have a 4C at the drop of a hat (even with its cheap ass, compromised McPherson/Chapman strut rear suspension :o ). I couldn't give a rats arse that it uses a FIAT engine. I wouldn't give a toss if used a Holden based V6 engine! I want 1 because it is a REAL DRIVER'S CAR!!! 8)
Ok, Duk first off I have no intention to try to persuade you when you have no wishes to be a little broad minded. That is your choice.
But again I will make one more mention of a true drivers car, a true technological and engineering masterpiece with impeccable competition history and guess what, yes it is also is a FWD. The Lancia Fulvia and Fulvia Zagato. Surely you can't deny its superiority as a World Rally winning championship car.
I am sorry but for me there just are too many examples of excellent FWD cars such that the argument that RWD is the only true drive system to me is seriously flawed. Again I have driven the Fulvia and I know what an engineering jewel it is. Frankly as a drivers car it is superior in my opinion to the transaxle Alfas. I have driven plenty of Alfettas and their brothers and they are nice but not fabulous. Truthfully I would prefer my 105s as from my experience they run rings around Alfettas in terms of handling and feel, but again that is my choice.
Again I think I would tend to disagree re Alfas ability to take on the M series, I actually think they could but they need to have the balls and commitment to do it really well. Fiat is of a size company that if it chose to, it actually could take BMW etc head on. The problem is though aside of the GTA 156 and 147 there hasn't been any clear signals they intend to.
I would think that the 4C, and the next generation spider may be a hint at the future of Alfa. I guess we will have to wait to see what comes next.
In the end all we are doing is expressing personal opinions and that is fine. It just sometimes is a wise person who is willing to consider that there beliefs may not be as correct as they think and be willing to re-consider. That is to be open to an alternative point of view.
I will give an example. Until very recently I have always thought that Rolls Royces were pretty boring big plodders. My brother for years has tried to convince me otherwise. Recently I had finally the chance to drive a 1970 Silver Shadow Mk1. And guess what I really enjoyed the experience. The steering being so incredibly sublime to the feel. Sure they wallow like a drunk whale, its turning circle was staggeringly good, the comfort and get up and go was also incredible for a car some 43 years old. Do I want one, no but I am glad I finally got to drive one. That is my point for you to accept the challenge to re-consider new Alfas. You might just be surprised.
Mr. Davidm1750, while I whole heatedly appreciate your opinion and your example of the Lancia Fulvia, physics, however, does tend to get in the way of the pure success of a powerful front wheel drive.
You are expecting 2 tyres to do way too much work. If you believe that it's amazing, lucky you.
If you've ever driven decently powerful FWD in the wet, you'd know just how pathetic they are. Safe yes, but inherently pathetic. Nothing but masses of wheel spin and terminal understeer. Like I said, you can put all of the amazing differentials in there that you like, but you still just have a nose heavy accountants car, that over works the front tyres and lets the rear tyres just tag along for the ride.
If you believe that the world market would accept that a FWD would actually be a legitimate sparring partner for the like of the BMW M3s, good luck to you and good luck to Alfa Romeo for misguidedly putting effort and financial resources into trying to achieve such a thing.
I'm pretty damn sure that the world hasn't looked at the Ferrari 458 Italia and said: "Gosh, gee, darn! If ONLY it was front wheel drive..............." ::)
Th Alfa Romeo 4C will be resoundingly supported because Alfa Romeo has FINALLY built a real driver's car.
Pretty bodies and either catchy or re-hashed names may sell to some, but they won't sell to all.
I suspect part of the problem here is that in the past Alfa has produced some really great main stream cars. I'm thinking of the likes of Guilia Super, Sud, 105 Coupe, etc. Not great because they were the fastest or always the best handling, but great because they had a certain character and a driving experience that was just "right".
Which is all entirely subjective of course. But in my mind the Fiat derived cars have been merely good. By comparison Porsche stayed true to their original design intent on the 911 and as a result a current 911 carries the same spirit as a 911 of 1967. Delivered differently and in a modern way, but same spirit.
To me its not that Alfa needed to exclusively produce such cars, but rather that for large periods of their recent existence they have produced none.
The modern Alfas are still Alfas in my opinion. We have owned 12 since 2001, including two 33s, two 164s, two Alfetta GTVs, three 75s, a 156 which our daughter owns and now I drive a GT 3.2 and my wife has her 159 ti Sportwagon. Every one of those cars has been more fun than any other brand I have owned or driven in my long driving career. We are talking about seven different platforms here, but they all unmistakably have Alfa DNA. That is why most of us on this forum adhere to the Always Looking For Another translation of the name Alfa. The GT is a wonderful car in every way and has the ultimate V6 engine which is so flexible it will pull away without touching the throttle and pulls like a demon to the redline in no time at all it seems. The 159 has the 2.4 JTDM engine with six speed auto and is a great thing to drive and stunning to look at. We look out the window at our two cars and can't believe we own such beautiful things.
So a challenge for all of you FIAT chassied Alfa supporters............ ;)
Would you call a rebodied Mazda MX5, as there has been talk of for the next Spider, an Alfa Romeo???
You mean like the Audi aventador, gallardo etc... What shockers they are. Cross pollination never works.
I'm with oz.
Quote from: poohbah on October 09, 2013, 12:36:37 PM
You mean like the Audi aventador, gallardo etc... What shockers they are. Cross pollination never works.
You've lost me ???
I would never have called those cars shockers.
And how is that cross pollination any different to FIAT's ownership of Alfa Romeo and the cross pollination that has happened there?
Quote from: Duk on October 09, 2013, 10:10:38 AM
So a challenge for all of you FIAT chassied Alfa supporters............ ;)
Would you call a rebodied Mazda MX5, as there has been talk of for the next Spider, an Alfa Romeo???
Well, it won't have a Mazda engine in it for a start. None of us know for sure yet because there have been no real details released, but I think they will be different cars in character and appearance. Parts and platform sharing has been a part of the car industry from the year dot. I could fill this page with examples going way back. For example, was a Cord from 1936 not a Cord because it had a Lycoming engine? Have Volvos not been Volvos for donkey's years because they have used various engines, including Renaults and Mitsubishis? It is the sum of the parts and what they do with them that counts. No car company makes every nut and bolt and probably none ever did.
Oz, I was being sarcastic. Audi's ownership of Lambo has arguably improved the product - more reliability and refinement without diluting the "crazy" factor of Lambo.
And who could complain about combining what a lot of "experts" believe is the best handling small sports car chassis with some Alfa enthusiasm.
Of course, I forget that Mazda are known for their shocking quality control and reliability too ... (sarcasm again)
Neither of you answered the question. ;)
It was Duk that didn't get the sarcasm Poohbah :) As for not answering the question, I am pretty sure I did Duk. To spell it out; I would call it an Alfa.
Actually, I'll go again but a bit closer to home.
My Project 75 Potenziata. ;D
I've braced and partly seam welded the chassis.
I've changed spring rates and dampers.
I've relocated heavy bits like the battery.
I've changed the front suspension geometry.
I've changed the design of pivot points in the suspension.
I've changed the type of brakes that are used and the proportioning valve.
I've changed the engine management system.
I've changed the ignition system.
I've modified ports.
I've had flywheels lightened.
I've fitted a supercharger.
I've increased the track width.
I've added relays to the headlights! :P
Is it still an Alfa Romeo or a Dukster 3000???
***PS There has been some overlapping of my responses in the last 2 posts. That, and sarcasm isn't always translated well in written form. Hence the existence of emoticons ;) :P ???***
No problem Oz, I think Duk makes at least one good point - about the problem of conveying sarcasm in written posts!
Each to his own I say. Personally, I'd be quite happy to go for a spin in a Alfa-MX5 love match. That would make a pretty good recipe I reckon. And I'd stil call it an Alfa.
Quote from: poohbah on October 09, 2013, 12:36:37 PM
You mean like the Audi aventador, gallardo etc... What shockers they are. Cross pollination never works.
I'm with oz.
Real lemons the lot... ;D! Seriously though, if Fiat followed the same principles GTV6 ==> ES30 (but pretty) ==> 968 competitor ===> Boxster/Cayman competitor. Or Alfetta ===> post Alfetta sports sedan with front engine, RWD, 6-speed manual, etc.....oh sorry, that's an M3.
Yes please, gimme a fresh take on the GTV6!
As for the M3, I'm afraid I'll never really care how good it is. Anal teutonic efficiency, but bugger all character and no arm waiving...
I am more than happy with my GT 3.2. I haven't driven it today and it is calling to me as we speak. I said to my wife the other day, "Who needs a Ferrari when you have one of these?" I don't think they sound as good as my Busso with its big bore cat-back exhaust and the styling inside and out is just as beautiful. When you include the fact that you can carry five adults and loads of stuff in the boot with or without folding the seats down, the GT is pretty hard to beat.
Free speech is a pillar of our society but dead set this thread makes us look like a bunch of back biting old farts. We all love Alfas and that's why we join our state branch of AROCA. So let's stop running down the Alfas that at least half of our members own.
I've owned Alfas from each of the past five decades and they all put a smile on my face.
Quote from: hammer on October 09, 2013, 07:26:32 PM
So let's stop running down the Alfas that at least half of our members own.
Maybe some ground rules need to be established for these kind of threads.
Rule 1: Any question can be asked in an open and public manor.
Rule 2: Freedom of speech is available to all.
Rule 3: Don't go having an opinion that is different to '
at least half' of the crowd...............
You can choose whether I'm being sarcastic or not.............
FYI oz3litre, BUGATTI made his own very distinctive nuts and bolts,but that was a long time ago.Probably the only car company to do so!...........
As far as I can see, this debate has been done over many times before. Why is a transaxle 924 Porche any less of a Porche than a 911? Because the 911 fraternity deem it so? Why is a front engined Ferrari less of a Ferrari than a mid engined one?
There is a tendency to overlook the obvious here. All Alfas will provide a very special character of communication with the driver commensurate with the period the vehicle was built in. I simply call it a Connection. I have driven plenty of European, Asian, Aussie and some Yank cars of all ages. Plenty of them go well and some go bloody hard. Notwithstanding,typically they do not make the same Alfa Connection. I get this same connection with all types of Alfas that I have driven. This is definitely the identifying character that makes Alfa special in my opinion.
Finally, I just want to say all Alfas will provide the driver a satisfying experience in the driver's seat without exception whilst they are being driven lawfully and within legal constraints. However, the cohesion of this condition starts to fragment once these same cars are asked to perform at their limits. It is then and only then that some of the arguments presented here are justifiable and self evident.
Realistically however, how many of you on a day to day basis drive your car on the limits and have stayed out of jail for any substantial period? It doesn't happen folks and nor should it happen if we are being responsible.
On the other hand, if you do have total convictions about a format, get crackin with the spanners and meet your fellow gladiators on the track and make your point there. No typing skills required.
Quote from: Duk on October 03, 2013, 04:17:05 PM
To me, there is nothing that fizzes my Coke about the front wheel drive Alfa's. Nothing that says "DRIVE ME!!". I get excited by the technical details of a car, to the point where, when I see a transaxle chassis Alfa with standard front suspension geometry, I just lower my eyes and shake my head :o................... 'cause I know that the cars work MUCH better when the geometry is corrected (well, made much better than standard). ;)
FWD, no matter how much effort that is put into it, will always be an accountant driven compromise.
The looks are all purely subjective and for me, it has very little to do with it. The 156 looks nice. The FWD GTV/6, I think looks like a Honda Accord.
I agree that all of this is purely personal. But no one in there right mind can legitimately expect Alfa Romeo to take on the BMW M cars with a front wheel drive chassis!
Back in the day, the 156 GTA lapped The 'Ring 2% slower than an M3. But if you add a Q2, 330mm brakes and decent coilovers to the GTA, I think you could easily make up that 2%. So, I think the removes the argument about whether the GTA has the performance of the M3. There is a question mark over whether you would enjoy punting the GTA around a racetrack more than an M3, and that is where I think it falls down. Much as I love my GTA, I think balancing a good-handling RWD car around a track is more fun.
On the open road at more normal speeds, I suspect a GTA could be equally as much fun as an M3 - maybe more if the M3 only comes alive at high speeds (never driven one so I don't know).
I wouldn't say no to an M3, but am very happy being a GTA owner.
Torben
Quote from: TFJ100 on October 09, 2013, 09:59:19 PM
Back in the day, the 156 GTA lapped The 'Ring 2% slower than an M3. But if you add a Q2, 330mm brakes and decent coilovers to the GTA, I think you could easily make up that 2%. So, I think the removes the argument about whether the GTA has the performance of the M3. There is a question mark over whether you would enjoy punting the GTA around a racetrack more than an M3, and that is where I think it falls down. Much as I love my GTA, I think balancing a good-handling RWD car around a track is more fun.
On the open road at more normal speeds, I suspect a GTA could be equally as much fun as an M3 - maybe more if the M3 only comes alive at high speeds (never driven one so I don't know).
I wouldn't say no to an M3, but am very happy being a GTA owner.
Torben
That's very interesting. I certainly think it is a rash generalisation to say front wheel drive can't compete with rear wheel drive. The old 33s do very well on the track, despite being a pretty basic set up compared with our GTs and GTAs. Nobody can argue with the fact that the old Minis were giant killers against rear wheel drive competition back in the day, again with a crude set up compared to modern cars. A guy took my son and I for a test drive in his 156 GTA before I bought the GT and he absolutely flattened it on the windy back roads of the Southern Vales where he lived and we felt like were were being nailed to the doors. The tyres didn't even squeak and that car had stock suspension and diff with 330 mm brakes. My GT has KW coil overs, a strut brace and a Quaife diff, so I think it can well and truly hold its own.
Alfa Romeo?
If there is any doubt and to settle any argument, I'll take it.
Just to be sure it's not a lemon, does it come with a road worthy ?
Quote from: MD on October 12, 2013, 05:57:07 PM
If there is any doubt and to settle any argument, I'll take it.
I am curious as to how far the faithful will go in order to continue their following of the marque.
It seems to me that the name has become more of a tuning house than a creator of cars.
Justifications that "
no car manufacturer creates all of their own parts............" has gone, in my mind, too far.
Comparing the influence of, for example, an alternator to the influence the chassis or engine on the true being of the car, seems like a very misguided one.
IE: I'm pretty sure an alternator (or any other incidental component of a car) has very little to do with the true origins and character of the car, but the chassis or engine definitely does.
These days, an Italian styling house's body stuck onto ABC's chassis, using XYZ's engine with maybe some in house fiddling of the suspension, all, apparently, equal an Alfa Romeo.
Like I said, it seems more like a tuning house than a car manufacturer.
Back when Triple Eight Racing lost their factory support from Ford, they openly said that they didn't really care, they'd just re-skin
THEIR CAR (with Holden-esk panels), used the other (Chev based) engine and carry on racing (and winning!!!)!
The outside didn't matter, because the inside stayed the same. The inside remained the true being of the Triple Eight Racing car.
Some great comments and opinions guys. I guess we will never all agree on this one. So where to from here. Do we all go out and buy pre Fiat takeover Alfas as they are the purest or do we accept that the good old days are gone and enjoy the cars we have now? More importantly given the brands heritage which direction should Fiat - Chrysler take with future models? :-\
Well Garibaldi, I think we have a schism in the ranks.
I suspect some folks out there secretly wish this was a historical society (probably with a secret handshake to get in) rather than a club or forum for all comers.
I like Alfas, and I don't care whether they're old, new or in between. And anyone else who likes 'em too is ok by me, whatever their chariot of choice may be. But I don't know one end of a spanner from the other ... I must just be shallow...
As to your question about the future, I'll put it this way.
To me, seeing the Alfa name continue on, even under the umbrella of Fiat-Chrysler, is still preferable to seeing it disappear because it can't survive on its own. And as others have pointed out - changing ownership structures over the years is exactly how it has managed to survive and stay in continuous production for so many decades.
That's the thing about great marques - they survive.
Not every Alfa built - past or present - is a "classic". So what.
But there is one thing for certain - you can't make the next classic if you are out of business.
No 8C. No 4C. No Disco Volante. No Alfa-MX5 love-child. Or whatever comes next.
And that would be a crying shame.
Duk, I really don't know why you knock anyone who enjoys modern Alfas as if they somehow don't understand the truth. As I said before, I, and others here, have owned Alfas that you would deem "real" Alfas, as well as modern ones and we like them all. I think we are reasonably well placed to judge. Your first point is possibly invalid, because almost all Alfa bodies have been designed by someone other than Alfa. As far as chassis go I would like to see just how much of a 156 or GT for example is exactly the same as a Fiat of some sort. Some people, for example, like to argue that the 164 was a shared platform with Fiat and SAAB, when in fact the only bit it shared was the centre section and none of the rest. I have owned a SAAB 9000 and two 164s and they are nothing like each other. I still say that, in any case, it is the sum of the parts that really counts. There is most definitely the Alfa soul in my GT and the 159 as far as I am concerned and I am glad that I haven't allowed a purist attitude to deprive me of owning and enjoying two outstanding cars.
Well said Poohbah, I'm with you!
+1
So a Zagato bodied Dodge Viper is an Alfa then?
I don't like the TZ3. It's not very Alfa on the surface nor beneath the skin. At best it's a design study, but IMO not a very successful one.
Otherwise I don't agree with Duk. Even the dullest of front wheel drive modern Alfas have enough unique character and styling to turn my head and note them as different. The Mazda collaboration is risky, but I think the styling and powertrain alone will be distinct enough to call it an Alfa.
The TZ3 could do with a zagato badge, not an Alfa one.
there not alfas anymore their fiats, anything before 1987 is an alfa
Quote from: Vanalfaalfetta on November 20, 2013, 09:34:51 AM
there not alfas anymore their fiats, anything before 1987 is an alfa
That simply is not true. The 164 was totally Alfa designed and shares very little with any Fiat. It was built from 1987 to 1995.
I'm not getting back on this merry go round again. Van, you're entitled to your opinion, as are we. I drive an Alfa. It says so on the front, same as yours.