DRIVE exclusively reports that HSV is trialling a rear mounted transaxle gearbox similar to one being developed for the next generation of V8 supercars.
"Big deal Who cares where the gearbox is located?, Just because its located at the rear of the car in the [Nissan] GTR, [Mercedes] SLS and other high end performance cars, doesn't mean it will place HSV in the same league".
"Clearly they feel there's a market for a home grown 'track day' special, Bring it in under $100,000 and they'll sell for sure".
"Forget about fancy transaxle gearboxes- how about a weight loss program?, 1825 kilograms is a fat joke".
" Rear transaxle eh?, Just like on the Alfa Romeo Alfetta, circa 1972, Forty [plus] years to catch up.
Reprinted from the Age's drive on20-8-2011, Colin.
LOL!
Theoretically speaking, a VE Commondore is actually a good thing (I've not driven 1). The majority of the engine is behind the front axle line (the same can't be said for the Afla trans axle chassis's), in fact all of major weight is is with in the wheel base (fuel tank under the rear seat) and fairly low. The car has good wheel base and track dimensions. The rear suspension looks like a good thing.
The only let downs that I can see are the sheer weight of them and the fact that they persist with McPherson strut front suspension (kind of piss weak when the rear end has better camber compensation with body roll than the front does).
It sounds a lot like they are just going to be using the Corvette layout in a sedan format.
Whether we like it or not, at least Holden are still churning out a decent rear wheel drive. What has Alfa Romeo done in the last 25 years? Re-bodied Maserati's don't count ('cause they're not really an Alfa).
Gees Duk, where do I start ?? Let me think, how about the 75, 164, 166, 156 inc the GTA, GT, GTV6, 159, Brera, 147 inc GTA, how is that for a starter ?? let alone a number of other models which some like, but myself less so. Next how about the new Giulia when it comes or even the 4C, forgetting the 8C which is of course a derivative of the genes of Maserati and Ferrari. Come to think of it the 8C is damned good looking.
Quote from: Davidm1750 on August 21, 2011, 05:52:48 PM
Gees Duk, where do I start ?? Let me think, how about the 75, 164, 166, 156 inc the GTA, GT, GTV6, 159, Brera, 147 inc GTA, how is that for a starter ?? let alone a number of other models which some like, but myself less so. Next how about the new Giulia when it comes or even the 4C, forgetting the 8C which is of course a derivative of the genes of Maserati and Ferrari. Come to think of it the 8C is damned good looking.
Well the 75 and the SZ/RZ were the last real Alfa's as far as I'm concerned. Every thing since has been a re-bodied FIAT. When Alfa Romeo design and build an entirely Alfa Romeo car, then I'll get excite. But they best be making it a well lade out, well priced rear wheel drive.
The last RWD chassis Alfa designed from scratch was the 116-series Alfetta, released in 1972. The 75's and 90's are derivatives of that. The 8C (nice as that is) is a rebodied Maserati and everything else, until the 4C is released, has been FWD.
Quote from: Duk on August 21, 2011, 06:57:11 PM
Well the 75 and the SZ/RZ were the last real Alfa's as far as I'm concerned. Every thing since has been a re-bodied FIAT. When Alfa Romeo design and build an entirely Alfa Romeo car, then I'll get excite. But they best be making it a well lade out, well priced rear wheel drive.
Well, then you might as well give up now.
Face realities, the company is owned by Fiat.
They make and sell the current range of Alfas.
RWD is a thing of the past for Alfa, commercial reality is that Alfa makes FWD cars now, no amount of pining for days gone past will make them change that.
I, for one, don't think it's ll bad, the cars last more than five minutes in the rain, the electrics (mostly) work for a decent amount of time, they still look, handle and drive like Alfas.
I look forward to driving my GTA everyday, even with a ridiculous amount of HP through the front wheels, for everyday commuting you wouldn't know it was FWD.
So go ahead and hanker for the past, have Alfa join those great RWD manufacturers that have gone by the wayside, the road is littered with them.
Cheers
Stuart
Yep I am afraid I am with Stuart here. (a) I don't have a problem with FWD, I enjoy driving my 156 as my everyday car, and it has been so reliable, comfortable, economical and is made in Italy so I am happy. Besides the 156 IMHO is an absolute classic design and is way up there as one of the best looking cars to come out in probably the last 10-20 years. Far better looking and made than probably any Alfa for the past 20 years or more.
And (b) I really couldnt care if Fiat are the parent company. I like Fiats too ! Still have my 124 sport after 31 years.
Don't get me wrong, I love my 105s; 116s etc I have had but enjoyed less, though a GTV6 would be welcomed, if nothing else than for the engine note alone. Glory personified.
Stuart - mate!! Surely you've not driven an E9x M3......a modern RWD chassis that would make your GTA weep in frustration!! :'(
But agree, yes, Alfa = FWD. Not weeping over the past, just getting the facts straight.
but they are going back to rear wheel drive, or at least most will be awd all of the new alfas look awesome in fact almost every alfas I've ever seen looks awesome except the arna i would happily drive any one of them just for the reason its an alfa don't care where the drive wheels are, just wish they would get the hell on with their 4wd,
Quote from: aggie57 on August 22, 2011, 09:39:07 AM
Stuart - mate!! Surely you've not driven an E9x M3......a modern RWD chassis that would make your GTA weep in frustration!! :'(
But agree, yes, Alfa = FWD. Not weeping over the past, just getting the facts straight.
See Al, sometime you have to read the whole sentence...
What I said was that for the daily commute, the driven wheels don't matter. For fanging around on the track it's a completely different KOF, OK the last bit is implied.
As for 4WD, which is really AWD, bloody hell modern Alfa's are heavy enough, perhaps if some of the weight was removed from the cars it wouldn't matter so much 'cause you wouldn't need huge HP to get it to go fast?
Not that I'm advocating going fast in a car in Victoria, heaven forbid!
Cheers
Stuart
Quote from: Stuart Thomson on August 22, 2011, 03:02:45 PM
Quote from: aggie57 on August 22, 2011, 09:39:07 AM
Stuart - mate!! Surely you've not driven an E9x M3......a modern RWD chassis that would make your GTA weep in frustration!! :'(
But agree, yes, Alfa = FWD. Not weeping over the past, just getting the facts straight.
See Al, sometime you have to read the whole sentence...
What I said was that for the daily commute, the driven wheels don't matter. For fanging around on the track it's a completely different KOF, OK the last bit is implied.
As for 4WD, which is really AWD, bloody hell modern Alfa's are heavy enough, perhaps if some of the weight was removed from the cars it wouldn't matter so much 'cause you wouldn't need huge HP to get it to go fast?
Not that I'm advocating going fast in a car in Victoria, heaven forbid!
Cheers
Stuart
No way - you wouldn't suggest that!!
Quote from: Stuart Thomson on August 22, 2011, 07:55:25 AMWell, then you might as well give up now.
Face realities, the company is owned by Fiat.
They make and sell the current range of Alfas.
RWD is a thing of the past for Alfa, commercial reality is that Alfa makes FWD cars now, no amount of pining for days gone past will make them change that.
I, for one, don't think it's ll bad, the cars last more than five minutes in the rain, the electrics (mostly) work for a decent amount of time, they still look, handle and drive like Alfas.
I look forward to driving my GTA everyday, even with a ridiculous amount of HP through the front wheels, for everyday commuting you wouldn't know it was FWD.
So go ahead and hanker for the past, have Alfa join those great RWD manufacturers that have gone by the wayside, the road is littered with them.
Cheers
Stuart
Nah, I'll just stick with my 75.
If you're happy with modern Alfa's, then that's great that they still have loyal fans. They don't float my boat, so I'll stay where I am. If they end up releasing something more to my tastes in the future, then we'll see.
Enjoy.
Alfa Romeo should go back to rear wheel drive, carby's, points, 2 valve cylinder heads, appalling fuel economy, poor crash ratings, electrical systems that only work half the time, panels that you can see through after 6 months, legendary unreliability, [but at least in the olden days they made their own engines], what did FIAT ever do for us, [apart from the aquaducts], NOTHING, allthough the did save us from being sold to FORD, who like a childs christmas toy, would have grown tired of us and moved us on to the next Multinational car company eager for a new toy, Colin.
Actually my family over in Nuw Zilund has had modern Fiats for many years. Dad drives a 156 but my Mum is into her third Punto and before that there was a succession or earlier ones starting with a 1965 1500 and 1970 125 that I owned.
Anyway, the modern FWD cars have generally been very reliable and good city cars. There's even a button on the dash in the Punto that makes the steering super light for parking in tight spots.
And yes the new Alfa Romeo's are Fiat's underneath, true!, and whats wrong with that, how many of us have been 49% Fiat, 51% Alfa in trying to choose which car, the economys of scale have made the cars better designed and cheaper to produce and run, the 156 may not have the charm and personality of the 33, but Alfa Romeo haven't gone the way of Triumph, Rover, MG, Borgward, Simca, Hillman, need i go on, Colin.
Alfa's need to go back to rwd! and building there own engines.. thats what will bring the true alfisti back .... but never will happen.
Now lets be honest. . . Alfa have always been great looking! to bad for the reputation they built back in the day.
Although people who have owned these cars appreciate that and realize alfa's truly have their own personality.
and you cant tell me the a 3 series SEDAN looks better then the 159 ! honestly there is not a chance and that may sound baisis but i would never own one myself...
Due to the fact they weight 1.7 tons! ... its a commodore in my eyes that handles a little better, with a well underpowered motor which ever way you look at it !.. 2.4
diesel is by far the best option. but hey its LOOKS great! .. Alfa's need to go back to rear wheel drive before experimenting with all wheel drive cars. unless they put
Big HP into it. . . which has never been Alfa's trait. and in my eyes never will ! .. look at the 8c .. its a slug for the money you pay!.
Although my GTV only has 168kw or there about's it weights less and drives great and every day i hop into it i wish it was rear wheel drive but hey they did a
fantastic job! and i love it to bits. but at the end of the day i wish it was more of a succeed er then the original GTV6 but Ive driven and owned both and i know its
not!
I've kind of lost the point in this post .. but Really guys i don't think alfa is going to ever be ahead the way they were.. back in the day they were so far ahead of their time it wasn't funny. which is why they were great but at the moment the 10 years behind at a minimum.
The only way Alfa romeo will succeed is if they start building sporty cars they way they were, maybe then trying to enter the family sector!. going the wrong way about it .. they need a new title something that makes everyone want one .. just like BMW did.
Need to set the issues straight! before entering unknown territory! alfas known for the sportiness and handling and styling .. and a few other bad things we all know what they are .. but that's what need to be cleared .. up every car manufacturer has problems just Alfa's seem to be Magnified when something goes wrong!
Quote from: turboalfa on August 30, 2011, 03:50:18 PM
.. back in the day they were so far ahead of their time it wasn't funny. which is why they were great but at the moment the 10 years behind at a minimum.
I don't know that that is true. What about JTS and Multi-air? I know they are Fiat inventions, but as far as I know they are well ahead of other engine designs. The 1750 turbo has some pretty advanced technology too and is as much ahead of its time as the old twin cam was in its day I would think.
Direct injection [JTS] was used in aircraft in the 50's, but that was for relatively fixed engine speeds, with the advent of smarter and quicker computers in cars the direct injection can cover a wide range of engine speeds, the actual JTS injector has its own pump built in, and a jet of fuel can go through your finger!, on 156's they used the JTS motor as did Lancia, the cast iron block was from FIAT, Colin.
I believe direct petrol injection was first installed in a mass produced car by Mitsubishi in ... 1996.
The Alfa Romeo JTS stands for JET THRUST STOICHMETRIC, which is high pressure fuel injection, as it was developed and made by Bosch, and it was only used on the more upmarket cars as the direct injection costs more than standard injection, for example a direct injector costs $1000 each!, you are right kartone, Mitsubishi was the first car maker to use it on a petrol engine in 1996, Alfa first used it on the 156 in 2002, Colin.
My recent choice of the V6 Brera Spider had a lot to do with the AWD (and a bit to do with Giorgetto Giugiaro.) I would have been happy with RWD, but it was great to avoid just FWD, albeit at the expense of too much weight. The Holden block with a timing chain on the other hand might be 40 years behind! I took a chance on that. Seems weird though, having bought a new FIAT 124 coupe in 1975 with a belt driven twin cam (still got it too.) In a perfect world Alfa, Ferrari and Maserati would still be individual companies, but I can't think of a better owner for Alfa than FIAT. There's more to the choice of a car than just the 0-100km time. It get's down to how it makes you feel. My Alfa makes me feel great. (I polished it again this arvo, after work.)
Cheers,
mczero
What exactly is wrong with a timing chain? All the best alfas (the ones with the cylinders in a straight line as god intended) have them :)
Hi All,
At the risk of side tracking the thread onto timing chains: "What exactly is wrong with a timing chain?"
In a well-engineered engine: Nothing, they are low maintenance- don't need to be changed monotonously.
But the world has moved away from them. Why?
Lightness - free revving engines.
Cheaper assembly of OHC engines (Probably the main reason)
Easier to replace, especially as you do it often.
On the other hand:
Some timing chains get noisy and have to be changed, much harder than a belt.
More expensive than a belt.
Does the chain stop the Brera 3.2 engine revving out as it should. Maybe or maybe it's the just ECU map.
Will the Brera 3.2 engine get a noisy timing chain when it ages? Time will tell. It's a curse in some older engines. I took a chance on this engine, so I'm hoping for the best.
Cheers,
mczero
And has moved back to them:
Cheaper servicing/longer warranty - less risk of early failure (under warranty)
By the time you pay for all those "easy" replacements a chain is cheaper
I'd dispute any open/shut case on what RPM a belt vs timing chain is good for - certainly both are practical to well above what a "normal" road car engine needs. fwiw the Honda S2000 engine revs to 9000rpm and uses a timing chain.
Hi Guys,
I have a 2004 V6 Spider,
I have always had rear wheel drive cars till my Spider, The V6 is great being a real Alfa engine, But I cannot complain about the front wheel drive, the car really handles great, its a fantastic car to drive up
MT Dandenong and holds the road well. :)
No matter what Alfa you drive, they all have there own great characters ,
Alfa forever. ;D