When is an Alfa Romeo not an Alfa Romeo?

[Garibaldi]

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. 

[Davidm1600]

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. 

[poohbah]

Alfas are like beer - there's no such thing as a bad one, just varying degrees of excellence!

[TFJ100]

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

[extraball]

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.

[colcol]

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.

[poohbah]

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!

[Duk]

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. 

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.

[aggie57]

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. 

[Duk]

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.........   

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.

[Davidm1600]

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.

[colcol]

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.

[Duk]

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!

[Davidm1600]

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. 

[poohbah]

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.