Alfa Romeo 4 C

[Evan Bottcher]

Alfa was developing a 4 banger behind the driver concept in 1966. Then, half way through, it was time for a coffee and lunch. When they came back they forgot what they were working on and got onto another project.

Not wanting to intrude on your argument, Mr Glass, but which concept was that?  Genuinely asking, as I don't remember it.

[branko.gt]

Alfa was developing a 4 banger behind the driver concept in 1966. Then, half way through, it was time for a coffee and lunch. When they came back they forgot what they were working on and got onto another project.

Not wanting to intrude on your argument, Mr Glass, but which concept was that?  Genuinely asking, as I don't remember it.

i didn't think you'd remember 1966. I can hardly remember 1966 myself. 

It was the Scarabeo, Alfa built three chassis and sent them to different builders. They used 1600 in it. Apparently they were trying to figure our how far back the seats can go  in such a configuration to achieve better driver feeling for the car and its dynamic behaviour. They never took it very far. It is possible that Auto Delta used that concept as a basis for tipo 33.

Do you reckon, if Alfa was to build a two seater RWD cabrio that was not based on Mazda mx5 but fully independently developed that people would call it  "obviously influenced"  by mx5 ? 

[Evan Bottcher]

Do you reckon, if Alfa was to build a two seater RWD cabrio that was not based on Mazda mx5 but fully independently developed that people would call it  "obviously influenced"  by mx5 ? 

Unlikely (if only because they'd surely feck it up), but that's not the same thing.  The original MX-5 was really just a beautiful (near-perfect?) execution of a familiar concept.  It wasn't ground-breaking IMO apart from it's incredible reliability, well tuned (and tunable handling), and mass appeal.

Lotus defined (or perhaps redefined) the category of plastic-fantastic lightweight reasonably priced (but not cheap) mid-engined sports cars.

[branko.gt]

....

  The original MX-5 was really just a beautiful (near-perfect?) execution of a familiar concept.  It wasn't ground-breaking IMO apart from it's incredible reliability, well tuned (and tunable handling), and mass appeal.

Lotus defined (or perhaps redefined) the category of plastic-fantastic lightweight reasonably priced (but not cheap) mid-engined sports cars.

what's with all  the misty eyed bombastic statements about Elise, "the game changer" "defined a category" ...
what category, give me examples of the cars in that category ? A one car category ?

Both Elise and mx5 stand largely alone as cars. How many purpose built drop-tops are there,? Most are rag top variant of a coupe! Only other i can think of are z3 and z4 they are both better forgotten. MX5 is as much a game changer as Elise is. Mazda did not do anything revolutionary about the manufacturing process as Lotus did with Elise but it did  produce a damn good car and created a one car segment.

Mazda took Elan and Spider and created a modern interpretation of that, not less of a feat than Elise. I think that it sells somewhat better than Elise as well.

[branko.gt]

not even their own mother could tell them apart

[branko.gt]

BTW, I thought it may have been obvious, but since it, obviously, was not obvious here is the explanation.  Tipo 33 picture was there for the less "myopic" to see that visual cues on 4c have actual in house reference which fit better then somewhat forced comparison with Lotus Elise.

Could you clarify what you mean for us "myopic". I fail to see these stronger visual cues between the 4C and the 33, except they are both a shade of Red.

I see the front (nose and front wheel) of the 4C's proportions are do align with the 33, more so than Lotus.
But, for your assertion the rear is all wrong, as is the vent behind the door and where is the fake front vent (even holden put one on the new taxi)?

Just my opinion and not endorsed by the car critics association of anywhere.

yes you are quite correct that the rear end looks different but if you look at the "visual cues" like the location of the air intake behind the door and shape of the door window and the general curvature of the waist line you may be able to see the heritage i am referring to.
as the rear it is almost a "bred van" shape, must have stolen it from Lotus Europa, or maybe, closer to home, from the 1966 concept Scarabeo.

BTW, if you like Elise so much why don't you just get one ?

[branko.gt]

i just hope you are not going to start seeing extraterrestrials and ghosts ...   

BTW: That's exactly what an extraterrestrial or ghost would say.

No, I wouldn't

[L4OMEO]

Yawn.

[Evan Bottcher]

Insightful commentary from LAMEO 

[Brad M]

Do you reckon, if Alfa was to build a two seater RWD cabrio that was not based on Mazda mx5 but fully independently developed that people would call it  "obviously influenced"  by mx5 ? 

No, it would obviously be influenced by the Lotus Elan, which influenced the MX-5.

[Beatle]

How many purpose built drop-tops are there,? Most are rag top variant of a coupe! Only other i can think of are z3 and z4 they are both better forgotten.

Credit where it's due.  While Alfa used effectively the same floorpan, are there three more different bodies used simultaneously than Giulia Super, Duetto and 1600GT?   Not even considering the other specialist versions (SS, JnrZ).  In fact one of the rarest was what others usually do, and that is chop the roof off the coupe (the GTC).   

'Tis a shame Alfa didn't take the opportunity to make a ragtop 116 (noting that a roofless Alfetta coupe is...... unpretty )

As to the MX-5, it's also worth noting it came at a time when ragtops were thought of as being impossible to build given the safety restraints at the time, and look what happened.

[L4OMEO]

Insightful commentary from LAMEO 

Not the subject that provoked that, rather the pompous and overbearing manner in which some members choose to express their opinion.

Just my two cents 

[Sheldon McIntosh]

It was the Scarabeo, Alfa built three chassis and sent them to different builders. They used 1600 in it. Apparently they were trying to figure our how far back the seats can go  in such a configuration to achieve better driver feeling for the car and its dynamic behaviour. They never took it very far. It is possible that Auto Delta used that concept as a basis for tipo 33.

From what I've read, this isn't strictly accurate.  Alfa were working on some prototype chassis as a possible return to competition, with the Giulia cars as a base.  These chassis were the base for what would go on to become the Tipo 33, but in the meantime they sent three of the chassis to OSI, who built the concept car(s) known as Scarabeo.  It's far from clear that they ever intended these to be a road car.

But don't worry Branko, it's not just 'the vibe', I'll give you a reference...  Taken from  Alfa Romeo Tipo 33: The Development & Race History
By Peter Collins, Ed McDonough, pp10-11.   And a google reference so you can check it out for yourself.   http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xn6eOh525AYC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=alfa+scarabeo&source=bl&ots=l3-QxPSCvd&sig=ZYBJzapuN5RJ8DDoRmn8ewSMLhg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d8A_UbD3NceziQeKx4CIDA&ved=0CIYBEOgBMA0#v=onepage&q=alfa%20scarabeo&f=false

This is only from what I've read of course, and only from the one source, so take it as you will.

[colcol]

I didn't think that this thread would cause so much passionate discussion, but thats we we drive Alfa Romeo's, because we are passionate about our cars, but what Alfa really need is a 159 replacement to get the numbers flowing through the dealers, make cars like the 4C when you have the cash registers ringing, not like now with their sales down to SAAB like 100,000 cars per year, Colin.

[MD]

A number of critics didn't like the the front of the 4C. Well guess what, Alfa have done it all before 'cause  I know you will just love this one..