When is an Alfa Romeo not an Alfa Romeo?

[aggie57]

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!

[Duk]

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 ................... '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.

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.

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 ). 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!!! 

[poohbah]

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.

[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.

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 ................... '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.

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.

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 ). 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!!! 




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.

[Duk]

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.

[aggie57]

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.

[oz3litre]

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.

[Duk]

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???

[poohbah]

You mean like the Audi aventador, gallardo etc... What shockers they are. Cross pollination never works.

I'm with oz.

[Duk]

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?

[oz3litre]

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.

[poohbah]

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)

[Duk]

Neither of you answered the question. 

[oz3litre]

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.

[Duk]

Actually, I'll go again but a bit closer to home.

My Project 75 Potenziata. 

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! 

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  ***