RE: Alfa Romeo Giulia: Driven
Discussion
kambites said:
The whole point becomes moot as cars become more autonomous anyway. When there are cars on the road which don't have a steering wheel at all, requiring a physical connection on those that do seems somewhat petty. 
My only real reservation is that cars with mechanical connection seem to be mostly bereft of any steering feel already! I don't like computer games...Black S2K said:
My only real reservation is that cars with mechanical connection seem to be mostly bereft of any steering feel already! I don't like computer games...
I think that's the point. Currently, EPAS gives so little feel that a steer-by-wire system wouldn't actually have any downsides. Of course EPAS will probably get better. Ali_T said:
Kierkegaard said:
Not sure about the profile and the rear end of this car. I'll await real judgement until I've see it for real.
The 159 should've been RWD with a lightened GTA V8 version, that would have really boosted Alfas fortunes. I really would like to run Alfas business one day to really sort it out.
A lightened 159 would still weigh 200kg more than this. The GM/Fiat tie up was a disaster for Alfa because they were lumbered with an overweight, over engineered platform from Saab that they couldn't do anything with. That the 159 was even attractive was impressive enough and the main reason it sold. It certainly wasn't on dynamics. And there was a GTA mule going around with the Maserati 4.2 litre and 4wd but it was too late and Marchionne killed it off as he closed 159 production early to start on the, then, new FWD Giulia that he then got cold feet about and cancelled as well, hence why Alfa have had no mid sized saloon for years. We've missed an entire generation of a car that was ready for production. Plus, by the time he cancelled it, the 159 line had been pulled out for small Fiats. The 159 should've been RWD with a lightened GTA V8 version, that would have really boosted Alfas fortunes. I really would like to run Alfas business one day to really sort it out.
And those criticising the Giulia styling need to see it in the flesh first. I wasn't a fan until I saw the QV in person at the Alfa museum in Arese. It has genuine presence and far more curvaceous surfacing than anything German.
They were testing a GTA and one of the engines being considered was a V8 the other options they also looked at I believe was a twin turbo version of the V6 and also a 3.6 n/a version of the V6 as well.
I think your being hard on the GM side. They supplied the blocks, but the heads were done to Alfa's own design. The Q4's were pretty heavy but the FWD cars were not that different to the BMW's and Audi's of the day.
The 159 was pretty well put together I was surprised when I first had a go in one at how solid well put together it was a far cry from all the stories I heard re poor Alfa build quality. I think the car was overall pretty good and what done it was the financial crisis and the fact the car was expensive to make for Fiat.
peter450 said:
Q4 models of the 159 were rwd, they had permanent 4wd with a rear bias.
They were testing a GTA and one of the engines being considered was a V8 the other options they also looked at I believe was a twin turbo version of the V6 and also a 3.6 n/a version of the V6 as well.
I think your being hard on the GM side. They supplied the blocks, but the heads were done to Alfa's own design. The Q4's were pretty heavy but the FWD cars were not that different to the BMW's and Audi's of the day.
The 159 was pretty well put together I was surprised when I first had a go in one at how solid well put together it was a far cry from all the stories I heard re poor Alfa build quality. I think the car was overall pretty good and what done it was the financial crisis and the fact the car was expensive to make for Fiat.
My first Alfa was a 156 then i had a GTV and then i got what i always wanted a 159 TI sports wagon. I agree its way better built that earlier Alfas, dare i say it it lost allot of its charm in the process.They were testing a GTA and one of the engines being considered was a V8 the other options they also looked at I believe was a twin turbo version of the V6 and also a 3.6 n/a version of the V6 as well.
I think your being hard on the GM side. They supplied the blocks, but the heads were done to Alfa's own design. The Q4's were pretty heavy but the FWD cars were not that different to the BMW's and Audi's of the day.
The 159 was pretty well put together I was surprised when I first had a go in one at how solid well put together it was a far cry from all the stories I heard re poor Alfa build quality. I think the car was overall pretty good and what done it was the financial crisis and the fact the car was expensive to make for Fiat.
It looked stunning but it didn't drive as well as it looked, felt heavy and the steering weight botherd me. I decided to chop it in and got one of the very last 147s. To me there much more fun, steering has a way better feel and generally feels more like my older Alfas but is still well put together.
I never did bond with the 159, shame as it was a lovely looking thing.
Gwedo said:
peter450 said:
Q4 models of the 159 were rwd, they had permanent 4wd with a rear bias.
They were testing a GTA and one of the engines being considered was a V8 the other options they also looked at I believe was a twin turbo version of the V6 and also a 3.6 n/a version of the V6 as well.
I think your being hard on the GM side. They supplied the blocks, but the heads were done to Alfa's own design. The Q4's were pretty heavy but the FWD cars were not that different to the BMW's and Audi's of the day.
The 159 was pretty well put together I was surprised when I first had a go in one at how solid well put together it was a far cry from all the stories I heard re poor Alfa build quality. I think the car was overall pretty good and what done it was the financial crisis and the fact the car was expensive to make for Fiat.
My first Alfa was a 156 then i had a GTV and then i got what i always wanted a 159 TI sports wagon. I agree its way better built that earlier Alfas, dare i say it it lost allot of its charm in the process.They were testing a GTA and one of the engines being considered was a V8 the other options they also looked at I believe was a twin turbo version of the V6 and also a 3.6 n/a version of the V6 as well.
I think your being hard on the GM side. They supplied the blocks, but the heads were done to Alfa's own design. The Q4's were pretty heavy but the FWD cars were not that different to the BMW's and Audi's of the day.
The 159 was pretty well put together I was surprised when I first had a go in one at how solid well put together it was a far cry from all the stories I heard re poor Alfa build quality. I think the car was overall pretty good and what done it was the financial crisis and the fact the car was expensive to make for Fiat.
It looked stunning but it didn't drive as well as it looked, felt heavy and the steering weight botherd me. I decided to chop it in and got one of the very last 147s. To me there much more fun, steering has a way better feel and generally feels more like my older Alfas but is still well put together.
I never did bond with the 159, shame as it was a lovely looking thing.
I had a 156 Twin Spark 2.0 petrol previously and it was a superior drivers machine - revvy engine, good 'box and felt lighter on it's feet.
156 and 159 steering is pretty similar - but the 159 is a heavy brute and the laws of physics tend to take over. It is not a particularly fun car to lob round corners hard, whereas the 156 is. The 159 wins on long distance - driving across France, there is nothing better, especially when you consider what they cost.
The nice thing about the 156 is that most of its flaws can be addressed by some fairly simple tweaking: fatter ARBs and an LSD absolutely transform the car. Not so easy on the 159. Hopefully the Giulia will be like the 156 - a bit soft from the factory in "cooking" trim, but easily sharpened up.
The nice thing about the 156 is that most of its flaws can be addressed by some fairly simple tweaking: fatter ARBs and an LSD absolutely transform the car. Not so easy on the 159. Hopefully the Giulia will be like the 156 - a bit soft from the factory in "cooking" trim, but easily sharpened up.
Ali_T said:
A lightened 159 would still weigh 200kg more than this. The GM/Fiat tie up was a disaster for Alfa because they were lumbered with an overweight, over engineered platform from Saab that they couldn't do anything with. That the 159 was even attractive was impressive enough and the main reason it sold. It certainly wasn't on dynamics. And there was a GTA mule going around with the Maserati 4.2 litre and 4wd but it was too late and Marchionne killed it off as he closed 159 production early to start on the, then, new FWD Giulia that he then got cold feet about and cancelled as well, hence why Alfa have had no mid sized saloon for years. We've missed an entire generation of a car that was ready for production. Plus, by the time he cancelled it, the 159 line had been pulled out for small Fiats.
The 159 was actually lighter, yes lighter, than the previous generation Audi A4. And a current BMW 5 series is a least 200 to 300 kg's heavier than the 159. Somehow no journo seems to be bothered with.And 159 was killed of because it was too expensive to make, the financial crisis and given Fiat/Alfa's financial situation, the platform as you rightfully mention was a co-production with Saab and also meant for forthcomming E segment cars.
O and the 159 dynamically flawed?? what a laugh.
Theirs a video on YouTube where a German mag tested it against all it's D-segemnt competitors, it wipes the floor with all of them including the E90 3 series and Mondeo.
The trouble with the 159 was it was a little numb and less characterfull than the 156.
Which brings me to the following statement in the PH Giulia test about the 156:
"The 156 was definitely Alfa's high water mark, selling strongly on the back of its handsome design."
Yes it sold well, but no it wasn't a good car, it had characterfull engines, was rel.light, nimble but small, like everything in it's day. But it had a flimsy shell, the suspension was badly setup. The brakes weren't that good, it rattled, etc
The 159 is much better build car, well setup, it was very German like, not that any car journo noticed, because a colourfull write-up and riding the wave of car cliches just makes a better story.
loudlashadjuster said:
£35,000 when the equivalent BMW/M-B/Audi is around £30k? Yeah, good luck with that, Alfa.
The Giulia is better specced and options are cheaper than the equivalent Jag, A4, C class and 3 series.And more engines are coming, a 2.0 turbo with 280hp and a 2.0 twin turbo with 350hp.
And concerning the "daft engine/specification combinations", just tell your government to start driving on the correct side of the road.
Edited by DeltonaS on Thursday 19th May 20:35
DeltonaS said:
The 159 is the bestest car ever and is better than your dad's car etc.
DeltonaS said:
The Giulia is better specced and options are cheaper than the equivalent Jag, A4, C class and 3 series.
And more engines are comming up, a 2.0 turbo with 280hp and a 2.0 twin turbo with 350hp.
And concerning the "daft engine/specification combinations", just tell your government to start driving on the correct side of the road.
And more engines are comming up, a 2.0 turbo with 280hp and a 2.0 twin turbo with 350hp.
And concerning the "daft engine/specification combinations", just tell your government to start driving on the correct side of the road.
Chill, fella
Edited by loudlashadjuster on Thursday 19th May 11:22
peter450 said:
I think your being hard on the GM side. They supplied the blocks, but the heads were done to Alfa's own design. The Q4's were pretty heavy but the FWD cars were not that different to the BMW's and Audi's of the day.
My biggest peeve with the GM tie up isn't engine related, though the 2.2 JTS was a dog, it's the platform sharing and that Alfa seemed to get very little say. The Saab understructure for the 159 was massively over engineered in true Saab tradition. They improved things for later models but it was still just never as quick, even in 3.2 guise, as it should have been. Worse still is the poor MiTo and inheriting the mediocre SCCS platform. It was simply too tall and narrow to really carry off the styling and gave it a rather wooden handling/ride compromise. MiTo could have been the new Sud but will go down in history as a missed opportunity. At least 159 will always be remembered for being pretty. DeltonaS said:
O and the 159 dynamically flawed?? what a laugh.
Theirs a video on YouTube where a German mag tested it against all it's D-segemnt competitors, it wipes the floor with all of them including the E90 3 series and Mondeo.
This one?Theirs a video on YouTube where a German mag tested it against all it's D-segemnt competitors, it wipes the floor with all of them including the E90 3 series and Mondeo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zON4bWsl2Ek
DeltonaS said:
And more engines are comming up, a 2.0 turbo with 280hp and a 2.0 twin turbo with 350hp.
Tell me more about the 350bhp.... that I can afford, at least! And why is everyone mentioning 4wd and the QV. The QV was never going to get 4wd. The mid range diesels and the 280bhp petrol are.
rxe said:
Hopefully the Giulia will be like the 156 - a bit soft from the factory in "cooking" trim, but easily sharpened up.
That's what Italian cars 'used to be' all about: easy to live with in basic trim but adjustable to Boy Racer spes by the handy neighbour.Check the 105 series to compare.
The 156 (1998 COTY) was a bit small. But 20 years ago cars were... small.
What the 156 did well: 4-door that looked like a coupe. Look who are following the trend today.
DeltonaS said:
The 159 was actually lighter, yes lighter, than the previous generation Audi A4. And a current BMW 5 series is a least 200 to 300 kg's heavier than the 159. Somehow no journo seems to be bothered with.
And 159 was killed of because it was too expensive to make, the financial crisis and given Fiat/Alfa's financial situation, the platform as you rightfully mention was a co-production with Saab and also meant for forthcomming E segment cars.
O and the 159 dynamically flawed?? what a laugh.
Theirs a video on YouTube where a German mag tested it against all it's D-segemnt competitors, it wipes the floor with all of them including the E90 3 series and Mondeo.
The trouble with the 159 was it was a little numb and less characterfull than the 156.
Which brings me to the following statement in the PH Giulia test about the 156:
"The 156 was definitely Alfa's high water mark, selling strongly on the back of its handsome design."
Yes it sold well, but no it wasn't a good car, it had characterfull engines, was rel.light, nimble but small, like everything in it's day. But it had a flimsy shell, the suspension was badly setup. The brakes weren't that good, it rattled, etc
The 159 is much better build car, well setup, it was very German like, not that any car journo noticed, because a colourfull write-up and riding the wave of car cliches just makes a better story.
The reason Alfa killed off the 159 was because nobody was buying itAnd 159 was killed of because it was too expensive to make, the financial crisis and given Fiat/Alfa's financial situation, the platform as you rightfully mention was a co-production with Saab and also meant for forthcomming E segment cars.
O and the 159 dynamically flawed?? what a laugh.
Theirs a video on YouTube where a German mag tested it against all it's D-segemnt competitors, it wipes the floor with all of them including the E90 3 series and Mondeo.
The trouble with the 159 was it was a little numb and less characterfull than the 156.
Which brings me to the following statement in the PH Giulia test about the 156:
"The 156 was definitely Alfa's high water mark, selling strongly on the back of its handsome design."
Yes it sold well, but no it wasn't a good car, it had characterfull engines, was rel.light, nimble but small, like everything in it's day. But it had a flimsy shell, the suspension was badly setup. The brakes weren't that good, it rattled, etc
The 159 is much better build car, well setup, it was very German like, not that any car journo noticed, because a colourfull write-up and riding the wave of car cliches just makes a better story.
I had one, it was good - was a bit heavy compared to a 3 series, but no different to an A4 (comparing actual measured weights, rather than fantasy manufacturer weights..)
The main problem it had was how inefficient it was compared to the opposition
underphil said:
The reason Alfa killed off the 159 was because nobody was buying it
I think the decision made by Fiat management was a bit more comprehensive. The 159 didn't sell well, that's for sure. But if all brands just kill off cars that aren't selling as much as liked.
No news, car manufacturers normally have a lifespan for each and every model, to keep product in the showroom, keep customers, plus they've invested lots and lot's in factory's/employees/trainings/marketing etc. So killing off a car is big decision. Alfa never invested in the 159 after the first facelift, while having the new TcT gearbox and MultiAir engines ready for instance. And with just two models in the showroom, Alfa had all the reasons to keep another while the new model was being developed.
But they didn't, they killed it off after just 6 years for reasons I described, and only offering two (Alfa/Fiat) engine choices in the last year or so of it's lifespan (even the Lance Thesis had a longer life span).
Alfa for instance reached an agreement with the Italian government during the crisis to temporarily lay off employees, they closed and modernized factory's. Also reached an agreement on more modern employee labor terms. Furthermore GM wanted out on the deal with Fiat(the 159 platform was a joint develop.) and Fiat got a healthy sum in return. Probably another reason to stop anything which reminded them of GM.
underphil said:
I had one, it was good - was a bit heavy compared to a 3 series, but no different to an A4 (comparing actual measured weights, rather than fantasy manufacturer weights..)
I don't mean just the reported factory weights. The A4 is on average heavier, in some engine config. more than others. But it doesn't really matter, my message was; have you read any articles saying the A4 was too heavy, BMW 5 series ?
I didn't.
underphil said:
The main problem it had was how inefficient it was compared to the opposition
True, the drag coeff. sucks for instance. Steering feel wasn't great either, certainly not a first choice for a trackday car or even a mountain road.But overall a good car, much better than the 147/156 IMO (and I had an 147).
Edited by DeltonaS on Thursday 19th May 20:32
loudlashadjuster said:
The 159 is the bestest car ever and is better than your dad's car etc.
Well let's just say I prefer it over a Yeti....."fella"...DeltonaS said:
The Giulia is better specced and options are cheaper than the equivalent Jag, A4, C class and 3 series.
And more engines are comming up, a 2.0 turbo with 280hp and a 2.0 twin turbo with 350hp.
And concerning the "daft engine/specification combinations", just tell your government to start driving on the correct side of the road.
And more engines are comming up, a 2.0 turbo with 280hp and a 2.0 twin turbo with 350hp.
And concerning the "daft engine/specification combinations", just tell your government to start driving on the correct side of the road.
loudlashadjuster said:
Chill, fella
Nothing to comment on the subject matter...."fella"...Edited by DeltonaS on Thursday 19th May 20:45
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff