Rant: Is the Brera a joke?
Discussion
cathalm said:
jamieboy said:
A fair review, thanks for this.
That's really not the case - at a casual glance they look the same, but the lower part of the front wings, the shield, and the airdam are all different. There are some pictures a couple of pages back in this thread that illustrate this.
Brera V6 - 260bhp, 1630 kilos, 162bhp/ton
GTV 3.0 V6 - 220bhp, 1415 kilos, 157bhp/ton
The diesel is the only one I've driven, so I can't comment on how the V6 feels, but I found I was travelling far faster than it 'felt' and I put that down to the fact that it's so much more refined than my GTV. It seems a lot more grown up, and that's possibly good and bad in equal measure. If it's not the car for you, then that's absolutely fair comment.
cathalm said:
In fact the brera looks exactly like a 159 with the boot cut off, which is exactly what it is.
That's really not the case - at a casual glance they look the same, but the lower part of the front wings, the shield, and the airdam are all different. There are some pictures a couple of pages back in this thread that illustrate this.
cathalm said:
The V6 brera..simply isn't powerful enough for its weight.
Brera V6 - 260bhp, 1630 kilos, 162bhp/ton
GTV 3.0 V6 - 220bhp, 1415 kilos, 157bhp/ton
The diesel is the only one I've driven, so I can't comment on how the V6 feels, but I found I was travelling far faster than it 'felt' and I put that down to the fact that it's so much more refined than my GTV. It seems a lot more grown up, and that's possibly good and bad in equal measure. If it's not the car for you, then that's absolutely fair comment.
And yet it still is slower to 60 and 100 by some way, besides, my gtv doesnt have 220bhp it has 252 ;0)
I guess the rest is down to transmission loss due to the 4WD.
How did you get your GTV to 252bhp? More than exhaust/chip/air filter?
cathalm said:
It has exhaust, cams and remap. immediately after it was rolling roaded at 252, take the accuarcy of rolling roads how you will. BMC CDA not fitted at the mo.
Just spotted that Autodelta do a 300/320bhp supercharger for the 3.0L/3.2 for 4.5k, do you know of anybody that tried it? The car should really shift then! Infact, if they make a version for the Brera, it might be worth a look.
4WD said:
Alfa's PR rep is in the building 
Oh dear - how much sadder can the thread get
All these people slagging off the Brera and few detractors have even driven it. Since when did the black and white figures on a page convince people alone to buy a car. Don't we all do it with a huge chunk of "heart" and not "head"? If we are being honest, is it not the look, the image and the intangible tingly feeling that makes up so much of the decision?
I have had both the Fiat Coupe and Alfa 156. Both suffered awfully from problems and I vowed never again to fall under the spell of cars like that. Yes, after seeing the Brera in the flesh for the first time I knew it was going to be the next car. One very satisfactory test drive later - and it is collected in Sept
Is it too heavy? Probably. Did it make the car dreadful - nope. Unless I want to do track days, it will not affect my daily driving experience 99% of the time.
These cars are about heart as much as head - else we would all drive japanese diesels and never, ever break any speed limits .. now would we
It actually reminds me of camera folks - they would call much of this thread pixel peeping. This refers to people get so infatuated by the specs of a digital camera that they forget it is the person behind the lens that makes the difference.
oh - hello all ! [hehe]
Edited by bunyarra on Saturday 19th August 09:39
bunyarra said:
Since when did the black and white figures on a page convince people alone to buy a car. Don't we all do it with a huge chunk of "heart" and not "head"? If we are being honest, is it not the look, the image and the intangible tingly feeling that makes up so much of the decision?
Looks? At least a little, if I'm being honest. Image? Nope, not at all. That's for shallow people who view a car as a status symbol, not something to enjoy for yourself.
Tingly feeling? Yep, that's the one thing you must drive a car to tell. Photos and stats won't do it.
bunyarra said:
Is it too heavy? Probably. Did it make the car dreadful - nope. Unless I want to do track days, it will not affect my daily driving experience 99% of the time.
Funny...I've driven a variety of cars and weight makes a big difference...even 150kg is noticeable in it's effect on the cars responses, and 250kg very much so. The best cars I've driven (for me...I like B-roads) have all been lightweight and focused. I thought the S-Type R was a dog of a car until you got it on an ultra-fast A-road or a dual-carriageway...and THAT is lighter than the Brera (and bigger!). bunyarra said:
These cars are about heart as much as head - else we would all drive japanese diesels and never, ever break any speed limits .. now would we
Agreed...on your first point at least. But everyone's 'heart' is different. For me it's in the involvement, the precision, the feel of the car. For you it appears that looks, sound, and sense-of-occasion are more important.
bunyarra said:
It actually reminds me of camera folks - they would call much of this thread pixel peeping. This refers to people get so infatuated by the specs of a digital camera that they forget it is the person behind the lens that makes the difference.
Yep, it is...but driving ability is irrelevant (largely) to choice of car. And a better car can flatter a poor/average driver, same as a better camera can flatter an average photographer.
So I don't quite see what point you're making here - are you saying we're analysing the stats too much? Maybe, but the stats CAN tell you a lot about the underlying nature of a car...although I agree if anyone is considering it they need to drive it.
Me? 4wd and near-1800kg put me right off the car, as you can already draw fairly certain inferences about the way it drives, and questionable dealerships cement it. I still CAN'T understand where all that weight comes from...
havoc said:
Image? Nope, not at all. That's for shallow people who view a car as a status symbol, not something to enjoy for yourself.
Hmm .. why would anyone want to drive a car that was just plain ugly - no matter how 'light' or fast it was? Especially if there were alternatives. I certainly do not think factoring looks into the mix equates to my being shallow. For many, the look of a car is all part of it's enjoyment and not just something for the benefit of others.
Status symbols would normally be categorised stupidly expensive cars or those that are blatantly inappropriate for their intended use - most 4WD fit into this category.
The Brera is an exceptionally good looking car (has to be seen in the flesh though - pictures rarelymake it look good), has more than adequate performance for my (and most people's) needs and, being a diesel, fits wonderfully into my 150 mile/day commute.
Did I reject a BMW - yup. Why? Because they are driven by plonkers and I had no intention of being classified as such based on the badge
Now that IS a reverse status symbol decision I will 100% admit to! havoc said:
I still CAN'T understand where all that weight comes from...
Now that I agree on - just the rest is suspect
I fear economics is a huge driver here. If the car is a success, then it is likely money will go into the mid-term facelift and we might find lighter components used. Or the GTA version will have enough grunt to compensate.
You obviously do not like the car, do not think it is not suitable for your driving habits and would not buy it - fine. For others, the Brera is a good balance of all the factors important when plonking down £25k+ of hard earned dosh. Different horses etc.
Perhaps, though, if you tried driving one , it's good points would allow you to overcome your objections
If we all chose cars with our heads then we'd all drive Scenics. Yes the Brera is heavy, but then aren't most cars these days? You want a car loaded with electrics and gimmicks then something's got to give somewhere. To choose a car solely on looks is shallow, but I think it plays a role in everyone's decision. I would buy a car that handles well and is quick, but also wouldn't buy something that I don't physcially like. After all, you'll be the one looking at it all the time
bunyarra said:
havoc said:
Image? Nope, not at all. That's for shallow people who view a car as a status symbol, not something to enjoy for yourself.
Hmm .. why would anyone want to drive a car that was just plain ugly - no matter how 'light' or fast it was? Especially if there were alternatives. I certainly do not think factoring looks into the mix equates to my being shallow. For many, the look of a car is all part of it's enjoyment and not just something for the benefit of others.
havoc actually said:
Looks? At least a little, if I'm being honest.
Image? Nope, not at all. That's for shallow people who view a car as a status symbol, not something to enjoy for yourself.
Image? Nope, not at all. That's for shallow people who view a car as a status symbol, not something to enjoy for yourself.
Re-read what I wrote. LOOKS I agree are a rational factor...more for some than others. Image is different. As you agree below:-
bunyarra said:
Did I reject a BMW - yup. Why? Because they are driven by plonkers and I had no intention of being classified as such based on the badge Now that IS a reverse status symbol decision I will 100% admit to!
Now that IS a reverse status symbol decision I will 100% admit to!bunyarra said:
Perhaps, though, if you tried driving one , it's good points would allow you to overcome your objections
I doubt it. I haven't yet driven a mainstream car designed post-2000 which has any real 'soul' to it, and I don't expect a 4wd lard-arse to be any better than the lighter, more focused offerings elsewhere.
Steering is becoming feel-less, brakes over-servo'd, all the throttles have potentiometers not cables, and so have varying degrees of 'lag', even on a n/a petrol! Weight is getting silly, all so we can have two dozen gadgets in the car that we think are neat and hardly ever use, and all so we can be that little bit more insulated from the world around us and better protected from the accident we're more likely to have because we've become cocooned and complacent and distracted by all those bloody gadgets!!!
And before I get slated, I'd just like to say:- It's not just this Alfa, it's all modern cars in one way or another. It's just that 1765kg for a 6-pot 2+2 is frankly f'kin stupid. I used to own an 1100kg 4-pot 2+2 with at least the same interior space, more boot space, better economy, better bhp/tonne, comparable acceleration, similar levels of 'presence', an equally stirring exhaust note and I would suggest TONS more involvement. Pick up this month's 'evo' and you might just spot a piccy of it!
What does this Alfa have for it's 10 years and 10 grand extra? Better crash protection and 20 more gadgets. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is it. Is it worth it?!? Not for me, not by a long shot.
negative creep said:
Yes the Brera is heavy, but then aren't most cars these days? You want a car loaded with electrics and gimmicks then something's got to give somewhere.
See above. Dump the gimmicks. You need PAS, ABS, RCL, E/W, E/M, A/C and CD. Anything else is just extra weight and cost. Edited by havoc on Saturday 19th August 23:28
havoc said:
And before I get slated, I'd just like to say:- It's not just this Alfa, it's all modern cars in one way or another. It's just that 1765kg for a 6-pot 2+2 is frankly f'kin stupid. I used to own an 1100kg 4-pot 2+2 with at least the same interior space, more boot space, better economy, better bhp/tonne, comparable acceleration, similar levels of 'presence', an equally stirring exhaust note and I would suggest TONS more involvement. Pick up this month's 'evo' and you might just spot a piccy of it!
What does this Alfa have for it's 10 years and 10 grand extra? Better crash protection and 20 more gadgets. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is it. Is it worth it?!? Not for me, not by a long shot.
Could not agree more.
Although I love everything about the Brera except for the weight (and why the 'old' V6 was dropped I'll never get -and what about that DTM V6 block anyhow?), I would have a hard time convincing myself to buy it when it is outperformed by the first german diesel or japanese coupe it is bound to run into.
That just is not the natural order of things ; Alfa's should be beautiful, lithe and scorchingly fast.
Like a 75 was to a 190 or 3-series, like a Guilietta was to a 1302, like a GTV6 was to a 99turbo, like a 8C was to a Bugatti, like a 33 Stradale was to a Ferrari.
Only one of three simply will not do. (And bugger the 'reliability' issue, I've never had serious problems with that anyway -which is more than I can say for my Peugeots of past.)
IMHO anyhow.
I've just had the Brera 2.4 JTD on a test drive for the last four days, and have driven the 2.2 JTS albeit briefly. Out of the two I'd say the JTD is better. I have to say it's superb, build quality is excellent it feels so much more solid than the 147 i've got presently and it's a lot quieter, handles really well and steering and gearchange is good, has loads of torque (especially in third gear). I must admit when I saw the 0-62 figures I was a bit disappointed, but after this weekend I'm not too bothered about how quickly it gets there, i'm getting one!! 
cirvy said:
Had mine for about a month now & you can't argue that the build quality is a whole new dimension for Alfa. The chasis & grip are unbelievable, i keep trying to unstick mine & i just dare'nt go any quicker round the roundabouts, its incredible ..... D
No, it's tyre technology and stiff suspension. Everyone is sticking 245-section tyres (or bigger) now on cars that 5 years ago would have had 205-section. Of course they're going to grip more. But that doesn't make the car any more fun...well, not for me, anyway.
Build quality is good to hear though...hope in 3 years time it's still that good!
havoc said:
cirvy said:
Had mine for about a month now & you can't argue that the build quality is a whole new dimension for Alfa. The chasis & grip are unbelievable, i keep trying to unstick mine & i just dare'nt go any quicker round the roundabouts, its incredible ..... D
No, it's tyre technology and stiff suspension. Everyone is sticking 245-section tyres (or bigger) now on cars that 5 years ago would have had 205-section. Of course they're going to grip more. But that doesn't make the car any more fun...well, not for me, anyway.
Build quality is good to hear though...hope in 3 years time it's still that good!
The Brera has bags of grip thanks to the car,not the tyres. I mean, when it weights 7 tonnes as it does, NOTHING is going tomake it deviate from its chosen course; it'd be like sneezing at the helm of an oil tanker!
Edited by SCOOTERMAN on Wednesday 30th August 20:46
No, the Brera's not a joke. Let's be honest, has ANY Alfa been a class leader? Erm, no. But do you think I was gonna buy a Golf instead of the 145? Yeah right.
It's the same with every model. All the others build better, quicker, more efficient cars. But
me they're boring. That's the whole point of having an Alfa, isn't it?
Pointless argument.
It's the same with every model. All the others build better, quicker, more efficient cars. But
me they're boring. That's the whole point of having an Alfa, isn't it? Pointless argument.
phil1979 said:
All the others build better, quicker, more efficient cars. But me they're boring. That's the whole point of having an Alfa, isn't it?
Pointless argument.
me they're boring. That's the whole point of having an Alfa, isn't it? Pointless argument.
And this Alfa is exciting? Not to me - it's a lard-arse built off a Vectra platform with 2 too many driven wheels! For many drivers, 'excitement' comes from the driving, not the looking at or sitting in the car.
I'd also suggest that many drivers would prefer boring but reliable cars to 'exciting but built like a chocolate teapot' (Note: Old Alfa reputation, not necessarily current car...although the dealers still need a rocket up their...).
So not such a pointless argument. Vive la difference (oops, wrong language!
)havoc said:
phil1979 said:
All the others build better, quicker, more efficient cars. But me they're boring. That's the whole point of having an Alfa, isn't it?
Pointless argument.
And this Alfa is exciting? Not to me - it's a lard-arse built off a Vectra platform me they're boring. That's the whole point of having an Alfa, isn't it? Pointless argument.
Edited by richb on Wednesday 6th September 19:11
richb said:
havoc said:
phil1979 said:
All the others build better, quicker, more efficient cars. But me they're boring. That's the whole point of having an Alfa, isn't it?
Pointless argument.
me they're boring. That's the whole point of having an Alfa, isn't it? Pointless argument.
And this Alfa is exciting? Not to me - it's a lard-arse built off a Vectra platform
Well, just checked, and there seems to be a little debate:-
www.digest.net/alfa/FAQ/164/forum2/DCForumID4/1361.html
...says 'GM Premium platform' (which IIRC is 159)
...while
www.autoweek.com/files/specials/2005_geneva/brera/pages/1.htm
and
http://cars.com/go/features/autoshows
...say 'GM Epsilon platform' (which is Vectra/9-3)
So I may be wrong about Vectra (2-1 in my favour, but clearly jury's still out)...but it's definitely a GM saloon platform.
4WD said:
I wonder how much more the V8 weighs? Could be the first two ton Alfa. It might not actually be any quicker accelerating in a straight line. It'll be even slower into the corners of course.
Apparently the Maser V8 is only 20kg's more than the GM V6 that is in the Brera. If they combine that with a few hundred Kg weight saving that people seem to be suggesting, should go pretty quick?
The platform was developed by GM for Saab and Alfa Romeo but it got too expensive for Saab I think.
Edited by rabw on Sunday 29th April 19:53
Gassing Station | Alfa Romeo, Fiat & Lancia | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff