RE: Alfa Romeo Stelvio QF vs. Mercedes-AMG C63 S

[TobyTR]

phalfalan said:

Bought a Stelvio QF after owning a Giulia QF for 18 months. With teenage kids the Stelvio is better size wise and the reaction from others when you give it the beans and disappear into the horizon is priceless. There will always be those who argue German is best, it’s the usual boring comments made about interior build quality, blah, blah - I just think both the AMG and Alfa are great cars in different ways so is one better than the other? I don’t care really, thank goodness there are still mad cars these two being made, respect to any owner of either - there isn’t an electric hook up in sight.

Nail on the head

I've just given back a Stelvio QF loaner after a week and the interior is perfectly acceptable for the price. Variety is the spice of life

[Hackney]

The most depressing thing I've read today is "See the VW T-Roc R - a car surely ringing the death knell for the Golf R estate "

I've owned a Golf R Estate, bought over the hatch simpy due to boot space requiremtnts of two toddler age children.
I've looked at pictures of a T-Roc R and.... well.... where do you put your stuff?

I could sort of understand the comparison with a Golf R hatch as the T-roc may have similar boot space but the estate? No way.

Same goes for all SUVs really, Compare them on price and you need to move up an SUV size to get comparable boot space. So a Q5 rather than a Q3 versus an A3 estate. And they're bloody big cars on the outside, to paraphrase Contact, an SUV is an awfully big waste of space

[Ares]

Max_Torque said:

DonkeyApple said:

You’ve really got to be travelling at very silly speeds on a public highway to surpass the big advantage of that extra forward vision that a high performance SUV gives.

I'm not really sure this is true? I've driven everything from a Caterham to a HGV and frankly i'm not actually sure this is true. It's not like modern SUVs actually provide that much of a higher driver eye line to make a "safe" overtake possible?

It's not just safety IMO, although extra visibility is never a bad thing - the higher driving position makes for a far more relaxing drive. That most noticeable when you go from a larger SUV back into a car.

[Ares]

lukafoto said:

Utterly mad #supersizemesuvconsumerculture dictates to the masses than inefficiency and #vehicleobesity are good. Utter nonsense from scientitific and feeling perspectives. Sitting higher means higher polar moment of inertia for the driver and passenger heads resulting in ever more roads reduced from 60mph to 40 zones or slower as SUV drivers can't take the corners even if the vehicles can. Alfa, now that Machcionne has gone (RIP), PLEASE BRING US A 159SW replacement based on the Giulia.

You've missed the Stelvio's 'ring time then. Really st at corners.

[Ares]

janesmith1950 said:

Griffgrog said:

120mph on B roads !!!!!!!

When you've 500bhp+ to play with it takes very little time to reach those speeds. I'm not condoning it as good practice, however passing a couple of cars and a lorry at WOT from 50mph could easily see you over that kind of speed by the time you completed the manoeuvre.

An M3 with 450hp will go from standstill to 100mph in less than 9 seconds.

All these cars are fking quick!

Very true. But he's talking about his diesel

[Ares]

Clivey said:

Brooking10 said:

Is it difficult coming up with silly things like that first couple of sentences or do they just come naturally?

It's not difficult to wind-up certain kinds of people, or make observations.

But still; how many under 40s do you think buy Stelvio QVs?

I know 4 owners, the eldest is, I think, 45.


Mercs on the other hand.....

[Ares]

Max_Torque said:

er, i'm not bragging about it. Merely pointing out that if my crappy diesel estate, which is far, far from the fastest car in the world can get to 120 mph on a B road, then to claim a "performance SUV" is faster necessarily means that it will have to go even faster than 120 mph! Besides, anyone who owns a modern performance car and doesn't use the performance, what's the point, may as well buy the diesel version eh? (like me ;-) )

A 320d can do 120mph, as can the 330d. Why did you waste money on the 335d?

[Ares]

westernlancia said:

So remind me again... apart from impressing morons and shagging up the centre of gravity, what is the exact purpose of the raised ride height in an SUV?

Nothing when you can't see past the chip on your shoulder

[Ares]

Dave Hedgehog said:

you would need serious medical help if you spent 90k on a C63, you could get a new golf r estate and a manual V10 R8 (or a decent 911) for that money

Edited by Dave Hedgehog on Monday 25th March 14:48

You sure about that? Pretty sure the R8 starts into £6-figures, before options. You don't do red bus sign-writing do you?

[Wiltshire Lad]

Clivey said:

It's not difficult to wind-up certain kinds of people, or make observations.

But still; how many under 40s do you think buy Stelvio QVs?

Or Range Rovers.......always seem to be driven by older gents of the larger persuasion.....

[Wiltshire Lad]

Max_Torque said:

er, i'm not bragging about it. Merely pointing out that if my crappy diesel estate, which is far, far from the fastest car in the world can get to 120 mph on a B road, then to claim a "performance SUV" is faster necessarily means that it will have to go even faster than 120 mph! Besides, anyone who owns a modern performance car and doesn't use the performance, what's the point, may as well buy the diesel version eh? (like me ;-) )

Missing the point here....fast progress over B roads has nothing to do with top speed achieved during the journey. I have a rather boring Audi A diesel which, as you point out, is capable of hitting 120 mph easily. Until recently I also had a Lotus Elise SC. I've used both for my 12 mile B road commute - and probably never been over 60 mph during the entire journey in either. However, I arrive 10 minutes earlier in the Lotus. It's all about speed through the bends and overtaking (safely) when you can... which is a lot more often in the Lotus.

[DonkeyApple]

10 min difference over 12 miles without going over 60? Did you used to stop for a nap in the diesel?

[mrnoisy78]

fatboy b said:

Merc looks awful inside and out compared to the Alfa. And a bonus is that the Alfa has an integrated screen rather than a stuck-on after thought.

^^ wins prize for least taste on the forum. Can’t believe some of what I’m reading on here, this used to be a performance car forum, now it seems to be full of people desperately trying to justify why they bought a gopping SUV over a great looking superior handling performance car lol. “Higher driving position and safety” - says a lot about the new generation.

For me the only reason anyone would buy a Stelvio over a C63 estate is because it’s an over protective parent, persuaded by the government that everything out there is trying to kill you and you need the biggest car you can afford to “protect” you and your family from the EVIL out there!!

Twaddle, like most things the public are fed today yet many lap it up hence the rise of Mums driving tanks on the road, the majority of them seemingly incapable of understanding the vehicle isn’t 3 metres wide and can pass other cars travelling in the opposite direction.
It’s almost understandable given how much the standard of driving on the UK roads seems to have fallen in the last 15 years, but then common sense prevails, although clearly not for some :|

I’m sure the snowflake brigade will be along soon to try and flame the post and make further justification as to why they bought the fugly worse car, it’s just a shame that you’ve all changed the car market for the worse.

Edited by mrnoisy78 on Friday 29th March 06:55

[nickfrog]

mrnoisy78 said:

^^ wins prize for least taste on the forum. Can’t believe some of what I’m reading on here, this used to be a performance car forum, now it seems to be full of people desperately trying to justify why they bought a gopping SUV over a great looking superior handling performance car lol. “Higher driving position and safety” - says a lot about the new generation.

For me the only reason anyone would buy a Stelvio over a C63 estate is because it’s an over protective parent, persuaded by the government that everything out there is trying to kill you and you need the biggest car you can afford to “protect” you and your family from the EVIL out there!!

Twaddle, like most things the public are fed today yet many lap it up hence the rise of Mums driving tanks on the road, the majority of them seemingly incapable of understanding the vehicle isn’t 3 metres wide and can pass other cars travelling in the opposite direction.
It’s almost understandable given how much the standard of driving on the UK roads seems to have fallen in the last 15 years, but then common sense prevails, although clearly not for some :|

I’m sure the snowflake brigade will be along soon to try and flame the post and make further justification as to why they bought the fugly worse car, it’s just a shame that you’ve all changed the car market for the worse.

Edited by mrnoisy78 on Friday 29th March 06:55

I am in my 40s and often prefer a SUV shape car to an estate as I can fit 2 enduro mountain bikes upright at the back (not possible in an estate) and take it to places where my A4 Avant would simply not have enough clearance / travel to reach. The SUV is also shorter, more practical and pleasant to drive on its balloon tyres and softer suspensions for family and touring use (I don't take it on track days). It's also cheaper than an equivalent estate. because of the better residuals. I have no issues with anyone preferring an estate so I don't know why you seem so upset.

[mrnoisy78]

nickfrog said:

I am in my 40s and often prefer a SUV shape car to an estate as I can fit 2 enduro mountain bikes upright at the back (not possible in an estate) and take it to places where my A4 Avant would simply not have enough clearance / travel to reach. The SUV is also shorter, more practical and pleasant to drive on its balloon tyres and softer suspensions for family and touring use (I don't take it on track days). It's also cheaper than an equivalent estate. because of the better residuals. I have no issues with anyone preferring an estate so I don't know why you seem so upset.

Why do bikes need to be upright in the car?
Weird justification. You must be in the 2% of owners who actually go off-road further than a pavement

[Shiv_P]

9k rpm said:

cerb4.5lee said:

9k rpm said:

Is the merc made of lead?

German cars are always heavy and its par for the course. The Alfa is relatively light for what it is to be fair, also the Quadrifoglio saloon is commendably light compared to its rivals as well.

Didn’t know the Giulia was that light so just did some research and am really surprised:
M3 saloon 1,560kg
C63 amg 1,825kg
Giulia quadrifoglio 1,524kg
RS4 avant 1,799kg

Seems it’s only Mercs and Audis that are heavy although you can sort of forgive the RS4 as it has 4wd.

and the Audi is an estate....

[DoubleD]

mrnoisy78 said:

nickfrog said:

I am in my 40s and often prefer a SUV shape car to an estate as I can fit 2 enduro mountain bikes upright at the back (not possible in an estate) and take it to places where my A4 Avant would simply not have enough clearance / travel to reach. The SUV is also shorter, more practical and pleasant to drive on its balloon tyres and softer suspensions for family and touring use (I don't take it on track days). It's also cheaper than an equivalent estate. because of the better residuals. I have no issues with anyone preferring an estate so I don't know why you seem so upset.

Why do bikes need to be upright in the car?
Weird justification. You must be in the 2% of owners who actually go off-road further than a pavement

Why would anyone need to justify their car choices?

[AC43]

Ares said:

Max_Torque said:

DonkeyApple said:

You’ve really got to be travelling at very silly speeds on a public highway to surpass the big advantage of that extra forward vision that a high performance SUV gives.

I'm not really sure this is true? I've driven everything from a Caterham to a HGV and frankly i'm not actually sure this is true. It's not like modern SUVs actually provide that much of a higher driver eye line to make a "safe" overtake possible?

It's not just safety IMO, although extra visibility is never a bad thing - the higher driving position makes for a far more relaxing drive. That most noticeable when you go from a larger SUV back into a car.

I find that, in a city, the view out of the front may be fine but the view through the side mirrors and RVM isn't. I remember being loaned an ML and making my way home down a busy rush hour A40 and finding filtering motorbikes vanishing in the massive blind spots. Reversing it was a pig too (no camera on that one).

A tt in a Discovery once reversed straight into my 200SX. When he got out he was actually quite angry that "he couldn't see my car". FFS. It still goes on today - an SUV reversed into my mate's immaculate TR6 the other day and stoved the bonnet in.

Obviously SUV drivers like this are in the minority but they are a bit of a liability in a city. At least without cameras, blind spot warnings and so on.

[nickfrog]

mrnoisy78 said:

nickfrog said:

I am in my 40s and often prefer a SUV shape car to an estate as I can fit 2 enduro mountain bikes upright at the back (not possible in an estate) and take it to places where my A4 Avant would simply not have enough clearance / travel to reach. The SUV is also shorter, more practical and pleasant to drive on its balloon tyres and softer suspensions for family and touring use (I don't take it on track days). It's also cheaper than an equivalent estate. because of the better residuals. I have no issues with anyone preferring an estate so I don't know why you seem so upset.

Why do bikes need to be upright in the car?
Weird justification. You must be in the 2% of owners who actually go off-road further than a pavement

I don't need to justify anything. Try and fit 2 CF framed big bikes in an estate : absolute faff, all wheels off and risk of damage as they are too shallow whereas a SUV means you just use the dropper post against the roof. So total PITA vs super easy without any downsides : why would I choose the estate ?

I would still have a SUV even if I didn't need to go off road. Do you have any data to back up your 2% ?

Still, what's up ?

Edited by nickfrog on Friday 29th March 11:02

[mrnoisy78]

nickfrog said:

I don't need to justify anything. Try and fit 2 CF framed big bikes in an estate : absolute faff, all wheels off and risk of damage as they are too shallow whereas a SUV means you just use the dropper post against the roof. So total PITA vs super easy without any downsides : why would I choose the estate ?

I would still have a SUV even if I didn't need to go off road. Do you have any data to back up your 2% ?

Still, what's up ?

Your back apparently