RE: Alfa Romeo Stelvio QF vs. Mercedes-AMG C63 S
Discussion
Barga said:
Max_Torque said:
Oh and i'm not surprised the SUV had the "spikier" handling as this is intrinsic in the height of the thing! A high CofG can be counter acted, in terms of reducing body movement under longitudinal or lateral loads by two methods:
1) Increased lateral or longitudinal spring stiffness
2) Suspension kinematics that furnish a higher average roll centre (and so reduce the lever arm length between the CofG and that roll centre location)
Unfortunately, both of those lead to a higher "gain" in terms of wheel loading per G. Now on a smooth race track, without many bumps, heaves, or things like single wheel pot holes, all is rosey, but on a real road, the loading across the tyre has to change at a higher rate that for a car that has a lower gain. That means grip is lost more quickly under both primary and secondary ride inputs as compared to a car with an intrinsically balanced architecture. Lotus often are held up as "masters of the art" of making a car that rides AND handles well, but really, most of that is because they make cars that are intrinsically balanced and so don't need to resort to a range of 'tricks' to make them handle well and hence that intrinsic balance shows through......
You should give Lamborghini a call so that they can make the Gallardo go round the Nurburgring as fast as the Alfa StelvioQV! 1) Increased lateral or longitudinal spring stiffness
2) Suspension kinematics that furnish a higher average roll centre (and so reduce the lever arm length between the CofG and that roll centre location)
Unfortunately, both of those lead to a higher "gain" in terms of wheel loading per G. Now on a smooth race track, without many bumps, heaves, or things like single wheel pot holes, all is rosey, but on a real road, the loading across the tyre has to change at a higher rate that for a car that has a lower gain. That means grip is lost more quickly under both primary and secondary ride inputs as compared to a car with an intrinsically balanced architecture. Lotus often are held up as "masters of the art" of making a car that rides AND handles well, but really, most of that is because they make cars that are intrinsically balanced and so don't need to resort to a range of 'tricks' to make them handle well and hence that intrinsic balance shows through......
Max_Torque said:
But then you come to the real issue, the one that, ime, means i've never yet found and SUV on the road that can actually maintain a "high" average cross country pace, and that is the fact that it's terrifically wide and has zero steering feedback, so the average driver has no idea how hard they are actually pushing, so even if it had good consistent lateral grip (which it doesn't because it has to has huge lateral and longitudinal roll stiffness to stop that lardy body flopping all over the place and making your passengers sick), it's not a car that you want to come round a turn anywhere the limit and find a tractor and trailer in the middle of the road that you have to squeeze past........
These "performance" SUVs have one party trick, which is being reasonably fast off the line for the first 100 yards or so and that's about it, and EVs ar going to make that party trick look a bit limp pretty soon anyway!
High is relative but I reckon that if you can't maintain a high average cross country pace in such SUVs, it's because of limitations like traffic density, line of sight and licence preservation, not the limits of lateral grip (which are huge and way higher than required to keep one away from a prison cell). Hence the fact that a higher CoG is utterly irrelevant, neither cars are going to be much fun on track anyway where the lat friction limits can be safely and realistically breached. These "performance" SUVs have one party trick, which is being reasonably fast off the line for the first 100 yards or so and that's about it, and EVs ar going to make that party trick look a bit limp pretty soon anyway!
Max_Torque said:
i guess you didn't actually read what i wrote then? (go back and have another read and see if you can spot the important point you missed ;-)
Did you nor write this” The problem is, that in reality, although you might "think" your 2 ton body-on-stilts SUV is fast across the ground, it really isn't”Seems in reality it is fast over the ground even compared to a Lamborghini Gallardo which you would think is designed to be “fast over the ground” all wrapped up in a family package with 5 seats and room for luggage.
Love the fact both still exist. With the never ending crusade against the car and joy of driving not sure how long this will last...
That said the Stelvio will be compared invariably with the GLC 63s which is about to be restyled on the same basis as the C63 has. And at this level prospective buyers (like myself) will look at things like built quality and tech available. Without having driven either I have sat in a C63 and the level is on another planet compared to a Giulia or Stelvio. This matters.
Not to mention the fact to enjoy the Stelvio to the full you need to put in Race where you switch all aids off.. completely (not even in Ferrari it gets that extreme...). Why not go the Ferrari way and offer a CT off mode Race?
And yes the Alfa will have the more raw experience but remember most owners at this price level will have another car for pure thrills.. these cars just serve the purpose for the perrolhead dad to feel better about his everyday family transport..
Hard choices hard choices. But just feel Alfa might lose out due to perceived quality and it’s just a shame.
That said the Stelvio will be compared invariably with the GLC 63s which is about to be restyled on the same basis as the C63 has. And at this level prospective buyers (like myself) will look at things like built quality and tech available. Without having driven either I have sat in a C63 and the level is on another planet compared to a Giulia or Stelvio. This matters.
Not to mention the fact to enjoy the Stelvio to the full you need to put in Race where you switch all aids off.. completely (not even in Ferrari it gets that extreme...). Why not go the Ferrari way and offer a CT off mode Race?
And yes the Alfa will have the more raw experience but remember most owners at this price level will have another car for pure thrills.. these cars just serve the purpose for the perrolhead dad to feel better about his everyday family transport..
Hard choices hard choices. But just feel Alfa might lose out due to perceived quality and it’s just a shame.
Wills2 said:
I like the C63 estate especially with the new grille, but 90k as tested, Christ I'm poor.
I know what you mean when a Golf can be over £40k and a Fiesta high £20ksBut the monthlies can be made to look cheap!
Mercedes advertising new A classes at £269 and then right at the end spoken at 100mph there is a £5.5k deposit and no option to own the car!
Barga said:
Mercedes advertising new A classes at £269 and then right at the end spoken at 100mph there is a £5.5k deposit and no option to own the car!
That sounds very expensive indeed when you can lease one for less than £260 including the deposit. Probably less than the depreciation though, which is the main thing.Barga said:
I know what you mean when a Golf can be over £40k and a Fiesta high £20ks
But the monthlies can be made to look cheap!
Mercedes advertising new A classes at £269 and then right at the end spoken at 100mph there is a £5.5k deposit and no option to own the car!
I bought my w204 c63 estate 7 years ago, petrol was around £1.45 a litre at the time. It was well specced with the performance pack etc, it stood me in £56k in March 2012 with a mere 160 miles on the odo. It is a wondrous car, but I couldn’t pay £90k for the latest version, it just seems extremely expensive?!But the monthlies can be made to look cheap!
Mercedes advertising new A classes at £269 and then right at the end spoken at 100mph there is a £5.5k deposit and no option to own the car!
Get a used w204, save yourself a fist full of cash and listen to the modern equivalent of a spitfire starting up every day.......
nickfrog said:
Barga said:
Mercedes advertising new A classes at £269 and then right at the end spoken at 100mph there is a £5.5k deposit and no option to own the car!
That sounds very expensive indeed when you can lease one for less than £260 including the deposit. Probably less than the depreciation though, which is the main thing.Barga said:
Max_Torque said:
i guess you didn't actually read what i wrote then? (go back and have another read and see if you can spot the important point you missed ;-)
Did you nor write this” The problem is, that in reality, although you might "think" your 2 ton body-on-stilts SUV is fast across the ground, it really isn't”Seems in reality it is fast over the ground even compared to a Lamborghini Gallardo which you would think is designed to be “fast over the ground” all wrapped up in a family package with 5 seats and room for luggage.
me said:
i've never yet found an SUV on the road that can actually maintain a "high" average cross country pace
me said:
Now on a smooth race track , without many bumps, heaves, or things like single wheel pot holes, all is rosey, but on a real road , the loading across the tyre has to change at a higher rate that for a car that has a lower gain
I've highlighted the rather important words for you!Yes, if you believe pure track 'ring laps times (incidentally set on different days, with different drivers, so effectively worthless) the these lumpy performance SUVs under optimum conditions can be fast (thanks to lots of grip and power), but in the real world, on poorly sighted, often narrow, often bumpy, often slippery roads, no, no they aren't. In fact, the day you misjudge a turn, in 2 tonnes of SUV doing 120 mph (A speed they can easily get too thanks to 500 bhp) is the day you leave the road a knock a massive hole in the scenery (hopefully just the scenery) because there simply isn't the space for you to gather it all back up before you've run out of road.......
(and incidentally, something like a Lambo is equally as slow because it's just too much car to actually use, but i suspect that if we took a lambo and a SUV to a track day, the Lambo isn't going to be slower, given that the Stelvio does the ring in 7.52 a "std" Huracan 610-4 in 7.28 and a Performante in 6.52)
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. Being able to see further, over fewer obstacles opens up a lot more safe overtaking opportunities than in a similar footprint car of similar performance that is a couple of feet lower.
The issue with the Alfa is that it looks like the van from Dumb and Dumber and a Merc estate always has a strange appeal and the C63 is just a brilliant car.
The issue with the Alfa is that it looks like the van from Dumb and Dumber and a Merc estate always has a strange appeal and the C63 is just a brilliant car.
Max_Torque said:
Also worth noting that Alfa's own performance Saloon, the Giulia Quadrifoglio, despite sharing most of it's oily bits with the Stelvio, is 20 seconds faster around the 'ring that the SUV.......
You can't beat the laws of physics, sorry!
You clearly can. The fact that it's only 20sec slower is evidence, particularly for a car that is so out of its comfort zone and design brief there. Translate that 10/10ths into a 5/10ths on the open road and you'll be travelling very fast indeed and the law of physics won't be an issue. The SUV has insane levels of gs for mere road use.You can't beat the laws of physics, sorry!
Edited by nickfrog on Saturday 23 March 17:54
nickfrog said:
Max_Torque said:
In fact, the day you misjudge a turn, in 2 tonnes of SUV doing 120 mph
On the open road ? (In a modern performance car, there are actually very few corners that cannot be taken at 80mph or greater on typical roads)
(whether is is "safe" to corner at that speed is an entirely different matter......... )
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff