RE: Alfa Romeo 4C: Review

[V6Alfisti]

405dogvan said:

I remain fascinated to see if the relatively crap Alfa dealer network can tease people into a £50K 1.8 4 cylinder car...

They'll need help - quite a lot of help - with that.

Rarity is probably a boon here - if they made more their value would melt faster than the polar icecaps!!

I like the headlights tbh - in fact that's the best looking Alfa in a while, we're getting used to the design language I think (tho liking the Mito is still a bit of an ask)

I suspect there will be enough demand that people will buy the 4C despite the dealership, rather than needing persuading, hence even if you ordered today you won't be getting it until H2 2014.

e.g. my local Alfa dealer was simonstone (sales/service was attrocious, but parts great), Alfa removed their franchise and Wessex Garages have now picked up Alfa/Abarth/Kia - all in the same unit. I know that the experience will be akin to walking into a fruit shop but I would be able to have a 4C as a result, so not really a major issue.

Dealerships had a major shakeup up a few years ago and lots of the poor ones have gone, however I am sure Alfa dealerships of late have been suffering with only the Mito and Giulietta to sell.

[AgentZ]

LongLiveTazio said:

kambites said:

Sounds about right running on fumes. It wont have more than 10kg of oil between engine and gearbox or more than 20kg of coolant. There's no refrigerant or power steering fluid and hydraulic fluid won't weigh much.

If you spec air conditioning and fill the tank with fuel I'm sure you'll be looking at over a tonne, though.

But this is it, it's a ridiculous figure because you start adding things on immediately to try and guess showroom weight. I didn't realise air con was an option, but if it is then everyone will spec it and air con units are heavy - about, what, 30kg? But the fuel tank isn't large so it really shouldn't be over a ton with half a tank. I just always object to dry weights, Fiat group lie through their teeth about what their cars weigh and I haven't seen evidence that they'll change.

I found it sad during the 12C/458 comparisons for instance that McLaren's honesty in weights for each trim level was up against a 'quoted' dry weight. Happens every time there's a comparison involving Ferrari/Maserati/etc. and certain journalists deliberately either keep purporting the lie for whatever reason or ignore the truth.

I would guess an Elise SC will be lighter on a weighbridge and for me is by far the more desirable car in every way.

I think in the Alfa's case it does seem like it will end up being closer to 1100kg when/if Autocar get their hands it. Considering the carbon and aluminium spec it looks too much to me. Anyone know the dimensions of the 4C?

Generally speaking though, modern cars get a bad rap for being too heavy when relatively speaking they are lighter IMO.

I have a new Fiesta ST and I've been reading how lardy it is (Autocar's figure was 1200kg)

Compare that to the 1992 Fiesta RS1800 Autocar tested that weighed 1125kg (the 1992 Clio 16v weighed 1191kg!) and I find it impressive that the latest one is only 75kg heavier even though its ~9" inches longer, ~3" wider and ~5" taller, has all the safety stuff, bigger wheels/brakes and much more equipment...

[V6Alfisti]

I can't understand a word apart from the odd reference to Alfa/Maserati

http://www.telegraaf.nl/autovisie/

but the imagery/sound alone. Stunning

Edited by V6Alfisti on Saturday 21st September 15:40

[MikeSpencer]

Good review of a bold new car from Alfa. Still can't believe there's only going to be 3,500 built. Imagine the costs involved in designing/building that chassis/body? As a result, if you've got a few quid and want to earn more than the pitiful returns you'll see from the banks then can you think of a better car to buy and keep for the long term? Not really PH philosophy I know, but I'd rather Alfa see a reward for their boldness than any bank I could mention. Sadly, I'm not in this position but the thought's there...

[s m]

LongLiveTazio said:

One thing that always bothered me was the quoted weight. Italians always use dry weights, which are a marketing ploy and used to inveigle pages of magazines with headline figures. The best example is the F40's quoted 1100kg weight, which has become an (untrue) legend. I cannot believe that the quoted 'wet' weight of the 4C is only 30kg more than the dry weight. Can someone stick it on a weighbridge, please? Fair play to them if it's less than a ton but I only ever see dry weight as means of deception.

Agreed - that's why I'll be interested to read the Autocar test where they actually weigh road-ready cars......rather than manufacturer figures which are often way out

[kambites]

AgentZ said:

I think in the Alfa's case it does seem like it will end up being closer to 1100kg when/if Autocar get their hands it. Considering the carbon and aluminium spec it looks too much to me. Anyone know the dimensions of the 4C?

I don't think it will be that heavy. That would put it perilously close to the Exige S (which has been weighed by owners at about 1150kg wet with a full tank of fuel and air con).

[AgentZ]

kambites said:

AgentZ said:

I think in the Alfa's case it does seem like it will end up being closer to 1100kg when/if Autocar get their hands it. Considering the carbon and aluminium spec it looks too much to me. Anyone know the dimensions of the 4C?

I don't think it will be that heavy. That would put it perilously close to the Exige S (which has been weighed by owners at about 1150kg wet with a full tank of fuel and air con).

I wouldn't bank on it! A completely different kind of Alfa but the 1980 Alfasud 1.3 had a claimed kerb weight of 918kg (dry I assume) yet on Autocar's weighbridge it came in at 1088kg.

It's the same story with all cars tested by Autocar I can find on the net from the 70's/80's/90's. Most cars now list the weight to the EC directive which includes full fluids, driver(68kg), luggage(7kg) and 90% full fuel tank. For these ultra "light" exotics, they like to exclude this extra weight to look more impressive.

[Goofnik]

>And so to the question everyone is now asking: would you have one over a Cayman?

As someone who is actually in this position, I have not yet decided to ask for my deposit back for a 2015 Porsche Cayman S.

I appreciate that the Alfa exists, and that even in a 100kg heavier form it'll be a very interesting car for the U.S. market, offering something that nothing else over here can offer. However, I'll still take the Cayman S I spent forever debating and eventually plunking a deposit down for.

[otolith]

MikeSpencer said:

Still can't believe there's only going to be 3,500 built.

Probably wise, given that's their planned first year output, not their total production.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Goofnik said:

>And so to the question everyone is now asking: would you have one over a Cayman?

That certainly is the big question IMO. Boxster S/Cayman S are decently equipped in basic specification and can be had for less than £50k. They set a very high benchmark.

[anonymous-user]

There is some rubbish being spouted on here! This is a lightweight tactile little sports car with a Debby little turbo engine. It also has a dual clutch manual not an auto. All the talk of V8s and suchlike is rubbish.

[anonymous-user]

There is some rubbish being spouted on here! This is a lightweight tactile little sports car with a Debby little turbo engine. It also has a dual clutch manual not an auto. All the talk of V8s and suchlike is rubbish.

[wemorgan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoZN4ukGVFk

Given how the carbon fibre tub is hand layed-up then autoclaved the price looks very competitive. I doubt Alfa are making much money from direct sales of the 4C. Choice is seldom a bad thing. It matters not what car is 'best', because if people only bought the best, then the alternative would never exist.

[soad]

MonkeyMatt said:

There is some rubbish being spouted on here! This is a lightweight tactile little sports car with a Debby little turbo engine. It also has a dual clutch manual not an auto. All the talk of V8s and suchlike is rubbish.

A n/a V6 would be nice though.

[errek72]

TVRinBFG said:

Great article, but the question I am asking is not have one over a Cayman, but have one over an Elise SC?

Exactly. Especially since I saw that lovely burgundy Elise with gunmetal grey wheels just now at the Spa Six Hours. Slightly cheaper too.

Or how about the V6-and-handshift Exige S roadster. Seems plush enough? How would they compare?

Excellent review btw.

[errek72]

soad said:

A n/a V6 would be nice though.

Somehow, I can't shake the feeling that was the idea to begin with...

Does this remind of something :

[MikeSpencer]

otolith said:

Probably wise, given that's their planned first year output, not their total production.

I read on Autocar's website they were only building 3,500. Who's right?

'Overall, each 4C takes between 20 and 25 hours to build. The company says it has the capacity to produce up to 1000 units per year. Just 3500 examples of the car will be built, with the first deliveries expected early next year.' (Alfa Romeo 4C to cost £45,000. Darren Moss, 17/09/13).

Edited by MikeSpencer on Saturday 21st September 20:07

[Ali_T]

sjn2004 said:

The worst thing about Alfa are the dealers , thin on the ground and utterly hopeless.

I'd have agreed with that up to 3 years ago, but our local Saab dealership gave up Saab and reopened as Alfa and, by all accounts are superb. It's enough to make me serious look at buying another Alfa after years of the SCottish dealer network being left in the utterly useless Arnold Clark chain to fester and die.

[Bezza1969]

AgentZ said:

kambites said:

AgentZ said:

I think in the Alfa's case it does seem like it will end up being closer to 1100kg when/if Autocar get their hands it. Considering the carbon and aluminium spec it looks too much to me. Anyone know the dimensions of the 4C?

I don't think it will be that heavy. That would put it perilously close to the Exige S (which has been weighed by owners at about 1150kg wet with a full tank of fuel and air con).

I wouldn't bank on it! A completely different kind of Alfa but the 1980 Alfasud 1.3 had a claimed kerb weight of 918kg (dry I assume) yet on Autocar's weighbridge it came in at 1088kg.

It's the same story with all cars tested by Autocar I can find on the net from the 70's/80's/90's. Most cars now list the weight to the EC directive which includes full fluids, driver(68kg), luggage(7kg) and 90% full fuel tank. For these ultra "light" exotics, they like to exclude this extra weight to look more impressive.

Interesting, but EVO weighed a 205 GTI 1.9 a few years back and it was just 944KG which is only 35 KG heavier than the weight quoted in their 1987 road test, so not all older cars were under-estimated in the weight department too badly....

We can only hope the weight is close to what it should be. I'm so fed up with nearly every car Autocar weights being miles over the advertised weight. Jaguar are the worst offenders, they are nearly always 150-200KG over. That's two adults worth of difference..

[Kolbenkopp]

Bezza1969 said:

Jaguar are the worst offenders, they are nearly always 150-200KG over. That's two adults worth of difference..

That's what? A five percent error margin? SCNR. The Germans are good at this too, they just publish the weight for model sans any options.