RE: AlfaWorks GT4C: Driven

[bazza white]

30k for a remap and exhaust ouch.

[Gorbyrev]

Not sure at some of these responses. If £8k is for the carbon bits then the rest of it is £22k. That doesn't seem outrageous given that it takes an also ran to be a class contender. Try and find a GT4 for that money. A carbon tubbed exotic with 300hp / tonne for £80K, £70K if you use a nearly new donor car, seems like alright value to me. It is a fabulous car.

[ZX10R NIN]

+1 to this no it's not cheap but quality costs.

[big_rob_sydney]

stephen300o said:

IMI A said:

stephen300o said:

IMI A said:

Needs a high revving na 6 cylinder engine (like a Honda vtec with 350bhp) and a decent manual short shift. I'd buy one if Alfa does this. In fact I think they'd be a sell out even at £75k

DSG gearbox and turbo engine is a real let down when you have a carbon chassis.

And return 40mpg?
You miss the point of this car.

40 mpg is irrelevant in a track/high days car. Its not an eco car. Its designed to be fun and the engine and gearbox take away from that aspect IMO.

It is completely relevant for where we are headed, if anything the engine should be smaller. It's about fun without burning so much oil, without so many of the down sides, easier on tyres, on brakes, on suspension. they should make a twin air one for a little less, I'd get that one. Leave the big brutish monsters for the brainless.

If the bottom line is concern over resources consumed, then where do you stand on the idea of its price as the starting point? I mean, the car could get a gazzillion mpg, but if you have to pay through the nose for it in the first place, then have you really saved anything?

You know, a flip side might be to say, it only gets 1mpg, but then it only costs <insert small amount> to buy. Under those circumstances, you might be inclined to buy it because the initial purchase price is low.

When you consider total cost of ownership, which some people don't understand includes depreciation, then you may be surprised just how expensive your "cheap-to-run" car actually is.

For what its worth, I favour older, cheaper cars which don't get class leading economy. Why? Because the money I saved on purchase price is more than made up for in operating costs. Depreciation is a monster.

[kambites]

big_rob_sydney said:

When you consider total cost of ownership, which some people don't understand includes depreciation, then you may be surprised just how expensive your "cheap-to-run" car actually is.

As far as I can see, he didn't mention cost at all? There are plenty of people out there who just don't like the idea of waste, regardless of whether there's any sort of financial implication. Of course you can argue that buying a new car doesn't really sit very well with that, but people aren't that rational.

ETA: It's bit of a moot point anyway because the 4C doesn't exist to be a good car in its own right (which is probably why Alfa never bothered to fix the hash they made of the suspension setup), it exists to demonstrate Alfa's engineering ability so they can sell crappy little hatchbacks and in that market, economy is very important.

Edited by kambites on Sunday 3rd July 21:40

[Ozzie Osmond]

Kambites - you'd be in a V6 Exige l-o-n-g before you even glanced at an Alfa 4-pot in an over-wide chassis!

[Oilchange]

I don't think making it economical was in the original plan, it just happened that they were going to use an engine from the range of hatchbacks (which happened to be economical coupled with the light weight) as to develop a whole new lump purely for a limited edition run would have been stupidly expensive.

[kambites]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Kambites - you'd be in a V6 Exige l-o-n-g before you even glanced at an Alfa 4-pot in an over-wide chassis!

I'm quite happy with my pathetic 160 horsepower four-pot Elise.

I'm glad someone has finally given the 4C the setup is deserves, though.

[Mawsleycarvalet]

k

I've had mine 3 months and we love it. Yes the biggest problem is the steering but you get used to it. After 14 years having lotus's we fancied a change.

[LambShank]

Very nice car and all that, but it still won't fit in a standard single garage..

[Autorosso]

I have had my launch edition for nearly 12 months now, its been 100% reliable its starts every time unlike my 911, yes the steering can take some getting use to but get it on some welsh roads on a Sunday morning its awesome.

Its a great car you really need to try one it will put a smile on your face, surprising comfortable for what it is, and attracts a lot of attention where ever it goes, at the end of the day its a Sunday toy reminds me of my old RD350LC remember them.

[ZX10R NIN]

Do you still have your LC?

[Zajda]

stephen300o said:

And return 40mpg?
You miss the point of this car.

The economy benefit of smaller turbocharged engine really depends on your driving style and the way you use your car in general. It is not uncommon for bigger naturally aspirated engines to be much more fuel effective for quicker driving. In fact one of the best engines in that regard was the 3,2 l in E46 BMW M3.
Of course when your driving regime is 99,9% slow commuting, you may not care that much that your little Alfa is also able to break the 10 MPG barrier from the wrong side during trackday. But still when picking hourses for courses, I don't necessarily think the downsizing and turbocharging is the way to go for sportscars.

Edited by Zajda on Monday 4th July 00:55

[PunterCam]

stephen300o said:

IMI A said:

Needs a high revving na 6 cylinder engine (like a Honda vtec with 350bhp) and a decent manual short shift. I'd buy one if Alfa does this. In fact I think they'd be a sell out even at £75k

DSG gearbox and turbo engine is a real let down when you have a carbon chassis.

And return 40mpg?
You miss the point of this car.

It would return 40mpg! 911s were managing mid 30s with half a ton extra weight and an extra 100hp on top of what the 4c would need for decades. 2.5v6, 275bhp, a better gearbox, and less plastic on the body (it looks cheap in the flesh) and sell for £75k+ They wouldn't have been able to build enough.

The point of this car is to sell, and be a sports car. Nobody buys them because it's a crap engine with a crap gearbox.

[swanny71]

Would love one to replace the recently departed TVR but it needs a proper engine and/or a manual gearbox - Exige V6/Evora S or Cayman/997 S instead I think.

[BVB]

The best just got better. Let's hope Alfa do an official factory version.

[Autorosso]

I wish people would stop saying it needs a manual gear box and v6 they just don't get it, if they spent some time in one they would chance there minds, I would like to drive the Alfa works demo that must be the perfect car.

Italians make the best sports cars with soul and looks to die for, yes they have issues but that's part of it all cars do, the values of these will start to increase in the next few years it's a hand built car a bargin really Alfa must lose money making them.

[Autorosso]

ZX10R NIN said:

Do you still have your LC?

I wish

[stephen300o]

PunterCam said:

stephen300o said:

IMI A said:

Needs a high revving na 6 cylinder engine (like a Honda vtec with 350bhp) and a decent manual short shift. I'd buy one if Alfa does this. In fact I think they'd be a sell out even at £75k

DSG gearbox and turbo engine is a real let down when you have a carbon chassis.

And return 40mpg?
You miss the point of this car.

It would return 40mpg! 911s were managing mid 30s with half a ton extra weight and an extra 100hp on top of what the 4c would need for decades. 2.5v6, 275bhp, a better gearbox, and less plastic on the body (it looks cheap in the flesh) and sell for £75k+ They wouldn't have been able to build enough.

The point of this car is to sell, and be a sports car. Nobody buys them because it's a crap engine with a crap gearbox.

It doesn't look cheap in the flesh at all. The engine is a fine characterful unit, the gearbox is fine also.
If folks want a boring Porsche, I believe they are still making them, the same as ever.

[Guybrush]

stephen300o said:

PunterCam said:

stephen300o said:

IMI A said:

Needs a high revving na 6 cylinder engine (like a Honda vtec with 350bhp) and a decent manual short shift. I'd buy one if Alfa does this. In fact I think they'd be a sell out even at £75k

DSG gearbox and turbo engine is a real let down when you have a carbon chassis.

And return 40mpg?
You miss the point of this car.

It would return 40mpg! 911s were managing mid 30s with half a ton extra weight and an extra 100hp on top of what the 4c would need for decades. 2.5v6, 275bhp, a better gearbox, and less plastic on the body (it looks cheap in the flesh) and sell for £75k+ They wouldn't have been able to build enough.

The point of this car is to sell, and be a sports car. Nobody buys them because it's a crap engine with a crap gearbox.

It doesn't look cheap in the flesh at all. The engine is a fine characterful unit, the gearbox is fine also.
If folks want a boring Porsche, I believe they are still making them, the same as ever.

Agreed. If anyone drives a 4C, it's doubtful they would be saying bad things about the engine and 'box. When I drove one for a few hundred miles over good b roads it was the best drive I've had for years (I have a 993 and have driven other reasonable cars). It's light already (non metal panels standard); all the feedback on forums suggests the comment at the end of this report is spot on: "...just doing the suspension mods is enough to transform the 4C. For just a few hundred pounds, the handling and steering feel can be elevated utterly..."