RE: Alfa Romeo Stelvio: Review

[velocemitch]

nickfrog said:

That's the point I was (clumsily) trying to make.

Its the point I was making about site lines in corners too, especially on the back roads between stone walls and high verges. The headlights are higher too giving better vision at night (and I admit annoying more people!).

Rearward vision is also generally speaking better than an Estate too, this latter point is my Wife's main argument in favour of an SUV type bodyshell over an Estate.

Must admit I'd be torn between a Guilia Sportwagon and a Stelvio, but it appears Alfa are not going to let me choose anyway, they quite rightly have assessed the market and know full well that the small advantages of an Estate Car are generally speaking far outwayed by the different advantages an SUV can offer.

They won't get the volumes to economically build both, probably due to the preconceptions demonstrated quite neatly above, they all know it will be made of pre rusted Russian Steel by peasants who have never worked in the industry and then left part complete outside by the Sea, before its brought back inside to have Spaghetti put into the wiring looms.... perhaps.

[nickfrog]

velocemitch said:

They won't get the volumes to economically build both, probably due to the preconceptions demonstrated quite neatly above, they all know it will be made of pre rusted Russian Steel by peasants who have never worked in the industry and then left part complete outside by the Sea, before its brought back inside to have Spaghetti put into the wiring looms.... perhaps.

Very good.

[filski666]

ok, but the comparison needed is - how does this compare to the Giulia? - Seeing as Alfa are denying us a Giulia Sportwagon on the premise that all SW buyers will be happy with the Stelvio - it is a comparison we (well, certainly I) need to know - I don't really care how it compares to the Macan, as I would never want an SUV, but with such high hopes for an Giulia SW, wondering whether to give this a go....

[filski666]

nickfrog said:

Yes that's the problem with women, they don't realise how much apex speed you're losing by having a shockingly high COG in the supermarket car park or picking the kids up.

you do realise the issue with high CofG is not to do with apex speed - but it means SUVs are significantly more likely to roll over in an accident which involves them receiving a side strike - ie hitting a kerb, a small ditch or even just running off into soft ground with steering applied.

The electronics they all carry might stop them tipping from violent driver inputs (moose test) but the high CofG makes them more dangerous - in point of any rollover puts chances of serious injury much higher.


Plus, SUVs are generally bigger and harder to park in multi-storey carparks - hence why I would stick to estates as long as I can.

[Yipper]

So badly wanna love Alfa, but this is yet another disappointment. Looks like a box on stilts. Alfa cars never match the hype.

[Muddle238]

The Stelvio is in my opinion, the prettiest SUV. I think this is down to the lack of straight lines, curves are far prettier than angular lines and straight edges (listen up, VAG). I will wait until I see one in the flesh but at least in pictures it's fairly attractive, as attractive as an SUV can be.

I would rather however they'd just made the Stelvio as an estate, or even a shooting brake. A 3-door estate Alfa, yes please. SUVs are just tragic.

[nickfrog]

filski666 said:

nickfrog said:

Yes that's the problem with women, they don't realise how much apex speed you're losing by having a shockingly high COG in the supermarket car park or picking the kids up.

you do realise the issue with high CofG is not to do with apex speed - but it means SUVs are significantly more likely to roll over in an accident which involves them receiving a side strike - ie hitting a kerb, a small ditch or even just running off into soft ground with steering applied.

The electronics they all carry might stop them tipping from violent driver inputs (moose test) but the high CofG makes them more dangerous - in point of any rollover puts chances of serious injury much higher.


Plus, SUVs are generally bigger and harder to park in multi-storey carparks - hence why I would stick to estates as long as I can.

One of the benefits of SUVs is that they usually have a smaller footprint than the "equivalent" estate and crucially they're shorter, hence easier to park in particular (compare the length of a Golf estate vs a Tiguan for instance).

You have a point on the likelihood of rollover though but what you call "significantly more likely" I would call "almost as unlikely" for the intended purpose.

[filski666]

nickfrog said:

One of the benefits of SUVs is that they usually have a smaller footprint than the "equivalent" estate and crucially they're shorter, hence easier to park in particular (compare the length of a Golf estate vs a Tiguan for instance).

You have a point on the likelihood of rollover though but what you call "significantly more likely" I would call "almost as unlikely" for the intended purpose.

I guess I was thinking primarily of height and width when talking about parking and in particular multi-storeys which seem to be getting lower and lower roofs.

[PhantomPH]

filski666 said:

nickfrog said:

One of the benefits of SUVs is that they usually have a smaller footprint than the "equivalent" estate and crucially they're shorter, hence easier to park in particular (compare the length of a Golf estate vs a Tiguan for instance).

You have a point on the likelihood of rollover though but what you call "significantly more likely" I would call "almost as unlikely" for the intended purpose.

I guess I was thinking primarily of height and width when talking about parking and in particular multi-storeys which seem to be getting lower and lower roofs.

From my own experience, I don't think it's much of an issue. I had a Range Rover Sport on order and was talking to my wife about being worried that it was going to be a bit too big etc. as we were driving her Q5 into a multi-storey. At that moment I clocked that the car a few in front of me was a Full Fat Range Rover merrily wandering into the same multi-storey.

I have found that it's parking spaces in general that seem to be getting smaller these days. Getting into a multi is not the issue.

Personal note: I notice the size of spaces more in my CGTS than in the Q5. The Porsche is a compact car, but the length of the doors and the low seating position makes parking an absolute laugh. The Q5 on the other hand, has shorter doors and less of a required contortion to get out of. The irony of the SUV being easier to live with than the 'petrolhead' car....

[filski666]

PhantomPH said:

filski666 said:

nickfrog said:

One of the benefits of SUVs is that they usually have a smaller footprint than the "equivalent" estate and crucially they're shorter, hence easier to park in particular (compare the length of a Golf estate vs a Tiguan for instance).

You have a point on the likelihood of rollover though but what you call "significantly more likely" I would call "almost as unlikely" for the intended purpose.

I guess I was thinking primarily of height and width when talking about parking and in particular multi-storeys which seem to be getting lower and lower roofs.

From my own experience, I don't think it's much of an issue. I had a Range Rover Sport on order and was talking to my wife about being worried that it was going to be a bit too big etc. as we were driving her Q5 into a multi-storey. At that moment I clocked that the car a few in front of me was a Full Fat Range Rover merrily wandering into the same multi-storey.

I have found that it's parking spaces in general that seem to be getting smaller these days. Getting into a multi is not the issue.

Personal note: I notice the size of spaces more in my CGTS than in the Q5. The Porsche is a compact car, but the length of the doors and the low seating position makes parking an absolute laugh. The Q5 on the other hand, has shorter doors and less of a required contortion to get out of. The irony of the SUV being easier to live with than the 'petrolhead' car....

Go to the multi-storey in Lincoln by the river - I dare you

[PhantomPH]

filski666 said:

Go to the multi-storey in Lincoln by the river - I dare you

There are (as always) exceptions to every rule! (Also - good tip. My cousin plays for Lincoln City and I keep meaning to go and watch a game....will avoid that as a parking location!)

[big_rob_sydney]

PhantomPH said:

filski666 said:

nickfrog said:

One of the benefits of SUVs is that they usually have a smaller footprint than the "equivalent" estate and crucially they're shorter, hence easier to park in particular (compare the length of a Golf estate vs a Tiguan for instance).

You have a point on the likelihood of rollover though but what you call "significantly more likely" I would call "almost as unlikely" for the intended purpose.

I guess I was thinking primarily of height and width when talking about parking and in particular multi-storeys which seem to be getting lower and lower roofs.

From my own experience, I don't think it's much of an issue. I had a Range Rover Sport on order and was talking to my wife about being worried that it was going to be a bit too big etc. as we were driving her Q5 into a multi-storey. At that moment I clocked that the car a few in front of me was a Full Fat Range Rover merrily wandering into the same multi-storey.

I have found that it's parking spaces in general that seem to be getting smaller these days. Getting into a multi is not the issue.

Personal note: I notice the size of spaces more in my CGTS than in the Q5. The Porsche is a compact car, but the length of the doors and the low seating position makes parking an absolute laugh. The Q5 on the other hand, has shorter doors and less of a required contortion to get out of. The irony of the SUV being easier to live with than the 'petrolhead' car....

I recently read from someone on PH who works designing car parks, and he stated that there is a standard size parking space.

Instead of thinking spaces are getting smaller, maybe you should stop buying vehicles the size of beached whales?

[Guvernator]

big_rob_sydney said:

I recently read from someone on PH who works designing car parks, and he stated that there is a standard size parking space.

Instead of thinking spaces are getting smaller, maybe you should stop buying vehicles the size of beached whales?

Or maybe car park designers should take a note of the fact that ALL cars, not just SUV's have been getting steadily bigger over the last 3 decades and design them accordingly. The standard car park size hasn't changed in that period as it would mean less spaces and eat into revenue. My current car isn't an SUV, it's just a mid sized saloon but even I struggle to get out in car parks without going through Houdini like contortions to avoid bashing other peoples cars. Some people don't even bother, preferring to use my car as door stop.

[Alfabromeo]

Depending on finances this might be the ideal cure for my significant others desire for a Land rover-esque Life.

Still need to see what a Guila Estate looks like first though!

[anonymous-user]

Alfabromeo said:

Depending on finances this might be the ideal cure for my significant others desire for a Land rover-esque Life.

Still need to see what a Guila Estate looks like first though!

They have confirmed that they wont be doing an Estate

[Swede123]

But have the dealerships picked up their workshop standards to deal with them.

The customer coming from a prestige German or British brand might find the experience of the Alfa dealer network hard work. Some have come into the 21st Century but some are still of a Fiat 1980s mindset.

Edited by Swede123 on Thursday 2nd March 13:55

[big_rob_sydney]

Guvernator said:

big_rob_sydney said:

I recently read from someone on PH who works designing car parks, and he stated that there is a standard size parking space.

Instead of thinking spaces are getting smaller, maybe you should stop buying vehicles the size of beached whales?

Or maybe car park designers should take a note of the fact that ALL cars, not just SUV's have been getting steadily bigger over the last 3 decades and design them accordingly. The standard car park size hasn't changed in that period as it would mean less spaces and eat into revenue. My current car isn't an SUV, it's just a mid sized saloon but even I struggle to get out in car parks without going through Houdini like contortions to avoid bashing other peoples cars. Some people don't even bother, preferring to use my car as door stop.

You do realise how illogical that is, right?

There are god knows how many thousand parking stations already built around the country. Not to mention the various country lanes that are the width they are and wont get rebuilt with an extra few inches every time the population "up-sizes" due to the latest fashion-victim trend.

Quite frankly, the whole door bashing thing is only going to get worse due to selfish people continually engaging in the beached whale arms race.

Next thing you know, idiots will complain their car doesn't fit into ANY space. While conveniently forgetting that no one put a gun to their heads to buy the land barge in the first place...

A bit like those geniuses who move next to an airport then complain about the noise. Retards.

[Kolbenkopp]

nickfrog said:

So zero real world downsides and loads of real world benefits (comfy ride, easier access, better visibility, smaller physical footprint). For family use, the choice is simple, despite the ghastly image and the PH science

I'm a convicted SUV disbeliever, but over time I've come to accept them. With the current things your practical points are just the truth. Despite the non ideal formula to start with, enough development has been thrown at them, and in the real world they work nicely. I drive one as rental every so often and mostly come out impressed (grudgingly).

What IMO is unfortunate is the way marketing/demand steered manufacturers. The 4x4 image is popular, perhaps because of the active life style it portrays. So they worked hard at making tough, heavy and tall 4x4s work for families. Getting efficiency out of the formula a big challenge. End result after ~ 20 years of fettling -- cars that are basically big hatchbacks with pretty heavy suspension and inexplicably large wheels.

The alternative to get the same real-world benefits could have been to fettle with the MPV formula a bit more. I think we would have gotten to better results at least decade quicker. But the MPV image? So uncool. So not much development or demand. Good thing I don't need a compact people carrier at the moment, or I would be moaning about the lack of a B-Max ST, Scenic RS or Sportsvan GTI/GTD .

Or to put it another way, a 33 year old car like this one:



Hypothetically updated to current levels of reliability and crash safety. IMO, nothing a current SUV would be better at for the family man. Comfy ride, easy access, visibility, small physical footprint? All available from 1984.

[Guvernator]

big_rob_sydney said:

You do realise how illogical that is, right?

There are god knows how many thousand parking stations already built around the country. Not to mention the various country lanes that are the width they are and wont get rebuilt with an extra few inches every time the population "up-sizes" due to the latest fashion-victim trend.

Quite frankly, the whole door bashing thing is only going to get worse due to selfish people continually engaging in the beached whale arms race.

Next thing you know, idiots will complain their car doesn't fit into ANY space. While conveniently forgetting that no one put a gun to their heads to buy the land barge in the first place...

A bit like those geniuses who move next to an airport then complain about the noise. Retards.

Of course roads aren't going to be rebuilt but it's pretty simple to repaint white lines for parking spaces. Cars are getting bigger, even a modern Fiesta is massive compared to the size it was 15 years ago and I really can't see this trend reversing any time soon. Oh and you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with beached whales.

[Hackney]

"At the moment it feels on par (or very close) to cars like the Macan and F-Pace"

Maybe it's just me but the review seems rather underwhelmed with the car (despite the positive comments), but the quoted line sums it up for me. If the Stelvio is indeed on a par with the Macan and the F-Pace then it's a very good car indeed.