RE: Alfa Romeo Stelvio Quadrifoglio: Driven

[Ruskins]

oldtimer2 said:

If you call a car the Stelvio is not the Stelvio Pass the place you should be showing it off to journalists? The Stelvio Pass is just the place to demonstrate ability to navigate hairpins, climb at speed at altitude and to test the brakes to the limit on the way back down. Driving on the flat at sea level just does not cut it.

The Stelvio pass in December is usually frozen or closed, either way not really somewhere you want motoring journos thrashing a 500HP car around.

[Tuvra]

simonrockman said:

Now they need to put that engine in the 4c

You know what, that's not a bad idea. Imagine a stretched (think Hennessey Venom GT) Alfa 4C with a sub £100k price.

Yes Please!!!

[firebird350]

British Beef said:

BUT, could I could easier justify this on grounds of practicality (getting dogs & big junk in the boot) and using more of the Power more of the time With 4wd and British weather.

Could you 'get dogs and big junk' into it though?

I've been having a peek into a fair few of these SUV-type thingies as of late only to find some weird kind of Reverse Tardis stuff going on. Same with those crossover hatch backs - nothing like the room I was expecting to see given the overall mass of these 'objects'.

[Helicopter123]

Looks lovely but will fall like a stone.

Got to be sub £20k after three years?

[theplayingmantis]

oldtimer2 said:

If you call a car the Stelvio is not the Stelvio Pass the place you should be showing it off to journalists? The Stelvio Pass is just the place to demonstrate ability to navigate hairpins, climb at speed at altitude and to test the brakes to the limit on the way back down. Driving on the flat at sea level just does not cut it.

the original was launched on the Stelvio pass...the Quad is only in the throes of release, the pass is typically shut in winter.

[Jag_NE]

Helicopter123 said:

Looks lovely but will fall like a stone.

Got to be sub £20k after three years?

Can’t see that happening personally, anything with even a whiff of premium suv about it seems to have decent residuals. Sub 20k after 3 years is twenty percents which is real French tat territory.

[Bencolem]

Harry H said:

I think someone needs to remind the author this is a motoring forum and not some review of the latest arts and crafts output.

Never have I read so much waffle about a car.

Thank God someone else is saying the same thing. This style of writing is not appropriate for Pistonheads, I can't stand it!

[silentbrown]

deggles said:

Indeed, the whole article had a distinct whiff of Troy Queef about it!

"The saloon's preternatural rolling refinement has been mitigated by a broader requirement for model-specific tautness; meaning that even in its default 'Natural' mode on the UAE's smooth roads, the SUV is less inclined to settle so amicably on its 20-inch alloys."

It's the infamous "Nic Cackett".

https://driventowrite.com/2016/06/02/when-words-co...

I have a horrible feeling we're going to see more of this. http://www.vuelio.com/uk/blog/uk-4-october-2017/

"Nic Cackett has been appointed editor at PistonHeads.com. Nic was previously deputy reviews editor at What Car? and Autocar.

[TurboHatchback]

I remain as mystified as ever by cars like this. It's not that they're objectively bad in outright terms but they are goppingly ugly and so much worse than they could be if they were designed to follow function instead of fashion.

[swisstoni]

TurboHatchback said:

I remain as mystified as ever by cars like this. It's not that they're objectively bad in outright terms but they are goppingly ugly and so much worse than they could be if they were designed to follow function instead of fashion.

Alright King Canute.

[silentbrown]

Bencolem said:

Thank God someone else is saying the same thing. This style of writing is not appropriate for Pistonheads, I can't stand it!

You're far from alone. I plugged it into http://readable.io for a test...



The two Matt's scores come in as perfectly acceptable 'C's....

Edited by silentbrown on Tuesday 5th December 18:30

[PHMatt]

Impressive straight line speed when pitched against the M5.
similar weight. Nearly 100bhp less. (as well as 2 cylinders and 1.5l down) 0-62 only 0.4s slower.

[bilo999]

audidoody said:

Yours for just £18,500 after three years.

wow that will be £10k more than the BMW / Merc / Audi then

[oldtimer2]

Ruskins said:

oldtimer2 said:

If you call a car the Stelvio is not the Stelvio Pass the place you should be showing it off to journalists? The Stelvio Pass is just the place to demonstrate ability to navigate hairpins, climb at speed at altitude and to test the brakes to the limit on the way back down. Driving on the flat at sea level just does not cut it.

The Stelvio pass in December is usually frozen or closed, either way not really somewhere you want motoring journos thrashing a 500HP car around.

If it is closed then surely there are more challenging roads, that are open, to test the car than the boulevards of the UAE.

[The Wookie]

article said:

a system minded to send 100 per cent of available torque to the fun axle and unable to deflect no more than 50 per cent back to the front

Come again?

[nicholasm]

The Wookie said:

article said:

a system minded to send 100 per cent of available torque to the fun axle and unable to deflect no more than 50 per cent back to the front

Come again?

That sentence is a thing of wonder. The all-wheel drive system wants to send 100% of the available torque to the rear axle but has to put at least 50% back through the, um, front. Sounds incredibly inefficient.

[Tim16V]

Strangely written article - not easy or flowing.

And obviously it would be 'better' if it was 150 kg lighter and 2 inches lower - but that's not the point is it?

The point is it's going in to the SUV market, these are large and top heavy because that's what customers want. I just don't see the point of comparing it to the Giulia when that's a different market.

[RemarkLima]

nicholasm said:

The Wookie said:

article said:

a system minded to send 100 per cent of available torque to the fun axle and unable to deflect no more than 50 per cent back to the front

Come again?

That sentence is a thing of wonder. The all-wheel drive system wants to send 100% of the available torque to the rear axle but has to put at least 50% back through the, um, front. Sounds incredibly inefficient.

The "rear" axle... Pff, clearly it's the fun axle and can send some twistingage to the not so fun, but useful for getting up a curb axle.

[Gecko1978]

nice looking thing but if I were going to buy a super SUV...this a cayanne turbo, the urus or some sort of amg....no thanks give me the 707bhp Jeep Trackhawk

[easytiger123]

I can only echo the other comments with regards to the writing. Shockingly poor article and virtually unreadable.

Shame really as the car looks great and goes like stink and I'd like to have actually read about it.