RE: Alfa Romeo Stelvio Quadrifoglio: Driven
Discussion
RemarkLima said:
Ali_T said:
nicholasm said:
Look at what you could have won. 
One slight problem. The saloon has a fixed rear bench with no folding options for the seats. Not even a ski flap, for claims of rigidity. 
And they do make a manual box, you just can't get it here, because? Guess.....people don't buy them (because the auto is better.)
Bencolem said:
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!Never have I read so much waffle about a car.
Ares said:
Bencolem said:
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!Never have I read so much waffle about a car.
Clivey said:
So in summary; buy the Giulia as it's a better car.
It's a shame that there are so many vacuous fashion victims dictating that manufacturers build these "faux-by-fours" rather than decent estates. - Another car for the fake tan and massive bling watch brigade.
So everyone who has different needs to you is wrong and/or a fashion victim? Despite being in the majority?It's a shame that there are so many vacuous fashion victims dictating that manufacturers build these "faux-by-fours" rather than decent estates. - Another car for the fake tan and massive bling watch brigade.
Ares said:
So everyone who has different needs to you is wrong and/or a fashion victim? Despite being in the majority?
Not quite. - These crossover-type abominations are rarely bought because of any genuine "need"; after all, they're almost always useless off-road and not that practical / large inside either. A proper 4x4 I can totally understand (even something like a Range Rover Sport) but when you start looking at Audi Q3s, BMW X4s, Vauxhall Mokkas etc., they're pathetic. - The Q3 for example has less boot space and lower ground clearance than an A4 Allroad but that doesn't matter to the "pyjama mamas" that buy them because they're just a status symbol.Clivey said:
Ares said:
So everyone who has different needs to you is wrong and/or a fashion victim? Despite being in the majority?
Not quite. - These crossover-type abominations are rarely bought because of any genuine "need"; after all, they're almost always useless off-road and not that practical / large inside either. A proper 4x4 I can totally understand (even something like a Range Rover Sport) but when you start looking at Audi Q3s, BMW X4s, Vauxhall Mokkas etc., they're pathetic. - The Q3 for example has less boot space and lower ground clearance than an A4 Allroad but that doesn't matter to the "pyjama mamas" that buy them because they're just a status symbol.I've had too SUVs, both bought on need.
They are not off-roaders, time to move into this century.
They ARE more practical than the equivalent Car, and often with a smaller footprint.
You are allowed to not like them, and allowed to think they are abominations (I think estate cars and MPVs are abominations), but I accept that people buy them for their needs, not just as status symbols.
Ares said:
You are wrong.
I've had too SUVs, both bought on need.
You'll note I used the word "rarely". I've had too SUVs, both bought on need.
Ares said:
They are not off-roaders, time to move into this century.
I'm genuinely interested to hear what you mean by that. Are proper 4x4s now illegal or something?Ares said:
They ARE more practical than the equivalent Car, and often with a smaller footprint.
I own an estate car and a proper 4x4. Both are much more practical than the crossovers belonging to friends and family. - It's funny how they call me when they need to move something bulky. Actually, I once tried to move some furniture in my Discovery, only to find that the loadspace wasn't long enough! - Ended-up using the estate! 
It's also funny when you go to an event, have to park in a muddy field and it pours it down all day (Le Mans, Welsh Rally GB)...the SUVs with drug dealer wheels and low profile tyres look properly silly then.
Clivey said:
Ares said:
You are wrong.
I've had too SUVs, both bought on need.
You'll note I used the word "rarely". I've had too SUVs, both bought on need.
Ares said:
They are not off-roaders, time to move into this century.
I'm genuinely interested to hear what you mean by that. Are proper 4x4s now illegal or something?Ares said:
They ARE more practical than the equivalent Car, and often with a smaller footprint.
I own an estate car and a proper 4x4. Both are much more practical than the crossovers belonging to friends and family. - It's funny how they call me when they need to move something bulky. Actually, I once tried to move some furniture in my Discovery, only to find that the loadspace wasn't long enough! - Ended-up using the estate! It's also funny when you go to an event, have to park in a muddy field and it pours it down all day (Le Mans, Welsh Rally GB)...the SUVs with drug dealer wheels and low profile tyres look properly silly then.
How did you possibly draw that conclusion?? SUVs are not off-roaders. They are not built with a primary purpose of going off road. They are built as large spacious practical vehicles to carry 5-9 people and offer high seating position and easier loading capability.
I've owned estate cars and SUVs, I also have plenty of examples when friends couldn't get mattresses/chairs/furniture in their estate cars, so I had to help them out in my ML or X5.
SUVs offer more space (and more easier used space) for less length, plus higher seating/loading position - eg, 530d Touring is longer than an X5, but has over 200 litres less load space and no facility to carry 5 occupants.
As for getting stuck on muddy fields...see the above off-roader comment. Out of interest, do RWD estate cars fair better?
Ares said:
Still wrong. SUVs are not rarely bought for practical reasons, they are most commonly bought for practical reasons based on dozen and dozens of owners I know, and my own purchase decisions. As my practical needs have changed, I know longer need an SUV so don't have one.
How did you possibly draw that conclusion?? SUVs are not off-roaders. They are not built with a primary purpose of going off road. They are built as large spacious practical vehicles to carry 5-9 people and offer high seating position and easier loading capability.
I've owned estate cars and SUVs, I also have plenty of examples when friends couldn't get mattresses/chairs/furniture in their estate cars, so I had to help them out in my ML or X5.
SUVs offer more space (and more easier used space) for less length, plus higher seating/loading position - eg, 530d Touring is longer than an X5, but has over 200 litres less load space and no facility to carry 5 occupants.
As for getting stuck on muddy fields...see the above off-roader comment. Out of interest, do RWD estate cars fair better?
The bit in bold is a better match to an MPV than an SUV; the difference is that SUVs are supposed to have some measure of go-anywhere ability (otherwise what's the difference between an SUV and an MPV?).How did you possibly draw that conclusion?? SUVs are not off-roaders. They are not built with a primary purpose of going off road. They are built as large spacious practical vehicles to carry 5-9 people and offer high seating position and easier loading capability.
I've owned estate cars and SUVs, I also have plenty of examples when friends couldn't get mattresses/chairs/furniture in their estate cars, so I had to help them out in my ML or X5.
SUVs offer more space (and more easier used space) for less length, plus higher seating/loading position - eg, 530d Touring is longer than an X5, but has over 200 litres less load space and no facility to carry 5 occupants.
As for getting stuck on muddy fields...see the above off-roader comment. Out of interest, do RWD estate cars fair better?
As a purely road-going vehicle, SUVs are always more compromised in terms of practicality than an MPV - The raised ground clearance and 4x4 gubbins takes-up space that you'd otherwise be able to fill with people and stuff. - Just look at the photos below and you can see it:
Chrysler Voyager:
Jeep Grand Cherokee:
Oh, and a 300C Touring for good measure:
Clivey said:
Ares said:
Still wrong. SUVs are not rarely bought for practical reasons, they are most commonly bought for practical reasons based on dozen and dozens of owners I know, and my own purchase decisions. As my practical needs have changed, I know longer need an SUV so don't have one.
How did you possibly draw that conclusion?? SUVs are not off-roaders. They are not built with a primary purpose of going off road. They are built as large spacious practical vehicles to carry 5-9 people and offer high seating position and easier loading capability.
I've owned estate cars and SUVs, I also have plenty of examples when friends couldn't get mattresses/chairs/furniture in their estate cars, so I had to help them out in my ML or X5.
SUVs offer more space (and more easier used space) for less length, plus higher seating/loading position - eg, 530d Touring is longer than an X5, but has over 200 litres less load space and no facility to carry 5 occupants.
As for getting stuck on muddy fields...see the above off-roader comment. Out of interest, do RWD estate cars fair better?
The bit in bold is a better match to an MPV than an SUV; the difference is that SUVs are supposed to have some measure of go-anywhere ability (otherwise what's the difference between an SUV and an MPV?).How did you possibly draw that conclusion?? SUVs are not off-roaders. They are not built with a primary purpose of going off road. They are built as large spacious practical vehicles to carry 5-9 people and offer high seating position and easier loading capability.
I've owned estate cars and SUVs, I also have plenty of examples when friends couldn't get mattresses/chairs/furniture in their estate cars, so I had to help them out in my ML or X5.
SUVs offer more space (and more easier used space) for less length, plus higher seating/loading position - eg, 530d Touring is longer than an X5, but has over 200 litres less load space and no facility to carry 5 occupants.
As for getting stuck on muddy fields...see the above off-roader comment. Out of interest, do RWD estate cars fair better?
As a purely road-going vehicle, SUVs are always more compromised in terms of practicality than an MPV - The raised ground clearance and 4x4 gubbins takes-up space that you'd otherwise be able to fill with people and stuff. - Just look at the photos below and you can see it:
SUVs will have more go-anywhere ability, by way of their (usually) AWD drivetrain.
MPVs are just a sign you have lost the will to live. Basic solution to a family bus. Take an X5/ML/Q7/et al - show me an MPV that is anywhere near as nice a place to be.
Clivey said:
Not quite. - These crossover-type abominations are rarely bought because of any genuine "need"; after all, they're almost always useless off-road and not that practical / large inside either. A proper 4x4 I can totally understand (even something like a Range Rover Sport) but when you start looking at Audi Q3s, BMW X4s, Vauxhall Mokkas etc., they're pathetic. - The Q3 for example has less boot space and lower ground clearance than an A4 Allroad but that doesn't matter to the "pyjama mamas" that buy them because they're just a status symbol.
It's funny how people judge other people by their own parameters, including lifestyle aspirations.I think the lifestyle thing exists indeed as a motivation to buy (the same applies to many categories of cars btw). I also think that SUVs are generally more practical than the equivalent estate while having a smaller footprint and that's why we prefer them, irrespective of image (which I find ghastly).
So it becomes a bit complicated : we prefer them functionally and despite their image but should we not buy them because others care more than us about the negative image they convey? (the answer is an emphatic no btw).
I have no issues with anyone preferring an estate for family transport, call me open minded !
Edited by nickfrog on Thursday 7th December 22:59
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff