RE: Alfa Romeo SZ: Spotted

[Ultrafunkula]

What an amazing car, always loved these when I was younger. I saw one on the M4 about 20 years ago, it certainly stood out but I've only ever seen red ones.

[Buff Mchugelarge]

I used to know a chap who had a supercharged SZ, he also had a very low mileage RZ tucked away too.
Very cool cars

[Plug Life]

Pommy said:

Getting hung up over the acceleration of the SZ is like getting hung up over the acting abilities of Margot Robbie.

Susan Boyle would be a better metaphor for this car

[viggyp]

Ultrafunkula said:

What an amazing car, always loved these when I was younger. I saw one on the M4 about 20 years ago, it certainly stood out but I've only ever seen red ones.

Yeah, me and my closest pals love these. They only came in red apart from one black one which was for Fiat management but can't remember if it was for Gianni Agnielli or someone else. I've also seen a RHD conversion which was really well done and I think it was resprayed in a dark metallic red but my memory may be a tad hazy about that. The RZ Convertible was made in red, yellow and black though.

These were/are great handling cars and those who are talking about the acceleration may not have taken into account that the gearchange isn't the best around as based on Alfa 75 mechanicals.

These were around the £20-25K mark for quite some time and they've crept up all of a sudden.

[Helicopter123]

Quite interesting to note as well that these were 911 money when new, at £35k+.

That's £5k more than a Lotus Esprit Turbo of the day.

Against these alternatives, the SZ was very slow indeed. Yes it had other qualities, but pace was not one of them.

Agree re the investment potential.

[viggyp]

Helicopter123 said:

Quite interesting to note as well that these were 911 money when new, at £35k+.

That's £5k more than a Lotus Esprit Turbo of the day.

Against these alternatives, the SZ was very slow indeed. Yes it had other qualities, but pace was not one of them.

Agree re the investment potential.

Very true but I guess that is was due to the exotic materials it was made from especially as these were produced during 1989 to 1992 I believe?

[Helicopter123]

viggyp said:

Helicopter123 said:

Quite interesting to note as well that these were 911 money when new, at £35k+.

That's £5k more than a Lotus Esprit Turbo of the day.

Against these alternatives, the SZ was very slow indeed. Yes it had other qualities, but pace was not one of them.

Agree re the investment potential.

Very true but I guess that is was due to the exotic materials it was made from especially as these were produced during 1989 to 1992 I believe?

Perhaps, or maybe they just took the piss on price?

[s m]

Do people consider the RX7! Turbo, E30 M3 Evolution (220bhp )and Merc 190 EVolution 2 ( 235bhp ) slow cars ( in a straight line ) of their day (1990 ) as well ?

Just interested in the perception.

I know the modern day GT86 is seen as slow nowadays but the SZ seems to have a wodge more performance than that......back 28 years ago?

[shakotan]

Pug-ugly, not plug-ugly...

[Helicopter123]

s m said:

Do people consider the RX7! Turbo, E30 M3 Evolution (220bhp )and Merc 190 EVolution 2 ( 235bhp ) slow cars ( in a straight line ) of their day (1990 ) as well ?

Just interested in the perception.

I know the modern day GT86 is seen as slow nowadays but the SZ seems to have a wodge more performance than that......back 28 years ago?

I think you need to look at peer groups and compare.

SZ was 911 money new and just under 7 seconds to 60.

RX7 would have been a fraction of that to buy new yet just over 5 seconds to 60. That's brisk even today, and for the money huge bang for your buck back in the day.

[viggyp]

Helicopter123 said:

viggyp said:

Helicopter123 said:

Quite interesting to note as well that these were 911 money when new, at £35k+.

That's £5k more than a Lotus Esprit Turbo of the day.

Against these alternatives, the SZ was very slow indeed. Yes it had other qualities, but pace was not one of them.

Agree re the investment potential.

Very true but I guess that is was due to the exotic materials it was made from especially as these were produced during 1989 to 1992 I believe?

Perhaps, or maybe they just took the piss on price?

I think that true of any limited run car to be honest.

[s m]

Helicopter123 said:

s m said:

Do people consider the RX7! Turbo, E30 M3 Evolution (220bhp )and Merc 190 EVolution 2 ( 235bhp ) slow cars ( in a straight line ) of their day (1990 ) as well ?

Just interested in the perception.

I know the modern day GT86 is seen as slow nowadays but the SZ seems to have a wodge more performance than that......back 28 years ago?

I think you need to look at peer groups and compare.

SZ was 911 money new and just under 7 seconds to 60.

RX7 would have been a fraction of that to buy new yet just over 5 seconds to 60. That's brisk even today, and for the money huge bang for your buck back in the day.

Look at the new price of the E30 M3 Sport EVO and Merc 190 EVO 2 back in 1990 - similar performance. Special cars too but your pounds weren't buying any more performance/on track ability according to the press reviews even if you were getting a BMW/Mercedes badge rather than an Alfa one.

The RX7 turbo that was current when the SZ was launched had 200bhp. It was cheaper but offered identical straightline performance to the SZ....the gen 3 RX7 Turbo wouldn't arrive till 2 years later

[Helicopter123]

s m said:

Helicopter123 said:

s m said:

Do people consider the RX7! Turbo, E30 M3 Evolution (220bhp )and Merc 190 EVolution 2 ( 235bhp ) slow cars ( in a straight line ) of their day (1990 ) as well ?

Just interested in the perception.

I know the modern day GT86 is seen as slow nowadays but the SZ seems to have a wodge more performance than that......back 28 years ago?

I think you need to look at peer groups and compare.

SZ was 911 money new and just under 7 seconds to 60.

RX7 would have been a fraction of that to buy new yet just over 5 seconds to 60. That's brisk even today, and for the money huge bang for your buck back in the day.

Look at the new price of the E30 M3 Sport EVO and Merc 190 EVO 2 back in 1990 - similar performance. Special cars too but your pounds weren't buying any more performance/on track ability according to the press reviews even if you were getting a BMW/Mercedes badge rather than an Alfa one.

The RX7 turbo that was current when the SZ was launched had 200bhp. It was cheaper but offered identical straightline performance to the SZ....the gen 3 RX7 Turbo wouldn't arrive till 2 years later

I have no idea what the M3 cost new, but it was a fair bit quicker than the SZ, which I guess just reinforces the point that the SZ was not a quick car even its day. The Lotus Esprit Turbo is an interesting comparison, as is the Sapphire Cosworth to an extent.

[s m]

Helicopter123 said:

s m said:

Helicopter123 said:

s m said:

Do people consider the RX7! Turbo, E30 M3 Evolution (220bhp )and Merc 190 EVolution 2 ( 235bhp ) slow cars ( in a straight line ) of their day (1990 ) as well ?

Just interested in the perception.

I know the modern day GT86 is seen as slow nowadays but the SZ seems to have a wodge more performance than that......back 28 years ago?

I think you need to look at peer groups and compare.

SZ was 911 money new and just under 7 seconds to 60.

RX7 would have been a fraction of that to buy new yet just over 5 seconds to 60. That's brisk even today, and for the money huge bang for your buck back in the day.

Look at the new price of the E30 M3 Sport EVO and Merc 190 EVO 2 back in 1990 - similar performance. Special cars too but your pounds weren't buying any more performance/on track ability according to the press reviews even if you were getting a BMW/Mercedes badge rather than an Alfa one.

The RX7 turbo that was current when the SZ was launched had 200bhp. It was cheaper but offered identical straightline performance to the SZ....the gen 3 RX7 Turbo wouldn't arrive till 2 years later

I have no idea what the M3 cost new, but it was a fair bit quicker than the SZ, which I guess just reinforces the point that the SZ was not a quick car even its day. The Lotus Esprit Turbo is an interesting comparison, as is the Sapphire Cosworth to an extent.

Well, the BMW demo Sport Evo that Performance Car mag had at their Best Drivers Car day in 1990 had a tested price of £37, 156 ( leather seats, electric Windows and radio fitting bumping the price up from base 34,500. ) Similar top end 1to the SZ was claimed ( 149mph ) and there was a five tenths of a second in it to 60 in favour of the BMW - the extra 28bhp and 55kg less helping a bit.

However, they did pick the SZ over the M3 that day and regards being a fair bit quicker ....maybe off the lights but they had this to say re the M3 and SZ once on the move

".....drive the M3 round a track with the Alfa SZ behind and the message is clear. While you are fighting to keep the nose pointing even vaguely in the chosen direction of travel, the chap waiting to get by is combing his hair..."

Checked the price of the Merc EVO 2 with 235bhp as well - hefty £55k - but a limited edition like the Alfa and M3 in a late 1990 Autocar. Merc claimed 0-62mph in 7.1 so 60 a smidge under 7 you'd say ) and 155 top end. Very similar claims to the Alfa albeit the Merc was heavier than both the BMW and Alfa, not faster than the BMW on track though



Interestingly in the same 1990 issue they had perhaps another closer competitor, the Renault Alpine GTA LE Mans, the limited edition special of the Turbo

£37 grand worth of rwd 2-seater with presence

As timed below, 0.1 of a second faster than the Alfa and slightly less top end



Granted, there were faster cars about but the Alfa doesn't look painfully slow compared to those three.

There weren't really any naturally aspirated 210bhp 1200kg - 1300kg cars that were substantially quicker off the lights at this price point. 0.5 of a second is not much at all imho - one fluffed change in either the M3 or Alfa and the other car would be away

Throw in some bends and you'd struggle to think of any n/a cars ...( bearing in mind the n/a 3litre 944 S2 with the same power - 210bhp - got beaten in terms of lap time by a Sapphire Cosworth on track too at a 1990 Handling Day )


In view of all that, I don't think the Alfa was particularly tardy.

Yes, it would have been quicker with an extra 50bhp but still not slow

[woody33]

Helicopter123 said:

s m said:

Do people consider the RX7! Turbo, E30 M3 Evolution (220bhp )and Merc 190 EVolution 2 ( 235bhp ) slow cars ( in a straight line ) of their day (1990 ) as well ?

Just interested in the perception.

I know the modern day GT86 is seen as slow nowadays but the SZ seems to have a wodge more performance than that......back 28 years ago?

I think you need to look at peer groups and compare.

SZ was 911 money new and just under 7 seconds to 60.

RX7 would have been a fraction of that to buy new yet just over 5 seconds to 60. That's brisk even today, and for the money huge bang for your buck back in the day.

Mate, you've been trying to defend your original statement for several pages now. Handpicking 0-60 times that are either optimistic or from cars that don't match the time period. Either way, it's all a bit irrelevant. If your evaluating cars on 0-60 stats then it says more about you than your knowledge of what make a good car.

[ericmcn]

for the love of god, people buying a SZ dont do so for 0-60 times, they probably have other cars in the locker to satisfy that demand to be first off at traffic lights

[Helicopter123]

woody33 said:

Helicopter123 said:

s m said:

Do people consider the RX7! Turbo, E30 M3 Evolution (220bhp )and Merc 190 EVolution 2 ( 235bhp ) slow cars ( in a straight line ) of their day (1990 ) as well ?

Just interested in the perception.

I know the modern day GT86 is seen as slow nowadays but the SZ seems to have a wodge more performance than that......back 28 years ago?

I think you need to look at peer groups and compare.

SZ was 911 money new and just under 7 seconds to 60.

RX7 would have been a fraction of that to buy new yet just over 5 seconds to 60. That's brisk even today, and for the money huge bang for your buck back in the day.

Mate, you've been trying to defend your original statement for several pages now. Handpicking 0-60 times that are either optimistic or from cars that don't match the time period. Either way, it's all a bit irrelevant. If your evaluating cars on 0-60 stats then it says more about you than your knowledge of what make a good car.

All i'm saying is the SZ was not a quick car in its day.

I went back and checked, and guess what, it wasn't.