RE: Alpine A110 S | Driven
Discussion
nickfrog said:
That would be consistent with the fact that they aligned the turbos on the Megane too when they switched to the particulate filter set up. The 280 has had the ceramic bearing turbo of the Trophy for a while, probably 9 months or so.
But are you suggesting there is a difference between the pre and post particulate filter A110 - ie my PE might be different from the A110S?Let's hope they're not doing a Lotus and winding up the boost until the driveline can't take it. In both cases later cars are being more highly stressed with little strengthening of the oily bits.
"Quite a few people have experienced the issues Lotus are having getting the clutch to level with the power / torque levels coming from the V6 engine. We already offer a high performance clutch pack, which should be fine for the cars around the 400BHP mark, but engine tuners (and Lotus) move on and release higher performance engine tunes. Increasing power is one thing, being able to transfer all that torque to the road is another. We are still seeing a lot of premature clutch failures." - elise-shop.com
"Quite a few people have experienced the issues Lotus are having getting the clutch to level with the power / torque levels coming from the V6 engine. We already offer a high performance clutch pack, which should be fine for the cars around the 400BHP mark, but engine tuners (and Lotus) move on and release higher performance engine tunes. Increasing power is one thing, being able to transfer all that torque to the road is another. We are still seeing a lot of premature clutch failures." - elise-shop.com
rockin said:
Let's hope they're not doing a Lotus and winding up the boost until the driveline can't take it. In both cases later cars are being more highly stressed with little strengthening of the oily bits.
"Quite a few people have experienced the issues Lotus are having getting the clutch to level with the power / torque levels coming from the V6 engine. We already offer a high performance clutch pack, which should be fine for the cars around the 400BHP mark, but engine tuners (and Lotus) move on and release higher performance engine tunes. Increasing power is one thing, being able to transfer all that torque to the road is another. We are still seeing a lot of premature clutch failures." - elise-shop.com
Yes they are increasing the boost - but only above 5000rpm to maintain the same torque to 6400rpm and increase peak power as a result. So the torque limit of the box shouldn't be compromised. (Or to be more accurate not compromised any more than it already is - the base engines seem to measure something like 340nm on the dyno rather than the claimed 320 which is the specified limit of the box)."Quite a few people have experienced the issues Lotus are having getting the clutch to level with the power / torque levels coming from the V6 engine. We already offer a high performance clutch pack, which should be fine for the cars around the 400BHP mark, but engine tuners (and Lotus) move on and release higher performance engine tunes. Increasing power is one thing, being able to transfer all that torque to the road is another. We are still seeing a lot of premature clutch failures." - elise-shop.com
That said there is the issue of gearbox oil temperatures. Indeed even with the standard car continuous track use will push both oil and water temperatures to the point where the car can go into limp mode.
bcr5784 said:
Interesting post on the FAR website says that according to a "reliable source" there are no engine or turbo differences between the A110 and the A110S. If so it seems to me only a matter of time before someone offers a simple remap at modest cost. People like me are worried about overstressing the box with existing remaps on the market - but that would not apply in this case. Alpine may be loath to do it on commercial grounds - but I wonder how they would react if someone offered £500 remap.
A Megane 280/300 manual and EDC remap is available in the UK. Same engine. 330 bhp.Onehp said:
DeltonaS said:
Miserablegit said:
Pulse00 said:
I think they are ugly. 4C looks so much better & is lighter/faster. Interior isn't as good though.
4c is a good looking car with the 4c spider headlights on it if the paint hasn’t flaked off4c is not much lighter
4c is not quicker
The 4C including sport pack and aircon weighs 1.015kg (excl. cf. roof), the Alpine A110 S weighs 1.114kg
That's 99kg, or almost 10%, 99kg is a lot in this segment.
Edited by Onehp on Wednesday 30th October 06:57
Throttlebody said:
You can have it mapped to a specific power/torque output.
True but if you keep to the 320nm limit you will never get 330bhp within the rev limit of 6800 rpm of the A110. 6800 revs and 320nm gives 305bhp. And, as I have said the cooling system is already marginal.Edited by bcr5784 on Monday 4th November 15:47
Edited by bcr5784 on Tuesday 5th November 09:33
Pooh said:
Onehp said:
DeltonaS said:
Miserablegit said:
Pulse00 said:
I think they are ugly. 4C looks so much better & is lighter/faster. Interior isn't as good though.
4c is a good looking car with the 4c spider headlights on it if the paint hasn’t flaked off4c is not much lighter
4c is not quicker
The 4C including sport pack and aircon weighs 1.015kg (excl. cf. roof), the Alpine A110 S weighs 1.114kg
That's 99kg, or almost 10%, 99kg is a lot in this segment.
Edited by Onehp on Wednesday 30th October 06:57
(I think I would go for a MX-5, manual and NA, with mods just over 1000kg and well over 200bhp if one wishes...)
from googling weight alfa 4c- from road and track who weighed 2 cars:
The first was likely about the lightest-spec car you can get: the smaller, 17/18-inch wheels, no muffler, cloth seats. It did have HID headlights, which likely add a few ounces. With a completely full tank of gas, it weighed 2437 lb.
The second was a similarly spec'ed car, just with the larger 18/19-inch wheels and the muffler. It weighed barely more – 2456 lb.
We didn't have the opportunity to weigh a Track Package car. We will, in time. And we don't expect it to weigh over 2500 lb.
link-https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a8109/we-weighed-the-alfa-4c/
So min was 1107 kg and max was 1116kg excluding driver
The first was likely about the lightest-spec car you can get: the smaller, 17/18-inch wheels, no muffler, cloth seats. It did have HID headlights, which likely add a few ounces. With a completely full tank of gas, it weighed 2437 lb.
The second was a similarly spec'ed car, just with the larger 18/19-inch wheels and the muffler. It weighed barely more – 2456 lb.
We didn't have the opportunity to weigh a Track Package car. We will, in time. And we don't expect it to weigh over 2500 lb.
link-https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a8109/we-weighed-the-alfa-4c/
So min was 1107 kg and max was 1116kg excluding driver
Miserablegit said:
link-https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a8109/we-weighed-the-alfa-4c/
And if you go to the link to the road and track test of a Euro spec 4C https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-comparis...you will find the most critical review of the 4C I have seen.(and none have been very complimentary).
SidewaysSi said:
Except some people looking the looks, why go for a 4C as it offers nothing over the Elise and A110?
Unfortunately it's an oddball and not a particularly talented one.
While I don't disagree, if Alfa had done as good a job as Renault (sorry Alpine) subsequently did, and Porsche hadn't shot themselves in the foot with the 718 I suspect the Alpine, rather than the Alfa would have died. It does emphasise what a brave decision Renault took with the Alpine.Unfortunately it's an oddball and not a particularly talented one.
Edited by bcr5784 on Tuesday 5th November 19:24
Onehp said:
The highest from the US, the 1068kg is from German Sport Auto. So it's about 50kg lighter then over here. Good to know.
(I think I would go for a MX-5, manual and NA, with mods just over 1000kg and well over 200bhp if one wishes...)
Interesting. I moved on from the Alpine to a MK4 MX5 with the updated 2L engine. I always thought if the Alpine had a manual option with a NA 200bhp engine it would be the winner for me. The MX5 is probably the closest we will get. The Alpine was even too fast for most UK roads.(I think I would go for a MX-5, manual and NA, with mods just over 1000kg and well over 200bhp if one wishes...)
I like the MX5 - it's really good honest fun and all the car you need for public roads. The steering feel and standard tyres could be better but the engine and gearbox are really sweet.
Miserablegit said:
Agreed - I do like the look of the Alfa but not enough to have bought one given the other points against it. Would like to have one as a toy one day.
Glad Alpine turned out as hoped.
The Alfa looks stunning in photos. I signed up with a deposit for one before they were launched but they didn't look as great to me in the flesh and the reviews in the end killed it for me. I suspect if you had a dream garage full of toys the Alfa 4C would be the one that is used the least. I'd probably take a Elise 220/250 over it.Glad Alpine turned out as hoped.
Just had a short drive in the A110S courtesy of Alpine London West. Too brief to form any final conclusions, but I was surprised. Given the increase in spring rates of 50% and AR bars of 100%, I was expecting a bigger difference from my PE than I found. Yes the ride is more jiggly - but by no means harsh and I tried it on some very rough roads. Roll is reduced but the differences are not vast. The steering is a bit more precise and the car a bit less playful - but again modest changes. I can believe that there is a bit more understeer as testers have reported.
Personally not so keen on the cosmetic changes. The orange brakes and stitching go well well with the (vastly expensive ) matt grey of the show car - but would clash with a blue car. In addition, though I wasn't orginally a fan of the quilted leather on the seats and doors of my car, with only plain leather the interior of the S is a bit drab.
Only had the engine up to 6000rpm once and honestly couldn't feel the extra horses - but my engine has loosened up and I expect the S was still a bit tight.
So, would I have chosen an S over my car had I had the choice. Probably not - but would need a longer drive to be sure. However, I don't think I would have been disappointed if I had. As Henry Catchpole said the S is just different, not necessarily better or worse. Depending on your use of the car you could quite reasonably prefer either the S or the base model.
Personally not so keen on the cosmetic changes. The orange brakes and stitching go well well with the (vastly expensive ) matt grey of the show car - but would clash with a blue car. In addition, though I wasn't orginally a fan of the quilted leather on the seats and doors of my car, with only plain leather the interior of the S is a bit drab.
Only had the engine up to 6000rpm once and honestly couldn't feel the extra horses - but my engine has loosened up and I expect the S was still a bit tight.
So, would I have chosen an S over my car had I had the choice. Probably not - but would need a longer drive to be sure. However, I don't think I would have been disappointed if I had. As Henry Catchpole said the S is just different, not necessarily better or worse. Depending on your use of the car you could quite reasonably prefer either the S or the base model.
nickfrog said:
You make it sound like there will be space for a track focused RS version...
.
Yes there is space for a more track focused version. The cooling system (both engine and gearbox) need uprating for the car to be a sensible track "weapon". At the moment water temperature and/or gearbox or engine oil temperature can cause the car to go into limp mode with continuous track use. .
nickfrog said:
Really interesting about the car remaining supple, I guess it's down to the low weight, which opens so many more set up options without resorting to extreme measures.
You make it sound like there will be space for a track focused RS version...
Thanks for posting your impressions.
It’s not just the low weight.You make it sound like there will be space for a track focused RS version...
Thanks for posting your impressions.
Stiffer springs control body motions better than softer ones (less body roll for example) Softer springs often need to have relatively higher damping to compensate for this. This compensation of softer springs through increased damping can give a stiff legged feel, because the sum of the spring and damper force is often higher than a stiffer spring with less damping.
You clearly have to be careful of overdoing the stiff spring with less relative damping strategy...otherwise the body motions end up being underdamped.
Just saying a set-up with stiffer springs can sometimes be more comfortable that you might expect. No idea what strategy Alpine have used though.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff