RE: Unstoppable Alfa meet immovable Audi | PH Footnote

[chelme]

Max_Torque said:

DanP said:

I love the way the Alfa - once you get it onto the right sort of road and when the conditions are in its favour, at least - feels like a sports car that just happens to have an extra pair of doors and a decent rear bench. It's the only high performance saloon about which that can be written

I'm sorry, but what a load of cobblers! No modern "High performance saloon" feels like a proper sports car, because they are all massive, heavy, and have an engine up front. IME, the current M3 is at least as good as the Alfa (better under certain circumstances, with some objective advantages such as brake feel/performance, and transmission shift speed and accuracy). But it, like the Alfa is NOT a sports car, and never will be!

I have not driven the QF, but I have owned a few Alfas and driven and owned BMWs, (presently a low mileage mint e36 328ci) although I have not driven the latest M3s.

What I can say is that Alfas (Including even, the 155 twin spark and a 147 GTA) have imparted a sense of 'racing car for the road' (not to mean they were the best dynamically), whilst BMWs have tended to give an impression of a road car made sporty, BUT I say this having not driven an M3 CSL, or GTS, or E30 M3...

I therefore understand what Dan is saying in his video.

[ITP]

Max_Torque said:

chelme said:

the engine light came on probably because the car was thrashed, and a sensor complained, not because the engine exploded.

But that "fault" is simply indicative of the lower development effort that went into the Alfa. You can absolutely thrash the tyres clean off say an M3, and you won't get any spurious warning lights, simply becuase BMW's validation test team have done that sort of thing so much, that any issue in that area, no matter how "trivial" (and as a driver, you don't know how "trivial" a warning light actually is until you get it to the dealer and their diagnostic suite...) has been eradicated long before any actual owners get to try it.

And yes, all modern cars can suffer catastrophic failures, but in reality, cars have never been as reliable as they are now, especially when you take into account the power and performance they have and the efficiency they can manage when not being thrashed. I recently had an m3 on loan, and trundling around it returned mid 30's mpg, if you really drove like granny you might even get it up towards 40 mpg. 20 years ago, a BMW M5, with 60 fewer horsepower and 50 fewer Nm of torque, would basically do 25 mpg, however carefully you drove it. The downside of this wide ranging capability is that modern engines and powertains are very complex and highly stressed, so failures can, and do, occur.

There is no doubt that Alfa made an amazing leap onwards in terms of, well, everything with the Giulia, but it isn't as well engineered as it's German rivals


don't get me wrong i wouldn't buy the Audi either, but for very different reasons...... ;-)

Firstly, both are great cars of course.

However, I would say that the Guilia actually has better engineering than an M3 in the things that matter in this type of car. The suspension and steering are better, as is the engine, although it seems the M3 has better mpg when tootling about at low speeds.

Styling is personal preference, to my eyes the alfa wins there too. From owners on here reliability appears good. Sure, the bmw has better infotainment, if that is key in choosing one of these cars, but the alfa version is perfectly useable and well integrated into the dashboard.

But yes, alfa dealers are generally poor, but having said that I have had issues with both alfa and bmw dealers in the past.

[Wills2]

ITP said:

Firstly, both are great cars of course.

However, I would say that the Guilia actually has better engineering than an M3 in the things that matter in this type of car. The suspension and steering are better, as is the engine, although it seems the M3 has better mpg when tootling about at low speeds.

Styling is personal preference, to my eyes the alfa wins there too. From owners on here reliability appears good. Sure, the bmw has better infotainment, if that is key in choosing one of these cars, but the alfa version is perfectly useable and well integrated into the dashboard.

But yes, alfa dealers are generally poor, but having said that I have had issues with both alfa and bmw dealers in the past.

I think this PH track test between the M3/QF/C63 which the M3 won tells the story about depth of engineering and M car has it in spades.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[anonymous-user]

ITP said:

Firstly, both are great cars of course.

However, I would say that the Guilia actually has better engineering than an M3 in the things that matter in this type of car. The suspension and steering are better, as is the engine, although it seems the M3 has better mpg when tootling about at low speeds.

As you say, in reality, the actual differences between any modern car are vanishingly small. Really, buy the one you like the look or, or the colour of, and you'll be good!

Regarding M3 vs Guilia in terms of suspension, i'd suggest that the differences are not that one is "better" than the other persay, more that one is better optimised for the (UK) road (guilia) and one for a track (M3). In my experience, the Guilia is a better road car, ie when driven at say 8/10ths, on a typical UK road, which has bumps and lumps etc. It has a significantly greater steering yaw gain, which does make it feel more "sporty" when driving moderately.

But, at 10/10ths it's the M3 (caveat: not including early cars with their iffy rear damping / kinematics!) that actually has a greater spread of capabilites, when the more "calm" and linear response across a wider range of loadings actually allows you to get more out of the car in-extremis. There is also the feel that the M3 could lap at 10/10ths all day (well, till the tyres die, which might only be 3 laps...) and still feel very similar to how it felt on lap 1. In this respect the Guilia's somewhat inconsistent brake response / feel and the transmissions lethargy (comparitively) deffiniately means it does things differently when it gets hot. If you really pushed me, i'd also say the Guilia struggles a bit to keep its front tyres from going off, despite having a greater yaw gain, the basic balance at full lateral capability simply is more front led, meaning it really needs fresh tyres to repeatibly hook up and get turned in, especially under heavy braking into a fast turn. The M3, which has a more rear led balance, a balance that on the road at 8ths causes an average driver to think "yikes whats going on here" actually means it works it's tyres more evenly on track, another reason its a "better" track car.


Does any of that matter to the average owner? Probably not!
Is the Guilia "better" than an M3, frankly, a) who cares, and b) it depends what you want to use it for!

[chelme]

Wills2 said:

ITP said:

Firstly, both are great cars of course.

However, I would say that the Guilia actually has better engineering than an M3 in the things that matter in this type of car. The suspension and steering are better, as is the engine, although it seems the M3 has better mpg when tootling about at low speeds.

Styling is personal preference, to my eyes the alfa wins there too. From owners on here reliability appears good. Sure, the bmw has better infotainment, if that is key in choosing one of these cars, but the alfa version is perfectly useable and well integrated into the dashboard.

But yes, alfa dealers are generally poor, but having said that I have had issues with both alfa and bmw dealers in the past.

I think this PH track test between the M3/QF/C63 which the M3 won tells the story about depth of engineering and M car has it in spades.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Yeah...and I can share at least 7 other group tests conducted internationally, from the US all the way around the globe to Australia, which demonstrate how shockingly good the Alfa was when compared to the BMW M3, C63S, coming on top...;-)

[anonymous-user]

DeltaEvo2 said:

chelme said:

llcoolmac said:

It's one thing to claim Alfa are unreliable but when people repeatedly claim that the German cars are paragons of reliabtthats where I have the problem. Everyone and their dog who has owned any VW product knows that they have a woeful reliability track record. Very expensive cars to maintain. BMW are just as bad and they have a track record of catastrophic engine failures in their recent M cars too.

But this never seems to get mentioned in the reviews of their latest cars. Never.

I sense it's because publishers do not want to upset the highly tribal consumer for fear of losing a significant portion of their readership, and they are also influenced by revenue, not just from those who read about the products, but also by those that produce the products and advertise. The press is not regulated, so subtle bias and corruption creeps in.

Sadly a significant proportion of the public are swayed by unsubstantiated and cliche ridden prejudices - human nature - perpetuated by the press and few allow themselves to think critically when excited about a product that will 'make them look and feel good' in the eyes of others.

And then you have the German manufacturers nailing their marketing so effectively. The Brits and Italians just produce good cars that in substance equal or surpass their German counterparts in significant areas, but in many cases they have been outgunned in this game for so long (Alfa, Jaguar) and the press are disinclined to upset the order of things...

I find it amusing how on the one hand for example, a magazine harps on about 'perceived quality' of interior, when actually its more to do with perceived luxury, as if it is some measurable aspect of ownership, yet is disinclined to value the aesthetic value of an attractive car, saying 'this is subjective'. Eh?!?

Whether an interior piece is quality, should surely depend on whether it meets the brief reliably?! For example, it does the job and does not fail?

So we have Porche 911s, that are 'built like tanks' yet their engines explode, or BMWs that have had Vanos systems fail, Nikasil engines fail entirely, Mercedes E Class cars built in the late 90s and 2000 that rust heavily....but an Alfa is linched and quartered in the press because an engine warning light comes on and when taken to a dealership, it's just fixed, by turning it off. BUT it's the Alfa that is the unreliable one...the engine light came on probably because the car was thrashed, and a sensor complained, not because the engine exploded. Just one exanple.

Best approach is to take whatever that is published with a a large dollop of salt.

Having said this, I really liked what Dan Posser has posted on the Car Guru website as I considered this to be an authentic piece about two cars and how HE feels about them, and not just some box ticking exercise publishers have to follow, arguably being unduly influenced by their 'stakeholders' i.e. manufacturers who will pull advertising or goodies that come with trips to Portugal etc...and highly tribal fans who will unsubscribe and complain.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 24th November 11:15

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 24th November 11:21

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 24th November 11:31

Could have not put it better myself! I salute you.

Well put and spot on.

[ITP]

Max_Torque said:

ITP said:

Firstly, both are great cars of course.

However, I would say that the Guilia actually has better engineering than an M3 in the things that matter in this type of car. The suspension and steering are better, as is the engine, although it seems the M3 has better mpg when tootling about at low speeds.

As you say, in reality, the actual differences between any modern car are vanishingly small. Really, buy the one you like the look or, or the colour of, and you'll be good!

Regarding M3 vs Guilia in terms of suspension, i'd suggest that the differences are not that one is "better" than the other persay, more that one is better optimised for the (UK) road (guilia) and one for a track (M3). In my experience, the Guilia is a better road car, ie when driven at say 8/10ths, on a typical UK road, which has bumps and lumps etc. It has a significantly greater steering yaw gain, which does make it feel more "sporty" when driving moderately.

But, at 10/10ths it's the M3 (caveat: not including early cars with their iffy rear damping / kinematics!) that actually has a greater spread of capabilites, when the more "calm" and linear response across a wider range of loadings actually allows you to get more out of the car in-extremis. There is also the feel that the M3 could lap at 10/10ths all day (well, till the tyres die, which might only be 3 laps...) and still feel very similar to how it felt on lap 1. In this respect the Guilia's somewhat inconsistent brake response / feel and the transmissions lethargy (comparitively) deffiniately means it does things differently when it gets hot. If you really pushed me, i'd also say the Guilia struggles a bit to keep its front tyres from going off, despite having a greater yaw gain, the basic balance at full lateral capability simply is more front led, meaning it really needs fresh tyres to repeatibly hook up and get turned in, especially under heavy braking into a fast turn. The M3, which has a more rear led balance, a balance that on the road at 8ths causes an average driver to think "yikes whats going on here" actually means it works it's tyres more evenly on track, another reason its a "better" track car.


Does any of that matter to the average owner? Probably not!
Is the Guilia "better" than an M3, frankly, a) who cares, and b) it depends what you want to use it for!

Yes, like I said both are great cars, and everyone will have their favourite, but to me the track car element is not a consideration. These are road cars, and let’s be honest, anyone who drives either of these at 10/10ths on the road other than an odd burst for a few seconds is insane.

Using either of these cars, and all ‘road’ cars to be fair, as track cars is not ideal, fun, but not ideal, as they are all too heavy. You will destroy the tyres and brakes in very short order driven to their limits, a very expensive pastime. If you are doing a lot of track days a Caterham (or preferably a superbike!) is much more fun, and much cheaper, as they won’t destroy their consumables in a matter of minutes. Although that does involve extra cash to buy a track tool and enough space.

[Gandahar]

More Ex Dans please.

Dan left PH and then Dan also left PH and now Dan is back again and I think i also saw the other Dan back again as well, with the old hairdryer.

Both Dans are black belts at good car reviews ( cough, hee hee _ sorry ) and should both be doing more articles on here and video shoots and also perhaps 2020 Strictly come dancing together.

PH needs to send a SEAL team to the USA to rescue Jethro Bovingdon from motortrend as well.

[nickfrog]

Raygun said:

DeltaEvo2 said:

chelme said:

llcoolmac said:

It's one thing to claim Alfa are unreliable but when people repeatedly claim that the German cars are paragons of reliabtthats where I have the problem. Everyone and their dog who has owned any VW product knows that they have a woeful reliability track record. Very expensive cars to maintain. BMW are just as bad and they have a track record of catastrophic engine failures in their recent M cars too.

But this never seems to get mentioned in the reviews of their latest cars. Never.

I sense it's because publishers do not want to upset the highly tribal consumer for fear of losing a significant portion of their readership, and they are also influenced by revenue, not just from those who read about the products, but also by those that produce the products and advertise. The press is not regulated, so subtle bias and corruption creeps in.

Sadly a significant proportion of the public are swayed by unsubstantiated and cliche ridden prejudices - human nature - perpetuated by the press and few allow themselves to think critically when excited about a product that will 'make them look and feel good' in the eyes of others.

And then you have the German manufacturers nailing their marketing so effectively. The Brits and Italians just produce good cars that in substance equal or surpass their German counterparts in significant areas, but in many cases they have been outgunned in this game for so long (Alfa, Jaguar) and the press are disinclined to upset the order of things...

I find it amusing how on the one hand for example, a magazine harps on about 'perceived quality' of interior, when actually its more to do with perceived luxury, as if it is some measurable aspect of ownership, yet is disinclined to value the aesthetic value of an attractive car, saying 'this is subjective'. Eh?!?

Whether an interior piece is quality, should surely depend on whether it meets the brief reliably?! For example, it does the job and does not fail?

So we have Porche 911s, that are 'built like tanks' yet their engines explode, or BMWs that have had Vanos systems fail, Nikasil engines fail entirely, Mercedes E Class cars built in the late 90s and 2000 that rust heavily....but an Alfa is linched and quartered in the press because an engine warning light comes on and when taken to a dealership, it's just fixed, by turning it off. BUT it's the Alfa that is the unreliable one...the engine light came on probably because the car was thrashed, and a sensor complained, not because the engine exploded. Just one exanple.

Best approach is to take whatever that is published with a a large dollop of salt.

Having said this, I really liked what Dan Posser has posted on the Car Guru website as I considered this to be an authentic piece about two cars and how HE feels about them, and not just some box ticking exercise publishers have to follow, arguably being unduly influenced by their 'stakeholders' i.e. manufacturers who will pull advertising or goodies that come with trips to Portugal etc...and highly tribal fans who will unsubscribe and complain.

Edited by chelme on Sunday 24th November 11:15

Edited by chelme on Sunday 24th November 11:21

Edited by chelme on Sunday 24th November 11:31

Could have not put it better myself! I salute you.

Well put and spot on.

I think you'll find cars are benchmarked to the hilt, hence the relatively small gaps in the result of reliability surveys. They're all quite reliable in relative terms and variances between brands are small in the scheme of things. As for the German thing, you're probably applying the same type of polarised view as the ones you're describing in others. Both camps are a minority. Most people are somewhere in between and don't systematically decree a nationalistic view to what is a very globalised industry anyway.

[BigChiefmuffinAgain]

Every time someone mentions the bogey word "reliability", we get the same comments about "I had one of these and it was fine" or "I had one of those and it wasn't"

Having worked in production for 30 years ( admittedly not automotive, which is generally considered to have the best production processes in the world ), reliability depends on numerous things, including :-
1) Experience - the more experience in the business, the more reliable the product. This is why I can tell you now that the new TVR, should it ever materialize, will not be reliable. You cannot get this right straight off from a standing start
2) Investment - if you spend more money developing a car, it will be more reliable. Cut corners, and this will lead to problems further down the line
3) Volume - generally, the more you make of one thing, the better you get at making it
4) Tolerances - if you demand tight tolerances from your suppliers ( which come at a cost ) you'll get less variance in your components, and it is the variance that leads to unreliability
5) Simplicity - complicated things tend to go wrong more often than simple things
6) Communication - this is very important and often overlooked. It takes an awful lot of people to develop and manufacture a car - unless they are all kept "in the loop", mistakes crop up which don't get acted on.

I think Alfa's have a poor reputation for reliability, because they struggle on most of these points. I don't think FCA ever really give them the resource they need, they are constantly re-inventing themselves so don't have the experience, they sell in small quantities, they are generally complex cars and, from what I hear, the dealers are lousy, which are a very important part of the communication loop.

Without doubt, the Germans suffer in many of these categories too ( particularly Porsche ) but generally, not as much.

[Pooh]

BigChiefmuffinAgain said:

Every time someone mentions the bogey word "reliability", we get the same comments about "I had one of these and it was fine" or "I had one of those and it wasn't"

Having worked in production for 30 years ( admittedly not automotive, which is generally considered to have the best production processes in the world ), reliability depends on numerous things, including :-
1) Experience - the more experience in the business, the more reliable the product. This is why I can tell you now that the new TVR, should it ever materialize, will not be reliable. You cannot get this right straight off from a standing start
2) Investment - if you spend more money developing a car, it will be more reliable. Cut corners, and this will lead to problems further down the line
3) Volume - generally, the more you make of one thing, the better you get at making it
4) Tolerances - if you demand tight tolerances from your suppliers ( which come at a cost ) you'll get less variance in your components, and it is the variance that leads to unreliability
5) Simplicity - complicated things tend to go wrong more often than simple things
6) Communication - this is very important and often overlooked. It takes an awful lot of people to develop and manufacture a car - unless they are all kept "in the loop", mistakes crop up which don't get acted on.

I think Alfa's have a poor reputation for reliability, because they struggle on most of these points. I don't think FCA ever really give them the resource they need, they are constantly re-inventing themselves so don't have the experience, they sell in small quantities, they are generally complex cars and, from what I hear, the dealers are lousy, which are a very important part of the communication loop.

Without doubt, the Germans suffer in many of these categories too ( particularly Porsche ) but generally, not as much.

All the above, apart from the comment about the dealers, is based upon Alfa Romeos actually being unreliable but they aren’t so it is a load of nonsense.

[S1KRR]

Forget reliability.

Which of these cars is likely to have people breaking into your house to steal it?

[chelme]

BigChiefmuffinAgain said:

Every time someone mentions the bogey word "reliability", we get the same comments about "I had one of these and it was fine" or "I had one of those and it wasn't"

Having worked in production for 30 years ( admittedly not automotive, which is generally considered to have the best production processes in the world ), reliability depends on numerous things, including :-
1) Experience - the more experience in the business, the more reliable the product. This is why I can tell you now that the new TVR, should it ever materialize, will not be reliable. You cannot get this right straight off from a standing start
2) Investment - if you spend more money developing a car, it will be more reliable. Cut corners, and this will lead to problems further down the line
3) Volume - generally, the more you make of one thing, the better you get at making it
4) Tolerances - if you demand tight tolerances from your suppliers ( which come at a cost ) you'll get less variance in your components, and it is the variance that leads to unreliability
5) Simplicity - complicated things tend to go wrong more often than simple things
6) Communication - this is very important and often overlooked. It takes an awful lot of people to develop and manufacture a car - unless they are all kept "in the loop", mistakes crop up which don't get acted on.

I think Alfa's have a poor reputation for reliability, because they struggle on most of these points. I don't think FCA ever really give them the resource they need, they are constantly re-inventing themselves so don't have the experience, they sell in small quantities, they are generally complex cars and, from what I hear, the dealers are lousy, which are a very important part of the communication loop.

Without doubt, the Germans suffer in many of these categories too ( particularly Porsche ) but generally, not as much.

Points 1-4 are arguably have not been demonstrated if you consider the history of reliability surveys...how can you justify a marque like Mercedes actually falling in the list of most to worst reliability surveys, when they have been producing the cars for a period of time longer than most, AND they produce in extremely high volumes? How can you apply this to British Leyland, another high volume manufacturer.

There is one thing that struck me, about owning Italian cars. They have had little niggles, here and there, and whilst this may upset some people, it has not bothered me so much, but I know that should my engine completely fail, as one did in a near brand new Audi Q5 not far from where I live, I'd be pretty pissed/put off.

As another posted, and I agree, the Italians engineer their cars well in some areas, where it counts, and not so well in others. I'd rather have a sensor complaining to me about redlining my Alfa, than a Q5 TFSI gargling and tinkering like a 1950s tractor engine about to go bang.

Edited by chelme on Sunday 24th November 15:37

[chelme]

Max_Torque said:

ITP said:

Firstly, both are great cars of course.

However, I would say that the Guilia actually has better engineering than an M3 in the things that matter in this type of car. The suspension and steering are better, as is the engine, although it seems the M3 has better mpg when tootling about at low speeds.

As you say, in reality, the actual differences between any modern car are vanishingly small. Really, buy the one you like the look or, or the colour of, and you'll be good!

Regarding M3 vs Guilia in terms of suspension, i'd suggest that the differences are not that one is "better" than the other persay, more that one is better optimised for the (UK) road (guilia) and one for a track (M3). In my experience, the Guilia is a better road car, ie when driven at say 8/10ths, on a typical UK road, which has bumps and lumps etc. It has a significantly greater steering yaw gain, which does make it feel more "sporty" when driving moderately.

But, at 10/10ths it's the M3 (caveat: not including early cars with their iffy rear damping / kinematics!) that actually has a greater spread of capabilites, when the more "calm" and linear response across a wider range of loadings actually allows you to get more out of the car in-extremis.

Hmm. When I am ready, I will test drive both an M3 and a Giulia. It will be interesting to experience and compare them. But for me, track work is not a priority.

[DeltonaS]

BigChiefmuffinAgain said:

Every time someone mentions the bogey word "reliability", we get the same comments about "I had one of these and it was fine" or "I had one of those and it wasn't"

Having worked in production for 30 years ( admittedly not automotive, which is generally considered to have the best production processes in the world ), reliability depends on numerous things, including :-
1) Experience - the more experience in the business, the more reliable the product. This is why I can tell you now that the new TVR, should it ever materialize, will not be reliable. You cannot get this right straight off from a standing start
2) Investment - if you spend more money developing a car, it will be more reliable. Cut corners, and this will lead to problems further down the line
3) Volume - generally, the more you make of one thing, the better you get at making it
4) Tolerances - if you demand tight tolerances from your suppliers ( which come at a cost ) you'll get less variance in your components, and it is the variance that leads to unreliability
5) Simplicity - complicated things tend to go wrong more often than simple things
6) Communication - this is very important and often overlooked. It takes an awful lot of people to develop and manufacture a car - unless they are all kept "in the loop", mistakes crop up which don't get acted on.

I think Alfa's have a poor reputation for reliability, because they struggle on most of these points. I don't think FCA ever really give them the resource they need, they are constantly re-inventing themselves so don't have the experience, they sell in small quantities, they are generally complex cars and, from what I hear, the dealers are lousy, which are a very important part of the communication loop.

Without doubt, the Germans suffer in many of these categories too ( particularly Porsche ) but generally, not as much.

Are you sure, because I'm not. And if you have the chance, try speaking to a proffessional limo driver who have the latest S classes and 7 series in their fleet. From failing auto gearboxes to electronics, they can be a nightmare.

Just a couple of random and common BMW issues:
- E46 M3: vanos, connecting rod bearings, rear subframe
- E90 M3: rod bearings
- 35d, failing turbo's
- 20i turbo: timing chain issues
- 50i: excessive oil consumption, cooling water leakage, worn flex disk, failing and replaced engines after 50K to 100k km is fairly common.

[Pericoloso]

The Alfa is red ,the Audi is grey.

Nuff said.

Italian car fanboy bias maybe swayed me too.

[BigChiefmuffinAgain]

DeltonaS said:

BigChiefmuffinAgain said:

Every time someone mentions the bogey word "reliability", we get the same comments about "I had one of these and it was fine" or "I had one of those and it wasn't"

Having worked in production for 30 years ( admittedly not automotive, which is generally considered to have the best production processes in the world ), reliability depends on numerous things, including :-
1) Experience - the more experience in the business, the more reliable the product. This is why I can tell you now that the new TVR, should it ever materialize, will not be reliable. You cannot get this right straight off from a standing start
2) Investment - if you spend more money developing a car, it will be more reliable. Cut corners, and this will lead to problems further down the line
3) Volume - generally, the more you make of one thing, the better you get at making it
4) Tolerances - if you demand tight tolerances from your suppliers ( which come at a cost ) you'll get less variance in your components, and it is the variance that leads to unreliability
5) Simplicity - complicated things tend to go wrong more often than simple things
6) Communication - this is very important and often overlooked. It takes an awful lot of people to develop and manufacture a car - unless they are all kept "in the loop", mistakes crop up which don't get acted on.

I think Alfa's have a poor reputation for reliability, because they struggle on most of these points. I don't think FCA ever really give them the resource they need, they are constantly re-inventing themselves so don't have the experience, they sell in small quantities, they are generally complex cars and, from what I hear, the dealers are lousy, which are a very important part of the communication loop.

Without doubt, the Germans suffer in many of these categories too ( particularly Porsche ) but generally, not as much.

Are you sure, because I'm not. And if you have the chance, try speaking to a proffessional limo driver who have the latest S classes and 7 series in their fleet. From failing auto gearboxes to electronics, they can be a nightmare.

Just a couple of random and common BMW issues:
- E46 M3: vanos, connecting rod bearings, rear subframe
- E90 M3: rod bearings
- 35d, failing turbo's
- 20i turbo: timing chain issues
- 50i: excessive oil consumption, cooling water leakage, worn flex disk, failing and replaced engines after 50K to 100k km is fairly common.

Yes, I don't doubt you for a moment. I've actually owned 2 Alfa's and had very few problems with them and had a Porsche which needed a new engine.

The list I wrote is not by any means complete. For the person who mentioned BL in the bad old days, you could certainly add a well lead and motivated work force, but that's generally a given these days. If you get any of these wrong, you can end up with an unreliable product.

As I said, the German manufacturers are not without their problems and generally the Japanese tend to be best at balancing all those requirements within a budget.

If you think Alfa have as well then they should make a reliable product. I tried a Guila last year and am still, regretfully, not convinced.

[td4]

Another Giulia QV owner here, those PZero Corsas have a smaller than usual optimum operating window, so that'll no doubt contribute to the "cant deal with winter" thoughts. Those tires can be unnerving even at half throttle in spring in a straight line (!).

Personally I've switched to Goodyear F1 Supersports donkeys ago, with those related issues gone. Amazingly approachable for a 500hp RWD still comes to mind after 8m ownership from new.

As for reliability just a recall for the fuel gauge since new.

[ate one too]

Max_Torque said:

chelme said:

the engine light came on probably because the car was thrashed, and a sensor complained, not because the engine exploded.

But that "fault" is simply indicative of the lower development effort that went into the Alfa. You can absolutely thrash the tyres clean off say an M3, and you won't get any spurious warning lights, simply becuase BMW's validation test team have done that sort of thing so much, that any issue in that area, no matter how "trivial" (and as a driver, you don't know how "trivial" a warning light actually is until you get it to the dealer and their diagnostic suite...) has been eradicated long before any actual owners get to try it.

And yes, all modern cars can suffer catastrophic failures, but in reality, cars have never been as reliable as they are now, especially when you take into account the power and performance they have and the efficiency they can manage when not being thrashed. I recently had an m3 on loan, and trundling around it returned mid 30's mpg, if you really drove like granny you might even get it up towards 40 mpg. 20 years ago, a BMW M5, with 60 fewer horsepower and 50 fewer Nm of torque, would basically do 25 mpg, however carefully you drove it. The downside of this wide ranging capability is that modern engines and powertains are very complex and highly stressed, so failures can, and do, occur.

There is no doubt that Alfa made an amazing leap onwards in terms of, well, everything with the Giulia, but it isn't as well engineered as it's German rivals


don't get me wrong i wouldn't buy the Audi either, but for very different reasons...... ;-)

I did a track day a few weeks ago at Thruxton and in amongst the supercars there was an M3 Competition and a Giulia QF both being driven very, very quickly.

The M3 went into limp mode every time after a few laps and the QF lasted all day until the tyres were shredded .....

[big_rob_sydney]

For me, this would be the Alfa every time.

I'm hugely interested in reliability. I look to the JD Powers Quality surveys a lot, and would probably use those to inform decision making around my next car.

As for the minor details, I don't really care about the quality of interior plastics; if an engine blows, you'll have a few more concerns than whether or not your widget feels good.

And if I have to consider the Alfa vs the +200kg heavier RS, then that's no comparison. Between those two, the lighter car wins it every time.