Re : The Alpine A110 (finally) cometh | PH Fleet
Discussion
DoubleD said:
Miserablegit said:
To all those who say they’d love an alpine but couldn’t cope with “an auto” I urge them to drive one.
Im sure it drives really nicely. I still would want a manual rather than an auto though.Lexington59 said:
DoubleD said:
Miserablegit said:
To all those who say they’d love an alpine but couldn’t cope with “an auto” I urge them to drive one.
Im sure it drives really nicely. I still would want a manual rather than an auto though.Much more expensive
Much heavier
Lexington59 said:
Me too, I really think Alpine have been caught on the back foot with this newly announced Porsche GT 4.0 (in so far) manual only spec, it truly is the antithesis of the downsized Alpine in every way.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha haComing from a butt- hurt 4 pot Porsche owner that is hilarious.
Alpine focused on fun and lightness. That hasn’t changed. If I want a car weighing 1.5t I’ll probably look for a v8 in it.
Funny thing is if I wanted to change cars the residuals on my alpine are far better so it wouldn’t cost me as much as it will the 4 pot pork boys like you.
Miserablegit said:
Lexington59 said:
Me too, I really think Alpine have been caught on the back foot with this newly announced Porsche GT 4.0 (in so far) manual only spec, it truly is the antithesis of the downsized Alpine in every way.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha haComing from a butt- hurt 4 pot Porsche owner that is hilarious.
Alpine focused on fun and lightness. That hasn’t changed. If I want a car weighing 1.5t I’ll probably look for a v8 in it.
Funny thing is if I wanted to change cars the residuals on my alpine are far better so it wouldn’t cost me as much as it will the 4 pot pork boys like you.
4 pot residuals I think are fine - with the possible exception of the GTS which has now been replaced, if you've a 2019 one of those you have truly been f
ked by Porsche by this announcement. Thankfully I'm not in that camp, although 981s will probably also take a hit.DoubleD said:
Miserablegit said:
To all those who say they’d love an alpine but couldn’t cope with “an auto” I urge them to drive one.
Im sure it drives really nicely. I still would want a manual rather than an auto though.Changing gear is a skill I have learnt and get pleasure out of doing it well, so I would always choose one but I certainly see that this car wasn't designed to have one, and won't and most people who this is marketed at will be happy.
poor sods
Joke ! honest !!!!
Do like the car. Always liked the Alpines since I saw an original A110 blasting about in the mountains of Austria in the late 80's
Edited by Gary C on Friday 17th January 19:41
Lexington59 said:
Miserablegit said:
Lexington59 said:
Me too, I really think Alpine have been caught on the back foot with this newly announced Porsche GT 4.0 (in so far) manual only spec, it truly is the antithesis of the downsized Alpine in every way.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha haComing from a butt- hurt 4 pot Porsche owner that is hilarious.
Alpine focused on fun and lightness. That hasn’t changed. If I want a car weighing 1.5t I’ll probably look for a v8 in it.
Funny thing is if I wanted to change cars the residuals on my alpine are far better so it wouldn’t cost me as much as it will the 4 pot pork boys like you.
4 pot residuals I think are fine - with the possible exception of the GTS which has now been replaced, if you've a 2019 one of those you have truly been fked by Porsche by this announcement. Thankfully I'm not in that camp, although 981s will probably also take a hit.I can see the GTS 4.0 being epic. Maybe Renault will stick a manual gearbox in the Alpine, hitched a lovely N/A V6? Now that would be something!
DoubleD said:
Im sure it drives really nicely. I still would want a manual rather than an auto though.
Yes and so do the vast majority of road testers. However almost all road testers conclude that the cars other assets transcend that. At the end of the day they conclude it's more fun than all the alternatives even ones with a manual gearbox. Surely fun is the critical metric. Gary C said:
Actually, you could save more weight by getting rid of the turbo engine and putting in a high revving NA and you could save gearbox weight by not having to manage the torque from the turbo motor
I'm doubtful. To match performance you'd need at least 275bhp (because of reduced torque) - so lets say 2.75 litres - which would need 6 cylinders to rev high enough reliably (unless Honda made it!) Debatable whether that would be any lighter the 4T. It wouldn't fit so the car would need to be bigger....Edited by Gary C on Friday 17th January 15:52
bcr5784 said:
DoubleD said:
Im sure it drives really nicely. I still would want a manual rather than an auto though.
Yes and so do the vast majority of road testers. However almost all road testers conclude that the cars other assets transcend that. At the end of the day they conclude it's more fun than all the alternatives even ones with a manual gearbox. Surely fun is the critical metric. I really fancy an Alpine. I gave up a long time ago worrying about what was 'better' (on paper) - sometimes something just resonates with you and that's all that matters. Mostly, I drive relatively narrow country B-roads with crappy surfacing full of potholes and the cars I have most fun in on these roads all have very compliant suspension and compact dimensions. My 911 is a great car but on the roads I drive most of the time it's not the best tool.
I've also always been a manual guy but the auto in the Alpine wouldn't bother me one bit, although it would have done a few years ago. As long as I get to choose when to change ratios I'm happy - adding a left leg into the equation doesn't make it any better for me, although I appreciate for others it does.
I've also always been a manual guy but the auto in the Alpine wouldn't bother me one bit, although it would have done a few years ago. As long as I get to choose when to change ratios I'm happy - adding a left leg into the equation doesn't make it any better for me, although I appreciate for others it does.
bcr5784 said:
need 6 cylinders to rev high enough reliably .
why is that?Honda as you say manage it. the subaru boxer goes well over 7k revs. hot hatches get thoroughly spanked. Toyo engines get thrashed in Lotus applications and are now often in 6 figure mileages with no reports of engine problems. then Stuttgart suffer ims and bore scoring (former kind of related to cyl count). harmonic balance has been achieved across most engine types now.
CABC said:
why is that?
Honda as you say manage it. the subaru boxer goes well over 7k revs. hot hatches get thoroughly spanked. Toyo engines get thrashed in Lotus applications and are now often in 6 figure mileages with no reports of engine problems. then Stuttgart suffer ims and bore scoring (former kind of related to cyl count). harmonic balance has been achieved across most engine types now.
Lets assume you need 7000+ revs to get 275 bhp out of 2.75 litres. I can't think of a 2.75 litre 4 that revs that high and is good for 100K+ miles.I'm sure it could be done - but it would doubtless be a very expensive engine - as no-one currently has an engine that can do it. The loti etc all have smaller cylinders..Even ignoring any emissions issues it simply not economically viable - unless a manufacturer actually has a use for it in other applications, and that is difficult to imagine. Honda as you say manage it. the subaru boxer goes well over 7k revs. hot hatches get thoroughly spanked. Toyo engines get thrashed in Lotus applications and are now often in 6 figure mileages with no reports of engine problems. then Stuttgart suffer ims and bore scoring (former kind of related to cyl count). harmonic balance has been achieved across most engine types now.
bcr5784 said:
Lets assume you need 7000+ revs to get 275 bhp out of 2.75 litres. I can't think of a 2.75 litre 4 that revs that high and is good for 100K+ miles.I'm sure it could be done - but it would doubtless be a very expensive engine - as no-one currently has an engine that can do it. The loti etc all have smaller cylinders..Even ignoring any emissions issues it simply not economically viable - unless a manufacturer actually has a use for it in other applications, and that is difficult to imagine.
i had completely misread the context and the capacity point. pretty obvious really...pls ignore me!!
that said, Porsche had a 3.0 4 cyl in the 944. a modern version of that would be high revving and 275hp?
but yes, nothing available today.
CABC said:
i had completely misread the context and the capacity point. pretty obvious really...
pls ignore me!!
that said, Porsche had a 3.0 4 cyl in the 944. a modern version of that would be high revving and 275hp?
but yes, nothing available today.
It did subsequently occur to me that 2/3 of the (430bhp) GT4 would fit the bill on the basis of power, but a flat 4 would almost certainly preclude double wishbone suspension. Somehow couldn't see Porsche doing an engine deal with Alpine, nor using the engine that way themselves.pls ignore me!!
that said, Porsche had a 3.0 4 cyl in the 944. a modern version of that would be high revving and 275hp?
but yes, nothing available today.
bcr5784 said:
It did subsequently occur to me that 2/3 of the (430bhp) GT4 would fit the bill on the basis of power, but a flat 4 would almost certainly preclude double wishbone suspension. Somehow couldn't see Porsche doing an engine deal with Alpine, nor using the engine that way themselves.
I admire your tenacity, keep going 
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff