Alfa Romeo 147 GTA | The Brave Pill
Discussion
These are achingly cool, and I would have loved to have had one, except.....
A mate bought a lightly used one back in the noughties. It needed more than £7,000 spending on it during the first year. I know the engine had to be taken out twice amongst other things, not exactly sure why.
When it was working, it was a dream, but he couldn't afford to keep it and bought a Honda Accord 2.4 VTec which, as may be expected, just needed petrol and the occasional service to travel 100k+ miles.
A mate bought a lightly used one back in the noughties. It needed more than £7,000 spending on it during the first year. I know the engine had to be taken out twice amongst other things, not exactly sure why.
When it was working, it was a dream, but he couldn't afford to keep it and bought a Honda Accord 2.4 VTec which, as may be expected, just needed petrol and the occasional service to travel 100k+ miles.
Jon_S_Rally said:
otolith said:
I don't do hot hatches anymore, but one with a V6 does have some attraction in principle. That pretty much means 147, Golf or A3, and the latter two would bore the tits off me. Something else in mind?
otolith said:
Ah, well you're coming at it from a different angle. I don't want an R26 or a 250/265. Nor any other hot hatch for the sake of it being a hot hatch. Zero interest. The Alfa is a peculiar old thing with an interesting engine - I'd be interested in it despite it being a hot hatch.
That's just it for me - it's a hatchback. If I was buying a hatchback, this wouldn't get a look-in. If I was buying an interesting car for weekend amusement, a hatchback of any kind probably wouldn't get a look-in, let alone this one, so it just makes it a bit of non-contender for me. Not good enough to be a daily, not interesting enough to be a toy.Had a GTA in Cosmo blue like this one for nearly 4 hours if spent nearly 10 months of that timeout the road at a Alfa specialist and would around £290 in parts and repairs for every 5 days I drove it, needless to say I sold it and I regret it everyday and would own it again in a heartbeat
Never regretted selling a car so much
Never regretted selling a car so much
Had a GTA in Cosmo blue like this one for nearly 4 years if spent nearly 10 months of that time of the road at a Alfa specialist and would around £200 in parts and repairs for every 5 days I drove it, needless to say I sold it and I regret it everyday and would own it again in a heartbeat
Never regretted selling a car so much
Never regretted selling a car so much
Jon_S_Rally said:
otolith said:
Ah, well you're coming at it from a different angle. I don't want an R26 or a 250/265. Nor any other hot hatch for the sake of it being a hot hatch. Zero interest. The Alfa is a peculiar old thing with an interesting engine - I'd be interested in it despite it being a hot hatch.
That's just it for me - it's a hatchback. If I was buying a hatchback, this wouldn't get a look-in. If I was buying an interesting car for weekend amusement, a hatchback of any kind probably wouldn't get a look-in, let alone this one, so it just makes it a bit of non-contender for me. Not good enough to be a daily, not interesting enough to be a toy.castag said:
Had a GTA in Cosmo blue like this one for nearly 4 hours if spent nearly 10 months of that timeout the road at a Alfa specialist and would around £290 in parts and repairs for every 5 days I drove it, needless to say I sold it and I regret it everyday and would own it again in a heartbeat
Never regretted selling a car so much
I guess you’re on a phone or typing fast but that timeline is harder to follow than ‘Interstellar’ ! Never regretted selling a car so much
Jon_S_Rally said:
otolith said:
I don't do hot hatches anymore, but one with a V6 does have some attraction in principle. That pretty much means 147, Golf or A3, and the latter two would bore the tits off me. Something else in mind?
It depends how much you prioritise engine configuration I guess. I don't really, so these just don't seem worth the aggro/cost.
ITP said:
I think you need to take the original reviews with a pinch of salt to be honest. This was an age of peak Subaru/Mitsubishi 4wd traction. It was almost a case of 'look how silly it is to put 250bhp through the front wheels only, and we'll prove it'. Look what happens when you mash the throttle on full lock in second gear with the traction control off!!
The top gear review basically purposefully drove the car to smoke the front tyres on purpose. Sure, with a big V6 it's never going to be as nimble as a 205 GTI, and combine this with the classic alfa way of not quite finishing cars development, leaving the owners to finish off a few technical bits, and you have people thinking they are pretty, but a bit rubbish. However, the basics are pretty good and with the Q2 diff and a tweak of suspension these issues are largely resolved. Plus you still have great styling outside and inside, and sublime engine.
Some other hot hatches may have handled better in stock form but crucially owners cant do anything about the dull, dated styling or bland interior to improve it. And they don't have a V6 busso.
To say its overpriced for its age/capabilities misses the point somewhat, that puts old 911's, e-types, DB5's in trouble. And to be honest considering they are 17 years old 6 secs to 60 and 14-15secs to 100 will not trouble a golf R or a M140i but its not slow.
Given what you said about lack of development, lack of traction and the fact it needs to be modified to work, doesn't that mean that it is actually a bit rubbish? The top gear review basically purposefully drove the car to smoke the front tyres on purpose. Sure, with a big V6 it's never going to be as nimble as a 205 GTI, and combine this with the classic alfa way of not quite finishing cars development, leaving the owners to finish off a few technical bits, and you have people thinking they are pretty, but a bit rubbish. However, the basics are pretty good and with the Q2 diff and a tweak of suspension these issues are largely resolved. Plus you still have great styling outside and inside, and sublime engine.
Some other hot hatches may have handled better in stock form but crucially owners cant do anything about the dull, dated styling or bland interior to improve it. And they don't have a V6 busso.
To say its overpriced for its age/capabilities misses the point somewhat, that puts old 911's, e-types, DB5's in trouble. And to be honest considering they are 17 years old 6 secs to 60 and 14-15secs to 100 will not trouble a golf R or a M140i but its not slow.
Don't get me wrong, I can see why it has a following, because it's quite an interesting car, and I imagine it has a bit of character but, from my point of view, I'm just not sure it could justify the cost. As above, to get into a nice one, you're looking at Megane 250/265 money and that is pretty stiff competition for the Alfa, regardless of how much you want a V6. Leaving aside the performance side, the Meg is almost 10 years newer, with bluetooth and all that other stuff that makes living with it much easier.
An interesting car and I'm pleased it exists, but it's not one I could ever see me spending money on.
Edited by Jon_S_Rally on Monday 20th January 15:12
With the Q2 diff there are no traction issues at all (well maybe the guy with the 370bhp supercharged one!), even in the wet.
You are right about the Megane 250/265. A great car and one of these would no doubt beat a gta on a track. Maybe not by as much as you’d think though. But a big factor for me is that as a road car, in everyday use, it’s just a really nice car to drive due to the engine. Pulls smoothly from idle to over 7k in any gear, sounds great doing it. It’s has real character just driving normally in everyday use, as well as being fun to drive harder too, if not as pin sharp as a megane. A turbo 4, for me, doesn’t have the same feel good factor, apart from at the petrol station!
I had the pleasure of owning a Gabbiano Blu 147 GTA for about 12 months.
When it worked it was amazing; quite possibly the best sounding cars that I have owned, and after some considerable suspension modifications it handled as well as it sounded.
I didn’t like the running costs; I put about 2,500 miles on it during that time and I spent £4,000 to keep it on the road. This included the engine out once.
I took it into London for work a couple of times, which you can’t do any longer, but soon gave that idea up as it averaged 11mpg on the off-peak run from Kent to Lambeth!
All that aside - I still regret selling it to this day, but I wouldn’t do it again
When it worked it was amazing; quite possibly the best sounding cars that I have owned, and after some considerable suspension modifications it handled as well as it sounded.
I didn’t like the running costs; I put about 2,500 miles on it during that time and I spent £4,000 to keep it on the road. This included the engine out once.
I took it into London for work a couple of times, which you can’t do any longer, but soon gave that idea up as it averaged 11mpg on the off-peak run from Kent to Lambeth!
All that aside - I still regret selling it to this day, but I wouldn’t do it again
I like these and can see the appeal - very pretty with a great engine. However the flaws would be too much for me to consider it - they look incredibly needy from a maintenance point of view and for what is basically a fwd hatch I just don’t think it’s worth it.
I owned a similarly over engined hatch with an iffy chassis - a 130i, but once this had the birds b1 kit fitted it became a very competent car with a lovely engine, but unlike the Alfa was also properly built and reliable. Uglier than the Alfa, but I’d argue it’s at least as much fun to drive and much less hassle to own.
I owned a similarly over engined hatch with an iffy chassis - a 130i, but once this had the birds b1 kit fitted it became a very competent car with a lovely engine, but unlike the Alfa was also properly built and reliable. Uglier than the Alfa, but I’d argue it’s at least as much fun to drive and much less hassle to own.
Court_S said:
Chestrockwell said:
I don’t understand the blind love for Alfa’s, I’m not a big fan but I appreciate a good Alfa when I see one, I haven’t driven one of these but the article seems to have slated the car in every aspect but the engine and driving normally yet it still receives a lot of praise.
It’s a nice looking car, it definitely sounds nice with a good engine but that’s at far as it goes!
I don’t see this as a classic, I see a not a very good car that was outshined by rivals that ultimately made it a flop.
Look at an EP3 Civic Type R, creeping up to 3k for a decent one despite thousands been built, now that’s a hot hatch that’s a future classic!
I can’t imagine anything worse than an EP3. I can’t stand the looks (inside or outside) whatsoever, nor the noise. I’d far rather one of these, hell I’d rather have an R32 just for the engine which sounds great with a Miltek.It’s a nice looking car, it definitely sounds nice with a good engine but that’s at far as it goes!
I don’t see this as a classic, I see a not a very good car that was outshined by rivals that ultimately made it a flop.
Look at an EP3 Civic Type R, creeping up to 3k for a decent one despite thousands been built, now that’s a hot hatch that’s a future classic!
Edited by Chestrockwell on Saturday 18th January 17:04
TBF, many cars that went on to become classics were poor dynamically when new. Look at those MGBs and stuff like the Stag. Far from class leading but have been cornerstones of the classic car scene since it really got going in the 1970s.
YouTalkinToMe said:
Surprised no-one has mentioned the GT 3.2..
Okay, it's not a 'GTA' and some may want a proper hatch over a pseudo coupe (oh, and its 10hp down) but it can be had for much less.
I think the 156 GTA saloon would be my choice followed by the GT then the 147.
GT 3.2 is the sensible way to get behind a 3.2 Busso. Bodywork, interiors etc are common across all of them. You can get a perfectly good one for £4000.Okay, it's not a 'GTA' and some may want a proper hatch over a pseudo coupe (oh, and its 10hp down) but it can be had for much less.
I think the 156 GTA saloon would be my choice followed by the GT then the 147.
sixpistons said:
I owned a similarly over engined hatch with an iffy chassis - a 130i, but once this had the birds b1 kit fitted it became a very competent car with a lovely engine, but unlike the Alfa was also properly built and reliable. Uglier than the Alfa, but I’d argue it’s at least as much fun to drive and much less hassle to own.
You’re talking about the chassis/suspension there? https://www.birdsauto.com/product-information/b1-d...GTV (in a Cup guise) is a beautiful thing to behold also...
s m said:
yonex said:
Wasn’t there a special edition in a pearlescent white, kick myself for passing one of those up a few years ago.
Might have been similar to this 
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff