Giulia. New segment leader? Would you buy one?

[Ares]

Coffee after the gym this morning, friend was reading EVO website with this article: http://www.evo.co.uk/alfa-romeo/giulia ...asking if the Compact Exec Segment got a new leader in the Giulia....talking about the 'normal' range, not halo Quadrifoglio.

As a Merc C-Class driver, his summation was that the Giulia probably was the market leader (perhaps until the new 3-series comes out), but that he could never bring himself to choose/buy one for fears of reliability....despite having had his C-Class have three different mechanical issues last year, and a similar track record with both BMW and Audi.

Would you choose/buy a 200/280bhp Giulia over a BMW 320/330 or Merc/Audi equivalent?

[Ares]

treeroy said:

Yes, I'd choose it in a heartbeat. They look amazing. They have character and are not bland like the german equivalents.

There's a dealer near me, I took a test drive of an Abarth last year and the Giulia had just arrived, the sales rep was complaining to me that his manager wouldn't let him drive the Giulia QV lol. and apparently if you want to test drive it you have to give them £2000

If true/still the case, it's that attitude that will stifle their development in the UK. That said, from experience, other marque's dealers are no better.

[Ares]

Agent XXX said:

Would any 3 series driver considering the Guilia please reconsider, proper drivers still need to be able to easily identify the c*cks on the road and the 3 series is that ID.

Don't worry. We know who you are regardless of car.

[Ares]

Dr Gitlin said:

Yes. The rwd 2.0L car with a limited-slip diff is about 85% as good to drive as the QV, and half the price. OK, sure it might break down, and the plastics are a bit st inside, and the infotainment system is rubbish, but it's just got so much character when you're behind the wheel.

Couple of misnomers there. Plastics aren't st, there is just the odd bit that's a bit below par, but countered by plenty about the interior that's better.

And the infotainment isn't rubbish. It might not be quite up to BMW's iDrive, but I'd take it over the Merc.

[Ares]

captain_cynic said:

Dr Gitlin said:

This really is a daft sentiment. The ZF 8HP is a bloody good gearbox, and one can derive a huge amount of pleasure driving the car manually with those lovely aluminium paddleshifters.

Not really, using paddle shifts are always like asking "mummy, may I have another gear please, I promise to clean my room later". Manuals are "I command thee into gear, hear me and obey".

Personally, I'd be with RobM77, were I in the market for a "compact exec" I'd seriously look at one if it came in a manual. If I wanted something as bland as an auto I'd get a boring Merc or Audi. It seems daft to get something that is meant to be exciting and a little bit nuts like an Alfa in such a boring configuration. Autos are for people too old for a manual or something the wife needs to drive (in which case I would consider the Alfa but I'm unmarried so it's sports cars for me, I know, its such a terrible lot in life).

I actually think Alfa is giving some sales to BMW and Audi by not offering a manual in the UK, Alfas are widely regarded as a petrolheads car and far less boring than the German equivalents.

Edited by captain_cynic on Thursday 18th January 11:51

Your analogy is a bit st. Sorry.

As is calling any car with an Auto, boring.

....and you realise that BMW sells way more autos than manuals don't you? That's because, aside from men that think not have a stick manual affects their masculinity, most drivers realise they are now way better

[Ares]

RobM77 said:

It's just an opinion, and one we're both entitled to. Would you call someone "daft" for not liking your favourite album? I certainly wouldn't.

I've driven all sorts of autos over the years (including the latest BMW ZF, which is superb) but I just don't like them. This is in spite of the fact that medically I should really have one, and traffic in a manual in particular puts me in a fair bit of pain. I think they suit something like a 530d or a 7 series, but not a sports saloon that you're supposed to enjoy threading down a B road. Note that mainland Europe get a LHD manual Giulia, it's just us Brits who are denied it - I suspect it's something to do with RHD and the cost of engineering it for that.

Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 18th January 11:51

It's actually to do with the fact it's st.

Every single person that has driven the manual vs the auto QV has said the auto is way better.

[Ares]

RobM77 said:

An auto in full auto mode doesn't know the difference between cornering, when you need revs for control, and a straight, when you want lack of revs for mpg.

An auto in 'manual mode' is still a slushy torque converter.

A double clutch box is much better, but they're extremely heavy.

A manual just solves the above problems immediately.

A good auto is everything and more though. Easy when you want easy, involved when you want involvement, quicker when you want quick, faster when you want fast.


Does remind me of when I tried to teach my then 75yr old grandfather how to drive the auto-boxed car he was about to buy. This was 20yrs ago when they were all st, 4 speed and just D, P, N and R as your options.
I showed him what happens when the car is in 'D'...it moves, creeps forward. Accelerate and it just keeps accelerating and changing gear. He set off on roads he knew, all was going fine until he came to a tighter corner, he wasn't slowing down. I had to shout 'you still need to brake' as we nearly hit the hedge. "I normally just use the gearbox to slow down on that corner" was his calm response.

[Ares]

captain_cynic said:

RobM77 said:

I think they suit something like a 530d or a 7 series, but not a sports saloon that you're supposed to enjoy threading down a B road.

This. Auto's are for comfortable cars rather than sporty ones, be it a family transport or a limousine.

I'd have an F-Type in a manual, but for an S-Type the auto is the best choice.

Edited by captain_cynic on Thursday 18th January 12:02

Just like all those comfortable Ferraris

The irony is, all the best sports cars have auto/DSG/PDK/etc boxes

[Ares]

J4CKO said:

I would have one, lovely grey one with a private plate round here but the driver looks proper dodgy

I've heard the same. I'd keep well away if I were you

[Ares]

RobM77 said:

Ares said:

As is calling any car with an Auto, boring.

....and you realise that BMW sells way more autos than manuals don't you? That's because, aside from men that think not have a stick manual affects their masculinity, most drivers realise they are now way better

Most drivers want boring and effortless, that's why autos are popular. An auto suits that perfectly. Even most drivers of performance cars don't actually enjoy or even understand any more than just the power of a performance car - handling and driving through corners is a niche interest, which is why manuals are a niche thing, I freely accept that.

True. But those who want ultimate performance also want the auto/dsg/etc - because it gives ultimate performance. So what you are saying is the beige, middle of the road, average driver that likes driving wants the manual?

Same as when servo brakes came in, 'real' drivers didn't want it as it robbed the car of brake feel.

[Ares]

Dr Gitlin said:

Not just the UK, you can't get one over here in the US with three pedals either. BTW that BMW gearbox is the same one Alfa use. (I spent a very enjoyable half hour on Tuesday interviewing some of the ZF team for a forthcoming article on the 8HP.)

It is...but it's very different state of tune/set-up.

My last BMW (640d) had a great ZF8 box, hugely different from the 530d's ZF8 box I had before.

The Alfa's same ZF8 box feels more like a DSG - hence why some journalists have mistaken it for one when driving.

[Ares]

Dr Gitlin said:

The gear stick (in both QVs I've driven and the 2.0L) had some hard edges, as did the grab handles on the center console. But you know what? It doesn't matter. Neither does the lack of NVH. It all just adds to the character.

Gearstick is a weak area - although the carbon fibre shifter helps (when it fits...!). But there are no grab handles on the centre console...?

[Ares]

captain_cynic said:

Ares said:

Your analogy is a bit st. Sorry.

As is calling any car with an Auto, boring.

Your explanation is a bit st, sorry.

As is your failure to explain how an auto isn't boring.

How so?

Autos can be boring (as can manuals). But an Auto doesn't make a car boring. Go jump in a 458 Speciale, or a Huracán Performante and tell me it's boring.

captain_cynic said:

Ares said:

....and you realise that BMW sells way more autos than manuals don't you? That's because, aside from men that think not have a stick manual affects their masculinity, most drivers realise they are now way better

Yes, I know there are more door to door salesmen (reps) than petrolheads. That doesn't make them better. Most people view their cars as appliances, the wisdom of the crowds often seems anything but.

Also your logical fallacy is Ad Populum. I mean TOWIE is popular... ergo TOWIE is the height of artistic expression or Ford sells more Mondeo's than Aston sells DB11's, ergo the Mondeo is a better car than a DB11.

your point was that Alfa was losing sales because of it's gearboxes, the fact is that more and more people are moving to Autos in that sector. Nothing to do with TOWIE.

Car manufacturers offer what people want to buy AND will buy. Interest popularity is not their focus, sales are.

captain_cynic said:

Ares said:

Just like all those comfortable Ferraris

Thats why the 430 and 360 manuals aren't holding their value.

Another irrelevant retort

But you think the 430 auto is more comfortable than a 430 manual?

captain_cynic said:

Ares said:

In my opinion the irony is, all the best sports cars have auto/DSG/PDK/etc boxes

Fixed that for you. I'm going to say at this point you've never learned to drive a manual.

Then that would be yet another thing you would be wrong about. I've still owned (and raced) more manual cars than automatic.

captain_cynic said:

Aston and Porsche still maintain manual models because people like them and buy them. The problem is in most of the world, most people cant drive a manual.

You're really grasping at straws.

Edited by captain_cynic on Thursday 18th January 12:38

Edited by captain_cynic on Thursday 18th January 12:38

But their sales volume is plummeting as more and more realise the autos are better, and the fastest/halo models are auto.

I'm not the one grasping as straws. HTH

[Ares]

Ahbefive said:

Autos are great for boring mundane driving but if you want to enjoy driving a manual is far more fun and involving. This is a statement of fact.

Autos are for the elderly, perfect laptimes and boring motorway slogs.

The clue is in the fact that a performance car with a manual gearbox will almost always hold its value better than its auto counterpart.

Wrong
Wrong
Wrong

HTH.

[Ares]

Cold said:

Ares said:

Ahbefive said:

Autos are great for boring mundane driving but if you want to enjoy driving a manual is far more fun and involving. This is a statement of fact.

Autos are for the elderly, perfect laptimes and boring motorway slogs.

The clue is in the fact that a performance car with a manual gearbox will almost always hold its value better than its auto counterpart.

Wrong - It is not a statement of fact, Autos are great for mundane driving. But having owned both, the QV gives more fun and enjoyment than any other car I've owned (including manual M cars, Merc, Subaru Sti, Hot Hatches) with the possible exception of my Elise, almost certain exception of my Exige and definite exception of my Caterham (which was a sequential box, so half-way house). None of those three were better because of the gearbox, in fact the Elise gearbox wasn't great at all.

Wrong - Autos are for those who prefer the far wider flexibility of an auto box. I lose nothing and gain plenty from having an outbox. For boring motorway slogs, I'd argue Auto's are no better than manuals anyway.

Wrong - It's the availability/supply that causes the residual value, and even then, not always. Find equal sales volumes and there won't be much of a difference. Take the M3. Search on <3yrs old, there are 10 manuals and 218 autos. Manuals range from £36k to £51k. Autos range from £39k to £69k (more if you include the 30 Jahre). So they're not holding value more.

Ditto Ferrari 360 and with similar availability. Autos (8) range from £57k to £220k, Manuals (7) range from £58k to £129k

HTH.

Is this thread sponsored by Alfa? I know you're a fan and all that, but some objectiveness might be interesting.

OK, fair comment. I've expanded.

[Ares]

Richard-390a0 said:

To me an Alfa should be A) Sporty B) Manual C) A nice bright red colour.

From this thread I now know they're apparently auto, so that's A & B outta the window IMHO

& C) They all seem to be a dull dark red colour which looks even worse this time of year, so much so that they blend in with the usual small exec pack on my commute rather than standing out as I would hope an Alfa would.

TLDR - No.

Come and try my dark grey QV.

If your heart rate doesn't double and you don't leave thinking it's an Alfa, I'll buy you a bottle of 2008 Amarone

[Ares]

RobM77 said:

Ares said:

Ahbefive said:

Autos are great for boring mundane driving but if you want to enjoy driving a manual is far more fun and involving. This is a statement of fact.

Autos are for the elderly, perfect laptimes and boring motorway slogs.

The clue is in the fact that a performance car with a manual gearbox will almost always hold its value better than its auto counterpart.

Wrong
Wrong
Wrong

HTH.

You're still confusing opinion with fact. It's your opinion that the auto Giulia is nicer to drive than the manual. 'Nice' is a subjective term and belongs solely in the realm of opinion, alongside thoughts on music, art, sport, holiday destinations and bathroom tap design.

It wasn't me that mistook opinion for fact. See bold above.

Ahbefive's three 'facts' were wrong.

FWIW, every person that has driven the manual Giulia has said the same. It's not as good as the auto. That'll be down to a) how good the auto is, and b) how poor the manual is.

[Ares]

Agent XXX said:

Ares said:

Come and try my dark grey QV.

If your heart rate doesn't double and you don't leave thinking it's an Alfa, I'll buy you a bottle of 2008 Amarone

2008? Nice choice.

Not an accident

[Ares]

Dr Gitlin said:

Also, the wheel and pedals are a bit too offset from the centerline of the driver's seat. But again, none of this matters, it's a cracking car.

Can't speak for LHD, but unlike Alfa's of old, and unlike the M3, the wheel pedal alignment is perfect IMO (as it was in the C63) - I suspect as RHD was never set up to allow for a three pedal requirement in either.

[Ares]

akirk said:

All this does is demonstrate a misunderstanding as to what performance is / means

performance is not just about outright speed, though I accept that many powerful cars are sold to many not very talented people for whom speed is the main criteria!

performance is a combination of things - speed is certainly one, but I would argue that one of the top elements is reaction or response in the car - how does the car translate the driver's commands (right or wrong) to the road - so you move the steering wheel / how does the car respond... you change gear - how quickly do you get put into the gear you have chosen... etc.

One of the outstanding memories from last year for me was driving an e63 AMG through some great Scottish roads - phenomenal car - and oh so frustrating... every decision you made went through a bank of computers, each of which decided whether or not to obey your input / vary it / block it / change it - corner approaching - I want xyz gear - sorry, the computer says no, in fact at this speed and on the straight, the computer has decided to change up instead of your clearly foolish request to change down... Nothing to do with protecting the car and not blowing up the engine - simply that the engineers didn't anticipate a driver who wants to be free to make their own decisions...

So instead of buying a car like that (on my short list) I went and bought a proper car - manual M5, now when I choose to change gear, the car does exactly what I tell it to do - yes, I might get it wrong, but I am all grown up and will take responsibility for that, but equally, I might just have made that choice as it is what I want from the car - having a dumb machine argue with you has to be the most frustrating thing a driver can experience...

so, yes, for the driver who thinks that performance is all about straight line speed then the e63 AMG will be a better car than my smaller-engined M5 - but for the driver who actually wants to drive the car, the performance from the e63 is very lacking and the manual M5 gives a far better response!

You are right.

However, on speed of reaction, how do you reconcile that nowadays, autos are quicker to respond and quicker to act/react than even the best driver in the best manual?