2008 Best Car Series: Aston Martin DB9 vs Alfa Romeo 8C

[YSSMAN]

Well, that I assume is because they're only building 500, and of that, only a small handful are reportedly coming to the US. If you're into obscenely awesome and otherwise hyper-rare cars, the 8C has those things in spades. I'd have it over the F430 for that reason, but the problem is, you start getting into the issue of being able to drive it every day because its an instant collectible.

I'm personally under the impression that if Alfa would have mass-produced the car, making some small sacrifices in performance, they likely would have had an overly-successful car that they could have continued to build, alter and sell for almost a decade.

 

[neanderthal]

They could have made 5000 and still sold them all.

However, the only thing is that regardless of its beauty, its still "only an Alfa."

 

[homeforsummer]

The "only an Alfa" thing may follow with the average Joe, but car enthusiasts know that Alfa is worthy. Without Alfa there would likely be no Ferrari, given that "Scuderia Ferrari" was originally the Alfa Romeo Grand Prix team that Enzo ran and without that money and experience from racing he probably would have struggled starting the Ferrari company.

Alfa Romeo have almost always had the knack of offering something special to rival the normal boring choices (I say "almost" because the 80s cars, though unique, weren't necessarily the best of cars...), you could rely on them to do something special with the styling, the engine, the handling, even if not all in the same car! With the 156 saloon they produced a car to beat the 3-series at the time of launch, Autocar were full of praise and the car was beautiful. I don't want to spend too much time on Clarkson, but he regards the 90s GTV as one of the most beautiful cars ever and I agree with him - I still prefer it to even the Brera.

Alfa engines are brilliant without fail, too. From the growling boxers, through the roaring twin sparks right through to the howling V6s, they all sound fantastic. Even the diesels are pretty good as diesels go, especially the 2.4 five-cylinder. They also all offer reasonable power for their capacity.

The fact that Alfa can give even the more mundane cars the character and beauty they do, just backs up something that's meant to be special like the 8C

 

[TheCracker]

In this case I think he is the last word. He made the same argument everyone who voted for it here is making: the car is art, in that it looks good but has absolutely no function beyond that whatsoever. Plus, it's an Alfa. Since when have they ever been "best car in the world" material? This isn't the Cool Wall, where practicality and performance are thrown out the window.

The Alfa is both quicker and cheaper than the DB9. And in many publications, it's a better car.

We're just comparing these two cars here. The DB9's more practical because the brand isn't known for falling apart. It performs better because... well it just does.

Astons in the 80's and early 90's had the reputation to be every bit as unreliable and badly put together as the Alfa's of the time did. Only difference was, Alfa's cost about a fifth of the price of Astons. Thankfully both manufacturers have stepped up their game and those tired old 'reputations' for being unreliable are now unfounded.

 

[CyborgGT]

The Alfa is both quicker and cheaper than the DB9.

I don't mean to keep referencing TG, but it's the only track they've both lapped - and they were both driven by the same, professional, driver. All on "very wet" laps, the 8C was slower than the S2000, Z4, and 986 Boxster. Meanwhile, the DB9 was 11 seconds faster in the dry. There's no way the 8C could catch up to that on a dry lap.

A Z06 is cheaper than a 575, but it doesn't mean it's easier to live with.

 

[Tornado]

Which is exactly why, imo, the car is overpriced. You get less Ferrari-like everything for more than Ferrari price.

So, somehow the Alfa is overpriced because it is made up of Ferrari bits yet has more-than-Ferrari price (which it doesn't, by the way).

So when compared to the practically-identical-in-amount-of-Ferrari-bits Ferrari California, the Alfa is a terrible value proposition?

I don't mean to keep referencing TG, but it's the only track they've both lapped - and they were both driven by the same, professional, driver. All on "very wet" laps, the 8C was slower than the S2000, Z4, and 986 Boxster. Meanwhile, the DB9 was 11 seconds faster in the dry. There's no way the 8C could catch up to that on a dry lap.

And the Top Gear test track isn't the be all end all of race tracks, either. The GT-R time should have alluded to that.

 

[Slicks]

Chalk another one up for the Alfa.

It's drop-dead gorgeous.

The DB9, for me, is just... Meh. I'm sure it sounds great, and drives better than the Alfa. The looks don't do it for me, though. It looks very long and toned down.

The Vanquish remains my favorite modern Aston. Also, if the poll included the V8 Vantage rather than the DB, I'd have to think my vote over very carefully.

 

[McLaren]

So, somehow the Alfa is overpriced because it is made up of Ferrari bits yet has more-than-Ferrari price (which it doesn't, by the way).

So when compared to the practically-identical-in-amount-of-Ferrari-bits Ferrari California, the Alfa is a terrible value proposition?

It's $235,000. That's more than a F430's MSRP. And even if you consider the fact you can't get a F430 for its MSRP, you can still get one for the price of an 8C.

But, I'm not saying it's over-priced because of its Ferrari material.

What I am saying is that for a car carrying Ferrari bits & pieces, Alfa's asking a lot for a car that seems to be fall behind Ferrari in everything. Seriously, from what I've seen it doesn't perform like a F430, it's not as nice on the interior as a F430, and since it's an Alfa, it probably isn't as reliable as the F430 ( ).

So, really, why should I spend the extra money on a car carrying some Ferrari bits & pieces known as the Alfa 8C, when I can pay less and get an actual Ferrari? The 8C just seems grossly overpriced to me.

 

[YSSMAN]

Because its drop-dead gorgeous and far more "rare" by days end? That's the best answer I have...

Its overpriced, and the people in the US who've ordered them won't see their cars for a while. Oh well... When you want something that bad, you've got to be willing to wait!

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Because its drop-dead gorgeous and far more "rare" by days end? That's the best answer I have...

See:

But [the] DB9 doesn't look like [a] shortsighted inbred owl.

Ever since it was mentioned in the MiTo thread, I can't get that owl image out of my head. Sure the 8C has a couple of curves, but it's not that great looking. The DB9 is a a little bit more boring now, probably because it's been out for a while, but to me the exterior is a perfect design.

 

[Tornado]

It's $235,000. That's more than a F430's MSRP. And even if you consider the fact you can't get a F430 for its MSRP, you can still get one for the price of an 8C.

It costs exactly the same as the F430 everywhere else, so nyah.

 

[JCE]

Late reply: The 8C is faster than the DB9? Are you serious? On what planet?

 

[Slicks]

In this case I think [Clarkson] is the last word. He made the same argument everyone who voted for it here is making: the car is art, in that it looks good but has absolutely no function beyond that whatsoever. Plus, it's an Alfa. Since when have they ever been "best car in the world" material? This isn't the Cool Wall, where practicality and performance are thrown out the window.

It might as well be the Cool Wall. If you can afford either of these cars, chances are you've already got several practical, or pure performance cars.

 

[V1P3R]

8C faster than a DB9? oh man that's the highlight of my day...

 

[TheCracker]

Late reply: The 8C is faster than the DB9? Are you serious? On what planet?

Planet Earth. They don't have any dealers elsewhere yet.


Alfa 8C - 0-60 - 4.2
Aston DB9 - 0-60 - 4.6

Alfa 8C - QTR - 12.4
Aston DB9 - QTR - 12.9

I don't know how much they are flogging them for in the states, but in the UK the Alfa is £18k ($36k) cheaper then the F430 and a couple of grand cheaper than the DB9.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Still a very close vote I see, only 3 votes in it!

 

[Rotary Junkie]

Go Aston.

Looks pretty, goes well, I'm happy. The 8C can rot and fall off for what I care. It is a good looking car, but it may well be forgotten quite quickly.

 

[homeforsummer]

It is a good looking car, but it may well be forgotten quite quickly.

That I doubt very, very much.

 

[Tornado]

Late reply: The 8C is faster than the DB9? Are you serious? On what planet?

8C faster than a DB9? oh man that's the highlight of my day...

I don't understand this sentiment. The Alfa has exactly the same horsepower as the Aston, but weighs 300 pounds less. Even the lower horsepower V8 Vantage is just as fast as the DB9.

 

[Speedster502]

I'll admit happily as a fairly large Aston Martin fan, the DB9 is slow. It should go faster, but then again the DB9 wasn't made to be a supercar. It's a GT, GT's don't need to be fast.

Also, does the top speed really matter? How often do you hear people actually saying I hit flat out in car today? If you drive legally (Which most people try to do) then we shouldn't even be topping over 100mph in the UK let alone 186mph. Yes, I know its a good pub fact, but to be honest when are we actually going to get that fast on a public road? I say never, unless your barking mad.

 

[V1P3R]

💡 Good thing I worded it to go either way...

 

[MustangSVT]

Because its drop-dead gorgeous and far more "rare" by days end? That's the best answer I have...

Its overpriced, and the people in the US who've ordered them won't see their cars for a while. Oh well... When you want something that bad, you've got to be willing to wait!

Exactly. It's just drop dead gorgeous.

By the way, to the people talking about Aston reliability and Alfa reliability, Aston Martin has its own fair share of selling cars where the owners were basically "beta testers" in a sense, the same kind of reputation Alfa has had throughout the years.

I can guarantee you that both of these cars (8C and DB9) will have a lot more issues than like a Porsche 911.

 

[Speedster502]

Exactly. It's just drop dead gorgeous.

By the way, to the people talking about Aston reliability and Alfa reliability, Aston Martin has its own fair share of selling cars where the owners were basically "beta testers" in a sense, the same kind of reputation Alfa has had throughout the years.

I can guarantee you that both of these cars (8C and DB9) will have a lot more issues than like a Porsche 911.

I was going to ignore this, but since Ford bought Aston Martin back in the early 90's meant Aston's reliability probelms were resolved. Aston's are alot more reliable now than the cars of pre-90's were. Admitidly Alfa Romeo has improved reliability wise too but not to the extent which Aston have progressed, and although Aston are now owned by Prodrive the reliability seems to be continuing.

Also, (IMO) the DB9's reliability is probably on par with the 911.

 

[MustangSVT]

I was going to ignore this, but since Ford bought Aston Martin back in the early 90's meant Aston's reliability probelms were resolved. Aston's are alot more reliable now than the cars of pre-90's were. Admitidly Alfa Romeo has improved reliability wise too but not to the extent which Aston have progressed, and although Aston are now owned by Prodrive the reliability seems to be continuing.

Also, (IMO) the DB9's reliability is probably on par with the 911.

Oops I meant to say "had its own fair share". The article I read about Aston's reliability was talking about 70s and 80s ones. I would say that most cars in this price bracket ($200k+) will have more reliability issues than something like a 911 or an M3. I can't say for sure a DB9 would, but that would be my guess.

As I mentioned in a previous post, if I had the money, I'd rather have the Alfa looks and the badge that goes with it rather than the Aston, even with the potential issues with the Alfa.

 

[JCE]

I don't understand this sentiment. The Alfa has exactly the same horsepower as the Aston, but weighs 300 pounds less. Even the lower horsepower V8 Vantage is just as fast as the DB9.

I'd still rather see them race on the same tarmac in ideal conditions right next to each other. Or using the same driver back to back.

And brake horsepower means little compared to torque in a straight line. The DB9 (420) has almost 100lb.ft. more torque than the 8C (325). i'd give the edge to the DB9 in neutral conditions with the large amount of extra torque.

 

[Tornado]

But multiple performance tests of both cars already prove you wrong, so it would show little.

 

[JCE]

Performance tests in different conditions and different drivers. I'll still prefer to think the DB9 with the extra torque would actually win in a straight line. Or at least possibly pull even with it on average through several runs. Torque makes up for having more weight.

 

[Tornado]

I doubt the .4 second spread being seen by multiple publications under different circumstances is all down to lack of ideal testing environments.
I think it is more likely that the DB9 (and Aston's own V8 Vantage contributes to this) is just heavy and slow compared to the Alfa.

 

[JCE]

Maybe the transmission lets it down? Because in reality if they both had proper 6spd manuals the DB9 would infact eek out a victory with that 100tq advantage. The DB9 is an autobox with flappy paddles yes? While the 8C uses Ferrari's awsome manual flappy paddles from the 430?

 

[Tornado]

The DB9 can be had with a stick; and while the 8C has the flappy-paddle-gearbox, it is not sourced from Ferrari (so its slower and less smooth than the ones in the Ferrari 599 and F430).