This is going to be a terribly long post.
If those are your criteria then surely no modern Alfa is worthy. Even the 8C falls down on a few counts...
If I seem to recall, I gave the 147 as an example when I first mentioned it. I sort of mean all newish Alfas - they don't have the same spirit as they once had. IMO of course.
Debatable. There are few modern 4-cylinder engines that sound as good as the Twin-Spark engines in the 147, and I include VTEC Honda engines in that comment.
I haven't yet heard a 147 sounding anywhere near as good as this:
Again, applicable to any modern Alfa (and indeed any modern car save for perhaps a Lotus Elise), including the 8C. So perhaps a little harsh on the 147 to criticise it for moving with the times...
I already said its not Alfas fault, and as I said above, the 147 was an example. Maybe the 8C is different because, as Jezza put it, it has no purpose other than itself, and the V8 wouldn't be as reliable or as easy to live with. Thats a big maybe.
...which you apparently realise anyway.
Yes.
Or even a basic Focus, which is supposed to be a better handling car. But my point is that the Alfa feels special, wheras a Focus doesn't.
Why would you want a basic Focus when the 147 feels special? I was talking about when you're thrashing it - there are alot of hatches that feel more special when you're chuffing along - hence why I gave the referance to the 205 GTI. Another is the Clio Williams.
You make a fair point, but then women are more emotional purchasers than men are so immediately my point still stands. It's why women would choose a MINI or a Fiat 500 above a Corsa given the choice, and I think you'll agree the former two are more emotive and special than the latter, even though neither is as practical or cheap to run.
Yes, I know women are emotional purchasers, and as I said thats is much the reason why they buy them - but if they were noticably unreliable - more so than any other fashionable hatch (like the ones you mentioned) the sales would drop. All of these fashionable hatchs move me in much the same way - except I think the Mini JCW is a genuinly cool - forgetting about heratige and stuff.
This makes no sense. People didn't buy Alfas because they were unreliable, they bought them despite it. The Mazda MX-5 wouldn't have been more popular if they'd made it out of tinfoil and if it wouldn't start on a morning like our beloved British sports cars of old - they just took the best bits and dispensed with the worst bits. That's no different from what Alfa are doing. That the 147 starts on a morning and still looks like it does rather than being a bland box is something to be celebrated, not derided.
No, but I don't feel that todays Alfas are bought despite of anything. They are about (yes, a bit under - but not visibally on a day to day) as reliable as any other car. They used to be bought depite of there characteristic shortfalls - because (as I've already said) it showed stickability. That someone would endure through all those problems just to have the Alfa shows passion and petrol headism to me. So I ask (and thus I suppose is my whole point), what are you doing by driving a modern Alfa (such as the 147) that makes you a petrol head? Sure its a nice car, sure it stands out, but you may have bought it for the wrong reasons - its about as easy to own as any other hatch, and you aren't really putting up with anything. There's no need to show that you're passionate about cars with owning a 147 (or indeed other new Alfas), because all you're doing is driving a stylish car. I don't feel there's any sacrifice. Owners of older Alfas have to put up with so much (here's your despite) so they can get it out on a Sunday and take it into the country.
That's fair enough, but your justifications for believing this seem way off the mark, to me.
Wherein lies the confusion. To be fair, I think I said it as well as I possibly could have before. Don't get me wrong. I'd happily drive a 147 and all that, but there's nothing about owning one that shows your are a car enthusiast (to me).
You've contradicted yourself here, because everything is relative. Of course a 147 isn't as special and emotive as a TVR, but then it's not a rival to a TVR. The 8C is, however, and immediately it becomes very hard to criticise an Alfa for being unemotive when it's something like the 8C which looks and sounds gorgeous and is rare as rocking-horse poo.
What I've done here is used the example of the TVR to show what I think Alfa once was. I used this to back up my arguement that if Alfa didn't change - this is where they'd be. This goes on to me saying (once again - and I know you argeed with it) that it isn't Alfa's fault for changing. If they were as unreliable as TVRs (which they once were), no matter how much flair they have, they'd go bankrupt - like TVR.
What I also did was compare the flair and emotion of the older Alfas with the TVR. You say the 147 can't possibly match the flair and emotion of the TVR. To me (I imagine strictly), thats like saying you can't compare the 147 with older Alfas. Could be just me, but I think the passion, emotion, flair and all that junk of the older Alfsa is very much like TVRs.
The 147 on the other hand competes, as you point out, with the Corolla. Now can you really criticise the Alfa as bland or lacking in Alfa values, when you put it beside an automotive white-good?
As I've already said, and you responded to, I'd rock most things over a motoring white good. The Alfa is going to have to work harder than that if you're going to be a motor head because of driving one. As opposed to the Corolla, the Alfa wins hands down, and I'd pay the full price so I can drive a 147 instead of a Corolla - but I don't think that makes someone a motor head.
First point - I've already explained why I disagree. Second point - because you've bought one despite it being objectively inferior to many other cars in its class.
It has some flair and (more emotive language guff) in comparison with most of today's hatches. Doesn't mean its special with older ones. Not to me anyway.
How is it inferior? Its about as reliable as most hatches (granted - not the white goods) - but on par with other stylish hatches, and it has this something special that you keep on harping on about. Maybe thats the point. I just don't see any shortfalls with the 147. There isn't really anything that people put up with. Its a car with some style, flair, pasison etc - but you don't make any sacrifices, hence why if I had to own an Alfa everyday, it'd be that one.
Again, you appear to be assuming that people buy Alfas for the unreliability, not despite it. People buy Alfas because they're Alfas, and hope that they get a reliable one.
I think I explained this point pretty well further up my arguement.
Indeed, you appear to be implying that someone who chooses an unreliable car is automatically more of a car enthusiast than one who doesn't, which is unfair on people who love cars that just happen to be reliable. Nobody buys a car knowing it's going to break down all the time, though they might buy one despite the high probability of it going wrong if they think that other ownership aspects will make up for that.
Again, the 147 applies.
You're right - I am. You could be a motor head and drive a Corolla and I wouldn't know. The thing is, as I've explained, I think the older Alfas have more character. Flair, passion, emotion etc that is way more apparent and stronger than on the new ones. True, the 147 has features reminiscent of this, but it is my opinion that it not as strong. Is it your belief that the passion, soul, emotion, flair etc shown from the 147 is a strong as the Alfas from the 60s and 70s?
I'd tend to agree. I don't know what type of Volvo you have, but if we're talking the 147 class, I'd quite happily have a Volvo C30 over most of the mainstream. In fact, I'd probably have one over a 147, as long as it had a 5-cyl engine. I like cars that are a little different.
850 estate (YEA, BOI
)
I just think that it's unfair to criticise the 147 as being a "lesser" Alfa than it's stablemates, because it isn't any less of an Alfa based on the judging critieria you've used. And ironically, the 147 and the GT (and the MiTo) are probably more Alfa than the others at the moment because they're not built on GM platforms...
Each to their own I guess.
Ok, you obvioiusly don't get the metaphore, Yes, as i said they are both cheeses, but they are different, explaining the difference of feel between your average Focus and 147. I clearly Said "Yes, they are both cheeses, but they are completely different from each other.", so you have just re-interated my point. Yes they are different cars, but, if you compare an Alfa 147 to a Focus it just isn't the same. There is no attention to detail, you really need to go in a 147 to really understand what I am talking about when I say that there is a very big difference between the two, and you obviously do not know this otherwise we would not be having this conversation.
One's a hatch, the other is a hatch with some flair reminiscent of the old days. Fact.
Actually, It is quite true what the brochure says. Again, you are being quite harsh on the 147 even though you have not driven one, and i can definantly say that the car does embody eveything Alfa since it is an Alfa. At the end of the day the 147 is an Alfa, and quite frankly a proper one at that.
Actually, what you've just stated is blatant opinion, so there's no "actually" about it.
It is my opinion that while it is an Alfa, it isn't as much of an Alfa as the older stuff.
Well, Aesthetics is quite a large part in an Alfa Romeo otherwise it wouldn't be an Alfa Romeo. How do you think Alfa Romeo became a name?, with the beautiful designs in thier cars for one. The Aesthetics of an Alfa have always separated it from being "just another car".
That was...how long ago now? Things have changed. You cannot deny that, because it is a fact. I have already said that they have something over other hatches, but it isn’t enough to make you a car fan IMO.
The Satria Neo is of no comparison to what comes standard fair in an Alfa as that is a top of the range model, again re-interating my point that it separates itself once again. This also supports the fact that previous Alfas unreliability have nothing to do with what makes an Alfa.
The Satria goes for less than a base spec 147 - they are in the same market. Sure the 147 separates itself against all the white goods cars - but it isn't an achievement, as I've already said. I already said - you should be comparing the 147 to older Alfas, not it's opponents in the marketplace. I think that the 147 isn't as emotive and passionate etc as previous Alfas – sure, there’s something there, but not what it once was.
erm, Actually you think the Alfasud and The Alfasud Sprint are rubbish cars, as you quite clearly display it whenever i harp on about them. i don't think it is this arguement that you would be changing your mind about them? I think the 147 has earned it's place otherwise people wouldn't have purchased them, they most likely purchase an Alfa because it's an Alfa, otherwise there is no intention for the purchase. That would also mean that the 147 wouldn't be as popular as it has, since it is the best- selling alfa in the range.
Ermmm actually no. The Alfasud shows way more character etc over a 147, and I'd rather have an Alfasud if I would going to go on spirited drives, because its lighter and has more character than a 147. I see it as a much more pure, more Alfa than later stuff like a 147.
Actually it does, the Mini is a different thing all togeather and is a representation of what was, like you said. The 147 isn't. And i'm pretty sure that a lot of buyers wouldn't be buying the 147 if it wasn't an Alfa. I think it's popularity have proved this.
Then why, pray tell, do you say:
And also, in saying that a 147 isn't a proper Alfa, that is also saying the Alfasud, One of the most Legendary Alfa's, isn't a proper Alfa either since it once was too is a practical and functional city run-about and a direct predecessor of the 147
And
And also, in saying that a 147 isn't a proper Alfa, that is also saying the Alfasud, One of the most Legendary Alfa's, isn't a proper Alfa either
and
Also, the 147 is not a reincarnate like the Mini or VW Beetle, it is a direct predecessor like the VW Golf, the only difference being it has a different model designation.
?
Is this not saying that the 147 is directly related to the Alfasud, like the Minis (or rather not so?). Looks like a contradiction to me. The Mini is related to the new Mini like the 147 is related to the Alfasud.
It proves my point about the engine quite clearly, other hatches would be completely media swarmed if this happened, Which you know would happen, but not in the 147. The Twin Spark engine embosses everything an Alfa engine should.
Actually, it doesn't. Not once before did you talk about the engine. And again, you've said something with no backing up - hence your argument is getting a little on the thin side.
I think it does quite clealrly, unlike you, i obviously can tell this difference between a Focus and a 147 as can homeforsummer. Actually the insurance premiums are quite good in 147 as i have done quotes many a time, you should cheak things before you write.
So should you….like not sounding like a salesman with shallow claims for one. The Alfa has got something over SOME hatches, and as I’ve said many times before (sighhhhh) IT IS NOT AN ACHIEVEMENT. Please, please read through my post from the very beginning and you’ll grasp where I’m headed. Yes it has flair, yes I’d rather one over a white good (as I’ve said a gazzilion times) but I don’t think it has anything on the older ones – and that’s what you have to compare them to because that’s what the discussions all about. All you’ve done is come in mid way, guns blazing and picked up the fact that I said a 147 is a proper Alfa, using salesmen words like “embodiment” and “embosses” and missed the point of what I’m comparing it too.
Now your just being very technical. I'm quite certain that Alfa has remained an Italian company since it's establishment, and i'm pretty sure the cars come out of an Alfa Romeo factory, so i think they have been making cars like they have for 99 years bar technological improvements. Again, people wouldn't be buying Alfa's if they weren't Alfas.
You have to use technical facts to not embarrass yourself in an argument – so that is what I did. Alfa’s are Italian. Technological improvements are the whole point of this argument (sighhh).
I’m saying that the new ones aren’t like what they once were. This is down (and solely down) to technological changes. They’re safer, heavier, more economic, less pollutant etc. It’s these things bought round by new laws and standards that have changed what Alfas generally are. All cars are like this now – yet another reason why you shouldn’t compare the Alfa to the other hatches, but more to the back catalogue of Alfas.
Well yes, many car makers have a car to fill a market segment. look at the C30, the Toyota IQ, The Mini. The MiTo is a representation of The Alfasud Sprint (as i have told you many a time) and is a fantastic car, just like all these cars, so whats your point?? because i don't really see it.
Read. My. Argument. I have stated my opinion – I shall stick to my opinion, and it is my opinion that these new cars aren’t like Alfas once were. They fill the market place, but I feel all they’re there for is to make more money, not so much because they want to make it – sure they put in some flair and passion, but it was the flair and passion for Alfa to make the car in the first place back in the day. I want to see something from Alfa that’s truly original, and not like anything else on the market IN TERMS OF FUNCTIONALITY (so spare me all your “it has something else over all the others” guff – I’ve read it enough, and I don’t care).
I think i would have read your post, otherwise i would not have said that. It doesn't mean i have to agree with you because i read your post. Thats quite totalitarian. And No it doesn't, i don't think many people would be buying Alfa's if the company went out of thier way to make rusty and unreliable cars like you want them to.
How in hell am I totalitarian??. I have stated explicitly that what I’m saying is
my opinion (eg “it is of my opinion”, “IMO”, “in my opinion” etc). You’re coming here and telling me that the brochure never lies and said that it is fact, which it isn’t – it never is with any brochure selling a car. Then you come saying the engine is the embodiment of spirit and trail off into how it embosses passion or whatever, without decent backing of any sort, assuming that I’m going to agree with you, which I obviously don’t.
I never said I want them to make unreliable cars. If I was faced with having to spend 6 or so years with an Alfa, I’d go for the most reliable and easy to use one I could find – but (and I’ve said this quite enough times) driving one of those doesn’t mean you are a petrol head, because all you’re doing is driving a car with a bit of flair….that’s it – and I don’t think that that is enough to be considered a petrol head.
Alfa never even set out to make rusty cars, they just purchased cheap ungalvanised russian metal to make thier cars more affordable. As for the unreliability, many Alfa owners streached thier budgets to buy Alfa's not taking in factors such a servicing and ownership costs. And the fact that Alfa's had a 20,000Km service interval doesn't help reiability stakes. Again, accounting for the meticulous care one must have with an Alfa and establishing the Ownership expierience.
I like how you are using facts here – it makes the discussion have more substance. Yes, you’re right they were built cheaply, so they could give the people what they wanted. I love the idea of cracking out the overalls and the huge toolbox, and setting to work on your weekend weapon with the radio blaring, the birds chirping and endless supply of Vino in the setting sun. I love that, and today’s aren’t like that. Sure, they’re easier to live with, but the notion of setting to work on your own car sounds like the people who did it were petrol heads IMO, whereas driving a stylish hatch and taking to the garage every so often doesn’t.
Yes, i do know this. Alfa's driveability in it's cars today is very good and should be commended on. 147 are great run-about cars. You cannot say it is not if you have not tried it. Giulia Supers are popular since they are quite easy to restore, hence being popular with Alfa enthusiasts, and they are not quite practical, yes it has 4 doors, but it doesn't have fold down rear seats and the quite awkward shape and low waistline of the body would be quite a pain if you were carrying bulky objects. Yes, a great enthusiasts car, but not a great car in practicallity stakes, Mind you, i don't think many Alfa enthusiasts would want to carry anything bulky in it as it might damage something.
It doesn’t have to be practical to be an enthusiast’s car. They weren’t only popular because of the restoration (and I think you’d have to be an enthusiast to restore a car), but also because they were pure RWD driver’s cars. They were raw, with little interior trim and a lightweight stance, as well as a very enthusiastic engine. Sure, the 147 has pep and all that, but is it as raw and involving? I don’t think so, otherwise it’d be a more renowned driver’s car.
I don't think so, I think the quote i used by Orazio Satta quite clearly summed up the Alfa Romeo tradition and what it is all about. And i just dont think a 147 is a "hatch with a bit of flair", it is much more than that. It is an Alfa Romeo and that "flair" you talk of is what Alfa is all about. It's about being an individual, its about loving the car for the passion, the driving expierience. Every Alfa is the epitomy of the brand, otherwise there would be many car makers who would just make boring cars that just go from A to B. I think that is why Alfas like the 147 and every other Alfa made is Special. You have missed the point about what the Alfa tradition is of Loyalty, Passion and Affection for the car. You seem to think that the Alfa Tradition is a Rusty old bomb with reliability issues. I think you should save youself the trouble in even looking at an Alfa and look at something like an unrestored early model Escort if you want what your looking for.
I’m afraid I don’t see as much passion in the new Alfas like the older ones. I don’t think that every Alfa is the epitome of the brand. I don’t think enough drivers of the 147 bought it for the reasons you are stating. I agree with it all if I were applying it to ownership of an older one, but not for the newer ones.
I don’t want Alfa to be a rusty old bomb, as I’ve said. I’m saying that if you are going to drive a car purely to be considered a car enthusiast, today’s models won’t do it for me the same as the older ones.
P.S can you stop now, this arguement is getting quite tidious as we have had it many times over the Alfa Sprint.
Hmmmm you’ve been in this discussion 2 days now and you’re already asking me to stop. I’m sorry, backhanded comments like that don’t work well around here. If you want to stop, go ahead and don’t reply to this, I’m all for discussion on cars and will state my opinion to anyone that wants. Yes it is getting tedious, and this is thanks to a lack of understanding from both sides. I’ve repeated myself enough times and I reckon if there’s something anyone wants to argue with me, check that I haven’t said it already. 👍
All of this is my opinion (^)
Phew!
).
Having to put up with stuff has no correlation to whether a car is an enthusiasts car or not. You might have to "put up with" things in some enthusiasts cars, but certainly not all.
not quite used to this, i'll fix it.
