GTP Cool Wall: 1965-1969 Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint 1600 GTA

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jahgee
  • 139 comments
  • 10,736 views

1965-1969 Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint 1600 GTA

  • Total voters
    131
  • Poll closed .
The engine sounds fantastic (there's one in my region,), it's red, italian, racing pedigree, beautiful and most of all an Alfa Romeo.

To the Ice Box!!
 
Cano
It's undoubtedly a cool car with massive racing pedigree, but it's lacking something to make me go instant sub-zero.
Click to expand...

5Z54EJ2.png
 
Liquid
5Z54EJ2.png
Click to expand...

Fission Mailed, dude. While old Alfas are cool most of the time, I don't loose my mind over them. I think this lacks some kind of weird feature, something that makes it stand out a bit more. Like the Fluvia for example, which had a V4 engine that immediately pushed it to sub zero.

And in the case of this Alfa, it's like the go-to Alfa of the 60s, even though there were several arguably cooler models in Alfa's line up in those years and in years past. I dunno, it's difficult to pinpoint it, but it doesn't reach sub-zero.
 
Cano
Fission Mailed, dude. While old Alfas are cool most of the time, I don't loose my mind over them. I think this lacks some kind of weird feature, something that makes it stand out a bit more. Like the Fluvia for example, which had a V4 engine that immediately pushed it to sub zero.
Click to expand...
Aluminium and magnesium body? Riveted-on roof? Tiny ring-pull door handles? 820kg dry weight? :D
And in the case of this Alfa, it's like the go-to Alfa of the 60s, even though there were several arguably cooler models in Alfa's line up in those years and in years past. I dunno, it's difficult to pinpoint it, but it doesn't reach sub-zero.
Click to expand...
To make my vote clear, I actually think the older Giulietta is even cooler than the 105-series cars, and the Giulietta SZ even cooler than that. But seeing a Giulia go by on the road would be very cool, and the rarer, purer GTA even more so.
 
homeforsummer
Aluminium and magnesium body? Riveted-on roof? Tiny ring-pull door handles? 820kg dry weight? :D

To make my vote clear, I actually think the older Giulietta is even cooler than the 105-series cars, and the Giulietta SZ even cooler than that. But seeing a Giulia go by on the road would be very cool, and the rarer, purer GTA even more so.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't know of the rivetted roof. That's pretty neat.

As for seeing an Alfa go down the road and loosing your mind:
alfaromeogiuliasprintsp.jpg


The one polled here? Not so much.
 
Grayfox
Stop thinking in today's terms.

Why would you get a ferrari when you can get a veyron.
The veyron is faster and more powerful.

This car was made in the 60's
So it will have basic 60s steel wheels.
And for the 60s, it made a hell of a lot of power with the engine.

And it was way cheaper and more useful than a ferrari.
Click to expand...

To answer the first question, a Veyron is very ugly, won't take corners well, and is many times more expensive than a Ferrari.

You do have a point that 60's Alfas and 60's Ferraris are very different, but I'd still rather have almost any car that was built in the U.S. between 1965 and 1969 before the Alfa.

And while 170 hp is impressive for a 60's four-cylinder, it's still only 170 hp. I'd rather have some sort of muscle car from that era with more power, despite the higher weight.
 
Cano
As for seeing an Alfa go down the road and loosing your mind
Click to expand...
Saw a Giulia Sprint Speciale in France once. Unfortunately I have no photo evidence as I was driving at the time, but the people with me at the time (non-GTPers) will almost certainly remember me shouting at them to take photos of the funny little white car we'd just passed.
 
homeforsummer
Saw a Giulia Sprint Speciale in France once. Unfortunately I have no photo evidence as I was driving at the time, but the people with me at the time (non-GTPers) will almost certainly remember me shouting at them to take photos of the funny little white car we'd just passed.
Click to expand...

Haha, I wouldn't have even asked and turned back to chase it down. You were driving for God's sake!
 
Cano
Haha, I wouldn't have even asked and turned back to chase it down. You were driving for God's sake!
Click to expand...

I actually did that to catch a photo of a Ford GT a while back. Just checked oncoming traffic and behind me and yelled "surprise U-turn!" and went back for it.

As for this car, I only voted cool, but I cant even put my finger on why.
 
homeforsummer
820kg dry weight? :D

.
Click to expand...

Ahem. 745kg.

This Alfa and all it's brothers and sisters get a solid cool. When it weighs so little you don't need power to get freaky with it.

And the sound of the twin cam. Glorious.
Only shame about them is that the build quality is a bit so-so.
Leave it in the rain and puddles may appear inside the car. You'll need a Lusso to solve that, with all its extra rubbers and stuff.
 
Minty
I actually did that to catch a photo of a Ford GT a while back. Just checked oncoming traffic and behind me and yelled "surprise U-turn!" and went back for it.
Click to expand...

Done my share too :lol: and have made my dad do his share too, indeed 👍
 
Dennisch
Ahem. 745kg.
Click to expand...
Where'd you find that? I'm going off an old copy of Octane magazine. 745kg might have been the racer, which was even more ridiculously light.

The build quality is an interesting one. It'd be quite believable that it's a bit rattly, but the GTA is supposed to be pretty mechanically unburstable. Massively over-engineered, weight notwithstanding.
 
JMoney689
And while 170 hp is impressive for a 60's four-cylinder, it's still only 170 hp. I'd rather have some sort of muscle car from that era with more power, despite the higher weight.
Click to expand...

Even if the 170hp 750kg car feels like a muscle car in terms of acceleration and is more responsive than a the brick designs from the US during the 60s
 
homeforsummer
Where'd you find that? I'm going off an old copy of Octane magazine. 745kg might have been the racer, which was even more ridiculously light.

The build quality is an interesting one. It'd be quite believable that it's a bit rattly, but the GTA is supposed to be pretty mechanically unburstable. Massively over-engineered, weight notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

clickie!

And indeed, you'll have a hard time destroying the engine and drive train bits, but proper closing doors and lids are pretty rare. :lol:
The Corsa differs very little from the Stradale, except for the drivetrain bits. The inside of a Stradale also has nothing. Seats, gauges and a steering wheel. On the outside you have a bit of chrome that the Corsa doesn't have. That's where the Corsa loses his weight against the Stradale.
And that's all you need when driving a GTA. Perhaps the Corsa underworks. 170~ish hp in something that weighs as much as a Suzuki Alto.
 
Grayfox
Shame this car is not in GT6.

There is a similar version with only 110hp.
Click to expand...

That would be the street version. 170hp is for the race model. The OP isn't right about that.
 
170hp is also a vague period assumption. 190-200+ is probably nearer what competition ones get theses days, even using period regulations.
 
Are we voting on the street version or the race version? Because the street version has (at least in GT6) 113 hp, and that's not impressive at all.

Grayfox
Even if the 170hp 750kg car feels like a muscle car in terms of acceleration and is more responsive than a the brick designs from the US during the 60s
Click to expand...

You mean like this one?

cobra.jpg


Or this one?

vette c2.jpg
 
JMoney689
You mean like this one?

Or this one?
Click to expand...

Sportscars vs. Family car isn't a fair comparison. Both the Vette and Cobra were blunt instruments. An excess of horsepower to overcome handling deficiencies.
 
'60s European FRs are Cool by default. One this attractive and sporting, with a solid pedigree and historical value, and some details I did not recall (cheers niky & homeforsummer), is a healthy Sub Zero.
JMoney689
...while 170 hp is impressive for a 60's four-cylinder, it's still only 170 hp. I'd rather have some sort of muscle car from that era with more power, despite the higher weight.
Click to expand...
Fixating on "more horsepower = better" without regarding power-to-weight is similar to fixating on specific output without regarding power-to-weight. You're deliberately ignoring the whole picture just to admire a number.

Even the 113hp stradale version of the Giulia Sprint GTA is comparable to a 1995 Ford Mustang GT. The race version has more punch per pound than a 2001 SVT Cobra.
 
Wolfe
Fixating on "more horsepower = better" without regarding power-to-weight is similar to fixating on specific output without regarding power-to-weight. You're deliberately ignoring the whole picture just to admire a number.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but it ignores the quality of the performance too by focusing on the quantity. As do the other GTPers who prioritise power over all else.

My old Beetle only had 44hp (when new - probably less when I had it) but it wasn't a boring car to drive on account of its lack of speed alone. There was still the response and sound of the engine to experience, the gearshift, the vibrations it made etc.

The stradale version's relatively low output doesn't sound like much, but we're talking about roughly the same output as an early Miata in a car that weighs 100 (to 200) kilos less with even fewer concessions to driving aids and refinements than a late-80s roadster.

The closest I've got to that (Miata aside, and ignoring the brief run I've had in a regular Giulia GT) was a road version of the Lotus Cortina @TheCracker mentioned. Those have even less power (105hp, IIRC) but it's one of the most involving cars I've driven. The character of the engine, the sounds, the smells, the hard edge it takes on within a thousand or so rpm from the redline, far outweighs the fact that its on-paper numbers don't look that great.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back