What will Alfa have to charge?

[75evo]

Hmmm.. they are still kind of ugly, especially the Elantra..... yuck. The Elantra would be in the same class as the Honda Civic? The Civic looks 10000 better. And a Alfa 147 looks 10000 better than a Civic. The Tiburon looks ok though. Nice engine too.

I have the new Civic 1.7. It's a good grocery getter. Not sure if I am willing to commute >25 miles each way in a Civic though. I would much rather have a 147 even with a 1.6.

Thank God I have the Milano 3.0 to play around with. I have to drive it a few times a week to relieve the pressure of commuting in the Civic. But the Milano is becoming too much of a race car and so is getting a little less practical. I'm looking at the 164s for sale on this forum....

[jthraen]

Are you really saving money when you buy a Hyundai? If you compare the depreciation of the Hyundai to the Honda, I suspect you will find that the Honda costs less. And let's be real, if you buy or lease a new car, your "cost" is the depreciation, the repairs, the fuel, and the interest.

I actually like the Tibiron, I think the styling of the five door elantra is actually very attractive, but I would not even consider them.

I once had a side business where I bought repossesed cars on a Friday afternoon and paid for them on the following Monday morning. This meant that I had to have the car sold during the same weekend. I once brought a Hyundai home, well almost. The car had only 50k miles, but it was such a piece of junk, that I turned around and took it back rather than sell it to someone who would know where I lived. I did not make any money that week, but I didn't have my house fire bombed either!

[67GTV]

Well let's see here Doc . .

Quote:

Originally posted by dretceterini equivelant and equal do not mean the same thing.

[generaljimt]

Dear Dr., the Alfa of fifteen years ago has nothing to do with today's Alfa.

[dretceterini]

as IMO the Milanos were pretty much pieces of crap, except for the motors...and the 164s weren't much better...

[generaljimt]

When you're in NY, you can drive my 164 and tell me what a piece of crap it is!!

[dretceterini]

But I have driven my share of 164s...and to ME they are big boats...even with the 230 hp and upgrades to the suspension. They are even more of an Italian Buick than the 102/2000 berlinas and the 2600 berlinas were in their day

[generaljimt]

Dear Dr., they are supposed to be luxury sedans. To expect them to have the manuevarability of a 147 is not valid. Apples and oranges. They are what they are, large, comfortable, sporting sedans.

[dretceterini]

the general has a point. Alfa's "tradition" is really more with sedans and GTs than with "sports cars"!!

Up to the introduction of the 1900s in 1951, MOST Alfas were atually GTs or sedans, rather than sports cars; even the open cars.

The pre-war and immediate post-war cars, except in the road race versions, were generally pretty big and bulky...but this goes for ALL cars at that time; not just Alfa...

It wasn't really until the 1950s, when the Giuliettas came out, that Alfas really became "sports cars". Of course back than cars were primarilly built for a single purpose; to race or drive on the street...and the term "sports car" wasn't really around until the late 40s..

PERSONALLY, I have little interest in Alfa sedans built after WW2; (especially big cars, like the 164 and 166...just TOO big for my taste) except perhaps for the Giulia Supers and TI Supers.

Nothing wrong with the sedans, but to me, if I'm going to have an Alfa, it will be 105 series or earlier, or one of the modern GTs, like a 147 GTA.

I DO like the 156 sedan and sportswagon...to my mind they are the best looking sedans currently available anywhere..and they are of a "reasonable" size...

[Eddie Chi]

I DO like the 156 sedan and sportswagon...to my mind they are the best looking sedans currently available anywhere..and they are of a "reasonable" size... [/b][/quote]

Actually! Alfa 156 has many choice. You can start from 1.6 L~3.2L.
The best choice is 156 2.0 L Twin Spark. Its much well-balance in front and rear. The weight distributiion is more concern when corning. I am driving a 156 1.8TS for 4 years and I still love it. A 156 2.5L 6MT is too heavy in front causes too many pressure in front tyres and understeering is a challenge.
I believe 156 GTA does the same. The other choice is the new GTV 3.0. It was tuned like a rear weel drive.

[164QV]

To me, the most interesting Alfas are by far the 50's and 60's coupes and racecars. So in that respect I couldnt agree more with Dretceterini that the 164 saloon is too big. But, you know; different cars for different uses. I have a family, and every once in a while I need to transport them from one place to another - should I buy a Volvo? In that range of cars, the 75, 155, 156, 164 and 166 are definitely more interesting to drive. So, thats why I picked my first Alfa - a 156 2.5V6 instead of am Audi A4, and when the wife complained that it was too small, I later got an 2.0TS SportWagon - phoned home and told I had bought a Stationwagon - she was real happy - until she saw it! Eventually my 3 kids have gotten too big for the 156, and I got a 164 instead. I believe I am putting up a good fight to avoid becoming an owner of the fertility symbol of these days: a minibus!

But as a daily driver, transporting myself to and from work - of course I pick the Junior, and let the wife drive the 164.

[LBC]

Quote:

Originally posted by dretceterini The 156GTA is about $40,000 in England and the 147GTA is about $34,000. At these kinds of prices, can Alfas sell when they arrive here? The 156 has only 10 more horsepower than a Nissan Altima, and the Altima, fully loaded, is $10,000-$12,000 less money. Yes, a Nissan is NOT an Alfa, but is the Alfa really worth that much more? The 147GTA will have to compete with a number of similar cars which are a LOT cheaper too...

[meatpile]

apples to oranges.

GM also owns SAAB, and ford owns Jaguar and Volvo.

I think these are better cars to compare pricewise to Alfas, should they re-enter the market.

Since the newest Alfa I've driven is a 1974, I can't say i'd know how they compared to new European cars (BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar, Audi, or the cheaper Volvo and Saab), but I'll bet I wouldn't compare them to any Asian cars, or for that matter any American cars.

Different machines altogether.

[Alex Csank]

I've had the good fortune of traveling a lot to Europe because of my job. The newer Alfas really ARE great cars! The 147 feels like an 'Italian' Golf GTI...and that's in basic rental car trim (1.6)! The 156 is stylish and handles better than an Audi...or at least it feels better! I haven't driven the 166, Spider or GTV, but they all seem really cool up close...much nicer than the run of the mill Japanese, Korean, Swedish, German and French cars!