Alfa Romeo Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
But seriously, I surrendered my stand-up comedy act before I wrote my first joke..... good thing!

The question is, and it's somewhat subjective, in what size category do we 164 owners place our beloved steeds? I mentioned to a fellow car lover ("early" 911s) that I owned an Alfa. He asked which one. I replied, "The 164. It's one of the big sedans." To which he stated, "That's hardly a big sedan."

This friend hails from England but now lives in the USA, so he's familiar with the "small" Buicks etc. but also knows cars on both ends of the measuring stick.

So, is yours big or small?

-Dan

P.S. I play each Thursday night at 7:00 at the Holiday Inn....:rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
BIG!

Now, what was the question?

Seriously, when you are hanging out with an Alfa or other Italian car club, the 164 is very big. By most other car standards, it is compact. Not small either way, that's for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
Compare it to a 500cc Suzuki ute, and it's bloody enormous.

That said, it's doesn't feel much roomier inside than my 33
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Mid-size like my MB 240D. Just the right size to cimmute to work or for vacations. I consider my Civic small and my 300SD large.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,087 Posts
If I had to choose either of the two, I would say "large". It is a long car, and I don't see it ever being thought of as "small", but I can see that people would not consider it "large" either. The 164's width does allow it to fit in the narrow parking spaces marked "compact" (at least the ones in NJ), so that is different from other larger (or wider) cars, both European and American.

Best regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,724 Posts
Here in the states it would fall into the midsize sport or luxury sedan category.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
From elsewhere on this board. A Camry next to a 164.
 

Attachments

·
Moderator
1991 164L
Joined
·
27,635 Posts
To Much Info (TMO)?

It's the largest car I've ever owned....
Now the 164 is the biggest car I ever wanted to own. However COMMA in those thrilling days of yesteryear I have owned bigger ones such as a 57 Buick Special 2 dr sedan manual shift with a 364 cu. in. nail head Buick Roadmaster engine w/4bbl carb. (Think original pre BMW Range Rover V8 engine as they are based on old nail head Buicks). Now that was a muscle car in sheep's clothing. I had a 50 Ford convert with 50 Olds Rocket 88 303 cu. in. with 52 Olds 324 cu in higher lift rocker arms and 4 bbl carb. Shoe string budget boy racer upgrades way back when.

Then I had a 52 Ford Vic with a 55 Buick Roadmaster 322 cu in w/4bbl and a 37 Cad/Lasalle Floor shift tranny.

Finally went FOMOCO powered Fords with the 289, 302 and 351 Windsor engines and then 400 Clevelands in 60 and 70's but I finally found Italian Iron in 1980 and have been there ever since.

Give me a good Alfa 164 3.0 12v engine in a nice 164 and I am now in heaven on earth.

Used to be there was no substitute for cu in. but I now believe there is no substitute for an Alfa Whine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
Exterior-wise, 164 was a typical midsize in the 90's; and compact/small in the 21st century.

Interior volume-wise, 164 is always a large car BECAUSE Saab 9000 was the ONLY European car US EPA categorized as "large car." I don't have the source in front of me, but maybe it was even THE largest sedan...

Now I do feel the 164 interior a bit smaller than its cousin. That said, it is bigger than my BMW 540, and I'm sure it must be bigger than most European and Japanese cars (interior)

Compact exterior and roomy interior is just much smarter. Can't today's car makers find a better way than relentlessly increasing exterior dimensions which is not neccessary?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,286 Posts
Only my 97 SAAB 9000 Aero is bigger. The 164 is also very wide, as is the SAAB. The SAAB is a tad longer and the roofline is a tad taller.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
758 Posts
My 164 is smaller than my SHO

On the outside, it is much smaller (especially in length and width), but it is also smaller on the inside, especially in the width and rear seat legroom. The Taurus is classified as a mid-size car by most, but as a "large" sedan by the rental car companies.

So I would have to say that the 164 is a "mid-size" car by modern standards and when it was built. It would definately be a "compact" by 80's or earlier standards. That said, it can easily take 3 on a long trip with luggage, and 4 on a short trip. If I had to take 4 on a long trip, it would be in either the SHO or Jeep.

But on a short blast with 1-2 people, the 164 cannot be beat as far as sedans go!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,724 Posts
I could never envision the car as a large car since my dad had a 1992 Fleetwood that was volumes bigger than my 1992 164.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,286 Posts
North Americans have a very poor idea about "large" cars. Most "full sized" North American sedans had large trunks with a spare tire in the middle of the back of the trunk (almost impossible to extract) and so much space around the engine a 6 liter V8 looked small in the engine compartment. Inside the car the space was very poor.

I used my 164 for family holidays with five people and their luggage but we travelled European style taking only what was needed.

My SAAB 9000's were al purpose cars capable of carrying five people, all their luggage, all our camping gear plus our sailing gear using two Thule rooftop boxes. The fully loaded car would continue to accelerate up a 10% grade (our Coquihalla Highway) at full boost while already travelling at 130 km/hr even though the car was fully loaded and powered by a 2.0 liter (120 cu in) turbo engine developing only 160 hp. My latest SAAB 9000 Aero 2.3 liter turbo (138 cu in) develops 225 hp and will haul a$$ up any grade fully loaded or even overloaded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
I would call the 164 a mid size car by todays standards, but I must admit it has a massive boot compared to some of the other cars which are bigger than it, 504 litres of boot space is pretty good going when you think the Audi A8 which is way bigger only has a 500litre boot and the Maserati Quattroporte is smaller again at around 470litres, heck it even beats the Peugeot 407 which is only 430 litres. Don't know how Alfa do it but they do a great job of it.

Cheers
Trevor
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
Audi A8 which is way bigger only has a 500litre boot and the Maserati Quattroporte is smaller again at around 470litres, heck it even beats the Peugeot 407 which is only 430 litres. Don't know how Alfa do it but they do a great job of it.
A8 and 407 are typical victims of poor contemporary design: bigger out and smaller in.

All 4 cars from the same platform, 9000, Croma, Thema, 164, are among the smartest auto design works ever. They all have 500-liter + trunk; 9000 and Croma hatchbacks can swallow 1600-liter+, the only new hatchback with that cargo volume is the Mazda 6.

407's predecessor, 405 being smaller outside, indeed has slightly more cabin space than the 164. Although not from the same platform, you can call the 405 and 164 some kind of Pininfarina cousins as well. In numbers, the 405 trunk is under 500-liter, but as capable as the 164's thanks for the absence of battery there:rolleyes:

I was also surprised to find my 164 is a more useful airport pick-upper than my previous 9000CD:eek:Despite the battery intrusion, the higher-tail 164 trunk is taller than the 9000 so I can stack two largest-sized luggages and easily close the trunk. My relatives mostly visit from abroad with enormous luggages. The 9000CD trunk is tight for the height of 2 of those. The hatchback is of course a true SUV substitute...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
My winter 9000CDE feels much bigger inside than my summer 164S. The Alfa is cozy, the Saab feels more like sitting in a livingroom. The CDE trunk is definitely wider than the "S". I can close my mountain bike in the Saab trunk after just removing the front wheel. Not even close with the 164 because of the battery, alarm and higher lift-over. BTW these two have 176K (Alfa) and 238K on them and they both just keep on ticking, although the Alfa has been way way way more reliable...
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,166 Posts
:rolleyes:Large or small:(, I can't even see what color shoes I'm wearin':mad:
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top