Why is owning an Alfa Romeo more that just owning a car?

Thumper Long

Hi I while away hours every week reading the forum and need a little bit of help. I am involved in the real people competition run by Alfa Romeo Ireland where I have been lucky enough to win a Giulietta for a year. We are set a monthly task and this months task is to answer the question Why is owning an Alfa Romeo more than just owning a car?

I would really like to hear from any alfa owners past or present as to why they hopefully believe this to be true, and from anyone else who has an opinion on this. You can get a look at my previous blogs at <snip link pimping>.

Many thanks in advance for any replies,

Best Regards

Alan

spiggotpaddy

because you have to own a big toolbox aswell.

only joshing. s'pose its because they're a drivers car.

L-M

They're unreliable.

That's why people love them.

mikofo

its an expensive F I A T, fix it again tomorro

Jimmy Bottlehead

in fairness, this feeling applies to owners of a huge number of cars.

Even Austin Metro's have a following! (http://metroownersclub.org/index.html by the way)

johnos1984

Like my MGF, those moments when it works perfectly it reminds you why you have it.

Like my g/f, when I do something wrong it reminds me with an expensive bill.

Twin-go

Reasons owning an Alfa Romeo is more than owning a car:

Just look at them. Bar spending crazy money is there better looking cars on the road?

The looks they get let's you know you drive something special.

Somedays they will drive you crazy by rattling or breaking but other days they will be the best place to be in the world. They are never boring.

Less common than the boxy German competition helps them feel more special.

Twin-go: former 147 owner, current GT owner.

si_guru

Quick puzzle:
You're in bar with ten guys - How do you know which one owns the rebodied FIAT Alfa Romeo...??












...he'll tell you!

dgt

mikofo wrote: »

its an expensive F I A T, ferrari in affordable trim

I think thats what you meant, really


I can remember a time when Alfas were rear wheel drive, had the gear box at the rear and inboard discs. Now those were cars

Todays Alfas are realy big Fiats, with much nicer interiors. Surprised to learn alot of stuff interchanges between them?

pburns

TBH the type of 'moirketing' initiative mentioned by the OP would put me off owning an Alfa. 'Real people' competition - what a load of naff bollocks!

No offense to the OP - he's just trying to win the use of a car!

johnos1984

pburns wrote: »

TBH the type of 'moirketing' initiative mentioned by the OP would put me off owning an Alfa. 'Real people' competition - what a load of naff bollocks!

No offense to the OP - he's just trying to win the use of a car!

What I take out of the marketing campaign is that they are aiming to sell it to more female buyers with the emotional connection to a thing of beauty.

It does nothing for me really.

I'd still love another Alfa though, but this campaign won't be the reason I'd get it

MetzgerMeister

Why is owning an Alfa Romeo more that just owning a car?

Because Jeremy Clarkson says so.

barura

einheisserschre wrote: »

Why is owning an Alfa Romeo more that just owning a car?

Because Jeremy Clarkson says so.

Why do people **** on Clarksons opinion so much? I never understood it, he seems to be an educated fellow and makes good points. His other two colleges have also been around the bush of cars for many years and they often reflect their own opinions, and they agree about Alfa's also. If you research on what they think is good between the three of them, then it generally is, within reason.

Anywho, they seem like a well balanced car that reacts well to being driven hard, if you don't mind paying the bills to keep everything in good condition. Lots of people trash around Ford Focuses and because they're the minority, you don't hear about them needing servicing as much. If everyone drove Alfa's sensibly, then you wouldn't hear about it so much. They just inspire you to get an experience out of them, rather than get from just a to b.

mikofo

u refer to the "alfa sud" which was a brill car in its time

bladespin

mikofo wrote: »

its an expensive F I A T, fix it again tomorro

Never driven one so :rolleyes: I'd avoid them if I was you, if you can't spell then youd probably get a bad one.

Most Alfas are rewarding cars to drive, that'swhy we're often willing to put up with their failings.
Personally I'd rather have something I looked forward to driving every morning that might develop an issue instead of something that was a chore to drive but never gave a problem.

Not all are unreliable for that matter.

MetzgerMeister

barura wrote: »

Why do people **** on Clarksons opinion so much? I never understood it, he seems to be an educated fellow and makes good points. His other two colleges have also been around the bush of cars for many years and they often reflect their own opinions, and they agree about Alfa's also. If you research on what they think is good between the three of them, then it generally is, within reason.

What makes you think I was ****ting on his opinion and not backing it up??

VolvoMan

I like Alfa's, but the fact that Clarkson speaks so highly of them makes me think differently sometimes.

barura

einheisserschre wrote: »

What makes you think I was ****ting on his opinion and not backing it up??

Cause most people do! If you weren't, then good! Sorry if it seemed that way.

166man

They are special because of so many reasons including

-Just the way they are made I mean the Leather in some of the older cars 156/166 was just amazing. Proper leather not that rubbish you get in a BMW.

-I love the little details like the way the fuel gauge has benzina written inside it rather than fuel or petrol.

-The engines too even the base model 1.6 ts engine is a cracker better than the 1.8 imo. Great sound from the four cylinders and the V6's are something else.

-All the controls are just really nice to use, in the 156 the gearstick is positioned quite close to the steering wheel and has a nice light gear change. The clutch and steering are both the same. Handles well too

Combine all these factors into cars as gorgeous as many of the Alfa's are and other than their occasional reliability issues I sometimes wonder why more people don't drive them.

unkel

Ask any Italian male what these two clocks represent?



What other mainstream company makes cars of this beauty?

166man

166man wrote: »

They are special because of so many reasons including

..........156/166 was just amazing...............Combine all these factors into cars as gorgeous as many of the Alfa's are and other than their occasional reliability issues I sometimes wonder why more people don't drive them.

The twin spark rubbish is the greatest load of unnecessary crap ever (in a small capacity car engine), little if any actual benefit, why they persisted with it I'll never understand. They saw the light eventually I suppose.

Also from a manufacturing view point the fragility of the valve timing train is also another weakness and nothing to be proud of. Tensioners were chocolate. Interval aside the timing assembly on them was simply not a great design.

When the 156 was introduced Alfa were pushing the message of how they have overcome the reliability issues, as the time I used to deliver parts to an alfa mechanic on a Saturday who used to do some work on the side, he was telling me that as the salemen were bleating onto potential customers about the reliability (at the time lots of reps were getting 156s, pre diesel days really I suppose) the workshop was full of warranty jobs, there were a lot of early ones that had issues with the balance belt, not enough teeth on it so it used to hop off.

Personally I'd be slow to buy a car that mightn't make 36k miles after a belt change. If it goes it's fairly serious.

I also reckon the 156 is a cramped enough car for the driver. The built around the driver lark doesn't cut it, so is an ST202 Celica and you don't get the squashed feeling. The non leathered ones are cheap and nasty looking. And the suspension is chocolately too.

The handling of a 156 isn't wonderful, it's better than a Vectra alright but not up there with a Mark3 mondeo, the 156 is woeful in a crash too.

The 159s are GM engined so aren't real Alfas in my opinion.

166man

RoverJames wrote: »

The twin spark rubbish is the greatest load of unnecessary crap ever (in a small capacity car engine), little if any actual benefit, why they persisted with it I'll never understand. They saw the light eventually I suppose.

Also from a manufacturing view point the fragility of the valve timing train is also another weakness and nothing to be proud of. Tensioners were chocolate. Interval aside the timing assembly on them was simply not a great design.

When the 156 was introduced Alfa were pushing the message of how they have overcome the reliability issues, as the time I used to deliver parts to an alfa mechanic on a Saturday who used to do some work on the side, he was telling me that as the salemen were bleating onto potential customers about the reliability (at the time lots of reps were getting 156s, pre diesel days really I suppose) the workshop was full of warranty jobs, there were a lot of early ones that had issues with the balance belt, not enough teeth on it so it used to hop off.

Personally I'd be slow to buy a car that mightn't make 36k miles after a belt change. If it goes it's fairly serious.

I also reckon the 156 is a cramped enough car for the driver. The built around the driver lark doesn't cut it, so is an ST202 Celica and you don't get the squashed feeling. The non leathered ones are cheap and nasty looking. And the suspension is chocolately too.

The handling of a 156 isn't wonderful, it's better than a Vectra alright but not up there with a Mark3 mondeo, the 156 is woeful in a crash too.

The 159s are GM engined so aren't real Alfas in my opinion.

Wow rant over?:D

166man

166man wrote: »

Wow rant over?:D

You did ask :pac:

166man wrote: »

.............I sometimes wonder why more people don't drive them.

I'd take a 2.5V6 156 myself though if it was belted, tested and cheap.

JJJJNR

Heritage and marketing, simple.

Idleater

JJJJNR wrote: »

Heritage and marketing, simple.

Looks too. My MiTo is parked in a row of 14 cars from focus to octavia to golf to seicento to 500's, and it's just nice to see it add that bit of something that it's quite hard to describe other than it just looks good.

Personally speaking, I think it's a pleasure to drive, and I do very little KM's per year. Hence why I bought something that I'd actually enjoy to own as opposed to a possibly more functional or practical motor.

I chuck the bicycle in the back and go racing, I chuck the bags in the back and go travelling, and just as easily chuck in the shopping, each time with a smile that there aren't many of them around and that no one can say "would you not have got a corsa".

It's possibly like the adage that says "motorcyclists know why dogs put their heads out of the car window"

166man

RoverJames wrote: »

The twin spark rubbish is the greatest load of unnecessary crap ever (in a small capacity car engine), little if any actual benefit, why they persisted with it I'll never understand. They saw the light eventually I suppose.

Also from a manufacturing view point the fragility of the valve timing train is also another weakness and nothing to be proud of. Tensioners were chocolate. Interval aside the timing assembly on them was simply not a great design.

When the 156 was introduced Alfa were pushing the message of how they have overcome the reliability issues, as the time I used to deliver parts to an alfa mechanic on a Saturday who used to do some work on the side, he was telling me that as the salemen were bleating onto potential customers about the reliability (at the time lots of reps were getting 156s, pre diesel days really I suppose) the workshop was full of warranty jobs, there were a lot of early ones that had issues with the balance belt, not enough teeth on it so it used to hop off.

Personally I'd be slow to buy a car that mightn't make 36k miles after a belt change. If it goes it's fairly serious.

I also reckon the 156 is a cramped enough car for the driver. The built around the driver lark doesn't cut it, so is an ST202 Celica and you don't get the squashed feeling. The non leathered ones are cheap and nasty looking. And the suspension is chocolately too.

The handling of a 156 isn't wonderful, it's better than a Vectra alright but not up there with a Mark3 mondeo, the 156 is woeful in a crash too.

The 159s are GM engined so aren't real Alfas in my opinion.

I'm not a mechanic so I don't know exactly how the whole twin spark thing works but I don't care whatever it it it's wonderful. Lovely sound off it, never let anyone in our family down in 75k miles and feels surprisingly quick in the first 3 gears for a 1.6 of course.

With the belt change needed every 36k it isn't too bad actually. Costs about 400-500 quid and with my low mileage that's only needed every 3-4 years. €100 a year roughly a tenner a month which isn't the worst.

There's always going to be issues on the early models of most cars, there are three 156's in out extended family and have been extremely reliable. I have never heard of any good stories about the reliability of Rovers either.Ever.

People need to stop worrying about the timing bely issues as when done on time they will keep going, just do it on time, same as any other car.

As for cramped the boot is easily big enough for 3/4 sets of golf clubs and other golfing attire too. The rear is slightly cramped but as someone who is 6ft 4 I have no complaints about space in the front either.

You could always pick up a leather interior from a breaker in the UK fro a couple of hundred quid and transform the inside too. Sorted.

I'm sorry handling is one of the best things about the car lovely light controls make it great fun on country roads..

In summary I have no doubt you may have driven a 147/156/166 but maybe you should try owning one to see what all the fuss is about before slating them on this forum.

dgt

166man wrote: »

I'm not a mechanic so I don't know exactly how the whole twin spark thing works but I don't care whatever it it it's wonderful. Lovely sound off it, never let anyone in our family down in 75k miles and feels surprisingly quick in the first 3 gears for a 1.6 of course.

With the belt change needed every 36k it isn't too bad actually. Costs about 400-500 quid and with my low mileage that's only needed every 3-4 years. €100 a year roughly a tenner a month which isn't the worst.

There's always going to be issues on the early models of most cars, there are three 156's in out extended family and have been extremely reliable. I have never heard of any good stories about the reliability of Rovers either.Ever.

People need to stop worrying about the timing bely issues as when done on time they will keep going, just do it on time, same as any other car.

As for cramped the boot is easily big enough for 3/4 sets of golf clubs and other golfing attire too. The rear is slightly cramped but as someone who is 6ft 4 I have no complaints about space in the front either.

You could always pick up a leather interior from a breaker in the UK fro a couple of hundred quid and transform the inside too. Sorted.

I'm sorry handling is one of the best things about the car lovely light controls make it great fun on country roads..

In summary I have no doubt you may have driven a 147/156/166 but maybe you should try owning one to see what all the fuss is about before slating them on this forum.

Know what I'm going to agree with you...

Alfas do make a lovely sound, unlike most mainstream cars that make a tinny/wheezing/asthmatic/tractory/droning sound (although when the variator goes on some of the Alfa engines...:o)

Buy the tools, do the belt yourself if one intends to keep the car. No more difficult than most mainstream cars I saw one of these being changed and it looked to be a fairly hateful, miserable job

Cramped? My arse. I'm 6ft2 and can fit in a 156 with a sunroof no problem. The back has plenty of room too. Even with the seats fully back I couldn't complain. Want cramped? Try an RX8 with a sunroof...

Speaking of the leather interior the momos were that damned good I shoehorned a set into my Bravo van. I just bought a 166 and will be picking it soon with the exact same interior, I can't wait

The 156 is built on the same chassis and floorpan as a Tempra/Coupé/Marea/GTV etc (most of Fiats midrange cars of that era) and having driven quite a few cars built on that platform I can say that very few cars can keep up on the backroads. My beloved E34, which is a drivers car and has fat tyres, can not keep up with my van for example. That cuts down willy wavers to no extent

Do the research in future

166man

166man wrote: »

I'm not a mechanic so I don't know exactly ...........

^^^

If you actually read my ppost properly you'll see one of the issues I mentioned was that in many cases the belts didn't even last 36k miles due to the plastic tensioner. There is the balance belt too on the V6, it's a crappily designed timing train. If a belt is prone to failing at 36k miles that's a sh1t design, many Alfa heads won't run there car over 25k miles as they don't want to risk that. In fairness most actual Alfa enthusiasts would have some mechanical know how and can accept that the valve timing train is quite poor design wise and also exaserbated by plastic tensioners. You mention 3 to 4 years for a belt change, it's 36k or 3 years, Alfa initially had them down for 76k miles but pulled that back due to the number that were failing.

No doubt handling is one of the best things about it, it's still not class leading, they're a fair bit off a mark3 Mondeo which is in their class. I don't need to own one to know that and to voice my opinion on here. A 156 has never been mentioned as one of the best handling fwd cars, not even mentioned.

You asked why more people don't own them, I offered a response, you then go on about €500 / every 3 years for a belt change being fine (which wasn't my point) and suggest I own one before slagging them off.

You also throw in a comment about never hearing any good stories about reliability of Rovers, considering you have gleamed your motoring knowledge from HonestJohn I'm not surprised. Applying your logic own one before offering your opinion on them

Don't ask a question unless you want answers.

dgt

dgt wrote: »

.................
Buy the tools, do the belt yourself if one intends to keep the car. No more difficult than most mainstream cars I saw one of these being changed and it looked to be a fairly hateful, miserable job ...........

They'll do 90k without a belt change though
Ever see a V6 Alfa belt change being done, to compare like with like, comparing a KV6 belt change to a 4 cylinder Alfa belt change is retarded. Also you'll get the KV6 sorted for grand, should be done every 90k or 6 years, the 4 cylinder Alfa is 36k miles or 3 years at €400/500. Cost wise it's much of a muchness. You can run a KV6 to 150k with a very decent chance of no belt failure occuring, try that in a Alfa.

Interesting how both of ye are blowing on about Rovers as I mentioned a few weaknessed about Alfas :rolleyes:

dgt wrote: »

..........

Do the research in future

Research?????? Comparing a KV6 belt change to a 4 cylinder Alfa belt change?

Concluding that a Bravo van (with modded suspension) outhandles an E34, you call that research? The Tipo shares the same chassis too and out of the box that was a pig of a thing to drive.

Thumper Long

Thanks, for all the replies so far, it's good to see that the Boards motors forum never fails to stir a lively debate. I understand most makes of car hold something special to particular groups of people. I have been fortunate enough to have the use of a Giulietta since February and its a cracking car to drive, and its so different to most cars on the road. But thanks again for all the replies, its nice to get other opinions rather than my own etc.

166man

166man wrote: »

.........
In summary I have no doubt you may have driven a 147/156/166 but maybe you should try owning one to see what all the fuss is about before slating them on this forum.

Also if you read my post you'd have seen that I did say I would buy a 2.5 V6 that was belted and tested

Would you prefer if we all said they are great, the belt issue isn't an issue, neither is the chocolate suspension and they give no trouble, the twinspark is fantastic and the valve train design is engineering brilliance.?

RobAMerc

As usual an Alfa thread on boards turns into a reliability thread - showing how few people here actually understand what it is they are looking for in a car anyway ! :rolleyes:

Having said that - being lucky enough to have driven many Alfas from many decades, few cars deliver the aural, sensory and visual pleasure of driving like an Alfa does. Alfa's inject a drama into driving in cars for the masses that was tends to be only the privilege of cars which cost multitudes of times more.

By the way - I'm not looking through rose tinted glasses ( which I must admit some modern Alfa owners do ) - some of the modern stuff has lost the edge and I've been on the classics section bitching about how sh1te the Alfa 33 was about an hour ago !

RobAMerc

RobAMerc wrote: »

As usual an Alfa thread on boards turns into a reliability thread - showing how few people here actually understand what it is they are looking for in a car anyway ! :rolleyes:........

It was asked why more folk don't drive them :rolleyes:

dgt

RoverJames wrote: »

They'll do 90k without a belt change though
Ever see a V6 Alfa belt change being done, to compare like with like, comparing a KV6 belt change to a 4 cylinder Alfa belt change is retarded. Also you'll get the KV6 sorted for grand, should be done every 90k or 6 years, the 4 cylinder Alfa is 36k miles or 3 years at €400/500. Cost wise it's much of a muchness. You can run a KV6 to 150k with a very decent chance of no belt failure occuring, try that in a Alfa.

Interesting how both of ye are blowing on about Rovers as I mentioned a few weaknessed about Alfas :rolleyes:

I didn't run down Rovers, I just said it was a miserable looking job and that some poor sod had to spend 2 days on that car. If I wanted to run them down I'd mention hydragas, the metro and k-series hg failures. Then again every manufacturer has their problems with certain things (rotten Alfas and plastic water pump impellors for example)

As for a belt on a Busso V6? I'll be doing one soon I don't like the idea of 150k miles on the same belt, thats lunacy to me

dgt

dgt wrote: »

....... I don't like the idea of 150k miles on the same belt, thats lunacy to me

Well if you're used to doing them every 36k miles 90k would be lunacy to wouldn't it.

If it took anyone to do a KV6 belt change two days they didn't know what they were at really.

This thread had f all to do with Rovers, I don't see why either yourself or 166man brought them up. Well Id o see actually why they were brought up. Easier to discuss them than concede the Alfa valve train is fairly sh1t.

RobAMerc

166man wrote: »

I sometimes wonder why more people don't drive them.

RoverJames wrote: »

It was asked why more folk don't drive them :rolleyes:

Eh, no it wasn't.

Please don't drag this thread into another Alfa's are unreliable nonsense thread - if you don't get them, can you not just leave it ?

166man

RoverJames wrote: »

^^^

If you actually read my ppost properly you'll see one of the issues I mentioned was that in many cases the belts didn't even last 36k miles due to the plastic tensioner. There is the balance belt too on the V6, it's a crappily designed timing train. If a belt is prone to failing at 36k miles that's a sh1t design, many Alfa heads won't run there car over 25k miles as they don't want to risk that. In fairness most actual Alfa enthusiasts would have some mechanical know how and can accept that the valve timing train is quite poor design wise and also exaserbated by plastic tensioners. You mention 3 to 4 years for a belt change, it's 36k or 3 years, Alfa initially had them down for 76k miles but pulled that back due to the number that were failing.

No doubt handling is one of the best things about it, it's still not class leading, they're a fair bit off a mark3 Mondeo which is in their class. I don't need to own one to know that and to voice my opinion on here. A 145 has never been mentioned as one of the best handling fwd cars, not even mentioned.

You asked why more people don't own them, I offered a response, you then go on about €500 / every 3 years for a belt change being fine (which wasn't my point) and suggest I own one before slagging them off.

You also throw in a comment about never hearing any good stories about reliability of Rovers, considering you have gleamed your motoring knowledge from HonestJohn I'm not surprised. Applying your logic own one before offering your opinion on them

Don't ask a question unless you want answers.

Yes the belt is 36k OR 3 years. Last time the belt was done on mine I think it was 2005 2006?Car bought in 2002 with 37k on clock and belt done. Will be doing it again over the next few months so for me €500 over the last 5-6 years isn't bad at all seeing as nothing else has really ever gone wrong with it.
I also never said it was a good design either just repair it on time and there shouldn't be any issues. If all I have to do is pay roughly 500 quid every 4 years whenever I do 36k to do the belt, other then fuel,servicing and tyres that's not costing very much in maintenance is it?

However to know what makes Alfa's special it really helps to own one or be driving one on a regular basis not just having driven one a few times a couple of years ago.

It's true I have never heard any good stories about reliable Rovers, so what don't get so defensive about it like.

''considering you have gleamed your motoring knowledge from HonestJohn I'm not surprised.''

What?:rolleyes:

166man

166man wrote: »

.................... If all I have to do is pay roughly 500 quid every 4 years whenever I do 36k to do the belt, other then fuel,servicing and tyres that's not costing very much in maintenance is it?.............

I'm going to repeat this once more my point was they often do not get to the 36k interval without the belt/tensioner failing. Hence why people won't driver them. To know that Rovers can be perfectly reliable to helps if you actaully have owned one.

RobAMerc wrote: »

Eh, no it wasn't.

Please don't drag this thread into another Alfa's are unreliable nonsense thread - if you don't get them, can you not just leave it ?

Report my posts if you don't like them

RobAMerc

RoverJames wrote: »

Report my posts if you don't like them

No - I think leaving the evidence of the drivel you come out with will help more people learn to ignore you, carry on.

RobAMerc

RobAMerc wrote: »

No - I think leaving the evidence of the drivel you come out with will help more people learn to ignore you, carry on.

I suppose you reckon Alfas don't snap belts either.

Give one example of the drivel?

Trying to sell a rare and exclusive car (320d tourer) for more than what it was worth and going off deleting the add when folks mentioned it was overpriced, for example Now that was drivel.

dgt

RoverJames wrote: »

I'm going to repeat this once more my point was they often do not get to the 36k interval without the belt/tensioner failing. Hence why people won't driver them. To know that Rovers can be perfectly reliable to helps if you actaully have owned one.

Same for Fiats and Alfas but you don't hear too many with the balls to stand up and admit that they can deliver faultless service with basic maintenance

166man

RoverJames wrote: »

I'm going to repeat this once more my point was they often do not get to the 36k interval without the belt/tensioner failing. Hence why people won't driver them. To know that Rovers can be perfectly reliable to helps if you actaully have owned one.



Report my posts if you don't like them

You really love to stir up a nice debate don't you? I never said that the belt tensioners were strong or whatever I agree they were crap so you can stop repeating yourself now.

It's interesting you say I blow on about Rovers, when I believe I said one sentence if you had read my post properly.

The 2.5V6 won't handle as well as the four cylinders anyway due to the heavy V6 engine under it's nose, the 2.0 TS would probably be better, too unreliable for you though I'd say..

As for the gleaming knowledge quote in my previous post, could you explain if it's not too much trouble?

Lex Luthor

this is 1 reason...when they look this good..!!!

EPM

If the handbags could be dropped it would be great.

Feel free to take it to PM or something.

Thumper Long

Lex Luthor wrote: »

this is 1 reason...when they look this good..!!!

Love those wheels, have only ever seen them on the Blackline, were they stock or aftermarket, I'm assuming its your motor?

Veloce

Thumper Long wrote: »

Love those wheels, have only ever seen them on the Blackline, were they stock or aftermarket, I'm assuming its your motor?

I have those wheels on mine, 18's. They come as standard with the 2007 Blackline model (UK) or Monza as what its called here in Ireland.

Thumper Long

Veloce wrote: »

I have those wheels on mine, 18's. They come as standard with the 2007 Blackline model (UK) or Monza as what its called here in Ireland.

they look fantastic, a far nicer wheel I think that the double spoke design on the Q2 Cloverleaf GT.

Veloce

Thumper Long wrote: »

they lok fantastic, a far nicer wheel I think that the double spoke design on the Q2 Cloverleaf GT.

I agree. Don't like the double spoke design- looks like an aftermarket alloy bought in halfords. Would kill for a cloverleaf though!

Thumper Long

Veloce wrote: »

I agree. Don't like the double spoke design- looks like an aftermarket alloy bought in halfords. Would kill for a cloverleaf though!

Yes in atlantico blue!

ShadowHearth

RobAMerc wrote: »

As usual an Alfa thread on boards turns into a reliability thread - showing how few people here actually understand what it is they are looking for in a car anyway ! :rolleyes:

Having said that - being lucky enough to have driven many Alfas from many decades, few cars deliver the aural, sensory and visual pleasure of driving like an Alfa does. Alfa's inject a drama into driving in cars for the masses that was tends to be only the privilege of cars which cost multitudes of times more.

By the way - I'm not looking through rose tinted glasses ( which I must admit some modern Alfa owners do ) - some of the modern stuff has lost the edge and I've been on the classics section bitching about how sh1te the Alfa 33 was about an hour ago !

"alfa injects drama in to driving" when unexpectingly steering wheel comes off!!!

Sorry could not ressist

Lex Luthor

Thumper Long wrote: »

Love those wheels, have only ever seen them on the Blackline, were they stock or aftermarket, I'm assuming its your motor?

they were stock...it was a Monza spec GT. Used to be my motor...:(

I actually think they are the nicest wheels Alfa has stuck on their cars ever...dont know how many people I met who commented on them and wished they came on their cars

as for the interior...absolute PORN...!!!