Alfa 156

[Justin]

Ok then, just to start things off, does it count as being worthy of description as a performance car? I don't think so, because its FWD and too many girls drive them. Is it a BMW 318i competitor (ie a lifestyle choice like a pair of Gucci shoes)?

[Ciaran]

OK Justin, I'm going to stick my head on the block on this one, so I'd have to disagree with you here :p. I haven't joined in many of the performance threads before, but I must on this one! To the likes of me, who has never driven a car with a bigger engine than a 1.4 75 BHP (well I did drive a Honda Prelude around a car park the night before my wedding, so you can imagine the state I was in, say nor more ;)). The 2 litre is a fine engine, over 140 BHP and a top speed around the 145 mark. This isn't bad now is it? Not exactly scorching hot, but it isn’t a tortoise either. To someone who's driven bigger engined cars, its perceived as being an ordinary car. It’s a pity that Alfa didn't make it in rear wheel drive though, it would have been a real 3 series beater then. It may not beat the 318 on handling, but its certainly much better value with standard equipment that are extras in the BMW. To be honest, IMO the 318 is simply an expensive 'status' badge, a higher status that some people cannot do without. Maybe the 156 is the poor(er) mans BMW, but that wouldn't stop me from buying one. For me, I'd rather have spec then status. In fact, I'm considering one for 2001. :cool:

------------------
Ciaran Moran.
ciaran@eForecourt.com

[Junior]

Ok here comes the stir it up bit .. anything other than the 2.5 V6 T Spark in the Alfa 156 is a piece of TOS i.m.h.o. Inflated egos with large spoilers and 1.8 Alfa a performance car do not make (Hmm Yoda wise one sense you do make)

Just one question Justin would you qualify your statement about FWD ?? Does this mean you would rate a Twin Cam over a Golf Gti or
even a 205 Gti ..

I spend my time driving in and out of Waterford and theres a nice few Alfas around, and I admit they are nice and well tasty (I'm thinking of the smaller Alfa for my next "new car" purchase) but as far as performance goes I really don't think so .. it maybe just the drivers ..

Cheers
Junior

P.S. Welcome to the fold Justin ;)

[Phil]

Hold on a minute boys, I have a Honda Prelude 2.2i. I thinking of changing my car to Alfa 156 2.0, not because of performance ( there is'nt any :D ) but because of the comfort factor and the chic factor.

The kind of women that you pull with a honda prelude are not the kind of girls you'd bring back to you mother ( if you know what i mean ;) )...

Anyway if any one was watching Top Gear last night, they said you'd have to give the Alfa 156 a hugh face lift to get any power into the damn thing. It just not worth the expense..

Hold on, why am I selling my lovely honda prelude... :confused:

[PaulKanters]

This argument is too good to let it pass without stirring it up even more.
Being in the Classic Car business I just fail to see why somebody would fork out 20 to 25G for a new car, desperately trying to become part of the "performance league". The number of bespoilered Alfa's, Subaru's and BMW's are proof that too many people would just love to have a performance car, but just can't afford to own one. However, they are still forking out the best of 20 grand to park their bottoms in a 318 or 1.8 Alfa, just to look like they own a fast performance car. Defies logic in my book.

That why I love Classic Cars, because for around 20 thousand pounds you could be the proud owner of a REAL performance car, like a Ferrari 308GT4, Porsche 911, a Jaguar E type, Jensen Intercepter (how does a 7 litre V8 sound to you!?!), BMW CSi Coupe. Or if you want to be even wilder, an AC Cobra Replica, Alfa Romeo Montreal, Lamborgini Espada, and the list goes on and on.

Once you've checked out the possibilities of owning real performance cars, I am sure you wouldn't ever want to consider buying a new car again!

And wait for the best news, once you've grown tired of that Ferrari in your driveway, you can sell it for probably the same amount of money as you bought it for, possibly even more!! Now how's that for value for money ;)


------------------
Paul Kanters
Nothing beats Classic Motoring! welcome.to/classiccarsireland (http://welcome.to/classiccarsireland)
--------------------

[Phil]

All sounds great Paul. But I can hear my Insurance company rubbing their hands together as I tell them that I want to drive a 7 litre car.

I must phone them up now and give them a laugh for the weekend.

[Justin]

Front wheel drive over 200bhp = stupid and dangerous steering problems under acceleration in my experience. Under 200bhp, you get imprecision and the feeling that the wheels are too busy seering to deliver the power consistently. A good performance car is one which shines in that once or twice a year moment which you remember out of the dross of everyday driving when the car just makes you grin uncontrollably. Like the time last year when I drove around a certain roundabout in south Dublin at 50mph (no other cars were there, there were no pedestrians within sight and I had a clear view of every place a pedestrian or car could have emerged from) without braking, allowing the limited slip differential on my (then) Subaru Impreza Turbo push or pull the car into line automatically as first the rear and then the front lost grip, just to annoy and terrify my uncle who has a 4.0 V8 Jag who had just said he didn't think much of Japanese cars.

A very good RWD car could also have done this, a FWD car could never, never have done this. There are very few FWD performance cars for this reason, with the obvious exception of one of my favourites, the Honda Prelude 2.2 VTec with 4ws.

As for the Alfa, I don't like the sound of the V6 in the 2.5 (heresy I know) and the others don't count. They are stylish, of course, but that isn't it. A very good saloon, but not a performance car.

As for an old car, well really I don't want to have to open the bonnet and dry anything at 7.15 in the morning and I can do without picking up my exhaust on the way from the shops and I LIKE ABS brakes, fuel injection and other modern safety and comfort features. By all means I would have an old Ferarri or E-Type as a short hop weekend posing alternative to my daily car. Otherwise, if I can only have one car, give me a Toyota Carina over a 1969 E-type anyday!!

[Justin]

OK, that was a little bit of a sweeping generalisation, I have to admit :o, and I had forgotten about the Jensen, with the first 4wd and all the gadgets anyone could want, but I think the Jensen is not a little ugly and it is, you must admit, fearsomely complicated. Like most classic cars, it would make an excellent second car, but would you really go on holidays to France in it? And many classic cars come without ABS, with drum brakes, narrow little tyres, no preparation at all for a crash and doubtful reliability. My uncle (he of the 4.0 litre Jag) also had a pristine 1967 MGB with lovingly restored BRG leather piped red to match the paintwork. I hated it. It drove and sounded like a tractor, was as slow as a normal car towing a caravan, had NO roadholding at all, handled as if the steering impulses were being beamed to the wheels with no physical conection at all and bounced along hard enough to lose filings. And this one had had a lot of money spent on it to buy original parts and restore it. To top it all off, it would start only occasionally and not in the wet!

OK, maybe I wouldn't take a Carina over an E-type, but give me a Carina over that MG anyday.

[PaulKanters]

I'm glad you narrowed it down a bit there Justin :), and although I would still not take a Carina even it was given to me, I do actually aggree with you on the MG B's.

It's funny that when people think of a Classic Car they always seem to come up with an MG B, which I think is silly, as these cars are hopelessy underpowered and overpriced. Because everybody still loves the MG's, prices are inflated and everybody is constantly watering down how they really handle and drive. The only interesting MG B is the V8!!
For the money of an ordinary MG B, you can find lots of other more practical and exiting Classics. BMW 2002tii, Fiat 124 Spider, Alfa Romeo 2000GTV or spider, or Porsche 911 (Yes, for the money you pay for an excellent MG B Roadster, you can park yourself in a 911 lefthooker!!) I know what I would go for!

But in the end I must admit, that although a lot of Classics are very practical for everyday use, they will need more servicing than some modern day cars with service intervals of apprimately 25,000 miles!!. However, well cared for, Classic are every bit as reliable as other cars, because the problem is usually not the car but the way the owner looks after it.


------------------
Paul Kanters
Nothing beats Classic Motoring! welcome.to/classiccarsireland (http://welcome.to/classiccarsireland)
--------------------

[Anders]

Is the idea of classic cars that they exude some sort of sophisticated image or something?

[PaulKanters]

"...if I can only have one car, give me a Toyota Carina over a 1969 E-type anyday!!"

You must be joking!!!

You say you are fond of your ABS and 4wd gimmicks and your creature comforts? How about the Jenssen Interceptor FF from 1969 which has a fuel injected 7 litre V8 under the bonnet (American, for that extra reliability), 4 WHEEL DRIVE and ANTI LOCK BRAKING !!! (And you thought this was something Subaru invented...)
It has AIRCO, Leather interior, Walnut dash, electric windows, electric you name it. More creature comforts that you can find in any of the modern hatches.

Oh, and by the way, since it is a Classic Car you only pay 27 pounds road tax a year on your 7 litres, and you can go for a Classic Insurance scheme. So they won't be laughing at you at all!! It's you who'll be doing all the laughing ;)

------------------
Paul Kanters
Nothing beats Classic Motoring! welcome.to/classiccarsireland (http://welcome.to/classiccarsireland)
--------------------

[This message has been edited by PaulKanters (edited 01 April 2000).]

[Justin]

I would even have doubts about an old 911. That is a car whose design has taken 30 years to get right, and then only by effectively becoming a different car. The older 911 is absolutely deadly in the hands of the inexperienced, the unskilled, the uncommitted and the unlucky. And an old 911 doesn't even have abs or decent sized tyres to try and help you aout of the fundamental weight over rear and lots of power lift off oversteer all the time problem caused by just being wrong - a bumblebee in engineering terms. It is likely to be more reliable than other classics (75% of Porsches ever bulit are still on the road) but I could never trust it, either to be reliable or to be safe. The 911 gets the classic car balance slightly differently to other, it is more likely to be reliable but even less likely to be safe.

Sorry Paul, when the current 911 is a classic, I'll definitely buy one. I just know one person who did a pole vault in a 911 and I know of another person who was killed in one (admittedly a few years ago) and I'm not a good enough driver to chance one of the unpredictable beasts that old 911's are.

As for the others you mention, yes they are nice, and if I could pick one up cheaply as a second car and if I had an extra garage I might consider one. I might even do so anyway, but it won't be as my main car. Just as a matter of interest, can you give me some idea of proces for the better classics? Also, is it possible to insure one as a second car without being fleeced?

Justin

ps welcome Anders

[This message has been edited by Justin (edited 02 April 2000).]

[PaulKanters]

Anders, choosing a car is like choosing a partner really, isn't it? And with all things, tastes differ! There are people that choose a car for their driving abilities, other for sheer speed, other for Style and Class. I feel that a Classic can offer you the best combination of all. It can have class and style, it can offer you an excellent driving experience and even sheer speed without having to spend enormous amounts of money on a modern day Motorway Rocket. It think the best argument to prove the fact that nothing beats the design and styling of classic cars is that the only succesful modern day cars are RetroStyled to look like Classics. Think the new BMW roadster, the Jag S type and the Alfa 156. For my money, I would rather drive the originals, but, as in all things Tastes differ, and I am sure that isn't a bad thing at all :)

Justin to come back to your point about the 911, with respect, I am afraid that I am getting a bit fed up with age old argument of the 911's supposedly lethal on the limit handling.

"The older 911 is absolutely deadly in the hands of the inexperienced, the unskilled, the uncommitted and the unlucky. "

I am very sorry, but I fail to see why this should only be pointed towards the old 911, as if the car is at fault!!!!
Put the same guy in a brand spanking new Porsche, Ferarri, Mercedes, Subaru or other ABS, ETC, etc, etc, laden car, and let him go wild. In a few days time, I am sure you would be able to pick up the pieces, because the person would have wrapped himself around a tree trunk.

With any fast car, new or old, you need driving skills and COMMON SENSE!! No matter how many safety gadgets are stuffed into your car, there is a limit to everything, and if you are NOT trained or do have the skills to deal with the consequences, you shouldn't have been so stupid to take it so far. The limits of modern day cars lie MUCH higher, but if you reach those limit and cross them, even the best of skills will not be able to pull you of them. It is downright unfair to blame the car for the errors the driver made or the lack of experience.

------------------
Paul Kanters
Nothing beats Classic Motoring! welcome.to/classiccarsireland (http://welcome.to/classiccarsireland)
--------------------

[PaulKanters]

Forgot to mention Justin, that if you own a Classic as your 2nd car, insurance is very cheap, as most insurers can put you on a limited mileage, aggreed value insurance scheme. Shouldn't break the bank. That combined with a 27 pounds annual road tax, there is no excuse why NOT to go for one.

And if it is driving experience you are after, forget all these traction control, abs gadgets, because what is it they always do in Top Gear when they are putting a car that has these options throught its paces.....


....you're right, they switch them OFF!!!! ;)

------------------
Paul Kanters
Nothing beats Classic Motoring! welcome.to/classiccarsireland (http://welcome.to/classiccarsireland)
--------------------

[WhipLash]

I must say I agree with Paul on the safety aspect. No matter how many safety extras a car has, whether it be traction control, ABS, EBD blah blah etc, if it's in the wrong hands it will be lethal, whether it be a Ford Fiesta, a 4x4, or a performance car. All it takes is one nut behind the wheel to undo all these electronic gizmos. I don't think there's ever been a car built that's has a 100% guarantee against crashing!

As regards why people have classic cars, IMO its because these cars would have been the Scooby's, Evo's, Porches, Diablo's etc of their era, and are still very desirable today. What makes them even more interesting for the Irish motorist is the many financial benefits of buying a Classic - cheap road tax, cheap insurance, no (or very little) VRT, no National Car Test, and I'm sure there's even more. I would seriously consider one if I had the room to keep it within a garage and if/when I do have the room, I'll seriously consider owning a classic. I could certainly see myself motoring in a V6/V8 open top classic that's been waxed to the hilt, there wouldn't be one head that wasn't turned. Now doesn't that sound cool. :cool:

[Anders]

My main argument against old cars, classic or otherwise, is that technology moves on. Modern cars are much faster, much safer, and usually much better to drive. Some if not most performance cars have admittedly gone soft in recent years to make them more driveable in normal circumstances, more of a GT feel, but I for one don't care how my car behaves on a track.

[WhipLash]

But Anders, can't you see the whole point of Classic Cars? ENJOYMENT! :) IMHO, one doesn't drive a classic day in day out, and they don’t have to be performance cars either. There’re usually stored away safely from the elements during normal working days. They should be tentatively cared for, be clean, waxed and polished to the hilt, then taken out for a weekend, shown off and enjoyed. Whether it be an open top cruiser or a fuel guzzling V8, the enjoyment factor :) is what it’s all about. It’s certainly better then driving a 1.4 Opel Astra or whatever is the normal bog standard family car is these days. And dare I say it, but it’s probably even better then driving a bog standard 156 or BMW! ;) And the main benefit is that all this motoring fun is relatively cheap compared to the excessive expense of everyday motoring, thanks to the liks of Carol Nash and co.

[PaulKanters]

Yes Anders, technology moves on but I don't neccessarily think that the likes of ABS, ETC and other electronic advances to save fuel and correct Driver errors etc, are actually a great improvement on the driving experience. Personally I think they flatten the experience by making it less involved and more bland. Yeah sure you can pull away a few seconds faster and your topspeed is now 190mph, but who in earth is ever going to be able to try this out anyway, and I don't think that is what it is all about, isn't it?
Why is it for example that in the Porsche world, the 73 Carerra RS is still considered to be the most involving car to drive of all the porsches, and is giving the best driver satisfaction. Also it seems that a car doesn't particularly have to have an enormous engine and a top speed of 200mph+ to give a great driving experience. The Lotus Elan is an example, small nimble and a cracker to drive through the twisty bits.
For me a Classic Car is a car that scores well on all elements that have to with the driving experience! Some people put their focus on different elements, but bottom line is that it should give you Driving satisfaction. Elements that would be important to me are: performance, roadholding, design(class&charm) and comfort.
Finally, tastes differ, and that is more where I would see the difference in what people like or not like, but I wouldn't all put it down to the fact that Classic Cars are outdated or past their sell by date.
In my mind, if a 1992 Honda NSX satifies all that you are looking for with regards to driving experience, I would call that car a Classic Car!

------------------
Paul Kanters
Nothing beats Classic Motoring! welcome.to/classiccarsireland (http://welcome.to/classiccarsireland)
--------------------

[Justin]

I accept all you say about enjoyment etc., but older cars are not as safe as newer equivalent cars in passive terms. That is indisputable. Also, older cars tend to have lower roadholding/braking tolerances than newer equivalent cars. That also is indisputable. It follows that the level of stupidity/carelessness/recklessness/or inattention required to kill yourself or someone else in an older car as opposed to a newer equivalent must be lower. Also, your chance of walking away from a serious shunt in (say) a 1973 911 as opposed to a 1998 911 are much lower. Look at the steering boss on classic sports cars of the 1960's, they often have a spike in the middle poised to skewer you in a crash.

As for the 911 itself, I wouldn't ever buy a 911 before the '89 Carerra 4 (not
Carerra 2). I just don't know how you can defend the handling of previous 911's in safety (as opposed to enjoyment) terms.

[BeCos]

And to think this started as an Alfa 156 thread and ended up as a discusion about classic cars!,...need I say more.....well yes actually.

I think the 2.5V624v 156 IS a performance car and a classic.It's not an Impreza turbo, but it has a beautiful engine note strong mid range acceleration, its luxurious, good looking and handles excellently. It is also 10-15 grand cheaper than a 323Ci 2.5!. It will also be my next car!

As far as front wheel drive vs rear wheel drive I could write reams about tyre slip angle vector graphs on front and rear wheel wheel drive cars,but I wont. The fact is that unless you consistently drive at over 85% of the cars ability front wheel drive is better,as in more grip/control and more driver friendly. Very good race drivers have the ability to drive to a cars limits but the average driver on a race track wont get near 80%, and on a road ,no matter how reckless one drives you are only at about 70%. Still some people just prefer the way they feel power delivery to the rear, instead of a degree of torque steer from the front. With modern well set up front WD torque steer is virtually non existent (I said virtually) and with various other aids the ability to power slide a rear WD car out of a bend is not evident unless you have well over 200BHP. I would prefer a V6 156 over a 318Ci which couldn't power slide anyway. If I want to power slide I'll buy a Mk2 RS2000 or a 3dr Cosworth.

Driving a Classic Car as a daily driver does present problems to somebody doing city driving or high mileages. We simply have been weaned on to more comfortable cars over the last 20 years. Compare a Kadett C to an Astra,a Mk1 Escort to a Focus etc etc.The romantic dream of driving a Classic regularly can come true if one is realistic in their expectations, and chooses the right car for the job. But half of the enjoyment is polishing/waxing etc. and then going for a nice drive over a road that suits the cars character well, not just trying to extract all its horsepower whenever possible.

Classics make sense to the sensible and FWD vs RWD wont have many converts from one camp to another.....ever!

Sorry about the length of this rant!!