I think they liked it a lot didn't they ?
Main area where they deem it inferior to the Porsche and Lotus is in the engine dept which seems fair enough to me.
After reading the full review I do not understand why they've given it 4 1/2 stars. It's quite negative. And that's ok as long as it's factual and balanced.
It starts whit the remark that Alfa did not make anything exiting in the past three decades. Well did VW ? Car journos always
leave the impression that Alfa still competes, or has to compete with Ferrari.
Then there's the comparison with the Elise/Exige and the Cayman. The writer of the article seems to be shopping selectively between the good points of the two aforementioned in his comparison with the 4C. But in doing so he forgets to mention the negatives of the Elise/Exige and Cayman.
F.i. the 4C engine isn't bespoke enough when compared with the Caymans Boxer, and that it's also fitted in the Q. Well first of all it's made from alu instead of cast iron. And I can still remember the critisizm when the Lotus was introduced: it has a Toyota engine.No word on that though.
Then theres the fact that an Elise is a rather cramped car, not mentioned.
And then theres the price, yes the Cayman is a very accomplished car, but which Cayman ? The fancy specced out S probably, as tested in the Evo track car of the year, which means that here in the NL it's roughly 40.000 euros more expensive than the 4C.
But he didn't mention that.