[Spider Aktiv]

The Bertone styled GT Veloce (any engine) fron around 1969 is in my opinion one the best looking and coolest Alfas of all time.

I was thinking what would be the closest modern equivalent? The rules are has to be rear wheel drive, powerful for the 4 cylinder engine, just about seats four passengers, 2 doors and a boot body style and has to be built by a company regarded as a desirable brand.

Thought of Mazda RX8, Merc CLC, Lotus Evora, but all break the rules, The closest I can get is the BMW 1 series coupe, or is there something closer in concept?

 

[Nev]

I don't understand the excercise.


Slavishly looking for a similar spec of
an old classic Alfa in a modern car does
not mean you'll end up with a car that
embodies the 1750's "spirit".
As shown by the turn up of the frankly vile
1-Series Coupe.



One I suggest would embody the spirit, although
now out of production, would be the Mazda MX3 1.8i V6.

 

[Pud237]

Good choice with the MX3 Nev, that was a cracking little car, handled well and sounded the business compared to everything else in its class.

 

[VeloceMitch]

The Bertone styled GT Veloce (any engine) fron around 1969 is in my opinion one the best looking and coolest Alfas of all time.

I was thinking what would be the closest modern equivalent? The rules are has to be rear wheel drive, powerful for the 4 cylinder engine, just about seats four passengers, 2 doors and a boot body style and has to be built by a company regarded as a desirable brand.

Thought of Mazda RX8, Merc CLC, Lotus Evora, but all break the rules, The closest I can get is the BMW 1 series coupe, or is there something closer in concept?

Odd that, I've got both a 1750GTV and a 1 series coupe

I'd say give or take the fact that one of them is somewhat challenged in the looks department, they are quite alike in concept. Mines got the 2.0 Diesel lump in it, which doesn't really compare with the Twincam in the 1750 but that's progress for you

You know it's quite interesting to compare too, though for this comparison I'm using my 2000GTV, which is a bit of cheat but...

Performance
Up to about 70 there's nothing in it, past that and the BM would pull away quickly. But if you drive the two back to back the Alfa feels quicker and throttle response is streets ahead.

Economy
Better not go there.....

Handling
The BM is probably one of the best handling cars around these days and it has forty years progress over the Alfa, but STILL the Alfa is more fun with it's LSD and delicate steering. To be fair though if I had to get from A to B quickest the BM would do it. (Bloody hope it should you might say too!)

Ride
Probably not much in it, you feel every little lump of gravel in the tarmac through the runflats on the BM, the 70 profile Tyres on the Alfa smooth all that out, but you really feel big lumps at the back when the live axle lifts and drops.

Space inside
There's plenty of space for two in the Alfa, but people are larger than they used to be in the sixties, so getting in the back is a challenge. The BM is fine for four, but when you park them next to each other it's half as big again so it damn well should be!.

Seat comfort and ergonomics and boring stuff like ventilation and sound systems.
Here's where the real differance in modern cars is, on a cold morning you just climb in the BM, switch the heated seat on, turn on the HRW and the demisters, set the Ipod on random and drive off. You would be half way there by the time you've got the fuel into the carbs on the Alfa and cleared the ice off the inside. Those lovely looking seats in the Mk1 1750 are less lovely when you've sat in for few hours too. The sports seats in the BM are the best I've ever had. There's no point in fitting a sound system in the Alfa, you would never here it over the wind noise or the intake roar (OK I've got no sound proofing and K&N's but....)

Still for a Car basicaly designed nearly fifty years ago, the Alfa 1750 GTV drives pretty damn good! and ..... well like you said is one of the best looking cars on the planet

Edit
crash protection..... BM great.... Alfa just dont...... OK!

 

[clubber]

I agree about the old GT Veloce, one of my dream cars, aiming to own one some day.

1-Series is a good modern equivalent and I cant really think of anything else.

This RWD rule is maybe the hardest here - because there arent many marques out there that make RWDs anymore. I can think of numerous coupes that would fit this criteria, they are just not RWD.

Its an older one, but E30 Beemer has similar concept, I think. E36 Coupe only just, as it was starting to be more of a premium coupe. E46 Coupe definitely not.

 

[clubber]

Also, the BMW IMO is the most likely the only marque to keep producing such concept, as back in the 60s and 70s Alfa and BMW were making very similar cars.

Actually BMW 2002 was in most ways designed according to Alfas concepts of car back then. Even CSi, also one of my favourite wanna-haves.

 

[Spider Aktiv]

I don't understand the excercise.


Slavishly looking for a similar spec of
an old classic Alfa in a modern car does
not mean you'll end up with a car that
embodies the 1750's "spirit".
As shown by the turn up of the frankly vile
1-Series Coupe.



One I suggest would embody the spirit, although
now out of production, would be the Mazda MX3 1.8i V6.

Sorry but I'm not Slavishly looking for similar, just regretting its not east to buy a modern RWD coupe of a certain size. There is only me and my wify and we have various 3 series coupes, Audi TT quattro, S14 Nissan 200SX and an MX3 V6 which was just OK but not RWD.

I was brought up on RWD Escorts and Cortinas and Capris and still hanker after RWD.

 

[Spider Aktiv]

Thanks for the comparison its intresting to hear. I'm wondering what the lengths of each are, I don't expect you to run out with a tape measure though, I'll have a mooch about. The BMW 1 series is not ugly enough for me to discount it (would look better with a lower roofline) but I can't see anyone calling it pretty unlike the Alfa, you're a lucky fella.

 

[harryf]

The 1750GTV was WAY more expensive in its time than any of the equivalents mooted. Remember the 1750GTV was the same money, near as dammit as an E type Jag. So on todays equivalent it would be about £50-60k.

And it's difficult now to think of a car with the same technical specification superiority (Alloy twin cam engine, 5 speed box (when even porsche still had a 4 speed), Limited slip diff, etc and a race winning pedigree) compared to contemporary cars. And of course it sold in limited numbers so you were guaranteed even more exclusivity.

So I would put the comparison much higher spec. M3 BMW, Porsche Cayman or lower end 911. Yes, Lotus evora.

Actually it is really difficult to come up with a good equivalent because none of the above is totally satisfactory.

 

[Nev]

Sorry but I'm not Slavishly looking for similar, just regretting its not east to buy a modern RWD coupe of a certain size. There is only me and my wify and we have various 3 series coupes, Audi TT quattro, S14 Nissan 200SX and an MX3 V6 which was just OK but not RWD.

I was brought up on RWD Escorts and Cortinas and Capris and still hanker after RWD.

A 4-cylinder RWD 2+2? That'll be a BMW then?
Not much else really?

So the MX3 was a bit rubbish due to it's FWD configuration?
I'd have said that, coupled with passive four-wheel
steering, made it a cracking, safe and extremely fun car in the
bends. I never put mine over a corniche so was pretty
happy with it. As was everyone who borrowed it.

 

[Scudetto]

Odd that, I've got both a 1750GTV and a 1 series coupe

I'd say give or take the fact that one of them is somewhat challenged in the looks department, they are quite alike in concept. Mines got the 2.0 Diesel lump in it, which doesn't really compare with the Twincam in the 1750 but that's progress for you

You know it's quite interesting to compare too, though for this comparison I'm using my 2000GTV, which is a bit of cheat but...

Performance
Up to about 70 there's nothing in it, past that and the BM would pull away quickly. But if you drive the two back to back the Alfa feels quicker and throttle response is streets ahead.

Economy
Better not go there.....

Handling
The BM is probably one of the best handling cars around these days and it has forty years progress over the Alfa, but STILL the Alfa is more fun with it's LSD and delicate steering. To be fair though if I had to get from A to B quickest the BM would do it. (Bloody hope it should you might say too!)

Ride
Probably not much in it, you feel every little lump of gravel in the tarmac through the runflats on the BM, the 70 profile Tyres on the Alfa smooth all that out, but you really feel big lumps at the back when the live axle lifts and drops.

Space inside
There's plenty of space for two in the Alfa, but people are larger than they used to be in the sixties, so getting in the back is a challenge. The BM is fine for four, but when you park them next to each other it's half as big again so it damn well should be!.

Seat comfort and ergonomics and boring stuff like ventilation and sound systems.
Here's where the real differance in modern cars is, on a cold morning you just climb in the BM, switch the heated seat on, turn on the HRW and the demisters, set the Ipod on random and drive off. You would be half way there by the time you've got the fuel into the carbs on the Alfa and cleared the ice off the inside. Those lovely looking seats in the Mk1 1750 are less lovely when you've sat in for few hours too. The sports seats in the BM are the best I've ever had. There's no point in fitting a sound system in the Alfa, you would never here it over the wind noise or the intake roar (OK I've got no sound proofing and K&N's but....)

Still for a Car basicaly designed nearly fifty years ago, the Alfa 1750 GTV drives pretty damn good! and ..... well like you said is one of the best looking cars on the planet

Edit
crash protection..... BM great.... Alfa just dont...... OK!

i don't have much to add re: the OP's question, but that's a really interesting comparison, VeloceMitch, and a great insight into how cars have progressed over time. Cheers for the summary! :thumbs:

 

[Spider Aktiv]

The 1750GTV was WAY more expensive in its time than any of the equivalents mooted. Remember the 1750GTV was the same money, near as dammit as an E type Jag. So on todays equivalent it would be about £50-60k.

And it's difficult now to think of a car with the same technical specification superiority (Alloy twin cam engine, 5 speed box (when even porsche still had a 4 speed), Limited slip diff, etc and a race winning pedigree) compared to contemporary cars. And of course it sold in limited numbers so you were guaranteed even more exclusivity.

So I would put the comparison much higher spec. M3 BMW, Porsche Cayman or lower end 911. Yes, Lotus evora.

Actually it is really difficult to come up with a good equivalent because none of the above is totally satisfactory.

Checked an old 1969 Daily express Motor show reveiw and you are bang on the money. Inc tax the Alfa was £2300 the E type £2600. Todays XKF is around £60K so by my dodgy calculation the Alfa would equate to £50K or 2x Brera's or 1x BMW M3, shame Alfa can't make a nominal 2+2 steel bodied 400bhp £50K 8C, not that I could afford one till the sills need replacing.

 

[VeloceMitch]

It's very true that in the UK the Alfa's were ridulously expensive, but there's a couple of things to consider.
The E Type was an absolute bargain, sold way too cheap and Jag never made any money on them. Other comparable cars to the Alfa were roughly the same cost, Scimeter GTE, Lotus Europe etc.
I think the tax situation heavily favoured UK built cars, Alfa's were not nearly as exclusive in Italy, though many more of them had the 1.3 engine for tax reasons.

I've not checked, but how much was a BMW 2002?, not much differant to the Alfa I think, and it is fair to compare a 2002 to a 3 series as equivelants.

In short I don't think the 1750GTV should be thought of in the same terms as an XK8, in those days that would be Jenson Interceptor, Ferrari, Masarati type stuff.

 

[Spider Aktiv]

It's very true that in the UK the Alfa's were ridulously expensive, but there's a couple of things to consider.
The E Type was an absolute bargain, sold way too cheap and Jag never made any money on them. Other comparable cars to the Alfa were roughly the same cost, Scimeter GTE, Lotus Europe etc.
I think the tax situation heavily favoured UK built cars, Alfa's were not nearly as exclusive in Italy, though many more of them had the 1.3 engine for tax reasons.

I've not checked, but how much was a BMW 2002?, not much differant to the Alfa I think, and it is fair to compare a 2002 to a 3 series as equivelants.

In short I don't think the 1750GTV should be thought of in the same terms as an XK8, in those days that would be Jenson Interceptor, Ferrari, Masarati type stuff.

From 1969 Daily Express motor show review (all inc tax)


BMW 2002 £1399
Lotus Europa £1667
Scimitar GTE £1797
Alfa 1750 £2300
Marcos £2350
TVR Tuscan £2364
Jag E type £2642
Jensen £5838
Ferrari Dino £6243
Maserati Ghibli £10,179

 

[VeloceMitch]

Got that wrong didn't I!.

Should have done some more research, but what i find odd is that I had been looking at a 1975 version of Car Magazines 'goood the bad and the ugly' In the 'interesting' section £3000 to £4000 there is listed;
Alfetta GT £3000.00
Lotus Europa £3360.00
Reliant GTE £3354.00
E Type £3750.00
So Either the Alfetta was pitched lower which I doubt or the prices of Alfa's dropped reletive to the others over a few years.

I'm right about the jump in price to the Jensons and Mazza's etc though.

 

[Spider Aktiv]

Got that wrong didn't I!.

Should have done some more research, but what i find odd is that I had been looking at a 1975 version of Car Magazines 'goood the bad and the ugly' In the 'interesting' section £3000 to £4000 there is listed;
Alfetta GT £3000.00
Lotus Europa £3360.00
Reliant GTE £3354.00
E Type £3750.00
So Either the Alfetta was pitched lower which I doubt or the prices of Alfa's dropped reletive to the others over a few years.

I'm right about the jump in price to the Jensons and Mazza's etc though.

Yeah the Ghibli inparticular was a lot of cash piched way higher. Funny how they have faired though, I saw a rough looking Jenson on Ebay £4000 with tax and test and a daily runner, where the Dino (pretty car) must be worth a bankers bonus.

Is it me or are the cars from the late 60's just better looking than their modern equivalents, its probably down to safty issues?

 

[harryf]

Yes you're right in my opinion. In the 60's styling was based on what looked good.

In subsequent years factors like bumper height legislation, rollover protection, crash protection, aerodynamics, crumple zones and a general trend to increasing size have all removed much of the prettiness from automotive styling.

But then I'd rather crash, or have my family in a modern car.