Alfa Romeo Forum banner

61 - 80 of 82 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
449 Posts
The gtv looks fine, sounds amazing but way underpowered.

come on.. a rover 220 Turbo would keep up with a gtv ffs lol
No it wouldn't. The 220T takes over 7 seconds to hit 60mph and after that a GTV V6 would say goodbye. That's considering the Rover engine lasts long enough to even compete! :lol:

But yeah, if you mean way underpowered to be a supercar, then you're right. Although for realistic money the 3.0 V6 can be N/A upgraded into a 3.8 monster. With an achievable 360+bhp it would be close.

What bothers me though is FWD. No FWD car can truly lay claim to being a supercar.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Storm, you've got me thinking now, a drag race between a GTV V6 and a Rover 220 Turbo, it would be a battle of which car dies first, the cambelt is the Hercules heel to the Alfa, the Head Gasket the Hercules heel to the Rover, :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,703 Posts
I agree with the TVR camp here,
I used to have one of the first 4.3 big valve ones it had around 270 hp and weighed 1035 kg it was absolutly bonkers and the only problem i had over 18 months of ownership was a broken ignition module ( around £100 from lucas) very cheap to buy an early 4.0 now and the 500s are not that expensive with 340hp:eek:

The HP figure is slightly misleading as it is the mega torque of the Rover/chevy V8 combined with the light weight that makes them so quick. When i had mine my mate had a 308 lightweight and my TVR would cream him on any occasion.

If you want real cupercar performance for mondeo money go for a Cerbera the TVR developed AJP flat plane V8 is very quick and sounds great, ( clarcson dragged one against the best supercars in the world in the early 90's and it creamed everything including the 911 turbo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,811 Posts
Storm, you've got me thinking now, a drag race between a GTV V6 and a Rover 220 Turbo, it would be a battle of which car dies first, the cambelt is the Hercules heel to the Alfa, the Head Gasket the Hercules heel to the Rover, :lol:
you mean "achilles heel" dont you;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
a masserati ghibli can be purchased quite cheap and is even more rare, but i have a TS and despite its many faults, it still turns heads and puts a smile on your face every time you drive it so i can only imagine the V6 is even better
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
No it wouldn't. The 220T takes over 7 seconds to hit 60mph and after that a GTV V6 would say goodbye. That's considering the Rover engine lasts long enough to even compete! :lol:

.
Wouldn't the Rover leave the road and go into "hello Mr Sheep" mode at the 1st bend trying to keep up with a GTV? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,811 Posts
and the 220T can do 60 in just over 6, 6.2. it was the later K series 1.8 vvc that replaced the turbo that was just over 7 sec to 60;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,033 Posts
Nothing I reckon. I will hereby admit I got my GTV not because I desperately wanted it, but there was no other 6 cylinder coupe/sports car under £10k (we're talking back in June 2004) that fitted the bill of being desirable, cool and good looking. I kind of got it by default. I was also considering a 1.8t Audi A3 (decided I didn't want a turbo engine style of delivery) and a Jag XK8 (bit pricey back then). Fast forward 5 years and there's still nothing of equal value I could swap it for.

Sort of begs the question: what do you trade up to after a V6 GTV? It's hard to find something with the sound, power and looks that's 'only' two, three or four times the value of a GTV...

I don't know if there is an obvious upgrade choice. I've known people to go from a V6 GTV to an M3, Elise, Maserati 3200 and 4200, 147GTA, XK8... I used to think a 350z would do it for me, then a 3200, but I do secretly desire a 3.2 Cayman...

Sorry Greg, I've gone a bit off topic! :p
For me the logical step is a maserati 4200, it's a v8 and NA powered, that is good for running costs hehe no turbos! If everything goes as planed i will have a 4200 in the future (and the same combo, blue and tan leather as in GTV)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,811 Posts
For me the logical step is a maserati 4200, it's a v8 and NA powered, that is good for running costs hehe no turbos! If everything goes as planed i will have a 4200 in the future (and the same combo, blue and tan leather as in GTV)
the 3200 looks better though, the rear lights are far better, and as there from £8k, bargin:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,033 Posts
I agree those bumerang lights are yummy, but i hate turbo power. And maser always had trouble with turbo in the past. I just love the sound of a v8 naturally aspirated engine, and it can be trashed around the clock.
Oh and there are some specialists that can fit 3200 rear lights to a 4200 :)
Prices for 4200 start at around 20000 and really good ones are 25000.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
449 Posts
and the 220T can do 60 in just over 6, 6.2. it was the later K series 1.8 vvc that replaced the turbo that was just over 7 sec to 60;)
Hmm, maybe you're right. I'm usually very good with car spec info. Although I don't claim to be an expert when it comes down to Rover. ;) With a bit of ingenuity I reckon I could get the 220T to 60mph even quicker. It would involve a boot full of lead and a certain cliff in Dover.

Veering back to the original post: what is a 'supercar'? I don't think we can label a car with it just because of top speed. If that were the case then certain BMWs and Mercedes would be supercars, even the aging Vauxhall Lotus Carlton (capable of 175+mph) would be in the mix. Nor can we accept acceleration as a factor; the Caterham 7 JPE and Ariel Atom can both keep up with a racing bike. Price doesn't really work either: there are kids driving bangers about that can do the 1/4 mile in under 10 seconds, and, as we know, a fast, older car can be bought for little money. Are any of these examples regarded as a supercar?

I think a supercar is something almost ridiculous, a paradoxical caricature designed by manufacturers to show what they can achieve. It's not any particular car as such, it's a word that symbolises creations of indulgence. A concept made available to the wealthy.

The GTV is none of the above.

Sorry, got a bit carried away there.....:lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,811 Posts
Hmm, maybe you're right. I'm usually very good with car spec info. Although I don't claim to be an expert when it comes down to Rover. ;) With a bit of ingenuity I reckon I could get the 220T to 60mph even quicker. It would involve a boot full of lead and a certain cliff in Dover.

Veering back to the original post: what is a 'supercar'? I don't think we can label a car with it just because of top speed. If that were the case then certain BMWs and Mercedes would be supercars, even the aging Vauxhall Lotus Carlton (capable of 175+mph) would be in the mix. Nor can we accept acceleration as a factor; the Caterham 7 JPE and Ariel Atom can both keep up with a racing bike. Price doesn't really work either: there are kids driving bangers about that can do the 1/4 mile in under 10 seconds, and, as we know, a fast, older car can be bought for little money. Are any of these examples regarded as a supercar?

I think a supercar is something almost ridiculous, a paradoxical caricature designed by manufacturers to show what they can achieve. It's not any particular car as such, it's a word that symbolises creations of indulgence. A concept made available to the wealthy.

The GTV is none of the above.

Sorry, got a bit carried away there.....:lol:
ahhh the lotus carlton, that was a super saloon:D

i want one:cry:

i remember when they were advertising it and said it was quicker than the 911 turbo at the time over a 1/4 mile.

prosche took this as slander, and promptly challanged vauxhall over this "silly claim"

off to the drag strip. 1-0 to the carlton:cheese:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
Lotus Carlton, that was a special saloon!

That Rover 220 was supposed to be a very quick car, but all the reviews of the time said the chassis couldn't handle all that power.

The turbos are the weak spot of the Maserati 3200, apparently they do fail and they cost a lot of money to fix. The rear exhaust silencers also cost silly money, there's rust problems too so that's why many just skip it and go for the 4200. 4200 with boomerangs... I like the sound of that!

As for the definition of a supercar, I think it has to be a full on, low-slung sports car, not a coupe or saloon, look amazing, be rare and of course cost so much only the few can afford it. Oh, and have a huge top speed!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,084 Posts
its a supercar to me till I can get something like this:-http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/02/the-minotaur-an/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,688 Posts
As for Maserati 3200s at £10k, I asked Adrian at AlfaAid about these, and he said they are fantastic cars, dangerous, and they can have annual bills of £10k... There endeth my interest in the 3200!
I don't own a 3200 but I'm also sure there are massively different opinions and costs depending on how the car is cared for (and was cared for) and how it's used. Don't believe everything you hear.

After reading all this I wish I had bought a V6 Spider now :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,047 Posts
The GTV is a super special car produced by one of the oldest manufacturers of supercar's.

There are GTV’s out there capable of 300kn/h and doing the 0 to 100 in les than 5.5 seconds.

As for the old FWD RWD how many of you actually knew that FWD’s development was driven by race wins in the 30’s and not as a cheap alternative for easy production.
If the 3.0 and 3.2 Alfa’s were not FWD a lot of us would have been scraped from barrier’s next to the road.

Launce a 300whp rwd car with out traction control and see where it is going or want to go. Now do the same with a 300whp fwd and feel the difference.
Worst part is they will achieve the same ¼ mile time if fitted with similar rubber and close to the same weight.

We have proved it.
 
61 - 80 of 82 Posts
Top