Have you had a look here http://www.alfaowner.com/Forum/alfa-giulietta/233052-alfa-giulietta-test-drive-feedback.html

 

Cheers -will sit down with a nice cup of horlicks to wade through 13 pages!!

 

You're really paying for the 1750 engine on the QV, and to a lesser extent the suspension; the other bits -- all-be-they nice -- are sort of stuck-on.

The QV, to me, felt properly sorted; whereas the 14MA *Lusso* didn't -- very skittish, jittery, vague ride; but the 2.0JTDM Veloce feels a lot more like the QV than the 14MA Lusso.. Could be down to engine (weight), wheel sizes, but I reckon it is mostly to do with the different suspensions on the Lusso and Veloce (which has a, "sports suspension").

 

The QV, to me, felt properly sorted; whereas the 14MA *Lusso* didn't -- very skittish, jittery, vague ride; but the 2.0JTDM Veloce feels a lot more like the QV than the 14MA Lusso.. Could be down to engine (weight), wheel sizes, but I reckon it is mostly to do with the different suspensions on the Lusso and Veloce (which has a, "sports suspension").

I would have thought the QV and Veloces would if anything have been more skittish and jittery through having a harder suspension setting rather than the more compliant Lusso spec. I would though expect a vaguer ride in a softer sprung car - due to taller tyres and softer settings.

But we are already starting from a pretty high level of course!

 

Cloverleaf seems to carry a heavy premium for a second quicker to 60 and a lot worse mpg so I wondered if anyone in the know believes whether the QV is a longer jump worth taking.

I would have thought reducing the 0-60mph time from 7.8 to 6.8 seconds is quite a big performance advantage - probably works out to be 6 or so seconds from 0-100mph

 

Just read Octobers Car review - and the GBU section at the back. Both rate the 170MA as a better package - as I have read elsewhere as well - so yippee, I saved myself 6K!

 

When is the MA version of the 1750 coming? Will that be the GTA?

 

Most of the professional testers for the car mags rated the 170MA as the better all round package. QV is of course the halo model so you will always pay a premium price. We had same debate in the mito on 120 V 155 and decided the cash was better spent elsewhere. Firmly suggest you test drive both and see for yourself.

 

I haven't driven the Cloverleaf, and I'm not sure if there will be very many brought here, as Ireland's car tax regime would make it a very expensive proposition (it attracts four times the annual road-tax of the 170, for a start).

I'd like to see a 140 MulitAir replace the entry level petrol engine, and I've little doubt that we'll see this happen within the year - the 120 Turbo is being phased out: the FIAT Bravo is getting the MultiAir engine now, the Lancia Delta and Mito already have it, it's only a matter of time before Giulietta's entry model moves to MultiAir. When that happens, I'd seriously consider the lower power option. Right now, the 170 MultiAir has the sort of pickup and delivery you'd normally associate with a 200+bhp petrol engine, and that's way more that I need in an everyday car. A 135 CV unit with MultiAir would be ideal for me, I think.

 

I drove both of them at Alexanders Alfa Romeo as soon as they got them in.
It was a grey Lusso MA170 and a white 1.75QV.
In summary i must say that the MA engine has better transient response and less turbo lag and sounds much more like an Alfa compared to the TBI engine. What i didnt like is the flimsy feel of the gearbox and the backlash you get on the gear stick when you lift off.

The QV feels more planted, handles like a go cart and is very powerfull. I would say it didnt feel slower than the GTA.
The gearbox feel is pretty awsome too and you get the feel that the driveline is much more heavily duty.
It definately has more turbo lag than the MA and it sounds more boomy rather than alfa sporty.

Based on the overall driving experience i would chose again and again the QV. It is a proper sports car and it has the highest BMEP of any currnet production engine in teh world!!!!!

 

Isn't it the same gearbox?

Don't really think you should compare the QV with a Lusso/Veloce MA170. It is a different animal, nearly a quarter as expensive again. Bit like you cant compare a 147GTA with a 147 standard.

 

I've driven them both, but in completely different situations - the MA on the streets of Glasgow with a very quick blast on a busy motorway and the QV around the Knockhill race track.

The MA didn't feel as fast as I had expected after reading all the rave reviews but it was very composed and comfortable on the 16" rims. On the other hand the QV also felt composed and comfortable at speed and really well planted. I think it is worth the extra money and, given the following caveat, it would be the one to pick between the two.

I would, however, have to try them back to back in real-world conditions before I parted with my dosh.

 

It's the same gearbox in both. Too lazy to check the gear ratios, though, right now, so there may be a small difference there.

 

Im surprised, the feel was completely different on the 2 cars!
It might be due to difference to the clutch set then.

 

Final Drive ratios are different according to Carfolio.com

2.0 JTDm 3.42 (Top gear ratio 0.62)
170MA 3.83 (Top gear ratio 0.77)
1750TBi 3.58 (Top gear ratio 0.77)
1.6 JTDm 3.42 (Top gear ratio 0.62)
1.4 120 4.12 (Top gear ratio 0.77)

 

Hmm, pop the 1750 FD into a 170MA and yes you'd lose some top speed but gain a lot of acceleration - I'd need to work out the in gear speeds but I bet it might even be quicker in real work use than the QV - that would never do!.

When I bought a Sud sprint in 19083 it was in the midst of a petrol crisis (nothing new) and consequently came with a high FD to save fuel - so high that fifth was an overdrive and had no power at all. During the course of supercharging it I swapped it for a box from a 1350 sud which being lower powered had a lower FD but all other ratios the same. Acceleration was incredible though in those days with no electronics traction was abysmal.

 

no, I was wrong, see ukmike2008's post above: the final drive is different. All the boxes are from the same family though (FIAT PowerTrain C635), so the shift and gate should be very close.

 

Just because they compete at different price points doesn't mean they aren't competition for each other. Is the QV worth the extra £££ over the 170MA?

 

Yes, of course it is :lol:

 

I would argue that Veloce and Lusso are competitors - broadly similar performance, different trim levels to decide between. QV is a step up in power and performance at a considerable premium - I dont think Mrs and Mrs average will really be considering it as a viable alternative to the shopping car choice they will be making. Its a flagship model, sales will be a fraction of the mainstream (which I think will be 170MA Lusso) and its there to lure punters into the showroom.

None of which detracts from its qualities as a great car - just not - for most people - a real competitor to the others.

 

I believe they are direct competitors as I for one will need convincing that the QV stands head and shoulders above the 170MA before I pay the relatively high premium.
Gut instinct tells me that if MA technology finds its way into the the QV then myself and many others would be rushing to part with our hard-earned.
Then again if they brought the 159 into line with a MA engine I'd be rushing double quick!! Unlikely though I guess.

 

I think the two cars are aimed at different needs basically. From what I gather the MA is a more versatile drive than the CL. I know someone who has driven the CL quite a bit and even in N mode its a bit of a beasty...put it into D and it's undeniably fast. When you put foot down he described it as a genuine sphincter quivering experience and was convinced a tiny little bit of poo came out If you want to beat Golf GTI's off the line then this is the car for you. You won't get that with an MA ... it can be a relaxed cruiser and all out fun so its the range of abilities that I think the journalists and buyers have highlighted as an advantage over the 1.8TB character.

I thought I'd be a Cloverleaf buyer but as I learn more it seems as though the little Multiair may give me exactly what I need along with the latest engine technology to go with the tech of the car.

 

Sphincter quivering?! Well I usually only poo myself at the cost of the repair bills.....

If we put the poor old Turismo (which actually isnt so lowly spec wise) to one side Alfa must be intending the vast majority of sales to Mr and Mrs Average to be a Lusso. A few Veloces to the more adventurous but many fewer QV sales. The QV is there as an aspirational car to bookend the range - Turismo will get them through the doors on its low price then its a fairly easy choice between Lusso and Veloce, not too many optiosn to consider. Mr Average will cast a wishful look at the QV until his other half pulls him back to reality (in the interest of PCness, these roles may be reversed and may be performed by couples of the same sex).

Thing is, on Alfa Owners we are all enthusiasts - but this car is pitched to a much wider market than just traditional Alfisti, amongst us there is a tendency to think if Lusso is good, Veloce must automatically be better and therefore QV must be even better whereas actually they are just all different and aimed at slightly different people.

 

+1 :thumbs:

 

If it helps the undecided. I muled over and spent sleepless nights then went for the veloce MA 170 and found it a perfect blend of practical day to day traveling with a great fun side for someone with no room for a weekend car. After 18 months decided to replace but spec up with extras as could'nt see anything to compete for cost or all round function including the CL and to spec it up would leave you looking at a hole new set of competition. The CL is brutle but the MA 170 is brutle enough and practical with it. For me anyway. I have never felt wish I had the CL and if I had I would not have replaced with another MA 170

 

oh boy. Who started this one up again?

 

It's a good topic. I spent a whole day driving the two as I am sure many have before making a choice. Both are such good cars in their own way.

 

When we looked at buying our G we tested both and I must say that both were impressive and wonderful cars ....so what swung it to the QV ?? It was a number of things

First up was here in Oz the price difference (about $4000) is small – to spec-up the MA to QV levels it would actually cost more that the QV .....so in terms of value for money the QV wins hands down.

Secondly – this is primarily a family car so most of its time it just tootles around in N with D reserved for special occasions. In the QV the N function is more than acceptable – actually it is quite a lovely cruiser with enough oomph when needed, better than my current 156 TS. D in the QV is just nuts !!!. Whereas the MA in N felt way too detached, not much different than a rental Corolla TBH. In D it was very zingy and rorty just like an Italian car should be. The DNA switch made far more sense and was genuinely handy in the QV compared to the MA.

Finally I tend to keep my cars for a long time (have had my 156 for 12 years) so I wanted a car that I would have no regrets about. I would have had the nagging doubt that if I picked the MA I would forever be thinking that maybe the QV was a better choice – the other way around no such thoughts

 

Over here the price difference between MA 170 and QV is about 9000 euros (base model QV going now at about 42000 euros and similarly specced MA 170 at about 33000). I test drove the MA and decided to get the QV. There's no logic to it really.. the MA makes much more sense.

MA:
+ less expensive
+ better mpg
+ cheaper insurance
+ cheaper annual tax (over here anyway - I imagine it's the same over most of Europe?)
- N-mode is slightly disappointing

QV:
+ top end model
+ cool QV badging
+ N-mode is actually usable and D is reasonably fast
- crappy mpg
- more expensive insurance + tax

I've heard comments that the MA is more nimble due to lighter engine. I personally don't think it makes much difference, they are 4-cylinder turbos both anyway so it's not like a 4-cyl vs. V6 thing. And in any case the QV turns in very well.

Both cars look very nice and the 2nd tail pipe on the QV is not that much of a difference.

Why the QV then? For me the deciding factors were the more powerful engine, the "special" feeling that comes with the Quadrifoglio badges (it's silly, I know!) and the fact that it is the top of the line model currently. For day to day use, the MA is just as good - sitting at the traffic lights the start-stop functionality might be in fact nice to have ..

(It might sound like I regret getting the QV, absolutely not .. it's a very nice car )

 

As Sami says, for me the QV was just simply way too expensive compared to even a high-spec MA. I really needed the TCT so for me it came down to that really. I specced the MA with sports pack, premium pack, red leather, and red brakes, and still it came in €5000 below the basic QV.