[147GTADriver]

I'm not sure this should be here as it applies to Alfa in general really and also I'm no writer, numbers are what I'm good at, so don't expect much but I'm sorry if this offends anyone, it's how I see it though.

Anyway, after over four and half years of owning the GTA and modifying it to make it the car it should have been from the factory, I was enjoying an early morning drive down some of Essex's lovely roads with like minded petrolheads when something dawned on me, something that sadly I always knew but didn't want to admit except this time it was "in my face" it was that obvious!

You see, amongst the many cars involved in our tour of Essex was a certain GTV6, yes I do mean an Alfetta V6, that for the best part of 150 miles was pursuing me while making its presence felt in my mirrors. The car was being driven by someone who's probably even crazier than me, and a better driver too, about his cars so it has been modified a fair bit, but it was its first proper outing and yet despite being made three decades ago it was hanging on to me in a way it should have no right to and sounding even better than my beast. Now I knew this particular GTV6 was fast, in a straight line there's barely any difference between us despite my GTA being no slouch, but I really didn't think an Alfetta would be able to keep up so well on these twisty bendy roads.

I'm no driving God but over the years I've been fine tuning my car on these kind of roads, making changes where necessary, so it handles exactly the way I want it to and is miles away from the way a standard car would handle these roads, or rather struggle with, and this is why it was such an eye opener. When I upped the pace a little to see just how quick the Alfetta was I did manage to lose sight of it from my mirrors briefly but I doubt the owner was trying too hard, it wasn't a race. I'm also sure this Alfetta could leave many a GTA trailing in its dust on such roads.

My point is that the Alfetta was built even before I was born, yet it has the engine mounted longitudinally and the rear wheels having the power fed to them. After 30 years of "development" we got the 156 and then the 147 GTAs with a transverse engine and front wheel drive, is it really the case that the last of the best driver's cars Alfa made were the ones they made 30 odd years ago? What the hell went wrong and why did it go so wrong?

What worries me is this seems to be exactly what happened to another brand under the FIAT umbrella that we no longer hear of much, anyone remember Lancia? Ironically there was also the most lovely racing green Integrale on our tour of Essex with a tan leather interior.

It was a surreal experience, one that kind of really emphasised what Alfa were about before and one that really left me wondering that with the Busso V6 no longer being produced, with no replacement for the GTAs being produced since they stopped making them and possibly no future GTA in the pipeline, are we seeing the end of Alfa as we know it?

Now I suppose people can say the same about other manufacturers and the truth is there is so little out there that interests me that I wouldn't have to sell a kidney for anyway. The only modern cars I like that I could see myself buying are the M3 CSL, Lotus Exige and the TVR T350, none of which seem to be getting any cheaper to buy at the moment either.

Now If FIAT had let Alfa make the Diva......

 

[OperationAlfa]

Rear Wheel Drive - and if I know who was driving it I would also understand....

 

[147GTADriver]

Rear Wheel Drive - and if I know who was driving it I would also understand....

Yeah you know who was driving it, he decided to bring the GTV6 instead of the 164 for once!

Some pics below ((c) Matthew Poxon)

 

[ricky1750]

Ah, 147GTADriver, my friend... i see no reason why anyone should be offendend by your post...
I will confess you i had a very, very similar experience on a recent meeting in the Friuli mountains here in Italy, a meeting for "old ladies" and "young boys" , i.e. historical cars and cars in the closed lists of registers and omologated.
I was there with my 156 GTA while behind me an Alfetta GTV , a "mere" 1.8l bialbero was perfectly keeping up pace with my proud V6.
It was no race indeed, i would describe the run as "happily running faster than the average" (ehm.. at least the italian way ), but i guess you understand if i tell you my sort of surprise seeing the Alfetta perfectly keeping up the accelleration of the GTA in straights (i had no single doubt even before about the Alfetta cornering ability and grip).

Devolution? i would not say (completely) so... some of the oldies are a real pain to keep running (i would LOVE a Montreal, but the maintenance efforts completely puts me off)... you would probably change your mind about the old GTV6 after 7/8 hours of travelling or so... not to mention in case of a crash.

Yes, some things have evolved.. some have not... some perhaps are not even possible/allowed anymore..

Don't worry though, even with all the errors and bad things of the Fiat management, this is not something you see with Alfa only... ask a "real" Beemer about and old M3 and a new one, and see what comes out.
Or a Ferrarista about and F40 an a 599 (move out before strange things starts flying if two proper F40 and 599 owner start to talk each other ), or a 355 and a 430 (not a 458 it's a different story...)



BTW.. consider yourself lucky you hadn't there a Giulia Sprint GTA or a sibling GTA of the time... it would have knocked you off even more.. personal experience

 

[AYAT]

Both points are true, I think the main difference for me is Gta will be modified but eventually replaced, a classic gtv6 the one above looks beautiful btw if I was lucky and had the money to own one would never be sold as it's a true classic Alfa.

 

[Guest]

I had this conversation with my local dealership who have been around for 30 years, the owner and I have known each other since my first Lancia which was a Beta coupe. I not going to name all the italian stallions I've owned but lets just say I have had a fair few, all classics now.

My son asked me the other day what is the fastest car I've owned and I still maintain its the 'integrale', that car was nuts! the handling and performance was phenomenal and I believe they still hold the record as the quickest point to point car in the world, which is quite an accolade given the likes of the Celica GT4, Scubbies and Mitzies etc.

There are many points to consider here, firstly anyone can floor it in a straight line but negotiating corners/bends at speed takes alot on knowledge and driving talent. I have a good friend who used to rally the infamous Talbot Lotus Sunbeam and his driving skills were profound, he'd drive his then astra estate against people in expensive cars and out drive them on back roads purely because of his driving talent.

Secondly, performance cars of the past were'nt made with the environment in mind, they were built for one purpose 'speed and handling' whilst being liteweight.

Thirdly, cars of the past were also made using simple but effective technology, the down side being no ABS, traction control and other driver aids. But still this made the cars raw and exciting to drive! The Ferrari F40 had no power steering, ABS or Traction control but is still one of the best drivers cars around!
I remeber seeing somewhere a drag race between two old schools, Ferrari F40 and a McLaren F1 VS the modern Porsche Carrera GT, Pagani Zonda and something else that I can't remember but the point was this, the old school Ferrari and the McLaren gave the newbies a whooping. This is because they are lighter and were made with out restriction to their performance.

Manufacturers these days produce some magnificent engines but red tape means they effectively have to subdue what they can achieve in order to meet regulations set out by governing bodies

alfa have consigned the busso engine to the past as it doesn't meet the requirements set by todays regulations, it is increasingly hard for manufacturers to produce such engines that meet these guide lines.

The owner of the dealership believes alfa are leaving their routes behind and are becoming more obsessed with Technology and build quality. his opinion is that the 156 GTA is the last of the true alfa breed and subsequent cars are becoming more civilised.

But lets not forget cars of today are safer to drive

 

[Guest]

A stock 156 GTA should easily outdrag a stock GTV6 but through the twisties it will be a different story as McLaren says. The GTV6 transaxle layout gives close to 50/50 weight distribution IIRC, whereas the GTA has that huge lump up front. And of course the driver will make a huge difference as well. I've had a hot lap with an instructor in a stock 2.0 GT and that was way faster than I could ever manage (or would even dare) in the GTA! The GTAs are good cars but they are a compromise.

Both points are true, I think the main difference for me is Gta will be modified but eventually replaced, a classic gtv6 the one above looks beautiful btw if I was lucky and had the money to own one would never be sold as it's a true classic Alfa.

They aren't that expensive. Here's a pretty top class one for not that much at all:
Alex Jupe Motorsport | 1983 Alfa Romeo GTV6 3.5 for sale

Tempting. I've always wanted one.....

BTW, surely the 4C is true to the Alfa spirit? RWD, lightweight, stunning to look at? And late to production of course!

Cheers,

Nigel

 

[ricky1750]

They aren't that expensive. Here's a pretty top class one for not that much at all:
Alex Jupe Motorsport | 1983 Alfa Romeo GTV6 3.5 for sale

Tempting. I've always wanted one.....

Cheers,

Nigel

I was tempted too, before a friend got one, and I started seeing the amount of money you need to spend on it... well, maybe need is too strong... let's say "you end up spending on it)
you know the GTA don't you believe me, you're spending peanuts on it in comparison to the GTV6.
Of course it all depends on how much you use it and how much you care after it.

 

[Guest]

I was tempted too, before a friend got one, and I started seeing the amount of money you need to spend on it... well, maybe need is too strong... let's say "you end up spending on it)
you know the GTA don't you believe me, you're spending peanuts on it in comparison to the GTV6.
Of course it all depends on how much you use it and how much you care after it.

:lol: Know what you mean. Have you seen how much I have spent on the GTA though.....

 

[ricky1750]

:lol: Know what you mean. Have you seen how much I have spent on the GTA though.....

I've seen.. and i'm on your track... but how can you say "no" to the baby? :tut:

 

[Guest]

Hey Nigel,

Have you had any success in trying to arrange a GTA meet yet?

 

[Guest]

Hey Nigel,

Have you had any success in trying to arrange a GTA meet yet?

It's on the "to do" list.......

 

[ITAL2]

The integrale you mentioned is the Verde York edition, one of only 500 produced.

 

[In_The_Pass]

Modern cars have got larger and heavier due to safety and NVH. Costs and likely production runs mean platforms have to be shared. How much commonality underneath is there between the Alfetta, GTV, Giulietta and 75?

As others have said drivers make a big difference, Hamilton and Button, Prost and Senna.....

It's Clarkson's old mining town 166 eulogy? You're buying an engine, the body and wheels etc. are just ancilliaries?

It's also Clarkson's point about Jaguar a few years back when laying into them for their retro rehashes, saying that it's all very well making cars, but you won't be doing that for very long if people don't buy them. Their volumes and profitability means BMW can make things like £100K plus M3s and Audi can make their RS autobahn stormers? Plus they have the platforms inhouse to make such cars by tweaking the engines, suspension and brakes.

Perhaps there is a Chrysler chassis somewhere that be used to create something a bit special and a halo model that will also get the nod from purists, or such a development would get roundly slated just because it's Chrysler or American or not built here? The Integrale was developed from the Delta which was based on the Fiat Strada/Ritmo.


Plus are any brands really consistent when it comes to performance models? Even the brands with the most performance cachet bring out cars that aren't so good or fail to achieve as much despite using much same components as a predecessor does.

 

[147GTADriver]

Maybe I was being a little negative as manufacturers do have a right struggle meeting EU regulations and so on but I was also not comparing standard cars. Both have been modified a fair bit and are very different to drive compared to standard ones.

I've been in this particular GTV6 and I found it comfortable. I know the owner doesn't have a bottomless pit of cash to throw at it so it's not expensive to run. It does have a 3 litre V6 in it though so it is quick, there's no way a standard GTA would keep up with it even on the straights. Yes drivers make a difference but I'm not that slow and that is why I wrote what I did, that GTV6 is genuinely as quick as my GTA despite being a much older car.

I suppose coming from two wheels I see things differently, bikes have always got faster and lighter. Bike manufacturers seem to find new ways of squeezing out more power and "adding" lightness even though it's just not necessary. There's no way a bike that's thirty years old could keep up with one that's only ten, never going to happen.

As for the 4C, it's taken long enough to get to the stage it has considering it is just a rebadged Diva with a different engine. If it was normally aspirated then I would be tempted but I can't do forced induction. For me it's like having paddle shifts instead of a gear stick, it just doesn't give me the same driving pleasure. Also haven't FIAT already dropped the Abarth version?

 

[Guest]

As I said, a stock GTA should easily outdrag a stock GTV6 - quoted stats show that a 2.5 GTV6 has a power to weight of .132 bhp/kg, while a GTA is .177, and it has a lot more torque. But a modded GTV6 is going to be a different kettle of fish as they say, I have seen some pretty lairy ones (like Bill Smith's for example). Nevertheless, in terms of power to weight and torque the GTA is a big advance over the GTV6. I don't think the stock handling through twisties would be though. But I think the GTA is more of a sports saloon whereas the GTV6 is a more hardcore GT car.

Don't know what the GTV6 is like for long journeys by my Sud Sprint (which was a contemporary and had quite a similar style to the interior) was pretty uncomfortable on long journeys - I remember after driving to Cornwall on holiday the typically Italian driving position (long arms, offset pedal box) gave me backache. The GTA on the other hand is supremely comfortable.

But the GTA is a compromise car. It's a slightly tweaked 156 with a fantastic engine. If they had really made it an "A" it could have been awesome, but I think what the enthusiasts like us are doing is finding the real potential of the car. The GTV6 owners mod them a lot as well - IIRC the original gearbox is not that good and they are often replaced by one from a 75.

IMO the GTAs are definitely the most "Alfa" of the recent Alfas IMO (the GT runs it close though) until the 4C is out. And plans for an Abarth version have been dropped.

 

[Guest]

Agree with Nigel on this, standard GTA is going to out perform a standard GTV6. As soon as you mention the 'Modification' then you may aswell throw the rule book out the window. Nigel's 3.8 conversion may well on paper be a different story I'd have thought, but again it's a modified car so comparisons will be so much different.

Nigel, the 4C isn't a 4 seater is it? if I'm right then you can't really compare this to the true alfa ideology i.e 4 seater coupe, hatch and saloon. 2 seaters are a different breed in my opinion, that and I have never owned one.

 

[Guest]

Nigel, the 4C isn't a 4 seater is it? if I'm right then you can't really compare this to the true alfa ideology i.e 4 seater coupe, hatch and saloon. 2 seaters are a different breed in my opinion, that and I have never owned one.

True. The "classic" post war Alfas are 2+2 coupes, the 4C is a strict two seater, which previously was the realm of the Spider. I prefer a true coupe rather than a 2 seater, as I am more a gentleman tourer rather than a flies in the teeth 2 seater type. We will have to wait and see if there is a Giulia coupe but initial signs imply that will be a biggish beastie.

I've always viewed the 156 as the "modern" 105, and it's a unique cross between a saloon and a coupe.

Cheers,

Nigel

 

[Guest]

I hope the Giulia or the 157 as I've been reliably informed, is not as big as the 159. alfa replaced the 156 and 166 respective with the 159 which was an in between model.
As much as I love alfas for their innovation etc, they dont half **** me off with the lazy half arsed attitude. There i've said it and I'm not sorry, sometimes when a alfa bring out new models expectations are high, but soon enough you just feel they are somewhat left wanting in a few areas. Its like they could have produced a fantastic car and should've but somewhere it all went pear shaped, and this has kind of been where the FIAT group as a whole has suffered over the years.

I still luv'em though:lol:

 

[Guest]

I hope the Giulia or the 157 as I've been reliably informed, is not as big as the 159. alfa replaced the 156 and 166 respective with the 159 which was an in between model.
As much as I love alfas for their innovation etc, they dont half **** me off with the lazy half arsed attitude. There i've said it and I'm not sorry, sometimes when a alfa bring out new models expectations are high, but soon enough you just feel they are somewhat left wanting in a few areas. Its like they could have produced a fantastic car and should've but somewhere it all went pear shaped, and this has kind of been where the FIAT group as a whole has suffered over the years.

I still luv'em though:lol:

Agree - IMO the 159 was a real mistake. They should have carried on with a newer version of the 156. Look how successful BMW and others have been by sticking to a successful formula. They came up with a good car in the 159 but it fell between two segments and was thus compromised in terms of market appeal. I bought a 156 brand new in '99 because it was such a stunning car I just had to have one. When I came to replace it, the 159 just wasn't an attractive enough option for me, a dyed in the wool Alfista. But fortunately the 156 GTA has turned out to be a better replacement for me personally, but look at the opportunity Alfa lost to get more money from me.

I'm afraid the Giulia is going to be a biggish car. It's on the extended C-platform (so longer and wider than the Giulietta) and is being aimed at the US sedan market, so it's not going to be small.

Cheers,

Nigel