Bmw vs Alfa..........honestly

Cleveland Hot Pocket

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

He's dead right though so ammm........whisht! :P

Right so is that why I am not allowed in the BMW clan so? Because of the divil fuel in mine?
Makes sense now..

MetzgerMeister

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Right so is that why I am not allowed in the BMW clan so? Because of the divil fuel in mine?
Makes sense now..

Got it in one

Yourself and Ybfeckless can start your own group!

Cleveland Hot Pocket

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

Got it in one

Yourself and Ybfeckless can start your own group!

Way ahead of ya.
Now just to convince Toasted Pickles that he needs a daysul e39....

Anyway, I'm fine in the "associated others" group :P

challengemaster

pred racer wrote: »

1. Did you consider the other, or any other marque when deciding what to buy?
2. Would you buy and drive the other marque out of choice.
3. If a Bmw/alfa was not available, what would you buy?

I'm just gonna put this out there - I think all alfas are ugly as sin, and often wonder just how blind some people are when they speak of alfas being good looking cars.

That aside, I'm well aware of a thing called personal opinion and each to their own.

So to answer 1 and 2: Not a hope in hell. Even if I was paid.

3. Necessity for me when buying was diesel due to milage, but went for an e46 because I've always liked them in general. I think they're one of the nicer BMWs. If BMW wasn't an option, realistically applying the same criteria it would probably be.... I've no idea. Probably an Audi.

As long as I've a choice, I couldn't bring myself to drive something as bland looking as... all the other usual brands (pertaining to usual diesels in Ireland - I don't mean Aston Martin and Pagani loike!).

Rowley Birkin QC

Currently driving an E46 MSport Coupé.

It was my present to myself having finished college and landed a decent job about 2 years ago. I looked at 156 TI's, 1.8T A4's, Saab 93's and E46 Coup's. Went with the BMW simply because there was so much more spec on offer for the equivalent amount of cash. The Audis were boring as sin, I still can't figure out why I was looking at Saabs and the Alfas felt cheap and tired inside.

RWD was also a deciding factor. The rare time that the back end steps out puts a massive smile on my face and pushing the car through bends feels completely different to anything I've owned before.

Will I ever drive anything other than a BMW? I'm not sure but I intend to keep this car indefinitely as it's pretty much fully depreciated. There appears to be a shortage of M-Sport petrol E92's. The A5 is a beautiful car but I really struggle to get excited about VAG cars. My CEO just bought a Brera and while it's a beautiful car, I can't see myself driving one.

bear1

challengemaster wrote: »

I'm just gonna put this out there - I think all alfas are ugly as sin, and often wonder just how blind some people are when they speak of alfas being good looking cars.

That aside, I'm well aware of a thing called personal opinion and each to their own.

So to answer 1 and 2: Not a hope in hell. Even if I was paid.

3. Necessity for me when buying was diesel due to milage, but went for an e46 because I've always liked them in general. I think they're one of the nicer BMWs. If BMW wasn't an option, realistically applying the same criteria it would probably be.... I've no idea. Probably an Audi.

As long as I've a choice, I couldn't bring myself to drive something as bland looking as... all the other usual brands (pertaining to usual diesels in Ireland - I don't mean Aston Martin and Pagani loike!).

Don't think I could disagree more with this statement but each to their own

Marty McFly

pred racer wrote: »

1. Did you consider the other, or any other marque when deciding what to buy?
2. Would you buy and drive the other marque out of choice.
3. If a Bmw/alfa was not available, what would you buy?

1. Yes looked long and hard at the Lexus GS300 and IS250 and Honda's Legend to thirsty and ugly Accord not enough power, had a look at Alfa's but to be honest I think there mostly fugly did give the 3.2 Brera some thought as engine wise it fit into what I was looking at it but every time I saw the arse on it automatically went fcuk no, Audi's had a look but meh also engines tended to be diesel or 2.0 litre petrol then 4.2 petrol with not much in between. Mazda 6 MPS was also looked at but looks were starting to age badly for me.

2. Not really not of the current Alfa there is nothing I really like or that appeals to me.


3. Plenty really.

challengemaster

Marty McFly wrote: »

Mazda 6 MPS was also looked at but looks were starting to age badly for me.

I don't think the 6 MPS has aged badly tbh, although, I do think it ages the owner badly :pac:

Poor MM couldn't pull anyone under 50 until he shifted it!

CianRyan

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Right so is that why I am not allowed in the BMW clan so? Because of the divil fuel in mine?
Makes sense now..

I'll gladly have a go, you take my little toy car out and see what a real engine feels like.
Half the power but double the usable rev range. :pac:

Cleveland Hot Pocket

CianRyan wrote: »

I'll gladly have a go, you take my little toy car out and see what a real engine feels like.
Half the power but double the usable rev range. :pac:

Gladly.
So it revs to 10,000 so yeah?

MetzgerMeister

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Gladly.
So it revs to 10,000 so yeah?

A 6 speed RX8 does :P

Cleveland Hot Pocket

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

A 6 speed RX8 does :P

Yes but an mx5 from the 90's doesnt

Anan1

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Spoiler on the rear of an fwd car
Yeah... that makes sense !

It does, actually - even a FWD car can need more downforce at the rear. Although a rear spoiler is both useless and unsightly on a 156.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Anan1 wrote: »

It does, actually - even a FWD car can need more downforce at the rear. Although a rear spoiler is both useless and unsightly on a 156.

Interesting to hear the logic behind that one. I would have assumed that a spoiler on the rear of a FWD car was the same effect as snow chains on the front wheels of a RWD car.

Tea 1000

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Interesting to hear the logic behind that one. I would have assumed that a spoiler on the rear of a FWD car was the same effect as snow chains on the front wheels of a RWD car.

The logic is simple. Stability for the rear of the car at high speeds is useful for cornering etc.
It's not for traction. Even in formula 1 the downforce isn't for traction, it's for grip and cornering speeds.
FWD cars can also lose the rear if you drive them a certain way.
But regardless, spoilers on family saloons are useless and just for show, regardless of the driven wheels.

dgt

Having had some fwd cars break away at the rear while cornering I can say under some applications they're needed

But to me a spoiler on a saloon car looks naff...

Anan1

dgt wrote: »

Having had some fwd cars break away at the rear while cornering I can say under some applications they're needed

+1, older Peugeots could break away quite viciously at the rear, the 205GTI being an good example.

Tea 1000

Anan1 wrote: »

+1, older Peugeots could break away quite viciously at the rear, the 205GTI being an good example.

Would a spoiler have helped? They'd break at the rear at relatively low speeds.

dgt

Anan1 wrote: »

+1, older Peugeots could break away quite viciously at the rear, the 205GTI being an good example.

My current 406 has broken away round some corners. Mostly at roundabouts at lowish speeds, all the weight at the front and greasy roads are the cause of that . Not nice when it happens!

Anan1

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Would a spoiler have helped? They'd break at the rear at relatively low speeds.

I honestly don't know enough about aerodynamics to even guess, but maybe not. A small lip spoiler at the rear helped the MK1 Audi TT with rear end breakaway, but that was a completely different shape and AFAIK the problem was only at very high speed.

Anan1

dgt wrote: »

My current 406 has broken away round some corners. Mostly at roundabouts at lowish speeds, all the weight at the front and greasy roads are the cause of that . Not nice when it happens!

Mine did that too. Plus I think theres' something about the 406 suspension that encourages one to carry way too much speed into corners!

pred racer

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Interesting to hear the logic behind that one. I would have assumed that a spoiler on the rear of a FWD car was the same effect as snow chains on the front wheels of a RWD car.

So the F1 designers are at nothing with those front wings, and the guy who designed the front bumper/floorpan of your car wasted his time?
Downforce creates grip due to there being more pressure on the contact patch, one of the benifits of this is traction if the pressure is on the driven wheels.
Fwd cars dont have to be set up to understeer (my car doesnt, the back steps out first) and can benefit from more rear end grip in high speed corners.

And Btw when you use snow chains they are supposed to be on all 4 wheels:p

I think spoilers on the 156 look deadly but as Scortho said each to their own.

RobAMerc

Anan1 wrote: »

+1, older Peugeots could break away quite viciously at the rear, the 205GTI being an good example.

Wasn't this because of their tendency to cock the inside rear in hard cornering.
Still - you have to be travelling at a fair clip for a rear spoiler to produce enough downforce to be effective, well above what anyone would do on an Irish road.

pred racer

dgt wrote: »

My current 406 has broken away round some corners. Mostly at roundabouts at lowish speeds, all the weight at the front and greasy roads are the cause of that . Not nice when it happens!

It will do 'lift off' oversteer on bends at higher speeds too;)

corktina

1. Did you consider the other, or any other marque when deciding what to buy? Ford for me.

2. Would you buy and drive the other marque out of choice. see 1 above

3. If a Bmw/alfa was not available, what would you buy? if not a Ford I'd walk

Did I mention Ford at all?

(only joshing , both or either would be a consideration if Ford was banned.)

dgt

pred racer wrote: »

It will do 'lift off' oversteer on bends at higher speeds too;)

I certainly don't want to find out that the hard way! :eek:

AlfaZen

I went from a 147 to a 316ti to a GT JTDm in the last 6 years.

The GT is the car I have kept the longest. Coming up on 3 years now.

147 -
Good: comfortable, sweet engine note, looks
Bad: lamda sensors kept breaking, water pump went after going over speed bump.

316ti
Good: solid build, msport interior, fun in the snow
Bad: slow, compact looks,

GT
Good: looks, low end power, Bose MP3, seats, 45mpg+
Bad: squeaks and rattles,

What I would like next is a car that looks like an Alfa but is build by zee Germans!

Having said that next car is probably going to be a Mondeo Titanium x.

pred racer

corktina wrote: »

1. Did you consider the other, or any other marque when deciding what to buy? Ford for me.

2. Would you buy and drive the other marque out of choice. see 1 above

3. If a Bmw/alfa was not available, what would you buy? if not a Ford I'd walk

Did I mention Ford at all?

(only joshing , both or either would be a consideration if Ford was banned.)

Fanboi much?
You should have been at the meet, SG was all alone in the bad parking ford corner!

dgt wrote: »

I certainly don't want to find out that the hard way! :eek:

I did, nearly **** myself :eek: But if you experiment you can do it without the brown trousers:cool:

YbFocus

Sounds like a few boys suffering from lack of rwd

Supergurrier

pred racer wrote: »

Fanboi much?
You should have been at the meet, SG was all alone in the bad parking ford corner!

Blue paint for everyone.

Yay

pred racer

Supergurrier wrote: »

Blue paint for everyone.

Yay

Some would say that mine could do with a bit exta paint

Some would also say that your bad parking was due to an alfa being in the way!



(I, of course couldnt possibly comment):pac:

Cleveland Hot Pocket

pred racer wrote: »

So the F1 designers are at nothing with those front wings, and the guy who designed the front bumper/floorpan of your car wasted his time?
Downforce creates grip due to there being more pressure on the contact patch, one of the benifits of this is traction if the pressure is on the driven wheels.
Fwd cars dont have to be set up to understeer (my car doesnt, the back steps out first) and can benefit from more rear end grip in high speed corners.

And Btw when you use snow chains they are supposed to be on all 4 wheels:p

I think spoilers on the 156 look deadly but as Scortho said each to their own.

As I said, I was unsure as to why - thanks to this thread for clarifying.

I always assumed that rear spoilers were for downforce. Sure otherwise it is just extra drag. I know that the front spoilers on my car increase/alter air flow for better aero. I just didnt (and still don't fully) see how a rear wing over non-driven wheels can do anything other than cause drag though.

WRT to the snow chains, I was making reference to a photo here last snow of a BMW driver with two snow chains on the front wheels.

MetzgerMeister

The wind doesn't know whether or not it's pushing down on the driven wheels. Even on a FWD car, a functional spoiler is going to help with keeping the car pushed towards the ground.

Anan1

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

As I said, I was unsure as to why - thanks to this thread for clarifying.

I always assumed that rear spoilers were for downforce. Sure otherwise it is just extra drag. I know that the front spoilers on my car increase/alter air flow for better aero. I just didnt (and still don't fully) see how a rear wing over non-driven wheels can do anything other than cause drag though.

You're mainly right, rear spoilers do cause drag and are (theoretically) for downforce. Thing is, even a non-driven axle can need extra downforce to stop it from sliding sideways when cornering.

challengemaster

Lads.... I hate to break it to ye, but the downforce from spoilers doesn't actually exist till about 70-90mph, and it tends to be on the higher side of that.

It might change your opinion slightly on how useful they are :P

In fact, Top gear proved it at one stage - by driving an F1 car around, and they didn't have the skills to push it fast enough to generate enough downforce, so it handled terrible

Anan1

challengemaster wrote: »

Lads.... I hate to break it to ye, but the downforce from spoilers doesn't actually exist till about 70-90mph, and it tends to be on the higher side of that.

It might change your opinion slightly on how useful they are :P

At which time drag is starting to be a major factor too. And the weight is always with you!

pred racer

challengemaster wrote: »

Lads.... I hate to break it to ye, but the downforce from spoilers doesn't actually exist till about 70-90mph, and it tends to be on the higher side of that.

It might change your opinion slightly on how useful they are :P

In fact, Top gear proved it at one stage - by driving an F1 car around, and they didn't have the skills to push it fast enough to generate enough downforce, so it handled terrible

Just explaining how they worked, never said they were any good for a road use!

Tea 1000

challengemaster wrote: »

Lads.... I hate to break it to ye, but the downforce from spoilers doesn't actually exist till about 70-90mph, and it tends to be on the higher side of that.

It might change your opinion slightly on how useful they are :P

In fact, Top gear proved it at one stage - by driving an F1 car around, and they didn't have the skills to push it fast enough to generate enough downforce, so it handled terrible

F1 aerodynamics would be designed for even higher speeds again.
Basically it's an upside down aerofoil. You would need to change the profile of the foil if you wanted it to be used for lower speeds. But in turn it would be no good at higher speeds.
So if you wanted one that would be effective at 50mph you could design one that way, but it would have massive drag and lose a lot of it's aerodynamic properties at higher speeds.
Think of it like an aircraft wing. If you have a plane that is designed for heavy lifting and travels rather slowly, the thickness of the wing is far higher (for generating lots of lift at low speeds) than the wing of a jet fighter, which generates feck all lift at low speeds, it needs to go quick.
An F1 wing is like that, it would do no good on a single seater Formula Sheane or something like that.
Regarding the driven wheels, downforce is needed mainly for lateral grip when cornering, not for traction in a straight line. So all 4 wheels in a car need grip when cornering, regardless of FWD, RWD or AWD!

sportloto86

Was looking for many other makes but bought alfa 159 for looks and bells and whistles which were not available on other cars. Safety factors were also important and alfa won again.
Like the comfort on a long drives but it will never match my E34 (even without all extras) which I miss dearly.
Had many different makes before - japs, zee jermanz, italians but would like to try some french maybe.
Getting tired of people saying that alfas break down. Tired of others telling me that rear wheel drive is killer in the winter. Or that you can't kill engine in Toyota.
Had only 1 repair on 159 in 2 years - RPM sensor which cost me around 70 euro including job.
Never had trouble and mostly had fun driving old sierras, mercs or my E34 in snow, sleet or all other conditions. Was the only one getting up the hills or pulling stranded souls out of ditches when all fwd's or rwd's stood abandoned in the snow (even used it as a snow plow to clear parking lot for my customers).
My mate had to replace 5 y.o. engine on Toyota Verso as faulty water pump killed it.
So.
Looks - matter of taste.
Some can drive a pile of steaming poo and be better than others in fancy all wheel AI guided rockets.
Cars break down from time to time.

Fiona

sportloto86 wrote: »

Some can drive a pile of steaming poo and be better than others in fancy all wheel AI guided rockets.

Pretty much sums it up. I detest my Corolla, it's so bland, it has horrible road handling, it overheats if you drive it over 120kph.

But at the same time I love it, you can throw any abuse at it and she still just starts up every single time.

I was a total car snob when I got my first BMW and said that's it never driving anything ever again but then reality and costs and needs set in and your thinking totally changes

I am kinda enjoying trying out new cars, not liking when they break down on me but it's interesting all the same learning loads.

pred racer

It does sum it up, my Dad told me when I started driving "its not what ya drive its how you drive it"

And advice from my Dad is rarer than rocking horse ****e;)

pcardin

pred racer wrote: »

1. Did you consider the other, or any other marque when deciding what to buy?

I did but always end up with either Lancia, Alfa, BMW or Mercedes. Stopped buying Lancia because Kappa was the last decent one for me. Stopped buying Alfa Romeo because 166 got stolen and I'm still waiting for that damn 169 to show up one day. Italians are promissing, time to time feeding us with some prototypes but nothing real made so far. I want that CLS but Irish motor tax..ha ha. So I drive my e36 convertible for more than 2 years now and absolutely love it.

pred racer wrote: »

2. Would you buy and drive the other marque out of choice.

I've tried many different makes/models, list is long altough Lancia/AlfaRomeo, BMW and Mercedes are the TOP 3 (by count). I would still rather preffer an old e34, e38 or Alfa Romeo 164, 166 or Lancia Kappa than most of the stuff you can buy these days.

pred racer wrote: »

3. If a Bmw/alfa was not available, what would you buy?

Mercedes. Alltought Mercedes anyway even Alfa/Bmw would still be available. I have just grown old enough for a Merc.
Funny or not but I would love to own a Citroen C6 - stunning machine.

bear1

You had a Lancia Kappa in Ireland?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancia_Kappa

This one we are talking about right?

dgt

bear1 wrote: »

You had a Lancia Kappa in Ireland?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancia_Kappa

This one we are talking about right?

I saw one years ago on Irl plates in Navan. LHD though

bear1

I've always quite liked them, they had the exact same engines as Alfas so that was another thing I liked and the interior I found to be quite nice.
Came very close to buying one last year in Italy (2.4 version) lovely car it was

pcardin

bear1 wrote: »

You had a Lancia Kappa in Ireland?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancia_Kappa

This one we are talking about right?

Yes. Had it here for around 4 years (7 years in total). Golden white (was more golden than white though). If you serch my older posts you will find a picture or two.

pcardin

bear1 wrote: »

I've always quite liked them, they had the exact same engines as Alfas so that was another thing I liked and the interior I found to be quite nice.
Came very close to buying one last year in Italy (2.4 version) lovely car it was

I loved Kappa and still do. Have purchased a Kappa Coupe some years ago but sadly it's still off the road (swiss plates, not registered anywhere). I found them exciting. Trouble free motoring. In 7 years I was driving mine nothing went wrong. Big, comfy and poferfull too. Engines are not quite the same as in Alfa Romeo. My 166 was 2.0 four cylinder Twin Spark. Kappa was 2.0 five cilinder 20v turbo. Sound from engine was awesome. All the toys and gadgets in a 1996 car. Alcantara leather. Oh, I miss my Kappa. Hopefully will get Coupe on road anytime soon.

H3llR4iser

1. Did you consider the other, or any other marque when deciding what to buy?

Frankly I tried, and I failed. I had the opportunity to try a lot of cars over the years and they all fall short somehow; Usually handling and road feeling are the sore spots, even for "premiums" such as Audi, mostly due to the excessively comfy ride they have.

Cars are amongst the very few things where I don't apply a strict "does it work?" policy; I like my car to be nice and possibly make it clear that I wouldn't just drive "anything", and I don't see it as "means to get from A to B".

2. Would you buy and drive the other marque out of choice.

Yes and no at the same time. Let me explain: I owned multiple Alfas but never a BMW; Notwithstanding that, I do appreciate the Bavarian cars - I have actually driven a couple of 3-Series on occasion and appreciate their dynamic characteristics. As a matter of fact, a BMW would be the only car other than an Alfa Romeo I'd be open to buy willingly.

Recently I was actually kind of set on getting a 320i. What stopped me? First of all, say what you want but they are as common as muck. Almost anybody with a bit of money wants a Beemer not for its handling or engines but because it's a BMW and as such it has the "cool and expensive" aura. In a way, they are the Apple of cars; This kind of makes them lose a lot of the "car enthusiast's car" and gain some of the "rich kid's toy" reputation in my eyes.

Then, there is the price on the second hand market. I understand they are sought after, but most of them simply shift for too much money in relation to what you get. Make no mistake, I'd pay with no problem for a good, well maintaned and cared for BMW; The fact is that more often than not you find absolutely knackered, basic-spec ones with a boatload of miles going for more than twice the price of a comparable Alfa - just because they sport a blue and white propeller on the hood.

Last the interiors on the 3-Series, especially where it comes to the front console and the dashboard, are those of a lower rank car. It simply looks like BMW didn't give a rat's arse when they designed them.

3. If a Bmw/alfa was not available, what would you buy?

All in all, I'd probably end up looking for something left of field, unappreciated and/or that almost nobody else drives.

bear1

pcardin wrote: »

I loved Kappa and still do. Have purchased a Kappa Coupe some years ago but sadly it's still off the road (swiss plates, not registered anywhere). I found them exciting. Trouble free motoring. In 7 years I was driving mine nothing went wrong. Big, comfy and poferfull too. Engines are not quite the same as in Alfa Romeo. My 166 was 2.0 four cylinder Twin Spark. Kappa was 2.0 five cilinder 20v turbo. Sound from engine was awesome. All the toys and gadgets in a 1996 car. Alcantara leather. Oh, I miss my Kappa. Hopefully will get Coupe on road anytime soon.

Any chance you could just pop a picture up so we can all take a look?

Tea 1000

H3llR4iser wrote: »

1. Did you consider the other, or any other marque when deciding what to buy?

Frankly I tried, and I failed. I had the opportunity to try a lot of cars over the years and they all fall short somehow; Usually handling and road feeling are the sore spots, even for "premiums" such as Audi, mostly due to the excessively comfy ride they have.

Cars are amongst the very few things where I don't apply a strict "does it work?" policy; I like my car to be nice and possibly make it clear that I wouldn't just drive "anything", and I don't see it as "means to get from A to B".

2. Would you buy and drive the other marque out of choice.

Yes and no at the same time. Let me explain: I owned multiple Alfas but never a BMW; Notwithstanding that, I do appreciate the Bavarian cars - I have actually driven a couple of 3-Series on occasion and appreciate their dynamic characteristics. As a matter of fact, a BMW would be the only car other than an Alfa Romeo I'd be open to buy willingly.

Recently I was actually kind of set on getting a 320i. What stopped me? First of all, say what you want but they are as common as muck. Almost anybody with a bit of money wants a Beemer not for its handling or engines but because it's a BMW and as such it has the "cool and expensive" aura. In a way, they are the Apple of cars; This kind of makes them lose a lot of the "car enthusiast's car" and gain some of the "rich kid's toy" reputation in my eyes.

Then, there is the price on the second hand market. I understand they are sought after, but most of them simply shift for too much money in relation to what you get. Make no mistake, I'd pay with no problem for a good, well maintaned and cared for BMW; The fact is that more often than not you find absolutely knackered, basic-spec ones with a boatload of miles going for more than twice the price of a comparable Alfa - just because they sport a blue and white propeller on the hood.

Last the interiors on the 3-Series, especially where it comes to the front console and the dashboard, are those of a lower rank car. It simply looks like BMW didn't give a rat's arse when they designed them.

3. If a Bmw/alfa was not available, what would you buy?

All in all, I'd probably end up looking for something left of field, unappreciated and/or that almost nobody else drives.

Actually I'd agree on the 3-series interiors. The F30 is the first 3-Series that I really like the interior. Vast improvement.