Ferrari boss says sedan out of the question

[f6fhellcat13]

I coulda predicted this ;):

As long as Luca di Montezemolo is in charge at Ferrari, the Italian automaker will never build a sedan. That was the declaration di Montezemolo made at the Paris Motor show yesterday, following the debut of rival Lamborghini’s Estoque four-door.
While Porsche is prepping its Panamera sedan and Aston Martin is putting the finishing touches on its Rapide, Ferrari is steadfast in its opposition to such a strategy.
The company chairman made it clear he feels sister company Maserati covers the sedan segment sufficiently. This seems to echo a recent statement by Ferrari spokesperson Davide Kluzer that SUVs and sedans are something “we will never do.”
Di Montezemolo also noted the supercar maker would not build a vehicle with a V10. Instead, it will focus mostly on V8s, plus new fuel-efficient technologies like the Formula One Kinetic Energy Recovery System.
So there you have it, folks. The Lamborghini Estoque will remain the world’s most exotic sedan for the foreseeable future.
I hope they still do V12s. Maybe smaller diplacement like a 3.6 (One-and-a-half F1 V8s stuck together).

[70cuda88]

Im glad, because so far all the exotic sedans look ridiculous. None of them have impressed me so far. I mean, the car is a good car, but we already knew that before they made them because of the company. so mainly the focus was look and features right? well they failed miserably if you ask me.

[pimento]

612 type 4-seater 2-door is all the space you need in your exotic GT car. Having four doors is just being greedy.

[scottie300z]

I'm sorta wondering what role an exotic sedan will play for people. Because you could just buy a Bentley and get power, performance, and more luxury. You buy an exotic for other reasons. Of course people will still want it for it's badge and uniqueness but I don't see a reason for it to be a big long term success. I bet it's a short term niche thing that will most likely play itself out.

[Bleeding Heart]

Whoa... Ferrari can make GT car, Sportscars, Supercars, Hypercars, F1 cars, etc... Anything related to going fast... But, Why will they make a sedan???? It will seem out of place in the ferrari fleet...

[TehRacer]

Thank God!!! :D

[NicFromLA]

I coulda predicted this ;):

I hope they still do V12s. Maybe smaller diplacement like a 3.6 (One-and-a-half F1 V8s stuck together).

Its hard to stick a V8 and a V12 together. In a V8 the cylinders are at a 90 degree angle and on a V12 60 degrees (even though Ferrari uses a 65 degree angle).

Personally I'd love to see a twin turbo V12 in 3 litres (called the 250), 3.3 litres (called the 275) or even four litres (called the 330). That'd be sweet.

And of course, two doors only!

[JorisP]

Im glad, because so far all the exotic sedans look ridiculous. None of them have impressed me so far. I mean, the car is a good car, but we already knew that before they made them because of the company. so mainly the focus was look and features right? well they failed miserably if you ask me.


I do think you have to take a new look at the Monteverdi 375/4 sedan from the seventies. If that is ridiculous, I don't have it anymore. Furthermore, the wedge-shaped Lagonda designed by William Towns wasn't exactly a misser neither.

The current BMW 7-series, OTOH, is a designers' nightmare...

[henk4]

Luca pointed at the Maserati QP. It is a hard to beat design, and commercially successful (over 20,000 now), so why spend money on a competitor from the same house.

[Ferrer]

In other news this week, Hummer says it won't do a 4 door saloon either.

Its hard to stick a V8 and a V12 together. In a V8 the cylinders are at a 90 degree angle and on a V12 60 degrees (even though Ferrari uses a 65 degree angle).

Personally I'd love to see a twin turbo V12 in 3 litres (called the 250), 3.3 litres (called the 275) or even four litres (called the 330). That'd be sweet.

And of course, two doors only!
A turbocharger in a Ferrari would be somehow wrong.

(I know they've done several turbocharged cars in the past)

[clutch-monkey]

^ i disagree if it was a V8, but i do agree in that a V12 with turbo's would be...wierd (wrong?)

[Bleeding Heart]

Its hard to stick a V8 and a V12 together. In a V8 the cylinders are at a 90 degree angle and on a V12 60 degrees (even though Ferrari uses a 65 degree angle).

Personally I'd love to see a twin turbo V12 in 3 litres (called the 250), 3.3 litres (called the 275) or even four litres (called the 330). That'd be sweet.

And of course, two doors only!

a twin-turbo V8 is not that wierd and not that wrong for ferrari

But a twin-turbo V12 is something wrong... What they will have is a car with too much power and too much torque...

It could easily reach 1000-1300 bhp... (The most powerful naturally-aspirated engine found in the Ferrari FXX Evoluzione has 860 bhp)

Even if they will limit the engine to less than 1000 bhp... They will still have too much torque, about 1000Nm or even more... Yeah, i know the top speed will be awesome, it may even hold the record for the fastest production car but we have to remember it needs to go around corners. It would have problems in handling because of too much torque spinning the wheels too much...

Just watch the video in top gear when they have reviewed the brabus S biturbo roadster...

YouTube - Top Gear - Brabus S Bi-Turbo Roadster (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhS88AkRaDM)

[Wouter Melissen]

Even if they will limit the engine to less than 1000 bhp... They will still have too much torque, about 1000Nm or even more... Yeah, i know the top speed will be awesome, it may even hold the record for the fastest production car but we have to remember it needs to go around corners. It would have problems in handling...[/url]

What does horsepower have to do with handling?

[Bleeding Heart]

What does horsepower have to do with handling?

I'm sorry... but i'm afraid you have not understood me that much...

I wasn't saying about too much horsepower affecting handling... My point there is about too much TORQUE

Too much torque will spin the wheels so much that its nearly impossible to control the car...

Now do you understand my point... I'm sorry if my english is not that good...

If you want... You could watch the video on the link that i've given for you to understand me more...

[NSXType-R]

Lets see how long they last until they cannot resist joining the trend. :D

[fpv_gtho]

a twin-turbo V8 is not that wierd and not that wrong for ferrari

But a twin-turbo V12 is something wrong... What they will have is a car with too much power and too much torque...

It could easily reach 1000-1300 bhp... (The most powerful naturally-aspirated engine found in the Ferrari FXX Evoluzione has 860 bhp)

Even if they will limit the engine to less than 1000 bhp... They will still have too much torque, about 1000Nm or even more... Yeah, i know the top speed will be awesome, it may even hold the record for the fastest production car but we have to remember it needs to go around corners. It would have problems in handling because of too much torque spinning the wheels too much...

You need to talk displacement before you try and establish whether it will have too much power/torque to put down. Cylinder configuration and aspiration type are irrelevant without displacement established.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I coulda predicted this ;):

I hope they still do V12s. Maybe smaller diplacement like a 3.6 (One-and-a-half F1 V8s stuck together).

bore and stroke are so different from a road going car, even a super cars, that's simply impossible. that's why all F1 engines, when applied to road cars, are usually doubled in displacement.
high performance petrol engine of the lasr gen usually employ a stroke/bore ratio of about 0.8 like the V8 M3, while a F1 V8 has a ratio of 0.4. standard cars has a ratio betqeen 1 and 1.2, just for the record.
road cars achieved a so low figure mainly thanks to direct injection, but tight now they can't move forward enlarging the bore because of the evolution of the combustion in the cylinder. DiesOtto and HCCI engines could help in that but not at the level of a F1 car. F1 engines are something very very different from a road going one, AFAIK there isn't another kind of (car) engine so different from what we usually drive every day.

The problem of having too much torque or power never stopped anyone. MB simply limits the torque in order to save the gearbox and the clutch. Bugatti already uses more than 1000 bhp (the actual figure is about 1060 bhp) and you can drive the Veyron as a huge and heavy gt everyday without any problem. If the problem would be the RWD vs AWD system, well Ferrari already tested successfully an AWD system that should be used on the next 612 and 599, but there are no plans on using it on the next supercar. in any case the (damn) electronic should help to manage the power as it did last years in F1 or GT cars. obviously, you need to take into account the displacement as FPV pointed out.
You can consider the old EB110 as an example, V12 quad-turbo but just a 3,5 liter of displacement. so "only" 610 bhp...


the EB110 has a stroke/bore of 0.7 even being an supercar and having two turbos for each bank and 5 valves per cylinder.

[Kitdy]

Ferrari is going to use an AWD system? I wonder if it's something that the consumer will want in a Ferrari.

Someone mentioned that the Quattroporte sells well, but would it have been wiser to make a Ferrari sedan in the first place to capatilise on the Ferrari name?

As distasteful as a Ferrari sedan or SUV is with the enthusiast crowd, I think it could potentially be a huge cash cow.

[cmcpokey]

cash cow yes, butferrari is very protective of the image of the ferrari automobile. an awd woudl be suprising to me, unless it was the best awd system in the world. the QP is what you woudl get in a ferrari sedan, and i think that has been a big part of the marketing. everybody that buys one knows it has a ferrari v8 in the nose. so its a ferrari without the prancing horse.

[NicFromLA]

^ i disagree if it was a V8, but i do agree in that a V12 with turbo's would be...wierd (wrong?)

My point is that twin (or even sequential) turbos on Ferrari's V12 would allow them to keep the V12 and create and engine that is immensely powerful but at the same time light weight and fuel efficient. And the best part is you can bring back the 250, 275 or 330 names!

[Ferrer]

Ferrari is going to use an AWD system? I wonder if it's something that the consumer will want in a Ferrari.

Someone mentioned that the Quattroporte sells well, but would it have been wiser to make a Ferrari sedan in the first place to capatilise on the Ferrari name?

As distasteful as a Ferrari sedan or SUV is with the enthusiast crowd, I think it could potentially be a huge cash cow.
But that would affect negatively Maserati's sales. Which is something Ferrari doesn't want.

At the same time they protect their image.

[Bleeding Heart]

You need to talk displacement before you try and establish whether it will have too much power/torque to put down. Cylinder configuration and aspiration type are irrelevant without displacement established.

Yeah, i know i forgot about the displacement of the engine but most modern ferraris have V12 displacing 6.0 liters to 6.3 liters... That's why I put the Ferrari FXX there as an example...

[LeonOfTheDead]

Ferrari is going to use an AWD system? I wonder if it's something that the consumer will want in a Ferrari.

Someone mentioned that the Quattroporte sells well, but would it have been wiser to make a Ferrari sedan in the first place to capatilise on the Ferrari name?

As distasteful as a Ferrari sedan or SUV is with the enthusiast crowd, I think it could potentially be a huge cash cow.

AFAIK, it isn't a ground braking system, but up to now they just tested the system (maybe Haldex, but I just can't remember, could be wrong), they didn't tune it since the new 612 still doesn't exist so it would be a little poitless. btw, the next V12 series (both next 612 and next 599) will be based on the California platform, which still AFAIK will handle very well, they were really happy with it.
expect the next 612 in about a year and a half, sort of.

for as regards the sedan, the Quattroporte name exists since almost 40 years, so it was an already established car, no need to use the Ferrari name.
I think all the QP are also quite good cars (yes, even the IV series, I love how it looks and those little turbo engines).

[Kitdy]

But that would affect negatively Maserati's sales. Which is something Ferrari doesn't want.

At the same time they protect their image.


for as regards the sedan, the Quattroporte name exists since almost 40 years, so it was an already established car, no need to use the Ferrari name.
I think all the QP are also quite good cars (yes, even the IV series, I love how it looks and those little turbo engines).

I still think that a Ferrari sedan would sell better and make more money than a Maserati one and I don't think the image damages would hurt Ferrari's sales. Ultimately, Fiat owns Ferrari and Maserati and can impact their choices. Mind you, Luca is the Chairman of FIAT and if he says no, then I guess it's no.

No less, would you agree that if the Quattroporte had been developed as a Ferrari project instead it would have been more profitable?

[LeonOfTheDead]

I still think that a Ferrari sedan would sell better and make more money than a Maserati one and I don't think the image damages would hurt Ferrari's sales. Ultimately, Fiat owns Ferrari and Maserati and can impact their choices. Mind you, Luca is the Chairman of FIAT and if he says no, then I guess it's no.

No less, would you agree that if the Quattroporte had been developed as a Ferrari project instead it would have been more profitable?

it is a Ferrari project.
right now the two brands are ufficially separated, but actually they still have a great synergy in mechanical parts and design of them.

obviously the same car, being a Ferrari would have a bigger price so bigger profits.

[Bleeding Heart]

it is a Ferrari project.
right now the two brands are ufficially separated, but actually they still have a great synergy in mechanical parts and design of them.

obviously the same car, being a Ferrari would have a bigger price so bigger profits.

In my opinion, Ferrari is still following their Tradition and not making a new reputation... They are still the car manufacturer of Supercars and exotic GT cars and ultimately... F1 cars... It is the purpose of the company... I think profit is still in second place in their minds... They still follow the breeding and tradition of the company since it first came out...

Just an opinion though... Let's not be surpried if they suddenly make a 4-door sedan...

[dydzi]

Ferrari is making lots of money anyways, so why should they bother making cars that may only damage sales of maserati, which still doesn't fulfill the expectations

as to AWD - it's under development and as far i know it'll be put in 612 scaglietti successor

[LeonOfTheDead]

Ferrari is making lots of money anyways, so why should they bother making cars that may only damage sales of maserati, which still doesn't fulfill the expectations

as to AWD - it's under development and as far i know it'll be put in 612 scaglietti successor

and 599 successor too, as I said above. the development has been finished in the summer as far as I know.

for as regards Maserati, its selling numbers are great and the profits are improving as days go by. They had some problem connected with the stopped program of the upcoming Alfa Romeo 169 and next Quattroporte, almost 150 M euro seems to have been spent without any good results, and then the story of the M139 project "stolen" by Ferrari and later known as the California. at the same time, they are continuing using a lot of the Ferrari's engineering and design work, so right now they are becoming a healthy manufactrurer.
It's also a better place to work than Ferrari is. Probably Ferrari's main problem is that it's becoming a huge manufacturer, their market is continuously growing and it is becoming more of an industrial reality than a craftsman one, and this is affecting the factory at the base level, the workers. despite being continuously advertised as the best place to work in the automotive sector, this is not what I hear from people who work there. I suppose they need some more years to switch from the kind of factory they were in the nineties and their more industrial future. let's hope they won't turn into an Italian Porsche.

[Ferrer]

I still think that a Ferrari sedan would sell better and make more money than a Maserati one and I don't think the image damages would hurt Ferrari's sales. Ultimately, Fiat owns Ferrari and Maserati and can impact their choices. Mind you, Luca is the Chairman of FIAT and if he says no, then I guess it's no.

No less, would you agree that if the Quattroporte had been developed as a Ferrari project instead it would have been more profitable?
But then what would be the point of Maserati?

Let's remember that Fiat own both Ferrari and Maserati and their goal is to win money with both. One already has massive profits, so they have to take care of the other.

[LeonOfTheDead]

probably Maserati could built a more expensive and luxury sedan based on the new Ferrari platform if they want to fight against AM, Porsche and eventually Lamborghini. the QP is already an awesome car but obviously no one is going to compare it with a Rapide which is supposedly going to have a price four time bigger, or the still more expensive Panamera.

[blingbling]

Whoa... Ferrari can make GT car, Sportscars, Supercars, Hypercars, F1 cars, etc... Anything related to going fast... But, Why will they make a sedan???? It will seem out of place in the ferrari fleet...they wont make a sedan though

[Falcon500]

My point is that twin (or even sequential) turbos on Ferrari's V12 would allow them to keep the V12 and create and engine that is immensely powerful but at the same time light weight and fuel efficient. And the best part is you can bring back the 250, 275 or 330 names!

once they add the turbos, turbo piping, intercoolers and work everything else so its stonger (and everything else thats required with this idea) youll probably find that there isnt anything light about that idea.

[Ferrer]

probably Maserati could built a more expensive and luxury sedan based on the new Ferrari platform if they want to fight against AM, Porsche and eventually Lamborghini. the QP is already an awesome car but obviously no one is going to compare it with a Rapide which is supposedly going to have a price four time bigger, or the still more expensive Panamera.
I think that one of the main success points about Maserati is that they offer "affordable exotics".

They offer Aston Martin or Ferrari image at a fraction of the price. I don't know if producing more expensive Maseratis would be a clever idea.

Having said that I'm all for a 2 seater berlinetta. Current Maserati's lineup is missing it.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I think that one of the main success points about Maserati is that they offer "affordable exotics".

They offer Aston Martin or Ferrari image at a fraction of the price. I don't know if producing more expensive Maseratis would be a clever idea.

Having said that I'm all for a 2 seater berlinetta. Current Maserati's lineup is missing it.

Yeah, Maserati seems to offer bargains. I guess Maserati could expand its lineup with a smaller car, probably something like a Cayman, agree. But perhaps an bigger version of the QP would be welcomed imo. perhaps if offered in very limited numbers. but I'm fine with it and its price right now.

[Ferrer]

Yeah, Maserati seems to offer bargains. I guess Maserati could expand its lineup with a smaller car, probably something like a Cayman, agree. But perhaps an bigger version of the QP would be welcomed imo. perhaps if offered in very limited numbers. but I'm fine with it and its price right now.
I don't think a Maser "Cayman" is a good idea either, because going down market could devalue the brand as well. They are perfect where they are now.

Just make a SWB Granturismo please. :)

[Kitdy]

But then what would be the point of Maserati?

Let's remember that Fiat own both Ferrari and Maserati and their goal is to win money with both. One already has massive profits, so they have to take care of the other.

What is the point of Maserati in the first place? It didn't turn a profit for FIAT until Q2 of last year and even then it was only 1 million Euros. I don't know how things are now, but that was a good 17 years of loss.

So Maserati has two cars now, the Quattroporte and the GranTurismo. I posit that if Ferrari had made a sedan, it would have been more profitable, and I think that the California and 599 cover the GranTurismo territory well enough.

I repeat: what is the point of Maserati? An answer: to lose money for it's owner. Ok, so I'm kidding - but only a bit.

Before all y'all start hating on me, I dig the Quattroporte and it would be a shame if Maserati didn't exist, but I'm just not sure it is good business sense to have kept it alive. Now, things are going well and maybe you could argue that FIAT was thinking really longterm, but how much money has it lost in 17 years and how long will it take to get that money back? Would that money have been better used on Ferrari to make a sedan or elsewhere within FIAT?

These are questions I think deserve some thought.

[Ferrer]

Maserati has seen an amazing turnaround, fron losing millions every year to winning money. Just for that it will continue to exist. And by the way, I doubt Alfa Romeo has turned a profit in 22 years of Fiat ownership, I guess they should kill that too.

The point of Maserati (and much the same story can be said about Lancia and Alfa Romeo) is that it simply appeals to a different type of costumer than that of Ferrari. Maseratis are more discreet and subtle and Ferraris are more noisy and striking. If you try to capture the Maserati costumer with a Ferrari you will probably fail (and viceversa).

Furthermore Maseratis are a lot cheaper than Ferraris. On that basis you couldn't capture Maserati's costumer without devaluing the Ferrari brand. Let's remember that the California will be more expensive than the F430, a car that already costs 50% more than a Granturismo.

[f6fhellcat13]

Maybe in Europe it's different, but here there is nothing subtle about the people who buy Maseratis. All businessmen buy German, so the only people left to buy Italian are quite flashy.

[wwgkd]

once they add the turbos, turbo piping, intercoolers and work everything else so its stonger (and everything else thats required with this idea) youll probably find that there isnt anything light about that idea.

Yeah. Naturally aspirated can be much larger displacement for the same weight as forced induction, especially with air to water intercoolers. For a long time BMW considered turbos lowtech shortcuts to increase horse power, but since they're now using a twin turbo, maybe that's changed at least in part.

[wwgkd]

Maybe in Europe it's different, but here there is nothing subtle about the people who buy Maseratis. All businessmen buy German, so the only people left to buy Italian are quite flashy.

Yeah, but flashier than a BMW or Audi still falls short of Ferrari levels of flashiness, and even further short of Lambo levels.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Fiat onws Maserati since 1995 (or '97?) so the 17 years of loss weren't all under the Fit's ownerships. and the reasons why Maserati had such a bad time are very connected to it's position in Italy and italian industry in this area (known as Emilia Romagna). another factor was the disastrous ownership by De Tomaso, a great man, but not a very great business man. Lamborghini was in the same condition of Maserati for many years. those kinds of brand can't live easily without a major group to share costs. I suppose the only one is AM, but we could say that it is now capitalizing all Ford's investments...
Btw, the reasons I pointed out are for example this: when De Tomaso was struggling with financial problems, he allowed the entrance of the "cooperative" in the factory's workers. "Cooperative" are organizations of workers with a (theoretically) very "communist" approach to work, and their purpose is to create a society completely owned by the workers. the reality is that in this area of Italy those are simply huge industrial groups in many case, and the purpose to help workers and the lowest lavel of the society keeping the costs at an acceptable level is gone. and they drained a lot of money out of Maserati, together with other factors. Something a little different happened to Fiat in the late eighties and first nineties when there was a strong political influence in the manufacturer's council.
don't forget that Maserati lived with an aging and repetetive lineup for many years, and that prevented it to make some decent money. while last years loss are due to hug investments and renovation's projects that now are finally making some profits.

[jump15vc]

Ferrari doesn't need a sedan they're practically at full production right now and producing more than they ever have, they stand to lose some exclusivity by producing a sedan.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Ferrari doesn't need a sedan they're practically at full production right now and producing more than they ever have, they stand to lose some exclusivity by producing a sedan.

they built a new production line for the California, and there is still pace if they would need it.

[Wouter Melissen]

they built a new production line for the California, and there is still pace if they would need it.

The California fits in their tradition.

[Kooper]

Didn't Ferrari once say that they would never go mid-engined? I think it's great that they refuse to follow the "4-door coupe" craze, I just hope it stays that way.

[Ferrer]

The California fits in their tradition.
Of fat, ugly cruisers with V8 engines mounted up in front?

Altough I agree, it's not quite as bad as saloon would be.

[LeonOfTheDead]

The California fits in their tradition.

I was just referring to production. they create a new production line specifically for this car, and it will eventually be used for the next 612 and 599 which are going to use the same platform.
I agree the it's a typical Ferrari's product though.


Didn't Ferrari once say that they would never go mid-engined? I think it's great that they refuse to follow the "4-door coupe" craze, I just hope it stays that way.

There is a simple reason why they are not joining the "make a sedan" band-wagon.

Maserati has a V12 Quattroporte just waiting for the green light. I still don't know the details, but it should be a revised version of Ferrari's V12 obviously, but I don't know if it is the old one (612) or the new one (Enzo-599). the car would be based on the next QP platform since it the present one such a big engine wouldn't fit.
I'm not sure if it is the same project, but it's still referred to the QP, so...the car, as rumored, was supposed to share the platform with the next Alfa Romeo 169. the project has gone on for over a year and a half, but never came to a good results, that is to say: it wasn't going to be as remunerative as a cheaper car than the QP as the 169 should be, or it wasn't going to be as good as the QP should be while being remunerative as a 169. sorta.
for this project there were also initial studies for the engines to be used: a new V8, a V6 and a turbo engine, but I don't know what kind of engine the last one is. not a diesel or a hybrid btw.
as soon as I will have more info I will keep you informed.

[Ferrer]

Maserati has a V12 Quattroporte just waiting for the green light. I still don't know the details, but it should be a revised version of Ferrari's V12 obviously, but I don't know if it is the old one (612) or the new one (Enzo-599). the car would be based on the next QP platform since it the present one such a big engine wouldn't fit.
I'm not sure if it is the same project, but it's still referred to the QP, so...the car, as rumored, was supposed to share the platform with the next Alfa Romeo 169. the project has gone on for over a year and a half, but never came to a good results, that is to say: it wasn't going to be as remunerative as a cheaper car than the QP as the 169 should be, or it wasn't going to be as good as the QP should be while being remunerative as a 169. sorta.
for this project there were also initial studies for the engines to be used: a new V8, a V6 and a turbo engine, but I don't know what kind of engine the last one is. not a diesel or a hybrid btw.
as soon as I will have more info I will keep you informed.
AFAIK Alfa Romeo is searching for a partner outside FGA to have a front engined rear wheel drive platform for the 169. Mercedes-Benz and Jaguar sounded as the more likely candidates, but the project seems to be on hold. 147 and 149 replacements plus and SUV seem to have higher priority.

[LeonOfTheDead]

AFAIK Alfa Romeo is searching for a partner outside FGA to have a front engined rear wheel drive platform for the 169. Mercedes-Benz and Jaguar sounded as the more likely candidates, but the project seems to be on hold. 147 and 149 replacements plus and SUV seem to have higher priority.

Jaguar should be the one. but they are still discussing the possibility (with Tata of course).
As I said, the project between Maserati and Alfa Romeo is simply on hold. they didn't scrap it, but it didn't bring some result either.
probably they will go on with a QP based on a Ferrari's platform, and a 169 based/developed with another car maker with a similar product in its lineup.

[Canam fan]

While on the topic of Ferrarri and new cars, is it just me or is the Ferrarri California the ugliest car they have produced in years? If Buick produced a supercar I would expect it to look like the California.

[Dino Scuderia]

While on the topic of Ferrarri and new cars, is it just me or is the Ferrarri California the ugliest car they have produced in years? If Buick produced a supercar I would expect it to look like the California.

Yeah, the new Cali is crap...and I agree with this guy:

Ferrari loses its grip on its soul.

By Peter M. De Lorenzo

Detroit. I was standing in front of the Ferrari stand at the Paris Auto Show last Thursday morning with Robert Cumberford and Tom Tjaarda, two veteran designers of considerable skill and reputation, and we were trying to absorb what the new Ferrari California meant as a design execution, and more important to me, what it meant for Ferrari as a maker of some of the world’s most sumptuous high-performance automobiles. I will not deign to speak for those gentlemen (their level of disappointment would be better expressed by them), but I can give you my thoughts on what just may be the beginning of The End of Ferrari as we know it.

For me, the Ferrari California is a derivative, uninspiring, design mishmash of creases and folds (and horrific dimestore-quality side vents) that lacks cohesion and imparts an overall feeling of cheapness when viewed in person that just cannot be swept under the rug. It didn’t help that it was shown in an abysmal shade of blue that would have looked more at home on a third-tier “sporty” car from a Chinese automaker. It was also shown in red at the back of the display, but even Ferrari’s signature color couldn’t save the overall first impression of the car, which was one of “WTF were they thinking, exactly?” (You can see photos of the California at ferraricalifornia.com.)

The California is the first front-engine, V-8-powered production car in Ferrari history. It could also be termed the first “parts bin” Ferrari, as it shares pieces with the Maserati Coupe GT and Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione underneath (even though Ferrari insists that it's "all Ferrari"). The Maserati Coupe GT, a car that remains stunningly beautiful and which was, ironically enough, parked less than a stone’s throw away from the California at the show (the juxtaposition wasn’t good for the newest Ferrari to say the least) is noticeably elegant in comparison to the new Ferrari.

It’s also the first time that Ferrari has come up with a car blatantly designed to expand its production capacity for its burgeoning global reach in markets around the world. The California is the new, dare I say it, “approachable” Ferrari, despite it being priced just below the Ferrari F430GT, according to early estimates.

Though this is the first time for Ferrari, it isn’t the first time that a once-exclusive automaker has fallen under the spell of sky’s-the-limit profitability, of course. We all watched as Porsche, that once “exclusive” manufacturer of German sports cars, embraced leader Wendelin Wiedeking’s “vision” of profitability, no matter what. The result? The bloated Cayenne SUV and soon-to-arrive Panamera four-door sedan. If it weren’t for the remaining “True Believers” at Porsche who crank out cars like the 911 GT3RS and who work on the RS Spyder ALMS racing program, Porsche would be mere a shadow of its former self, because its quest for profitability has blurred Porsche’s original raison d’etre, no matter how whiney Porsche advertising gets in its attempts to suggest otherwise.

Not that Porsche was ever in Ferrari’s league when it comes to automobiles, especially when exclusivity and fiery passion for the marque are taken into consideration. There has been nothing like Ferrari in the annals of motordom, not even close as a matter of fact. You could obtain a Mercedes or a Porsche easily enough or any number of other “desirable” cars including the next best thing - a Lamborghini - but a Ferrari, a Ferrari retained its air of invincibility in the automotive pecking order.

At first the exotic, four-wheeled vision of the flawed genius, Enzo Ferrari, who sold street cars only to perpetuate his desire - and the funding - to go racing, Ferrari sports cars grew to become legendary symbols of speed, power and beauty, and a source of intense Italian national pride.

After Enzo’s death, Ferrari gradually repositioned itself as a maker of technologically advanced super cars, taking particular pride in the fact that its production cars bristled with advancements gleaned from its all-conquering Formula 1 racing program. And the success of the company and the growing popularity of its sports cars brought new challenges – and opportunities.

For one thing, buyers were clamoring for more. The waiting list for a new Ferrari in the U.S. market alone is at least three years (if not longer), depending on the model. And with the emergence of global wealth around the world, especially in the Chinese and Russian markets, Ferrari was finding that the desire for its cars was growing exponentially, and the pressure to provide more was building.

So for Ferrari the question became this: How do we address this growing demand for our cars without diluting the most envied reputation in the automobile business?

The answer for Ferrari came down to the one simple solution that they just couldn’t get around, and that was to make more cars.

Enter the Ferrari California. Ferrari ladled all of the relevant credentials on this new car it could muster, including resurrecting a famous name from one of its glorious past chapters and even having its dynamic package personally developed by the great (now retired) Grand Prix World Champion, Michael Schumacher.

But none of this negates the fact that the design is less than wonderful, the bits and pieces underneath are less than 100 percent Ferrari authentic and last but certainly not least the stated mission of this car is to double the current production and availability of Ferrari sports cars around the world.

Ferrari wants us all to believe that it can pull the California off while keeping its impeccable reputation intact and its iconic status at the top of the automotive mountain untarnished and unsullied. Ferrari also wants us all to believe that pandering to the siren call of volume won’t affect anything it does going forward, that it will still be every bit Ferrari while building 10,000-11,000 cars a year as it was when it built half that amount.

But I’m not so sure about that.

Apart from the fact that I find the Ferrari California supremely disappointing from a design perspective, what the car represents is even worse, because to me it signals an ominous directional shift for a company that once prided itself on selling “one less car than our customers demand.”

With the California, Ferrari’s iron-clad grip on its soul has started to slip. It may be imperceptible at this point, but the fact remains that they made the conscious decision to build a lesser Ferrari – and make no mistake that’s exactly what the new California is – and it will prove to be a defining moment in Ferrari history.

As we like to say around here, Not Good.

[jump15vc]

they shoulda built the dino

[f6fhellcat13]

Great article, Dino. They've found ither ways than a sedan or SUV to water down their products.


...And as a Californian, I'm insulted.

[LeonOfTheDead]

That article isn't going to eb very reliable since that guy still think this car is sharing parts with the GranTurismo and 8C. yeah, components are shared, but the rest is Ferrari at all.
The chassis for example. a lot of people still think is the same, but while Maserati (so Alfa Romeo) are using only steel as material, the California is based on a only-aluminum chassis. the confusion started with the fact that this project was originally thought as a Maserati car, the M139, but then Ferrari thought it would have better fitted in it's own lineup, and the M139 was converted into this. but as I said is truly a Ferrari.
It's more exact to say that Maserati and Alfa Romeo use Ferrari's parts btw.
The engine is developed from a F430 engine, again a Ferrari product.
Still, Maserati and Alfa Romeo use a Ferrari engine.

and the California is going to be priced ABOVE the F430 (the F430 GT doesn0t exist at all, who is this guy?!)

and they shouldn't build 10.000 cars a year, not in the near future AFAIK

besides, he is criticizing the car's design without properly saying "why" it fails. I could say that I like it, and it would be my words against theirs.

also, in the eighties they introduced the Mondial as they are now introducing the California, so I can't see what is the problem. I don't even see why it is going to dilute the brand, you can dislike it, but it's not a change as the Cayenne was for Porsche.

I actually dislike the interiors, but I've never been a fan of Ferrari's interior's design.

[Dino Scuderia]

You are wrong, the Cali is priced below the 430.

[LeonOfTheDead]

You are wrong, the Cali is priced below the 430.

how much a F430 costs in the US?

I have a pic from the party in LA with a huge screen showing "354.000 $" or something similar, can't remember and now I'm not at home where the external HD is.
Here the F430 starts at 172.000 euro, and the California should costs 190.000 euro IIRC.

[Dino Scuderia]

I don't know what the exact numbers are but I was at Ferrari of Atlanta recently and the sales person told me the Cali would list less than the 430 but fairly close.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I don't know what the exact numbers are but I was at Ferrari of Atlanta recently and the sales person told me the Cali would list less than the 430 but fairly close.

will ask to my housemate working at Ferrari in the next days, maybe he has some fresher info.

[Dino Scuderia]

It'll have to be more fresh than last month then.:)

[Revo]

Dino and Leon, how about some facts for a change?

Ferrari California prices are starting at €179,000 - that's about $240,000.

How can Americans expect it to be priced well below the $190,000 (that's where U.S prices for base model F430 are starting at), is beyond me...

Anyhow, Ferrari have already sold out the California's entire 2009 and 2010 production, that's about 5000 cars. Regardless what you guys think of it, California is already a big success for Ferrari.

[Dino Scuderia]

Dino and Leon, how about some facts for a change?

Ferrari California prices are starting at €179,000 - that's about $240,000.

How can Americans expect it to be priced well below the $190,000 (that's where U.S prices for base model F430 are starting at), is beyond me...

Anyhow, Ferrari have already sold out the California's entire 2009 and 2010 production, that's about 5000 cars. Regardless what you guys think of it, California is already a big success for Ferrari.

"Powered by an all-new direct-injected 460hp (343kW) 4.3L V8, the California is expected to be available for sale in North America early next year. Pricing is expected to start around $190,000, making it easily the most affordable of Ferrari's lineup and giving it the sales-boosting potential the company is seeking for it."

Ferrari California sold out until 2011 - [2009 Ferrari California convertible] - MotorAuthority - Car news, reviews, spy shots (http://www.motorauthority.com/2009-ferrari-california-officially-unveiled-online.html)

[LeonOfTheDead]

Dino and Leon, how about some facts for a change?

Ferrari California prices are starting at €179,000 - that's about $240,000.

How can Americans expect it to be priced well below the $190,000 (that's where U.S prices for base model F430 are starting at), is beyond me...

Anyhow, Ferrari have already sold out the California's entire 2009 and 2010 production, that's about 5000 cars. Regardless what you guys think of it, California is already a big success for Ferrari.

so a very close price to the F430 one.
I agree with the car being a success. I would like to see it again on the road without any camo though.
I should consider a new visit to the Galleria Ferrari, IIRC there is one exposed there, but I don't have a car right now :(




"Powered by an all-new direct-injected 460hp (343kW) 4.3L V8, the California is expected to be available for sale in North America early next year. Pricing is expected to start around $190,000, making it easily the most affordable of Ferrari's lineup and giving it the sales-boosting potential the company is seeking for it."

Ferrari California sold out until 2011 - [2009 Ferrari California convertible] - MotorAuthority - Car news, reviews, spy shots (http://www.motorauthority.com/2009-ferrari-california-officially-unveiled-online.html)

those are just supposition, nothing really reliable.

[Ferrer]

so a very close price to the F430 one.
I agree with the car being a success. I would like to see it again on the road without any camo though.
I should consider a new visit to the Galleria Ferrari, IIRC there is one exposed there, but I don't have a car right now :(
A Fiat Bravo with a Ferrari badge would also be successful...

[Falcon500]

A Fiat Bravo with a Ferrari badge would also be successful...

Lets really push the envelope and say a fiat panda.


But still its sad to say you are not far wrong :(

[LeonOfTheDead]

A Fiat Bravo with a Ferrari badge would also be successful...

then we should have seen the 15.000 euro Lamborghini ten years ago, when it was owned by the Malaysian group...there is a limit to everything.
Porsche proved actually there isn't a lot of times.

[Kitdy]

AFAIK Alfa Romeo is searching for a partner outside FGA to have a front engined rear wheel drive platform for the 169. Mercedes-Benz and Jaguar sounded as the more likely candidates, but the project seems to be on hold. 147 and 149 replacements plus and SUV seem to have higher priority.

The word on the street is the project is go and will be based on the 300 platform and built in Brampton, (a seperate city and yet) a suburb of Toronto.

The 300 platform is an old E-Class right?

[LeonOfTheDead]

The word on the street is the project is go and will be based on the 300 platform and built in Brampton, (a seperate city and yet) a suburb of Toronto.

The 300 platform is an old E-Class right?

No E-Klasse, just bits and bites.
Not sure if this car would actually be the "169" as it could result being a product only for the America market.

[Ferrer]

Apparently it's the platform that will underpin the next 300/Charger not the current one. I'm not holding my breath though.

Also I like big Alfas, but 300-sized Alfas may just be too big.

[f6fhellcat13]

LX WB: 120in. 3.1m, 116in. 2.95m (Challenger only)
LX length: 197in. 5m (300, Magnum, & Challenger), 200in. 5.1m (Charger),

159 WB: 106in. 2.7m
159 length: 183in. 4.7m

The LX's wheelbase is only 30 cm more than the 159's.
That's about one or two generations of growth at the current rate of most cars. :rolleyes:
If the Alfa boys mount the front wheels very far forward (and they can because its RWD!), and still give some room for about two feet of overhang at the rear, the car shouldn't be that much bigger, and it would have tolerable weight distribution. Having a wheelbase that long might kill some of the handling fun, though.

[Ferrer]

Thing is though, arguably the 159 grew too big from the 156. It's almost as big as the 166 and that's suposed to be an E-segment car.

[Kitdy]

Also I like big Alfas, but 300-sized Alfas may just be too big.

Would you rather a bigger Alfa with rear wheel drive, or a smaller one with front wheel drive?

Also, a bigger Alfa may be better for the North American market breakthrough.

[Ferrer]

Would you rather a bigger Alfa with rear wheel drive, or a smaller one with front wheel drive?

Also, a bigger Alfa may be better for the North American market breakthrough.
Mmm hard question.

I think that rear wheel drive is necessary for a proper drivers car and also for a big cars which usually have big powerful engines. But a 300-sized Alfa with all the weight and bulk added may just kill the sportiness.

[clutch-monkey]

i'd rather a good, light, compact FWD than a barge with RWD.
at least the former still has some possibility of being sporty/agile/more alfa like

[f6fhellcat13]

Mmm hard question.

I think that rear wheel drive is necessary for a proper drivers car and also for a big cars which usually have big powerful engines. But a 300-sized Alfa with all the weight and bulk added may just kill the sportiness.
The 159 ain't exactly anorexic. Lets look at more numbers.

1900 kilos with a Hemi anvil under the hood.
1680 for the 159.
1710 for the W210 E

You win. The 159 is relatively light. Damn.
Aluminum construction for the LX Alfa, then?

If Alfa wanted a luxobarge it'd be alright, but that's not what the next 159 should be.
Maybe Chrysler still has a W208 chassis. :rolleyes:

[Kitdy]

i'd rather a good, light, compact FWD than a barge with RWD.
at least the former still has some possibility of being sporty/agile/more alfa like

Would North Americans prefer this?

Also, what if they just shorten the platform somehow?

[Ferrer]

The 159 ain't exactly anorexic.
No - fat is the word you are looking for.

The 159 could be arguably considered a mistake altogether, but this is a simplistic view that would require a much deeper analisys. Altough I guess that would be going too much offtopic.

[Kitdy]

No - fat is the word you are looking for.

The 159 could be arguably considered a mistake altogether, but this is a simplistic view that would require a much deeper analisys. Altough I guess that would be going too much offtopic.

This thread is already way off topic and I'm interested in hearing more about the 159.

Have you driven one? What else is wrong with it etc?

[Ferrer]

This thread is already way off topic and I'm interested in hearing more about the 159.

Have you driven one? What else is wrong with it etc?
I haven't driven one, but the problem isn't that it is a bad car. In fact I've read that it is fine.

The thing is Fiat was very strapped for cash when they were designing the 159 and what they tried to do is to take Alfa Romeo mainstream to appeal the buyers of german premium brands.

For that they had to design a car not only with quality in mind, but with perceived quality in mind. However as I said they weren't exactly rich at the moment, so the added quality meant that effectively the 159 (and related Brera and Spider) were overweight.

What they didn't realise though is that it takes a special person to buy an Alfa Romeo. So what effectively happened is that german car drivers didn't consider the 159 much and Alfisti thought it was an overweight car with an American V6. So it's been a bit of a flop.

However all in all, the 159 isn't a bad car. It may not be perfect, but it's a competent D-segment car. And especially if we consider the resources Fiat had at the moment it's pretty good.

My personal conclusion would be that, mainly, it was the approach that was wrong.

[Kitdy]

I find it to be quite a nice looking car and for this alone I wish it was better. I guess it'd be better if it were a victim of your unending quest for lightness, and as for the JTS V6, I'm not too sure how bad that is. What's the word on this engine?

Do you know the sales of this as compared with the 156? I was looking and I saw that the 156 was significantly lighter, but it's also smaller. I think a major problem is perceived quality - you build a better car than the Germans do but it still doesn't sell because it doesn't have the badge. Not saying that this is a better car, but this is still just another hill to climb.

Have their been any comparisons with this car and say Audi/BMW/Benz that you have read?

[LeonOfTheDead]

The 159 ain't exactly anorexic. Lets look at more numbers.

1900 kilos with a Hemi anvil under the hood.
1680 for the 159.
1710 for the W210 E

You win. The 159 is relatively light. Damn.
Aluminum construction for the LX Alfa, then?

If Alfa wanted a luxobarge it'd be alright, but that's not what the next 159 should be.
Maybe Chrysler still has a W208 chassis. :rolleyes:

Let's make things clear once again:
The Alfa Romeo 150 weights 1.450 kg (with 1.8 turbo'd I4), and it's 4,55 m long.
A BMW 320i weights 1.445 kg (no turbo so I could even say it's heavier) and it's 4,53 m long.

the issue could be that the 159 looks and feels heavier than what it is.
On the other hand it was supposed since the beginning to fill the gap left by the 166 while at the same time replacing the 156.

[Revo]

Let's make things clear once again:
The Alfa Romeo 150 weights 1.450 kg (with 1.8 turbo'd I4), and it's 4,55 m long.
A BMW 320i weights 1.445 kg (no turbo so I could even say it's heavier) and it's 4,53 m long.

the issue could be that the 159 looks and feels heavier than what it is.
On the other hand it was supposed since the beginning to fill the gap left by the 166 while at the same time replacing the 156.
That's right and here is a comparison between top-of-the-line models to clear all the doubts:

159 3,2 JTS 4x4 dry weight: 1630 kg
335xiA dry weight: 1660 kg

Weight isn't so much an issue for 159. It is the lack of power in comparison of it's rivals, hence the image of overweight and sluggish design icon.

[Ferrer]

I find it to be quite a nice looking car and for this alone I wish it was better. I guess it'd be better if it were a victim of your unending quest for lightness, and as for the JTS V6, I'm not too sure how bad that is. What's the word on this engine?

Do you know the sales of this as compared with the 156? I was looking and I saw that the 156 was significantly lighter, but it's also smaller. I think a major problem is perceived quality - you build a better car than the Germans do but it still doesn't sell because it doesn't have the badge. Not saying that this is a better car, but this is still just another hill to climb.

Have their been any comparisons with this car and say Audi/BMW/Benz that you have read?
I don't have the exact figures, but the 156 used to be the D-segment sales leader in Italy and IIRC the 159 isn't.

As for tests, again I cannot cite any in particular, but the germans liked it and their usually quite chauvinistic.

Let's make things clear once again:
The Alfa Romeo 150 weights 1.450 kg (with 1.8 turbo'd I4), and it's 4,55 m long.
A BMW 320i weights 1.445 kg (no turbo so I could even say it's heavier) and it's 4,53 m long.

the issue could be that the 159 looks and feels heavier than what it is.
On the other hand it was supposed since the beginning to fill the gap left by the 166 while at the same time replacing the 156.
More like 1600kg actually.

Automobilismo.it - Prove - Alfa Romeo 159 1750 TBi Distinctive Premium Pack (http://www.automobilismo.it/edisport/automobilismo/notizie.nsf/ProvePub/5CE312D2054CA99FC12575BE00372E94?OpenDocument)

[Ferrer]

That's right and here is a comparison between top-of-the-line models to clear all the doubts:

159 3,2 JTS 4x4 dry weight: 1630 kg
335xiA dry weight: 1660 kg

Weight isn't so much an issue for 159. It is the lack of power in comparison of it's rivals, hence the image of overweight and sluggish design icon.
I've seen figures in excess of 1700kg for the V6.

Also why quote the four wheel drive, twin turbo model? It's not BMWs fault that Alfa Romeo had to start with a compromised layout.

[f6fhellcat13]

Let's make things clear once again:
The Alfa Romeo 159 weights 1.450 kg (with 1.8 turbo'd I4), and it's 4,55 m long.
A BMW 320i weights 1.445 kg (no turbo so I could even say it's heavier) and it's 4,53 m long.

the issue could be that the 159 looks and feels heavier than what it is.
On the other hand it was supposed since the beginning to fill the gap left by the 166 while at the same time replacing the 156.
Well, the BMW does have a big ole driveshaft running to the rear wheels. It also has an extra .2L of displacement, but I assume the Alfa's turboes more than make up for it. Euro NCAP gives both the same safety rating, so the weight isn't there either.
How does interior space stack up, I couldn't find any convenient stats. I do remember reading that a lot of people complained about the lack of space in the E46, so maybe BMW over compensated?
~1600 kilos for a W204, so that is not comparable, but then again, it was released 2-3 years later.
I will not look at stats for the A4.

However, despite all I've just said, an Italian company should not aim for the weight of German cars. As a general rule, and because Alfa has a much lighter drivetrain courtesy of their FWD.

[Revo]

I've seen figures in excess of 1700kg for the V6.
I did quote DRY weight figures straight from manufacturer technical spec sheets.

There is also a kerb weight, which varies according to country standards i.e. car with all fluid and fuel tank 90% full, but no driver OR with driver and some luggage OR with fuel tank only 50% full + driver but no luggage etc, etc.

The difference between dry and kerb weight is around 150 kg.

Also why quote the four wheel drive, twin turbo model? It's not BMWs fault that Alfa Romeo had to start with a compromised layout.
And why not?

These two are compearable - similar layout, similar price, similar weight? Along with the fact that both of them are pretty pointless models.

[f6fhellcat13]

I did quote DRY weight figures straight from manufacturer technical spec sheets.

There is also a kerb weight, which varies according to country standards i.e. car with all fluid and fuel tank 90% full, but no driver OR with driver and some luggage OR with fuel tank only 50% full + driver but no luggage etc, etc.

The difference between dry and kerb weight is around 150 kg.

And why not?

These two are compearable - similar layout, similar price, similar weight? Along with the fact that both of them are pretty pointless models.

I think that the base model is probably the better indicator for the weight of the car, as by the time you get to the fully-loaded top-of-the-rangers, numerous addenda help disguise the true weight of the vehicle.
Do you have similar stats for the base models?

[LeonOfTheDead]

I did quote DRY weight figures straight from manufacturer technical spec sheets.

There is also a kerb weight, which varies according to country standards i.e. car with all fluid and fuel tank 90% full, but no driver OR with driver and some luggage OR with fuel tank only 50% full + driver but no luggage etc, etc.

The difference between dry and kerb weight is around 150 kg.

And why not?

These two are compearable - similar layout, similar price, similar weight? Along with the fact that both of them are pretty pointless models.

seconded

[Ferrer]

I did quote DRY weight figures straight from manufacturer technical spec sheets.

There is also a kerb weight, which varies according to country standards i.e. car with all fluid and fuel tank 90% full, but no driver OR with driver and some luggage OR with fuel tank only 50% full + driver but no luggage etc, etc.

The difference between dry and kerb weight is around 150 kg.
BMW 320d Automatic v Alfa Romeo 159 1.9 JTD SW manual (I know the match isn't perfect but it's the best I could find), tested by a spanish magazine gives 1516kg for the Bimmer and 1680kg for the Alfa. That difference is pretty big.

And why not?

These two are compearable - similar layout, similar price, similar weight? Along with the fact that both of them are pretty pointless models.
The 330i is more than a match for the V6 Alfa.

And pointless? Well, we are car enthusiasts aren't we?

[Revo]

I think that the base model is probably the better indicator for the weight of the car, as by the time you get to the fully-loaded top-of-the-rangers, numerous addenda help disguise the true weight of the vehicle.
Do you have similar stats for the base models?
Sure.

159 1,8 MPI dry weight 1385 kg
316i dry weight 1340 kg

And BMW is slower of these two, how embarrassing! :p

[LeonOfTheDead]

BMW 320d Automatic v Alfa Romeo 159 1.9 JTD SW manual (I know the match isn't perfect but it's the best I could find), tested by a spanish magazine gives 1516kg for the Bimmer and 1680kg for the Alfa. That difference is pretty big.

The 330i is more than a match for the V6 Alfa.

And pointless? Well, we are car enthusiasts aren't we?

That was more than likely a pre restyling (if we can say so) model.
I am considering the new line up, which debuted a couple of months ago or so.

[Revo]

BMW 320d Automatic v Alfa Romeo 159 1.9 JTD SW manual (I know the match isn't perfect but it's the best I could find), tested by a spanish magazine gives 1516kg for the Bimmer and 1680kg for the Alfa. That difference is pretty big.
Is there such a thing as trustworthy journalist?

The real weight difference between these two is 40 kg, not 160 kg.


And pointless? Well, we are car enthusiasts aren't we?
More like some freaks willing to argue about some figures again and again.

Ok, pointless was bit of harsh. In true ferrer style. ;):)

What I meant was that neither of these two models would be my choice from their lineup. Because of 4WD.

[Ferrer]

Is there such a thing as trustworthy journalist?

The real weight difference between these two is 40 kg, not 160 kg.


More like some freaks willing to argue about some figures again and again.

Ok, pointless was bit of harsh. In true ferrer style. ;):)

What I meant was that neither of these two models would be my choice from their lineup. Because of 4WD.
Well, I doubt a scale can lie, altough who knows maybe it's the big conspiracy of ze germans... :D

And by the way, we are in agreement when it comes to choosing models... :)

[Revo]

Well, I doubt a scale can lie, altough who knows maybe it's the big conspiracy of ze germans... :D

And by the way, we are in agreement when it comes to choosing models... :)
Actually, my case isn't much better either, since I am quoting numbers from Italians. :D

[LeonOfTheDead]

Actually, my case isn't much better either, since I am quoting numbers from Italians. :D

Mine come from Carfolio, so don't blame Italians or Germans in my case :)

[clutch-monkey]

Would North Americans prefer this?

Also, what if they just shorten the platform somehow?

why make alfa's for north americans? that would be a mistake. buy them as they are meant to be, don't pander to others and dilute the brand any more..
alfa has already strayed far enough from the true path :D