The next-gen MX-5 Miata thread

[Dan_]

Is there any conformation that it'll be called Spider or not?

 

[homeforsummer]

Is there any conformation that it'll be called Spider or not?

Not yet. But it's a fair guess, since virtually every other roofless Alfa Romeo ever has had been named 'Spider'.

 

[analog]

They could call it Duetto again, they brought back Giulietta.

 

[homeforsummer]

They could call it Duetto again, they brought back Giulietta.

Certainly possible. The image of the Pininfarina concept car that most news outlets are posting is called the 2uettottanta, clearly nodding towards the old Duetto name. But then that was a Pininfarina concept, rather than an official Alfa Romeo one.

 

[analog]

Then they could do the same kind of ad like Ford did with the Puma years ago, that Bullit hommage, but instead of Steve McQueen they'd use old footage of Dustin Hoffman.

 

[DeadStig86]

This seems most-likely. Mazda already has a great platform with the SkyActiv engines and transmissions, I'd see no reason for them to adapt Alfa Romeo bits and pieces into their cars that'll likely be less-reliable and less-efficient. And on the flip side, I can't see Alfa Romeo wanting to do anything other than using their MultiAir turbocharged engines.

Of course, we could all be dead wrong. A turbocharged SkyActiv would be more than sufficient in either application.

I'm just sad what happened to alfa (and lancia in that respect) under fiat-ownership...when the old spider came out it would have been everyone else, who would have wanted to use the dohc-engines of alfa. Nowadays they are just restyled, overweighted fiats and they have got to go to mazda to build a rwd sports car to a budget....don't get me wrong, i love the mx-5. In fact an original 116hp NA was my very first car, but i don't see this to be the way forward for alfa. Funny how the press laughed at mazda, as they started to sell copies of European roadsters from the 60's/70's like the original alfa spider, lotus elan and so on...and now?

Fiat should have done to alfa, what vw did to audi, which means not only separate the styling but place the brand more upmarket.
I know of course that VW and Audi use the same platforms, but it seems, these are more aligned to audi with vw benefiting, than the other way round.

The total lineup of alfa cars produced at the moment is 2, which just isn't enough. You are however able to get a 159/sw they stocked at least one year ago, so its not really new anymore.

 

[homeforsummer]

In fairness, both the MiTo and Giulietta are actually pretty good cars. But I agree, their range isn't big enough.

I disagree that Fiat should have moved them upmarket though. That's what Lancia was for. Alfa has always been about fairly accessible performance - for years their rivals to the German marques were significantly cheaper than the equivalent BMW/Audi/Merc etc - the 156 was always a grand and a half (or more) cheaper than the equivalent 3-Series. Alfa already has a bit more of an upscale image than Fiat does, and it doesn't really need to go further.

The Mazda tie-in is genius. Mazda knows how to make a great rear-drive sports car, and Alfa gets to benefit. The Fiat group has always been pretty good technologically too - Alfa Romeo's list of "firsts" is surprisingly long. An MX-5, with Alfa styling and a MultiAir engine in the front, could be blindingly good.

 

[DeadStig86]

In fairness, both the MiTo and Giulietta are actually pretty good cars. But I agree, their range isn't big enough.

I disagree that Fiat should have moved them upmarket though. That's what Lancia was for. Alfa has always been about fairly accessible performance - for years their rivals to the German marques were significantly cheaper than the equivalent BMW/Audi/Merc etc - the 156 was always a grand and a half (or more) cheaper than the equivalent 3-Series. Alfa already has a bit more of an upscale image than Fiat does, and it doesn't really need to go further.

The Mazda tie-in is genius. Mazda knows how to make a great rear-drive sports car, and Alfa gets to benefit. The Fiat group has always been pretty good technologically too - Alfa Romeo's list of "firsts" is surprisingly long. An MX-5, with Alfa styling and a MultiAir engine in the front, could be blindingly good.

Why are the Mito and the Giulietta good cars? They are heavy, slow and not as well build compared to the VWs, Toyotas and what have you...okay their engines aren't bad, but also not as good as they say they are.
The 156 was selling quite well and the quality had improved compared to the 155, but these aren't the cars I'm talking about...Alfa is a part of the Fiat group since the 80's after all.
The old cars from their high-time in the 60's and 70's couldn't only be compared to the BMW's of this world, they were able to beat them fair and square whereas a 156 just wasn't as good as an e46 BMW in any way i could think of, apart from prize and design, depending on your taste.
I agree that Lancia is also a brand that is supposed to be more upmarket than Fiat and would be competition to alfa. In my opinion it would have been better to let one of the brands die and focus on the other with an upmarket approach, or let fiat run against skoda, alfa against vw and then the lancias for the top end of the market. At the moment the mito is running against their own 500 and the giulietta doesn't differ enough from the bravo, which in my opinion is the better looking car anyway. And then they sell those two cars as lancias as well, with no technical additives plus selling some chryslers with historic lancia names, more chrome and a specked-up interiour...in central europe at least. The design however stays the same, so you could have a lancia grand voyager rather than the stratos concept, which fiat wouldn't build and which lancia would have given maybe some whiff of positive image. Or a lancia thema, formerly known as the chrysler 300.
At the moment, not one of the brands is diversified and has a clear image to most people (fiat = cheap or stylish?; alfa = mito: i'll have a 500, giulietta: just the most competitive market with a product not good enough; lancia = uhm...looks like a facelifted chrysler?!?).

As I said before, i think the mx-5 is one of the best cars in the world and the 159 was at least one of the best looking saloon cars ever made...i only want to have a real alfa sportscar which goes against the mx-5, rather than being a byproduct to it. Would be so much more versatile. At least, the new car will help giving alfa an image once again.

 

[analog]

I hate seeing how Lancia is treated currently (basically trying to sell re-badged ageing Chryslers) and has been for the past 2 decades, and I can't understand this half-hearted approach either, there's was so much potential in making it a credible luxury-car alternative to an Alfa Romeo (basically targeting different types of customers like they currently do with Ferrari/Maserati) and undercutting (or being different to) the dominant German brands in price but that now seems almost impossible to achieve with its once glorious reputation left in shatters.

It's perhaps better dead than alive right now or maybe it needs to be sold to a Chinese investor/car manufacturer which could 'restore' it again as Fiat seems to have either no clear idea where to take it or lacks the courage (not without reason I'd imagine) or means to really invest in it.
The Chinese lack credible brands right now, they didn't buy Volvo (and tried to buy Saab) just for the facilities/network but also (or mostly) for its image, and it seems to do very well.

I can understand Fiat's decision to buy into Chrysler as they were trapped in Europe for their bread and butter cars, the only cars they sell overseas are the Premium brands Ferrari and Maserati, and I know it'll take some time before we can see if some cross brand platform sharing, etc. will work or not and whether it was a good idea or another failed attempt to buy poor old Chrysler (which also deserves better than selling re-badged Delta's mind you).

 

[DeadStig86]

...... or another failed attempt to buy poor old Chrysler (which also deserves better than selling re-badged Delta's mind you).

What, this rebadging thing goes the other way round as well? so they are selling chrysler deltas in the states?

I agree, the general idea to buy into chrysler was a good idea, this year the whole fiat operation only managed to take a profit, because of chrysler.
But the lancia rebadging thing is just not going to work, they're fooling nobody....the only people who bought a chrysler 300c over here like the whole idea of an american car and will, if anything, be pulled of by the lancia thing...as the 300c was coming out i saw quite a lot actually, whereas the total number of "lancia thema" i've seen comes to 0.

A sell to the Chinese could really rescue one of the brands, or at least make it better than the current situation, I couldn't agree with you more on the volvo-topic

 

[analog]

What, this rebadging thing goes the other way round as well? so they are selling chrysler deltas in the states?

Yep unfortunately.

 

[DeadStig86]

 

[homeforsummer]

Why are the Mito and the Giulietta good cars? They are heavy, slow and not as well build compared to the VWs, Toyotas and what have you...okay their engines aren't bad, but also not as good as they say they are..

I'd be interested to know whether you've driven either, or basing your opinions entirely on here say.

I've driven both the Giulietta and Mito. I've also driven several other cars in both their respective classes.

They're neither particularly more heavy, nor slow than most cars they compete against. Maybe you're thinking of the 159 and Brera, which WERE heavier and slower than most rivals.

Both cars drive well. Both have a good range of engines (what are you actually basing 'not as good as they say they are' on? Anything at all?) - advanced, economical and with decent performance. The diesel Giulietta is one of the few diesels in its class that actually feels fun to drive. The Mito Twinair is a hoot, the Mito Cloverleaf even more so. Your comments on build quality seem about a decade behind - they're not quite as touchy-feely as a Golf, say, but they're no worse than a Focus. And materials wise, better than those Toyotas.

Their only real failing is that they don't feel like 'traditional' Alfas to drive any more. But since 'traditional' Alfas rattle and break down all the time, I'm not sure this is such a bad thing.

If Alfa can give us a nicer-looking and nicer-feeling MX-5 - and there's no reason they can't - then it's very good news indeed.

 

[DeadStig86]

First example I looked up: VW Golf 105hp 1210kg; Alfa Giulietta 105hp 1355kg....or your wife and daughter or a very, very fat mate constantly in your car and as I was working as a driver for Europcar (hire car company) till the beginning of this month I've driven both of them and the golf VI, golf VII, a3, focus, astra, bravo, corolla and the main competitors to the mito and would have taken anything over the alfa giulietta, apart from the astra and the corolla just because of alfa bonus, because i want them to be good. personal feelings aside it was my impression that the giulietta was worse then all of them, apart from the bravo. mito is better, but as I said, the main rival (fiat 500) is in the own company.

To the engines, they were both petrol giulitta 170hp multiair, which was quite good at being elastic but was drinking nearly 9 liters after getting from hamburg to hannover, which means a bit of stop and go in the city and then just motorway (not 75 mph, i admit) never experienced such a consume in any of the other.
the mito just had something like 85hp so it was crap anyway

The cars aren't bad, but they get beaten in every single category by a rival and to be successful in such a cramped market, you definitely need an edge....decent won't do!

Now lets hear your excuse for knowing the alfa is the only diesel in this class which makes fun....driven a bmw yet?

uh and all the cars i've driven from the 70's rattled like hell...apart from the mercedes

 

[Nessy]

^ I'm not sure that i agree, that the Fiat 500 is the Alfa Mito's main rival...
(Back on topic), i think it's great that Mazda and Alfa Romeo are doing a collab on the new MX5/Spider, i'm guessing the Mazda will come in cheaper but the Alfa will be more stylish in it's execution (imo of course).

 

[niky]

BMW diesels are fun, but I wouldn't consider a 1-series a competitor in that class.

Talking of overweight, the 1.6 Focus weighs about that much, too.

 

[homeforsummer]

First example I looked up: VW Golf 105hp 1210kg; Alfa Giulietta 105hp 1355kg....

Poor example.

As a 105bhp Golf, I assume you're talking about the 1.2 TSI. The new version of this is indeed around the 1,210kg mark (I find 1,205, but I digress). However, that car has come out only in the last half year or so. It's a brand new car, on a brand new platform, specifically developed to be lightweight.

A more realistic test would have been the Mk6, which is nearer 1,260kg.

I can't even find a Giulietta with 105hp, other than the 1.6 JTDm - a diesel, so naturally heavier (1,385kg - equivalent Golf, the 1.6 TDI, 1,370kg, or an insubstantial 15kg lighter). Your 1,355kg figure appears to be from the 1.4 Giulietta, which makes 120bhp, so offsets some of its weight with extra power.

Not that it feels heavy out on the road, of course. Weight is only really a problem if it affects the way the car drives.

it was my impression that the giulietta was worse then all of them

Naturally, there's an element of personal preference in this. Though I'd also say that much of the motoring press disagrees with you. The new MBQ-platform VAG cars are indeed supposed to be very good, but then they should be given that they're a) brand new to the market and b) the product of one of the richest car companies on earth.

the mito just had something like 85hp so it was crap anyway

With comments like this, I'm not sure I should be taking you seriously anyway.

The cars aren't bad, but they get beaten in every single category by a rival

They really don't.

Rather conveniently, I write for a site that aggregates car reviews from across all UK motoring outlets.

The Giulietta gets an aggregated 7.6/10. Funnily enough, the same as a BMW 1-Series. Better than a Mercedes A-Class (the new one). Also better than the Opel/Vauxhall Astra you mention. Also better than the Audi A3 (also the new one). Far better than the Citroen C4 or Honda Civic, which score in the 6s.

In fact, the only ones it loses out to are the brand new Seat Leon and VW Golf, and the Focus.

I make that three significant rivals that beat it enough across a wide variety of opinions and an entire range of engines to score better overall.

Now lets hear your excuse for knowing the alfa is the only diesel in this class which makes fun....driven a bmw yet?

"Only diesel"... Nice way of twisting my words. Here's what I actually said:

The diesel Giulietta is one of the few diesels in its class that actually feels fun to drive.

"One of the few" =/= "only".

And for the record, yes, I've driven a 1-Series. A few, in fact. It's a nice car. But the Alfa diesel (which you apparently haven't driven, if you've only driven the MultiAir 170) is still on of the few I've enjoyed. Modern diesels, for all their power and torque, are still a bit boring. Somehow, the Giulietta avoids that. It feels much more responsive than most (in fact, Alfa's throttle response in diesels is better than most carmakers do with petrol), and handles neatly too when you're on roads other than perfectly straight autobahn.

Regardless of any of this:

I still don't think you've quite come up with a reason that an MX-5-based Spider is necessarily a bad thing, nor why it apparently reflects badly on Alfa Romeo. I've tried to steer the conversation back this way a few times now, so I'll say again:

What is the issue? To quote your first post on the matter:

i don't see this to be the way forward for alfa

Why?

 

[NLxAROSA]

There's a difference between rebadging and sharing platforms and/or technology. The Lancia/Chrysler rebadging is horrible (no Lancia fan will buy a rebadged American and no Chrysler fan will buy a rebadged Italian), but sharing technology/platforms has paid off a lot for several companies, especially the ones that had crappy QA control in the past (e.g. most of the French car companies). I'd say this is pretty much Alfas ticket back into the game. Japanese reliability with Italian design sounds like car porn to me. Just pray they don't do it the other way around.

 

[analog]

Japanese reliability with Italian design sounds like car porn to me. Just pray they don't do it the other way around.

They did that once before and learned their lesson.

 

[Tornado]

They did that once before and learned their lesson.

"We'll combine the styling of an early 80's Japanese car with the build quality of an Italian car."


Almost as genius as the infamous "Let's take a LeBaron GTC and let de Tamaso build it."

 

[DeadStig86]

Poor example.

As a 105bhp Golf, I assume you're talking about the 1.2 TSI. The new version of this is indeed around the 1,210kg mark (I find 1,205, but I digress). However, that car has come out only in the last half year or so. It's a brand new car, on a brand new platform, specifically developed to be lightweight.

A more realistic test would have been the Mk6, which is nearer 1,260kg.

Well the platform of the giulietta isn't that old itself...it will run against the new platform of volkswagen for ages....and be heavier. And as you pointed out, even the old golf was nearly 100 kg lighter and that was really only a facelifted golf v, which means it was considerably older than the giulietta one (2003 a3 was the first to have it i think)

I can't even find a Giulietta with 105hp, other than the 1.6 JTDm....

http://www.alfa-services.de/prospekt/pdf/preisliste_giulietta.pdf

it wasn't a diesel

Naturally, there's an element of personal preference in this. Though I'd also say that much of the motoring press disagrees with you.

Oh yeah....and the motoring press is full of robots without personal preferences....as i said, personally i twould have taken the alfa over some cars i thought were better.....

With comments like this, I'm not sure I should be taking you seriously anyway.

so your saying i should base my opinion on how much petrol a car with 85hp consumes and generally performs on a german motorway?

The cars aren't bad, but they get beaten in every single category by a rival

They really don't.

So in which category are they superior then?

Rather conveniently, I write for a site that aggregates car reviews from across all UK motoring outlets.

so you are just taking opinions other people wrote down and post them as facts, rather than really have driven all these cars...nice, wasn't that the thing you negatively ask i was doing in your first respond? or how is this to be interpreted?

In fact, the only ones it loses out to are the brand new Seat Leon and VW Golf, and the Focus.

So even you are saying there are three cars already better than the alfa...why should i buy the fourth best car with a questionable image then?

since the audi is apparently worse than the VW and the Leon, i'd say price is in the final "equation", which i haven't considered in my views, as i drove the cars. how do the a-class and the bmw perform without that in mind?
If I'm correct, and the price was considered, what about the value if it comes to reselling the car...in there as well?

"One of the few" =/= "only".

sorry, i misread that

...and handles neatly too when you're on roads other than perfectly straight autobahn.

As I've driven this on country roads as well, I can tell you, it's quite good but worse than the 1-series and even the old focus. None of the cars had optional suspension. The VW golf (VI and VII) feels very safe and isn't as much fun to drive...but it was more comfortable, as was the Astra.

I still don't think you've quite come up with a reason that an MX-5-based Spider is necessarily a bad thing, nor why it apparently reflects badly on Alfa Romeo. I've tried to steer the conversation back this way a few times now, so I'll say again:

what was it you wrote about twisting words? I never said it is necessarily a bad thing they are cooperating from a business view.

In fact i wrote:

...At least, the new car will help giving alfa an image once again.

And I wrote that a car lineup of 2 cars isn't enough, which means a bigger lineup is welcomed
Personally, and now i'm quoting several of my own posts, i'm sad what happened to alfa romeo under fiat ownership, with the old spider it was everyone else who wanted to have their technology (especially their engines), now they are to thick to build a sportscar themselves and have to go to mazda, which was once copying the cars like the lotus elan, alfa spider and so on....so they are a copy of the copy of their own with a bit of different styling, not really one new idea in there thats come out of their own company and this, in my opinion, (thats why i wrote "i think") is not the way forward for alfa, theres not one car thats bespoke and since they are supposed to be a spearhead of fiat i can't see that to work out well.

You can't choose between a Mx-5 or Spider...you can just buy an mx-5 with two different stylings...if they don't alter the engines at least, thats not enough for me, though i'm not sure if i prefer alfa engines to the ones from mazda

 

[analog]

"We'll combine the styling of an early 80's Japanese car with the build quality of an Italian car."

To be fair, with that glorious Alfa Boxer-4 engine this must be the most interesting Nissan Cherry ever.

 

[Dennisch]

that glorious Alfa Boxer-4 engine

I miss that engine.

 

[analog]

I miss that engine.

I did only recently discover that it was designed by a former Porsche-engineer who also worked on the original Beetle-engine (and numerous Porsche's), so it's probably very durable and bombproof as well (which can't be said of the cars it's fitted in) and with a bit of Italian flair (that glorious sound) it possibly combines the best of both worlds.

 

[homeforsummer]

Well the platform of the giulietta isn't that old itself...p

2007, since it's based on the Bravo platform. So five years older than the current Golf. Five years is two years short of an entire model cycle in the car industry - or quite a bit older.

Oh yeah....and the motoring press is full of robots without personal preferences...

We have preferences. That doesn't mean we're not paid to be impartial.

so your saying i should base my opinion on how much petrol a car with 85hp consumes and generally performs on a german motorway?

No. I'm saying that saying an "85 hp car is crap anyway" is idiotic, since it's judging one car on only one of its criteria - apparently gleaned from nothing more in-depth than running it on a motorway.

A go-kart would be pretty awful on an autobahn too, but it has strengths in other areas. Saying the Mito is crap on the motorway (in lowish-power trim) is like saying a MINI Coupe is rubbish at off-roading. You're picking one facet of its repertoire, evaluating it in an area that facet is weaker at, and coming to a verdict entirely based on that.

So in which category are they superior then?

It varies. Frankly, everything in that class is six of one, half a dozen of the other - all are pretty spacious, all are pretty economical, all are pretty refined, all are pretty quick compared to their predecessors, all are pretty well built, all are fairly practical, and all come with a huge range of engine and transmission combinations covering just about every base an owner could want.

Choosing one is pretty much down to which badge you like the best these days. But the Alfas are not appreciably better or worse than anything else in the class. I could fully understand someone choosing the Alfa simply because the Golf bored the crap out of them - and the thing is, the car they'd be getting would be nearly as good anyway.

so you are just taking opinions other people wrote down and post them as facts, rather than really have driven all these cars...nice, wasn't that the thing you negatively ask i was doing in your first respond? or how is this to be interpreted?

No.

Those links are all aggregated reviews across the motoring press. I.e. dozens of drivers have driven them in a professional capacity and determined whether the cars are any good. Because those scores are aggregated, it takes out the inherent bias of only one driver driving everything, who may value some characteristics more than others.

No, I've not driven all of the cars involved. But I've driven some of them, and a hell of a lot more besides. Quite enough to judge that neither the Mito or Giulietta are bad cars. Enough, even, to judge that they're both pretty good cars.

The aggregated reviews bear this out.

So even you are saying there are three cars already better than the alfa...why should i buy the fourth best car with a questionable image then?

I never said you should. You said this:

Why are the Mito and the Giulietta good cars? They are heavy, slow and not as well build compared to the VWs, Toyotas and what have you...okay their engines aren't bad, but also not as good as they say they are.

...and I've subsequently offered you reasons as to why they're good cars (which you seem to have ignored a few times now), and why "heavy, slow, not as well built" etc vary between untrue and incredibly subjective.

You're free to go out and buy whatever you like. As a few quotes above, all the cars in the class are pretty similarly talented.

since the audi is apparently worse than the VW and the Leon, i'd say price is in the final "equation", which i haven't considered in my views, as i drove the cars. how do the a-class and the bmw perform without that in mind?

Incorrect. Price is usually taken into consideration in comparison with a car's peers. I.e. the Audi isn't being rated down for being more expensive than a Golf or a Focus, it's being rated down for not being as good as say, a 1-Series, in a particular area. Ditto the 1-Series versus others, and the A-Class versus others.

If I were to hazard a guess, based on driving the BMW and Mercedes (I've not driven the A3 yet, and other than from a completist point of view I'm in no rush to), the BMW loses out for being ugly (subjectively - I quite like it) and fairly average to drive in variants other than the M135i (less subjective - low-end 1-Series are nothing special to drive), and the Mercedes loses out for being hard-riding (quite objective), not as refined as you'd expect (also objective), and a little short on space (not bad in isolation, but more cramped-feeling than rivals).

As I've driven this on country roads as well, I can tell you, it's quite good but worse than the 1-series and even the old focus. None of the cars had optional suspension. The VW golf (VI and VII) feels very safe and isn't as much fun to drive...but it was more comfortable, as was the Astra.

And the flaw of comparing cars directly back to back is that most customers don't do this. If the Alfa wasn't actually uncomfortable (and it isn't) then it'll be comfortable enough for most.

Saying the Alfa is worse than the old Focus doesn't really reflect badly, it reflects well on the Focus - the new Focus isn't as good to drive as the old Focus either...

what was it you wrote about twisting words? I never said it is necessarily a bad thing they are cooperating from a business view.

I'm not "twisting" anything. You just seem to be needlessly negative to the concept of a shared MX-5/Spider.

You can't choose between a Mx-5 or Spider...you can just buy an mx-5 with two different stylings...if they don't alter the engines at least, thats not enough for me, though i'm not sure if i prefer alfa engines to the ones from mazda

Right. And I'm asking why it's a problem - surely, you're getting the best of both worlds with this collaboration? I'd like to see Alfa succeed as much as anyone, but the best way for them to do that isn't to expensively develop a new rear-drive sports car platform from scratch, when they can get one of the best in the business to do that for them.

As long as the new car "feels" like an Alfa, I can't see any downside to it at all.

 

[analog]

I'm always wondering how these collaborations work financially, I know the development costs are shared and thus cheaper for both brands but are the profits of these separate models in some way shared as well?
Particularly from Mazda's perspective, as I can see that the Alfa would gain a lot of additional sales (from people who wouldn't normally buy an MX5, due to the 'hairdresser'/'girl's car' stereotypes or simply from Alfa fans wanting to buy an Alfa spider) but could also steal a lot customers who would normally buy an MX5.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm always wondering how these collaborations work financially, I know the development costs are shared and thus cheaper for both brands but are the profits of these separate models in some way shared as well?

To the best of my knowledge, no. It depends what proportion of development is shared by each maker, to how much profit per unit each will make.

My best guess of what Alfa gets from the deal: Mazda's expertise in making a compact, light, rear-drive sports car. Mazda's expertise on how to build it properly. Shared development costs, possibly weighted Mazda's way (since they're the guys with the know-how.

My best guess of what Mazda gets from the deal: Some of Fiat's money towards developing the car. Better economies of scale, reducing unit cost (Mazda is still a relatively small company, so tie ups with big companies always help - the next B-segment car sold by Toyota in the U.S. will also be Mazda-developed, and Toyota bankrolled...). Theoretically, the ability to build them in Europe in a Fiat plant - since MX-5s are currently shipped half way around the world to get to Europe, which bumps up the cost.

I suspect both brands will get a bit of kudos from the deal, too. From those in the know, at least. Everyone knows Mazda is great at making sports cars. Everyone knows Alfa has a rich heritage of sports cars, and a cool brand name. Associating those two things can only be good.

The current unknown is just how much the cars will share - whether this'll be a simple re-skin job with a different engine thrown in, or whether it'll literally be just the bare architecture each car shares. I suspect it'd lean towards the latter, since modern production techniques are pretty clever and a car designed to be more than one thing at once can be changed relatively cheaply. You might even find the cars are as different as having different windscreen surrounds and wheelbases, yet architecturally they might be quite similar.

 

[DeadStig86]

2007, since it's based on the Bravo platform. So five years older than the current Golf. Five years is two years short of an entire model cycle in the car industry - or quite a bit older.

bearing in mind the giulietta came out in 2010, it will be heavier till 2017

We have preferences. That doesn't mean we're not paid to be impartial.

I'm not paid at all to write this down....why should i be impartial? I told you my subjective and objective view.

No. I'm saying that saying an "85 hp car is crap anyway" is idiotic, since it's judging one car on only one of its criteria - apparently gleaned from nothing more in-depth than running it on a motorway.

A go-kart would be pretty awful on an autobahn too, but it has strengths in other areas. Saying the Mito is crap on the motorway (in lowish-power trim) is like saying a MINI Coupe is rubbish at off-roading. You're picking one facet of its repertoire, evaluating it in an area that facet is weaker at, and coming to a verdict entirely based on that.

If you have read my post carefully you would have noticed that i was talking about petrol consume at this point and didn't judge the whole car just on this one drive.....every car with 85hp will lose out at 100mph and be crap. nice you didn't quote the rest of my last response there.....

It varies. Frankly, everything in that class is six of one, half a dozen of the other - all are pretty spacious, all are pretty economical, all are pretty refined, all are pretty quick compared to their predecessors, all are pretty well built, all are fairly practical, and all come with a huge range of engine and transmission combinations covering just about every base an owner could want.

Choosing one is pretty much down to which badge you like the best these days. But the Alfas are not appreciably better or worse than anything else in the class. I could fully understand someone choosing the Alfa simply because the Golf bored the crap out of them - and the thing is, the car they'd be getting would be nearly as good anyway.

Like I said....nearly as good won't cut it, thats why they aren't selling any cars. Because of the similarities, a car needs an USP to succeed. For instance the VW is the best all-rounder and classless, the bmw and the ford are more fun, also with a small engine, the audi just feels like quality, is a bit harder than the alfa but as competent in the bends and so on and so forth. all this cars generally have a more positive image, and can be specked up a lot more and this is why the alfa needs to be better, at least in one department.

No.

Those links are all aggregated reviews across the motoring press. I.e. dozens of drivers have driven them in a professional capacity and determined whether the cars are any good. Because those scores are aggregated, it takes out the inherent bias of only one driver driving everything, who may value some characteristics more than others.

No, I've not driven all of the cars involved. But I've driven some of them, and a hell of a lot more besides. Quite enough to judge that neither the Mito or Giulietta are bad cars. Enough, even, to judge that they're both pretty good cars.

The aggregated reviews bear this out.

So tell me, which magazines are in there and how many of them measure their data themselves and don't write down the factory specifications? Which cars have YOU actually driven?

...and I've subsequently offered you reasons as to why they're good cars (which you seem to have ignored a few times now), and why "heavy, slow, not as well built" etc vary between untrue and incredibly subjective.

You're free to go out and buy whatever you like. As a few quotes above, all the cars in the class are pretty similarly talented.

The giulietta is heavier, slower and not as well built as all the cars from volkswagen and i bet i can find more examples. You still haven't offered me one department where the alfa is superior, because it doesn't exist. And to say that all the cars are the same, just proves that you can't have driven too many of them. or weren't paying attention. or are an incompetent drive.

Incorrect. Price is usually taken into consideration in comparison with a car's peers. I.e. the Audi isn't being rated down for being more expensive than a Golf or a Focus, it's being rated down for not being as good as say, a 1-Series, in a particular area. Ditto the 1-Series versus others, and the A-Class versus others.

If I were to hazard a guess, based on driving the BMW and Mercedes (I've not driven the A3 yet, and other than from a completist point of view I'm in no rush to), the BMW loses out for being ugly (subjectively - I quite like it) and fairly average to drive in variants other than the M135i (less subjective - low-end 1-Series are nothing special to drive), and the Mercedes loses out for being hard-riding (quite objective), not as refined as you'd expect (also objective), and a little short on space (not bad in isolation, but more cramped-feeling than rivals).

So you don't see the audi and alfa in one class, but then you say it's worse because it got less points under other circumstances? This doesn't make any sense. Both the cars have to be tested under the same criteria, even though the audi is costing more (not so much more actually, and as i said, you should get back most of it when it comes to reselling).
Also a serious car review would maybe write about design but never put it in the final score....thats for the customer to decide. As for the BMW, i find it does make a quite a difference even in the standard models, just having this beautiful feel through the steering makes it special, cause no other car can offer it in this class. i bet it gets even better driving a 120d, as i was only driving the 116i. And as for the mercedes: I haven't driven it, so i won't write about it (as opposed to you) only thing i can say, it will be sold a lot more than the alfa just because of the badge and despite the high price.

And the flaw of comparing cars directly back to back is that most customers don't do this. If the Alfa wasn't actually uncomfortable (and it isn't) then it'll be comfortable enough for most.

I didn't know there are that many rich people out there who just give 20K to the first car dealer they see, without visiting some more. From where did you take this information? Which means alfa only needs a massive amount of dealers and they will be fine? or is it advertising?
And whats the point in motor reviews then?

Saying the Alfa is worse than the old Focus doesn't really reflect badly, it reflects well on the Focus - the new Focus isn't as good to drive as the old Focus either...

Not my opinion

I'm not "twisting" anything. You just seem to be needlessly negative to the concept of a shared MX-5/Spider.

As i wrote in my last post (the bit you didn't quote) i didn't write that a mx-5 from alfa would be a bad thing seen from a business view....thats the twisting thing.
I've given you my opinion on why I (and I mean "I") wouldn't buy a mx-5 with alfa spider and the reasons....even though in your last post you said i hadn't....thats the "twisting" part again. And only because my view isn't as positive as yours doesn't mean it's wrong.

Right. And I'm asking why it's a problem - surely, you're getting the best of both worlds with this collaboration? I'd like to see Alfa succeed as much as anyone, but the best way for them to do that isn't to expensively develop a new rear-drive sports car platform from scratch, when they can get one of the best in the business to do that for them.

As long as the new car "feels" like an Alfa, I can't see any downside to it at all.

Like I said in the my last two posts....diversity, maybe now you will read it.
Personally I want a bespoke alfa spider and don't tell me thats impossible, the not so small fiat group should be able to produce such a thing as a bespoke alfa sports car....especially because alfa is supposed to sell sporty cars.
And if this one would be better than the Mx-5, think about the impact that would have, rather than building a copy.


As we are turning in circles now and you started to quote me out of context (which really makes you seem like a really good journalist), a discussion is now quite impossible. You can write whatever you like...i'm off....

 

[homeforsummer]

bearing in mind the giulietta came out in 2010, it will be heavier till 2017

You've not yet explained why this is specifically a bad thing.

I'm not paid at all to write this down....why should i be impartial? I told you my subjective and objective view.

I am paid to write my opinions on cars, on the other hand. It's my job to be impartial.

If you have read my post carefully you would have noticed that i was talking about petrol consume at this point and didn't judge the whole car just on this one drive.....every car with 85hp will lose out at 100mph and be crap. nice you didn't quote the rest of my last response there.....

It's nothing to do with me not reading your post carefully.

You simply didn't make it very clear. The strong impression I got was that you were judging the entire car on its horsepower - not the economy of a particular car based on its low horsepower and high speed driving.

I'll put some of this down to the language barrier, but if you paragraph and punctuate your posts a little clearer, then misunderstandings like this will become less likely.

Like I said....nearly as good won't cut it

Why? Plenty of cars that are "nearly as good" as others are still good cars. I seem to recall you've even said yourself that both the current Alfas are decent cars - which is fine, were your original post not built on the premise that both were near the bottom of their respective classes - which is untrue, as I've already shown with linked reviews.

a car needs an USP to succeed.

I agree.

For instance the VW is the best all-rounder and classless, the bmw and the ford are more fun, also with a small engine, the audi just feels like quality, is a bit harder than the alfa but as competent in the bends and so on and so forth. all this cars generally have a more positive image, and can be specked up a lot more and this is why the alfa needs to be better, at least in one department.

The Alfa is better in some departments.

I'll try this one again: In my experience, it's more fun than many of its rivals (including the Golf, which you've said yourself isn't that fun). It's also better looking than many. It has more character (subjective, but also important - if we didn't want at least some character in our cars, we'd all drive VW Golfs).

Bottom line: The Alfa doesn't have to be better in every department than every rival to be considered a worthy vehicle. A BMW is more fun than a Golf - that doesn't make the Golf a less worthy car. An Audi A3 is better built than virtually any of them - this doesn't make a BMW or a Golf a badly-built car.

See how that works?

So tell me, which magazines are in there and how many of them measure their data themselves and don't write down the factory specifications?

Why don't you go to the links and see for yourself?

For the record, all the major UK magazines (linked) do their own performance and economy testing. Though since we seem to be discussing largely subjective issues, I'm not sure why you're concerned about this all of a sudden.

Which cars have YOU actually driven?

Many. I'm one of the motoring journalists you denigrated earlier. In the Mito's class, I've driven pretty much every model there is - I think I'm missing a Hyundai i20 and a Fiat Punto, but other than that I've got the set. In the Giulietta's class, I'm yet to drive the Astra, Hyundai again, Kia and the new MQB cars, but again - that's about it.

On the record, I find the Focus completely overrated. The 1-Series drives brilliantly in M135i spec and is fairly average elsewhere. The A-Class is a genuinely nice car in most trim levels, but has a poor ride.

You still haven't offered me one department where the alfa is superior, because it doesn't exist.

I have, both above, and previously. I prefer the way it drives to many of the others. It's more fun. It's also no less well built than any of the German ones - i.e. on a par, or above, the entire rest of the class.

And to say that all the cars are the same, just proves that you can't have driven too many of them. or weren't paying attention. or are an incompetent drive.

Oh grow up. You can start telling me I'm no good at my job when you know anything about me. Until then, do the decent thing and keep quiet.

From where did you take this information?

From others in the industry. Believe it or not, but most customers stick with what they know. If they've always driven Fords, they're unlikely to visit too many other dealers when looking for a new car, unless their previous Ford was rubbish. Same with many other brands. I seem to recall the figure for BMW X5 drivers is something like 90% return rates - do you really think all those X5 drivers go out and test M-Classes, or do you think they just walk straight back into a BMW dealership and buy another X5?

Which means alfa only needs a massive amount of dealers and they will be fine?

To be flippant, yes. If someone had ten Alfa dealerships within a ten mile radius, they'd probably not drive another ten miles to go to an Audi dealership. The economics of car buying are actually very simple. People, generally, stick with what they know.

And whats the point in motor reviews then?

Unbiased information, to be used as the buying public see fit.

Or entertainment. It depends what part of the population you're aiming at. Nobody watches Top Gear for information (or if they do, they shouldn't), equally, nobody reads What Car? for entertainment. Horses for courses.

Not my opinion

Which bit? That the old Focus is better than the new? Or that saying the Alfa is worse than the Focus isn't that bad?

As i wrote in my last post (the bit you didn't quote) i didn't write that a mx-5 from alfa would be a bad thing seen from a business view....thats the twisting thing.

That's just as well, since I wasn't accusing you of saying it'd be bad business-wise.

I was asking why you thought it preferable that Alfa developed their own car from scratch, rather than with a Mazda tie-in?

And only because my view isn't as positive as yours doesn't mean it's wrong.

I didn't say it was wrong, but nice strawman.

I was simply - and have been since my very first post on the matter - trying to get to the root of why you'd prefer Alfa to go their own way with the Spider.

Like I said in the my last two posts....diversity, maybe now you will read it.

Again: drop the attitude. I've read every word, and while I understand that English may not be your first language, I can only understand something if you write it clearly. This hasn't been happening in every sentence.

I'm not sure how an entirely Alfa-developed roadster is any less diverse in the marketplace from one co-developed with Mazda. They're still niche products in a niche market.

Personally I want a bespoke alfa spider and don't tell me thats impossible, the not so small fiat group should be able to produce such a thing as a bespoke alfa sports car....especially because alfa is supposed to sell sporty cars.

Then you don't seem to understand the mechanics of the car industry.

It isn't impossible to develop a new platform, just ludicrously expensive. And the market at the moment is on a knife-edge - the last thing Fiat wants to be spending money on is on a hugely expensive new platform that would probably only see use in a low-volume sports car.

As we are turning in circles now and you started to quote me out of context (which really makes you seem like a really good journalist),

And again: Quit with the not-so veiled insults at my job.

a discussion is now quite impossible. You can write whatever you like...i'm off....

Well thank Christ for that. Maybe a break will give you a little time to consider how you interpret my posts. My original reply to yours was quite non-confrontational, but you've managed to drag it further and further into an argument.

 

[Goshin2568]

I was simply - and have been since my very first post on the matter - trying to get to the root of why you'd prefer Alfa to go their own way with the Spider.

I'm not sure how an entirely Alfa-developed roadster is any less diverse in the marketplace from one co-developed with Mazda. They're still niche products in a niche market.

Then you don't seem to understand the mechanics of the car industry.

It isn't impossible to develop a new platform, just ludicrously expensive. And the market at the moment is on a knife-edge - the last thing Fiat wants to be spending money on is on a hugely expensive new platform that would probably only see use in a low-volume sports car.

While I'm not trying to jump in on this argument, I do kind of see DeadStig's point here. Say Fiat/Alfa decides they want to build a sports car with the purpose of being better than the MX-5 (as ludicrous or expensive as that may be). Not only could that produce a great car in and of itself, but it spurs on Mazda to try even harder with the new MX-5, which, to be honest, they don't have much motivation to do at the moment other than reputation, because they are in, as you say, a niche market. As unrealistic as it may be, it would certainly go a long way in restoring the brand credibility in the eyes of enthusiasts if they went for that goal by themselves and achieved it, or even got really close.