Not sure what your second paragraph is trying to get at, unless you've been dreaming up reasons why you don't / can't / won't buy a Lexus / Saab / anything Carl or I drive.
And the radio - that's quite low down IIRC, isn't it? The BX had a radio like that - complete with a built in plastic flip front thing. I think of it as the forerunner to the modern flip-front Kenwood mask style radio.
Well, yes - I use my 150-ish bhp a lot of the time, but didn't want single figure MPG in a daily driver.
"Business needs" car.
I don't actually use my company car for anything other than company business - so why pay tax on a Focus TDCI when you can halve your tax bill (and have lower fuel costs) by running something equally hateful?
Because it's totally illogical to say I have the 'wrong engine', when your choice could be seen as equally wrong.
There's always a compromise - and you'll naturally quote MPG - but the MPG of a HOT vs LPT is a hell of a lot closer than the 35mpg vs sub
20mpg than the TSpark vs V6.
This is without taking into account the almost zero-maintenance requirements of a TSpark, compared with the V6.
Again, not something that varies wildly when comparing HOT with LPT.
Suppose it's all about personal opinions - I would only ever buy a Saab with the HOT engine, and it would have to be with a proper Saab (Ricardo) slant-4, rather than a warmed over Ecotec.
Your 2.0 75 *is* the wrong engine, and will always be. It's like buying a 320i instead of an M3 and saying "Ah, but the 2.0 is smoother", it doesn't matter, it's always going to be gutless crap compared to one with the proper engine.
Saab have been doing LPT turbo lumps very well indeed for a long time. Saab are one of the best there is at turbocharging engines, and wouldn't have entertained the V6 GM lump if they'd not been forced by GM into fitting it, their whole design philosophy has been to use 4 cylinder turbo engines instead of larger capacity V6 engines.
I don't get it either. If Steve's got the wrong engine, so have you - either an oil burner or something properly fast would be appropriate, neither of which you have. Now you say yours is the right choice for the compromise you choose - if that's the case, so's Steve's.
Not valid. More valid would be M3 vs 325i, as the BHP is more comparable.
For some people, the 325i may well be the better choice - in the same way that, in a later 5-series, a 540i may well be a better choice than an M5.
Sorry, that just doesn't work. Even if we ignore your talk of the GM V6, which hadn't even entered the discussion.
Saab may well have been doing LPT lumps 'very well' for a long time, but, to me, LPT isn't why you buy a Saab. You buy one for the nutter bastard performance of the HOT variety.
However, Alfa have been doing cracking 4-Pots for even longer than Saab have been doing LPT lumps, but they're wrong, because they don't conform with your willy-waving, big capacity, multi-cylinder fetish.
I don't actually know anyone, other than you and Dervman, who says a 2t twin-cam 4-pot is 'wrong' in an Alfa.
Except you didn't use yours for commuting, except for very occasionally. So the fuel economy thing goes out of the window. When you had a particularly long commute for a while, you bought a Primera to do it in to avoid putting the miles on the 75.
No, entirely valid; it's another point you decide not to understand.
*rolls eyes*
No, that's not why the majority of people buy a Saab. They buy it for... drum roll... the low pressure turbo model.
People buy Alfa Romeos for the noise. Not for for commuter mileage / low maintenance / blah blah *yawn* stuff that people buy a low pressure Saab for. Why I bought a LPT 9-3 for.
In the 75, the 2.0 is the wrong engine. The 3.0 is the right engine.
Maybe you'd prefer the VAG 2.0 TDI, as it uses less fuel, has fewer service requirements, but it as smooth as any other 2.0 diesel?
I know plenty. I also know plenty in this newsgroup.
WTF are you buying an Alfa Romeo to commute in anyway?
Oh, that's right, you didn't. You dare not. Or something equally left foot.
A lot of people buy them because they have a large very useable wodge of mid-range torque. Most of the HOT Saabs just turn to tyre shredding disaster areas if you try to use all the poke on anything other than very smooth roads.
I've owned both V6 and four pot Alfas. The 4 pot isn't even comparable to the V6 for anything. Power, power delivery, torque, sound, performance.
The 2.0 is wrong in any Alfa you can get with the 3.0. Simple as that.
Nothing to do with '2illy waving', I leave that for the inadequates who believe in prestige badges.
Not only for the noise. That's why you think people buy them.
Not that the 2lt sounds s**te anyway.
Wrong. They're both right. 1.8 carbed versions are, arguably, wrong - but then it was designed as a mainstream large family car, so got a variety of engine choices.
Strangely, that's exactly what Saab did, too.
Most of whom wouldn't appreciate the finer points of Alfa ownership, so I'll happily ignore their ill-informed, media-driven 'opinions'.
Oh, really?
So, I didn't commute in my 33, in my 155 or use my 156 for business. And Mrs H hasn't been commuting in Alfas for years, either.
(In fact, if I could take a cash alternative, the Wagon would still have been my company car - I bought it to do circa 40k miles in / year - I'm that confident in the reliability)
We just park them up to look at and get on public transport, obviously.
Except I did. Then it was used for commuting by Mrs H for a good few years.
Yes, I did end up with a Primula - but only because the Alfa needed a new clutch slave cylinder, and I couldn't get it done quickly and needed a car for a circa 400 mile round-trip twice a week.
The original plan was to go back to the 75 myself, but then Mrs H wanted it to replace her 33 8v.
Of the 30k miles we've done in it, around 25k have been commuting.
Comparing the 2.0 with the 3.0 as regards noise, why would you buy the 2.0?
No. The four cylinder models are wrong. Alfa Romeos were not about the commuter car, mileage, servicing, insurance. Otherwise they'd sell very, very few. Okay as you were.
The 155 was _probably_ a more successful blend. The 156 was marketed as an alternative to the usual commuter stuff, except it wasn't as bulletproof reliable. Sure, the enthusiast* has no problems, but the lazy-arsed company car driver, who is far too busy to check the oil, had problems with them.
And the 159 is so rare, because people were scared off by the 156's issues, because it's too expensive, front wheel drive and to cap it all, it's also chuff ugly to a lot of people (me included).
*lots of press articles bashing the Alfa Romeo consider an enthusiast to be somebody who simply checks the fluid levels every other day.
Lots of us happily ignore your whining protests about understeery that and cross country missile this, so that sounds fair enough.
Yes, really.
Doesn't sound like it. You said that you'd bought the Marea, Primera and / or the Passat (you've had so many munters disguised as the fastest cross country missile in the world, ever, that I lose track) for the commute and that the 75 was too fragile.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.