Re: 164 a sports sedan?

[Nicky Avery <nicky@domain.elided>]

> I am not especially objective but I can tell you that a 164 is definitely
> NOT a sports sedan.

No, you can't, Michael. Agreed the stock 164 is not a barnstormer but you can't say the LS upwards is anemic - or even anaemic :-) .


> The Milano is.

Which Milano are we talking about? The Milano 2.5 was a nice drive but don't get carried away.


> The Berlina is though the giulia and giulietta versions
> (especially the TI)
The 1750/2000 Berlina is a sports sedan but the LS and Q are not? Are you sneaking something into your cuppa? Agreed the Giulia was a sports sedan and the ti Super was wild but the Berlina and Giulietta Berlina????


> are more sports sedan than the bigger Alfas.
By "bigger" you mean the 2600, 6 and 90?


> The 164 is a very good handling, heavy luxury sedan. It is a great car, if
> that's what you want. It was not intended to compare with a sports sedan
> like the Milano (in Europe the 155 was the closest equivalent.)

The closest equivalent in Europe was the 75, which was the Milano

> Torque steer is a major problem with the 164.
Until 1994, as someone else pointed out


> I really love the way my 164 drives, but it ain't no Milano that's for
> sure.

Exactly and I'll take my LS over my old Silver any day, thank you.


> The GTV6/Milano was ... <snip> Too expensive to build
> one with that level of sophistication, and what did they charge for them?
Would it have been better for Alfa to make the 164 more of a scaled-up 116 (with De Dion)? - sure but, as you imply, it would have been a $30K car in '91. At the time Alfa was trying to compete on price and we all know where that got them.


> A
> steal, even with the build quality problems.

Absolutely but my LS is very well built apart from some of the German-made components (shocking to some?).

Nicky
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided