Alfa's 11, I mean 12, and now 13 years (and counting) of broken promises

[sportyaccordy]

All to often people ignore regular maintenance and then blame problems on the car. Some cars need more precise maintenance than others. And anyone who ignores regular maintenance and then blames the car/brand should be bitch slapped until they need to take off their shirt to shit.

I'm surprised the transmission in your Honda didn't blow up and maim you or your house burned down because of...oh, Honda engine fires....  

If Car A and B are in the same class + price point, there is no reason Car A should require 100x more maintenance than Car B. Blaming the owner for shitty design & quality is asinine. If Honda can build a low maintenance family sedan, it makes no sense that Alfa's family sedans that cost MORE and have the same level of tech/equipment should require the maintenance of a Ferrari.

I know you have beef w/CR but some cars really ARE less inherently reliable than others for a given level of maintenance.

Perfect example- Porsche- most Porsche owners are 100% diligent and enthusiastic about their cars, and yet so many of their engines completely grenaded. You don't see that kind of shit even in the most high performance Japanese or even American cars these days.

We have tons of high-mileage German and European cars in Europe. So what's the problem?  

If our cars are so shitty at high mileage, then why would some people here still drive them? Why not buy a used Japanese car that are sooooooooooooo reliable and hold up so well that they're quite popular at classic car shows....oh wait.  

You just said 170,000 km is "a lot" by German standards. So what exactly constitutes high mileage there? 50,000 km? 100,000 km? Most cars sold in America aren't even out of warranty at that point. I've had a range of cars at about 90-130 thousand miles (160-200 thousand km) that have all been relatively trouble free... all Japanese... would you have the same confidence in buying a 200,000 km Alfa?

[cawimmer430]

If Car A and B are in the same class + price point, there is no reason Car A should require 100x more maintenance than Car B. Blaming the owner for shitty design & quality is asinine. If Honda can build a low maintenance family sedan, it makes no sense that Alfa's family sedans that cost MORE and have the same level of tech/equipment should require the maintenance of a Ferrari.

What exactly affects reliability? The material quality? A particular design? The weather? A generous bribe from Toyota to Consumer Reports?

Assuming both cars are built to the same standard, one would assume that both would have the same quality. But in everyday conditions, different factors can affect the longevity of certain components etc. And all to often things can break because of a simple design flaw or weak material. It's always fun to read about someone in sunny California bragging about no rust on their car as opposed to their friends car in rainy Oregon. Yeah, genius.

Alfa Romeo is first and foremost an emotional brand. People who value heritage, design, class and spirited performance go for these cars and are willing to pay for it. I'd go as far to say that they're bought for their individuality and the individuality it gives the owner. A Toyota Corolla might be dead reliable, but it's crap compared to Alfa Romeo in all other regards. Crap styling, crap comfort, crap handling, crap interior design - no passion. This is a good car for someone who wants something to get them from A to B with minimal fuzz. It's not a good car for the car enthusiast with other priorities and more emphasis on other aspects of the car.

A modern Alfa Romeo is pretty reliable overall. They have improved tremendously since the '80s. The terrible times of the '70s and '80s are practically over for Italian cars. I have friends with high mileage Fiat Stilos and Puntos etc. and these cars keep running, running and running. In fact they're popular amongst students because they're reliable and cheap to maintain and have cheaper taxes attached to them.

Perfect example- Porsche- most Porsche owners are 100% diligent and enthusiastic about their cars, and yet so many of their engines completely grenaded.

Eh, I believe only the 996 had engine issues in the beginning with cracked blocks.

For the most part, Porsche engines are very well-made and reliable.

You don't see that kind of shit even in the most high performance Japanese or even American cars these days.

Oh please. Cars like the Supra etc. are so overrated. This whole "Toyotas never break" is just a bunch of bullshit. People automatically assume a 1,000-hp Supra will be dead reliable just because it is made by Toyota. Sure.

High performance cars are high maintenance and their high horsepower output means these engines will never be as long-lasting as weaker engines that aren't under stress. A Formula One engine only lasts for about 500-1,000 km maximum. Granted, it's not made for daily driving and longterm reliability but the extreme performance stress these engines endure causes this limited lifespan. I have a hard time believing a 1,000-hp Supra can be used as a daily driver without developing issues even if it's designed as a daily driver.

You just said 170,000 km is "a lot" by German standards. So what exactly constitutes high mileage there? 50,000 km? 100,000 km? Most cars sold in America aren't even out of warranty at that point. I've had a range of cars at about 90-130 thousand miles (160-200 thousand km) that have all been relatively trouble free... all Japanese... would you have the same confidence in buying a 200,000 km Alfa?

100,000 km is a reference number just like 60 mph is used as a reference measure acceleration in the US. For a sports car, lower mileages are more desirable here but for everyday family cars 100,000 km is just a reference. It's considered high mileage but anything between 100,000 and 200,000 and higher is also considered high mileage. Naturally, people ANYWHERE when buying second hand cars are interested in getting "lower mileages", probably for psychological  reasons.

I'm not making this up, but my experience with Japanese cars is the opposite of yours. On all our Mitsubishi cars in the Philippines the A/Cs failed pretty much in the 50-60,000 km region nad had issues of some kind. Our Nissan Cefiro was a complete POS with electrical issues here and there. I don't have this "soooooooooooooo reliable" experience with Japanese cars that people claim are Gods gift to mankind. 

And a 200,000 km Alfa [or car from any brand] is something I wouldn't buy if I didn't know the owner. How any owner treats their car is important when buying second hand. In this case, I know the guy. I know he treats his cars with respect and he treated this Alfa with respect. The car runs great, is solid inside and out. I wouldn't have any qualms buying THIS car (in this case an Alfa) from this guy if I had the money and need for it. In this case I don't need the car since it is a performance car and quite thirsty in terms of fuel consumption.

[sportyaccordy]

Assuming both cars are built to the same standard

That's the whole point Wimmer. They're not.

EVO's buyer's guide is about as anti-CR a source of reliability data as you can get. And they acknowledge all the problems the GTAs have. Yes, you're right that a Corolla might not be as fun to drive. But less comfortable? That's bogus. And everything else you said is purely opinion. But never mind that. Yes the Japanese make some boring cars. But they also make some passionate cars too, like the Integra Type-R. That has just as much "design" and "passion" as any Alfa, but they have NO reliability problems. So what the hell are you talking about?

My mom's Lexus had a transmission failure and my dad's Infiniti didn't start one day. Statistically, someone is gonna get a dud. But when MOST people have the SAME problems with a certain car, it's UNRELIABLE. As much as you hate CR, there is validity and truth in their measurements, and for most people things like reliability are important. What good are passion or whatever when you don't know if your car will get you to work every day + safely?

And 1000 HP Supras do last as every day cars... hell a 500 HP Supra on stock internals will last because they are crazy overbuilt. Plus it's not like people are flooring a 1000 HP car everywhere they go. So assuming mostly normal driving, why would an engine built to put down 1000HP blow up if it mainly doesn't see more than 200-300HP of load?

The bottom line is, you have a wholly emotional irrational beef w/Japanese cars (most specifically Toyota). Get the fuck over it.

[Rupert]

It's always fun to read about someone in sunny California bragging about no rust on their car as opposed to their friends car in rainy Oregon. Yeah, genius.

Oregon cars don't rust much, either.

[mzziaz]

Oregon cars don't rust much, either.

I can attest to that. I once owned a 76 Capri that had lived 30 years in Portland. No rust problems.

[MrH]

Wimmer, you need to seriously work on some European cars, then Japanese cars.  It'll become pretty clear why, for the most part, Japanese cars are more reliable.

[sportyaccordy]

Working on one's own car is for idiots! Better to pay ?200/hr for an oil change and ensure proper maintenance procedure

[cawimmer430]

EVO's buyer's guide is about as anti-CR a source of reliability data as you can get. And they acknowledge all the problems the GTAs have. Yes, you're right that a Corolla might not be as fun to drive. But less comfortable? That's bogus. And everything else you said is purely opinion. But never mind that. Yes the Japanese make some boring cars. But they also make some passionate cars too, like the Integra Type-R. That has just as much "design" and "passion" as any Alfa, but they have NO reliability problems. So what the hell are you talking about?

I've driven Corollas in the past. Hard and noisy suspensions. Nothing impressive. Maybe they've improved their comfort (they probably have) but I skip most Toyota car reviews because those cars don't interest me. Look, the Corolla is good for the non-car guy who wants something reliable to get them from A to B with minimal costs. They don't care about the drive, they don't care about looks. They only care about costs for the most part. That's fine. I prefer a bit of styling excitement. Alfa Romeo and Fiat, Citroen etc. make cars that are stylish and visually exciting and also fun to drive in their own way. Part of what makes them fun is their cool styling. It adds a smile to your face. And they've got some peppy engines to. That's my direction. I like a blend of styling and dependability and these cars are reliable enough. I can put up with a few hiccups along the way to.

I can't relate to the Integra or any other Japanese performance car because they aren't very popular here. There's no large tuning community here that worships the performance cars from Honda, Nissan etc. Every performance car the Japanese have tried to sell here has failed: the Supra, the NSX, the Silvia, the 3000GT, the RX-7 etc. All sales flops, basically.

My mom's Lexus had a transmission failure and my dad's Infiniti didn't start one day. Statistically, someone is gonna get a dud. But when MOST people have the SAME problems with a certain car, it's UNRELIABLE. As much as you hate CR, there is validity and truth in their measurements, and for most people things like reliability are important. What good are passion or whatever when you don't know if your car will get you to work every day + safely?

If a car develops a certain similar problem over and over again, it must definitely be due to a DESIGN FLAW of a certain component. Fix the design flaw and the problem should go away.

Reliability is important to me, but I can make sacrifices for the sake of enjoying my cars design, drive etc. If I know that Alfa Romeo improved their quality and reliability, which they have, then I'll gladly take my chances with a gorgeous and sleek 159 Sportwagon instead of the fat and pig-like and ugly Toyota Avensis for example - which leaves me cold. No design passion went into that thing. It's an appliance (for the lack of a better word). It's the right car for the guy who doesn't care about cars and needs good value and cheap ownership costs.

And 1000 HP Supras do last as every day cars... hell a 500 HP Supra on stock internals will last because they are crazy overbuilt. Plus it's not like people are flooring a 1000 HP car everywhere they go. So assuming mostly normal driving, why would an engine built to put down 1000HP blow up if it mainly doesn't see more than 200-300HP of load?

I cannot believe this. High performance engines will never be as reliable compared to a "normal engine" with a normal output (aka no insane horsepower/liter output). Why do you think those old Mercedes' diesels lasted so long? 55-hp out a 2.0 engine = no stress on the engine components - literally.

Here Subaru Impreza WRX STis and Mitsubishi Lancer EVOs aren't known for their engine reliability and hence their piss poor resale value (also because of high tax and insurance rates etc.). In fact every most used car reviews here will tell buyers to stay away from these hochgez?chtet (highly tuned) engines because of their shaky long-term reliability.

The bottom line is, you have a wholly emotional irrational beef w/Japanese cars (most specifically Toyota). Get the fuck over it.

I have no beef with Japanese cars. They're good cars. But they're not perfect. No car is.

My opinion about Toyota is that they're overrated. Overrated to the point where anything they produce is deemed "unbreakable bla bla bla". People seem to think the Japanese are the only race on this planet capable of producing reliable machinery.

In North Africa and the Middle East the most popular old school European taxis are from Mercedes and Peugeot. They're appreciated because of their reliability and durability and ease of maintenance. Nobody talks about this. It's always "European cars suck in North Africa where the Toyota Hilux rules" bla bla bla... People who know shit, basically.

Hell, some of those older Fiats are also known for their reliability and durability in Europe (and Eastern Europe). The most famous are the Fiat 124 (which became the Lada 1200/Riva) and the Polski Fiat 125. These cars handled the crap roads and weather conditions in Eastern Europe quite well and even today are still cherished for their simplicity and reliability. So Fiat sold a bunch of rust buckets in the US in the '80s and then everyone assumes that Fiat has always made unreliable and poor quality cars. Most of the Fiats produced in the late 1970s and 1980s used cheap quality SOVIET STEEL that was supplied to them for their assistance in setting up the Soviet car industry with Lada etc.

[cawimmer430]

Wimmer, you need to seriously work on some European cars, then Japanese cars.  It'll become pretty clear why, for the most part, Japanese cars are more reliable.

Tell me why.

[cawimmer430]

Working on one's own car is for idiots! Better to pay ?200/hr for an oil change and ensure proper maintenance procedure

If you're concerned about costs, then a luxury car isn't for you.

I find it funny how people always bitch about costs at the dealerships, yet they drive the most fuel inefficient gas guzzlers on the market that require three fill-ups (I am exaggerating here) a week. As if that doesn't put a dent into their wallet. After all, it COSTS to fill that car up.

[2o6]

Tell me why.

Okay, simply from my limited personal experience, my largely German Designed Focus is much harder to work on in comparison to my American designed Neon (which in itself was not the pinnacle of engineering prowess, in fact it's near the back of the pack)



Another illustration: Before I bought my Neon and Focus, I considered the VW Jetta III and IV, respectively. Nearly all of them suffered from:

Prematurely dead waterpumps (2.0L)

Sticky lifters (VR6)

Transmission failures, most notably losing 2nd or Reverse (Manual models, but Automatics seem to like losing 3rd or 4th)

Dodgy electrics in general

If you're concerned about costs, then a luxury car isn't for you.

I find it funny how people always bitch about costs at the dealerships, yet they drive the most fuel inefficient gas guzzlers on the market that require three fill-ups (I am exaggerating here) a week. As if that doesn't put a dent into their wallet. After all, it COSTS to fill that car up.

Fuel costs and repair costs aren't in the same realm of comparison.

[Vinsanity]

If you're concerned about costs, then a luxury car isn't for you.

I find it funny how people always bitch about costs at the dealerships, yet they drive the most fuel inefficient gas guzzlers on the market that require three fill-ups (I am exaggerating here) a week. As if that doesn't put a dent into their wallet. After all, it COSTS to fill that car up.

The presumable payoff to having a fuel-inefficient car is having an engine with ample power (not that I'd expect you to understand that, though). Whereas, what is the payoff to having to pay twice as much to service an Alfa or even a BMW, compared to servicing a Lexus?

[sportyaccordy]

Bah, it's like talking to a brick wall.

Wim, believe what you want to believe. But please stop with the corny ass stupid jokes. I'm not even gonna bother with the rest, I've already said my piece 100 times.

[cawimmer430]

Okay, simply from my limited personal experience, my largely German Designed Focus is much harder to work on in comparison to my American designed Neon (which in itself was not the pinnacle of engineering prowess, in fact it's near the back of the pack)



Another illustration: Before I bought my Neon and Focus, I considered the VW Jetta III and IV, respectively. Nearly all of them suffered from:

Prematurely dead waterpumps (2.0L)

Sticky lifters (VR6)

Transmission failures, most notably losing 2nd or Reverse (Manual models, but Automatics seem to like losing 3rd or 4th)

Dodgy electrics in general

What a POS! 

Fuel costs and repair costs aren't in the same realm of comparison.

No they are not. But with the amount of times someone has to gas up their gas-guzzling luxury car, the financial sum this equates to will be more than the cost of a spare part. People argue about the price of things all the time, yet have no issues when dumping $60 worth of gas into their car three times a week (making up the fill times here).

[cawimmer430]

The presumable payoff to having a fuel-inefficient car is having an engine with ample power (not that I'd expect you to understand that, though).

Power is subjective. I find the power of the 118i to be decent for example. Everyone else here would claim their Honda Lawnmower is faster to 60 mph than this underpowered and overpriced BMW. 

Still, they're paying a lot of money for fill-ups. Depending on how often and how aggressive they drive, those are going to be a lot of expensive fuel costs.

And when they need a broken cup holder fixed for $ 15 they throw a tantrum. Now that I don't get.

Whereas, what is the payoff to having to pay twice as much to service an Alfa or even a BMW, compared to servicing a Lexus?

Why do people buy Alfas and BMWs over Lexus in Europe for example?

Aside from the many weaknesses Lexus has here and the lack of brand prestige and cache, BMW and Alfa Romeo have far more emotional appeal through their distinctive design and, you guessed it, HISTORY & HERITAGE. BMW and Alfa make cars people aspire to own. They might not be as 100% reliable as an overrated Lexus, but they give their customers something in return (emotional appeal, satisfaction etc.).

A typical non-car enthusiast may gain satisfaction from buying a Lexus. It's soooooooo reliable. That equates to satisfaction.

Other people, who are a bit more emotional about cars, derive satisfaction from other aspects of the car or brand such as styling, their history and what that makes the car for them etc.

[cawimmer430]

Bah, it's like talking to a brick wall.

Wim, believe what you want to believe. But please stop with the corny ass stupid jokes. I'm not even gonna bother with the rest, I've already said my piece 100 times.

Brick walls don't talk back and have opinions.  

[sportyaccordy]

No they are not. But with the amount of times someone has to gas up their gas-guzzling luxury car, the financial sum this equates to will be more than the cost of a spare part. People argue about the price of things all the time, yet have no issues when dumping $60 worth of gas into their car three times a week (making up the fill times here).

More fallacies. If your car is broken + in the shop a lot, the costs of parts, labor, rental cars and lost time far exceeds that of added gas. The difference in fuel costs between a big SUV & an economy car is ~$1000-1500 a year... you can easily spend that on one repair; especially for the kind of stuff EVO says breaks on Alfas.

Everything you've said in here has kind of been nonsense... you hate Toyotas because you feel like the Japanese "race" gets unfair praise you throw ALL practical considerations out the window for H&H you're mindlessly xenophobic.... and on top of all that in any thread even remotely related you have to throw in your irrational two cents in in the most obnoxious + intrusive way.  Cmon now. How many times a day do you post a stupid CR joke? We stopped laughing a good 5 years ago

[cawimmer430]

More fallacies. If your car is broken + in the shop a lot, the costs of parts, labor, rental cars and lost time far exceeds that of added gas. The difference in fuel costs between a big SUV & an economy car is ~$1000-1500 a year... you can easily spend that on one repair; especially for the kind of stuff EVO says breaks on Alfas.

Ok. Alfas suck then. Buy a Toyota and live the dream. 

Everything you've said in here has kind of been nonsense... you hate Toyotas because you feel like the Japanese "race" gets unfair praise

I don't hate Toyotas. I think they're overrated. Big time.

you throw ALL practical considerations out the window for H&H

Wrong. Dependability is important to me, but I can live with the occasional failure etc. because there are more things to enjoying a car than reliability.

And H&H gives a car brand something appealing to it. Maybe you should visit a museum like the Porsche Museum or Benz Museum some time. It might spark some emotions in you. Try getting those emotions from the world famous Lexus museum. Wait. What Lexus museum?

I'm going to scan some used car buyer guides here for you on Japanese cars. There's for example a Euro Honda Civic with 67,000 km that's already falling apart, suffering premature rust, electric issues etc. 67,000 km? That's nothing.

There's a Toyota Yaris in it that has some build quality issues. Apparently these are common for them in Europe. You know, in recent years Toyota kept getting negative consumer feedback here. Build quality and reliability has supposedly not been as good as it was in the past.

All cars have problems. There's no such thing as a perfectly reliable car. I'm just sick of all this BS about how European cars are so unreliable bla bla bla and ANY Japanese car is automatically super duper reliable. Last I checked, Toyota and Honda are the brands with that reputation whereas Nissan and Mazda are so-so and the other Japanese brands are basically average or below average.

[CALL_911]

I'd block Wimmer, but I just can't get myself to do it. Kind of like watching someone run head first into a brick wall, you can't not watch.

[sportyaccordy]

All cars have problems. There's no such thing as a perfectly reliable car. I'm just sick of all this BS about how European cars are so unreliable bla bla bla and ANY Japanese car is automatically super duper reliable. Last I checked, Toyota and Honda are the brands with that reputation whereas Nissan and Mazda are so-so and the other Japanese brands are basically average or below average.

Here's the thing. Well a couple of things.

One, nobody said anything was automatic. Toyota and Honda have both had some problematic cars. The W124, W126 and all the Benzes of that era are bulletproof. Same with Beemers. Any car that is popular in 3rd world countries = solid, and there was a time when German manufacturers made cars fit for that level of duty.

But at the end of the day, you are backing up your views with individual examples and "gut feelings". You essentially say, 'hey here is a Civic in bad shape. All Civics are unreliable'.

When we in the US say cars are unreliable, there's a litany of real world evidence to back it up as more than a fluke. After about 8 years, a 3, 5 and 7 series all cost the same. Why? Because the more expensive the car was to start, the more problems it will have down the line. You hate CR, probably only because they make the Fatherland look bad. But German brands really took a dip in quality in the 90s, at least here, and their poor ratings in CR reflect that. You can argue all you want, call CR invalid, go to a junkyard and find a crashed Civic to use as an example of a typical one, but at the end of the day you're wrong. The sooner you get over it and stop trolling the forums the better off we will all be here.

[Rupert]

On the one hand Wims is right that reliability is both relative and not the most important thing to enthusiasts like us. On the other, it's pretty hard to argue with CR and their (as far as I know) empirical data.

I think the most important thing, though, is that we're all sick and fucking tired of Wims' repetitive and pointless trolling against CR and for H&H.

[CJ]

There is such thing as a perfectly reliable car:



There's a REASON we pleaded for it not to be totaled.  It's a 100% reliable vehicle that has never once failed us.  It has never failed to start.  It has never failed to get us somewhere.  It has never failed us in any way.  We've had ONE bulb burn out.  One.  We never had a warranty claim. 

[Laconian]

What's wrong with it being totalled? You get a nice check, and you can just buy the wreck back.

[ifcar]

There is such thing as a perfectly reliable car:

Sure, many of them. There's no such thing as a perfectly reliable model of car, though.

[Madman]

What's wrong with it being totalled? You get a nice check, and you can just buy the wreck back.

Then the car is stuck with a salvage/rebuilt title.  No big deal if you plan to drive it until it dies but, if you ever want to sell or trade it, most private buyers and dealers will refuse to touch it with a bargepole.

[Laconian]

With a car that old, it's practically worthless after the wreck anyways

[sportyaccordy]

With a car that old, it's practically worthless after the wreck anyways

Yea that thing is well past the event horizon of the depreciation curve

[cawimmer430]

But at the end of the day, you are backing up your views with individual examples and "gut feelings". You essentially say, 'hey here is a Civic in bad shape. All Civics are unreliable'.

Wrong.

I am pointing out that Civic is a car like any other. It's not perfect, it has problems.

There are people who have problem-free Japanese, Korean, German, French, Italian, RUSSIAN etc. cars and there are people who have problematic cars from those same countries. What simply annoys me is this bullshit about how a car from Europe is automatically considered "unreliable" compared to "anything" out of Japan.

[Cookie Monster]

Wrong.

I am pointing out that Civic is a car like any other. It's not perfect, it has problems.

There are people who have problem-free Japanese, Korean, German, French, Italian, RUSSIAN etc. cars and there are people who have problematic cars from those same countries. What simply annoys me is this bullshit about how a car from Europe is automatically considered "unreliable" compared to "anything" out of Japan.

No, you're still wrong. Everything is based on the track record of a company's history of making (un)reliable cars. If a new car comes out, that car's reliability will be predicted by its predecessors. Considering many European makes have had less than stellar reliability while Asian makes have had much better track records in that regard, it's not a stretch to say that a new European car will be less reliable than a new Asian car.

It's like insurance. Sure there are teenagers who are safe drivers, and unsafe adult drivers, but they are exceptions to the norm. Insurance companies will still charge way more for insuring the teenager than the adult, just by going off of the known track record of that age group (holding all else equal, not considering accidents or tickets or anything).

[Onslaught]

On the one hand Wims is right that reliability is both relative and not the most important thing to enthusiasts like us. On the other, it's pretty hard to argue with CR and their (as far as I know) empirical data.

I think the most important thing, though, is that we're all sick and fucking tired of Wims' repetitive and pointless trolling against CR and for H&H.

I don't know, I'd never put up with a car that wasn't reliable. Perhaps a "toy" car that I only took out once or twice a month. But not a car I used every day.
That's why I used a Miata for so long. It worked every time and was fun too.


As for Alfa, just like the Fiat 500 I don't get the love for them. Perhaps they are all that but I can't see it. And I don't think most of them look good either. I'd never take a chance on one to find out.