Charlie's view on Alfa

[AlfaBill <alfabill@domain.elided>]

> But can't you say the object at Alfa is (was?) to sell products that appeal 
> to drivers, while the object at GM or Ford was to sell products that provide 
> essential transportation while enhancing a sense of status of one type or 
> another?  IOW, the experience of actually driving is paramount in one model, 
> absent in the other (with the possible exception of Corvette)?

Oddly it seemed that Alfa Romeo as a corporate entity produced the cars
they wanted to, and expected people to buy them. I think it's a cultural
thing. USA is a consumer driven marketplace, and I think AR would have
done far better to swallow pride of niche cars and being exclusive
(words from the factory sales rep back in '92) for the volume of
affordable cars such as the 164 TS and other levels of trim like the
Base 164 so as to get some volume on the roads. Also more advertising of
the fact that they had cars for sale would have helped...

Just my somewhat bitter view... it comes back just as someone asks me "
Wow! is that a new model? It's beautiful... where can you get one..."? 
164s are durable & nice cars, and could have had an even stronger
reputation over here with less "stuff" on them to 
break, and would have been common sights around the country.

Anyway, water over the sand bar...

AlfaBill & Sofia
Tampa FL
91 168 Base-terdized, semi retired 98.5K still pretty. 2nd place at KC
convention. :o)
91 Nissan Sentra XE for the commute. "Bizzzzz. Bi-izzzzzzzz"

------------------------------