Re: Weight penalties (again)

["John Hertzman" <johnhertzman@domain.elided>]

Alex Jenner rises appropriately to the defense of FWD cars, without wishing to
start or re-start the FWD vs RWD thing again, a hope which I share. I have
never owned an Alfasud but I have owned and enjoyed both British and German
lightweight FWD cars and have rented an Alfa 33, and currently own a 164 as
well as a Milano; not counting vans, three of the eight cars I have bought new
were FWD, so I feel justified in not considering myself rabidly partisan.

 And I will note in passing that two of the lightest cars Alfa ever built were
the Arna, which slightly edged-out the Alfasud on weight if not on anything
else, and the R4, which beat the Alfasud by about 300 kg. The RWD (and IRS)
Ondine and Dauphine also beat the Alfasud by about 250 kg.

 Few if any of the numbers offer very direct comparisons.

 My understanding of the history of the Alfasud was that Hruska was asked to
design a new small car, with 'small' referring not so much to dimensions such
as wheelbase and track (as the Mini was small) but to a philosophical concept
which implied lower cost, lighter weight, more modest ammenities, and at least
a risk of lower durability of some materials and structures. That is the
impression I also got from the 33 I rented, in contrast to the 75 I had at
home; the 33 had a wheelbase 35 mm shorter, front track 1 mm narrower, rear
track 11 mm wider, weight 150 kg less, handling delightful, 'fit and finish'
construction quality and probable durability wretched. I enjoyed it but would
not want to own a car like that.

 The 75/155 comparisons are probably more reasonable than any involving
Alfasuds, as the 155 was presented as a direct replacement for the 75, both
were subject to the same administrative regulations - emissions, door
intrusion barriers, etc- and to the same consumer expectations. The generally
100 kg added weight that the 155 carries may be partly attributable to the
driveline, partly to improvement of user amenities (can't say), partly to
genuine improvemets in structure, sundproofing etc (again, can't say) and
partly to Fiat's preference for economical options in engineering detailing
(over otherwise equally good solutions which are both lighter and more
expensive). I tend toward the last explanation; it is the only one of the four
which accounts for the Milano-replacement 155 being heavier than the
appreciably larger, and unstinting, Alfa-developed 164 which is equally FWD
and should be equally gracious in amenities.

 My purpose was not to charge that FWD cars are heavier; it was to question
the proposition advanced by Chris Poore that, all other things being equal, a
car with a DeDion rear drive will cost $5000 to $8000 more and weigh three
hundred pounds more than an equivalent FWD car. I very much doubt that, but
the case is moot. Fiat is unlikely to build any 116 Alfas.

 Prices in Fusi are very hard to compare because of the wild inflation in
Italy in the seventies, and because Fusi does not often tie a price to a
particular year when a car was built over a range of years. For the base
Alfasud he gives Lit. 1.420.000 in 1972, 3.190.000 in 1978; for the Alfasud
Sprint 4.505.000 in 1976, and for the Alfetta GT 1.6, 3.750.000 1974-76. For
the Giulia Nuova Super 1300 in 1974 he gives 2.447.000; for the 1600 Junior Z
in 1972-74, 2.620.000. I would call those highly inconclusive figures, but
anyone who wants to play comparative games with them can do so.

 Enjoy yours,

 John H.

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